You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.74 AVERAGE
3.74 AVERAGE
„Liderul nazist care a prezentat revoluţia naţional-socialistă ca pe o Contrarenaştere a rostit un adevăr de care probabil nu era conştient. Se făcuse un pas decisiv către distrugerea civilizaţiei pe care omul modern a clădit-o începând cu epoca Renaşterii şi care, mai presus de orice, era o civilizaţie individualistă.”
The central insights of the book are
1) that a central planning regime would encompass more and more of life, and require control over any number of things that might otherwise disrupt its goals; and
2) that this extends to guaranteeing that future elections won't undo or disrupt the accomplishments of the central planning regime.
This ignores the fact that
1) there are a variety of forms of socialism that don't require central planning (e.g., instead achieving egalitarian goals through initial definition of property rules and pre-distribution, and then leaving communal and cooperative institutions to deal with each other horizontally through either non-capitalist market or federative planning arrangements); and
2) *any* system grants fundamental constitutional status to some institutions, that are beyond ordinary electoral politics (e.g. a whole host of provisions in the US Constitution that prevent the impairment of existing property rules or contracts, and empower the federal government to invade any state that attempts to subvert them).
1) that a central planning regime would encompass more and more of life, and require control over any number of things that might otherwise disrupt its goals; and
2) that this extends to guaranteeing that future elections won't undo or disrupt the accomplishments of the central planning regime.
This ignores the fact that
1) there are a variety of forms of socialism that don't require central planning (e.g., instead achieving egalitarian goals through initial definition of property rules and pre-distribution, and then leaving communal and cooperative institutions to deal with each other horizontally through either non-capitalist market or federative planning arrangements); and
2) *any* system grants fundamental constitutional status to some institutions, that are beyond ordinary electoral politics (e.g. a whole host of provisions in the US Constitution that prevent the impairment of existing property rules or contracts, and empower the federal government to invade any state that attempts to subvert them).
Admittedly, it's been about a week since I finished this book to now write this review. It's a dense, heavy manifesto if you wish to use the term, about the ways that the consolidation of economic power by nations leads inevitably to the subjugation, pain, and suffering of other individuals based on nothing more than the whim of those who hold the reins of the market. There must be fortunate and unfortunate in any nation's system (limited resources and human nature make this a near certainty), so the society whose government exerts control over the interactions of formerly-free actors in an economic system must necessarily decide who is going to come out on top.
I'll just include this quote from one of the chapters.
I'll just include this quote from one of the chapters.
There are strong reasons for believing that what to us appear the worst features of the existing totalitarian systems are not accidental by‐products but phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce. Just as the democratic statesman who sets out to plan economic life will soon be confronted with the alternative of either assuming dictatorial powers or abandoning his plans, so the totalitarian dictator would soon have to choose between disregard of ordinary morals and failure. It is for this reason that the unscrupulous and uninhibited are likely to be more successful in a society tending toward totalitarianism. Who does not see this has not yet grasped the full width of the gulf that separates totalitarianism from a liberal regime, the utter difference between the whole moral atmosphere under collectivism and the essentially individualist Western civilization.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
informative
medium-paced
This book reads like it was written today rather than coming out of WWII. Addressing with examples from the National Socialist policies of Germany the slipperiness of the slope that even the most well intentioned socialism travels this book advocates for individualism over collectivism, and advocates for the incompatibly of planning with democracy and the rule of law. Well reasoned and articulated I would recommend this book to anyone that thinks they would agree with it as well as those to which it was dedicated “The socialists of all parties.”
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
It's extremely difficult to say anything about this book. Because the book is, in large parts, saying nothing itself. The very essence of The Road to Serfdom can be summed up in one sentence: "Big government planning is bad, but some planning is necessary."
Even for 1944 that was hardly a revolutionary idea.
The rest of the book is essentially an exercise in just how many ways Hayek can compare Hitler, Lenin and Stalin.
That is certainly an interesting analysis, but the problem is that it isn't really framed as a historical, sociological or even economical analysis. It's framed as logical argument. With a subject matter as broad as the one the Road to Serfdom is trying to tackle, it's almost impossible to to a purely logical argument. Hayek's argument is simply drowned by its subject matter.
Also, remember the whole "big government planning is bad, but some planning is necessary" - part?. Yeah, that's completely thrown out by the foreword to the 1976 edition, wherein Hayek is framing public welfare systems as a slower road to serfdom than a purely planned economy, but a road non the less.
That just reframes the whole book as a logical prediction that didn't come true. Norway is still a liberal democracy all these years later, even though they provide healthcare to their citizens.
I guess we might as well kick a man while he's down, and critique the basic political epistemology that Hayek put forth here. In general, Hayek sets forth the idea that politics is downstream from politics, meaning politics should serve economy.
Something which Hayek seemingly takes for granted throughout the book, but also something he never demonstrates in a satisfactory manner.
Even for 1944 that was hardly a revolutionary idea.
The rest of the book is essentially an exercise in just how many ways Hayek can compare Hitler, Lenin and Stalin.
That is certainly an interesting analysis, but the problem is that it isn't really framed as a historical, sociological or even economical analysis. It's framed as logical argument. With a subject matter as broad as the one the Road to Serfdom is trying to tackle, it's almost impossible to to a purely logical argument. Hayek's argument is simply drowned by its subject matter.
Also, remember the whole "big government planning is bad, but some planning is necessary" - part?. Yeah, that's completely thrown out by the foreword to the 1976 edition, wherein Hayek is framing public welfare systems as a slower road to serfdom than a purely planned economy, but a road non the less.
That just reframes the whole book as a logical prediction that didn't come true. Norway is still a liberal democracy all these years later, even though they provide healthcare to their citizens.
I guess we might as well kick a man while he's down, and critique the basic political epistemology that Hayek put forth here. In general, Hayek sets forth the idea that politics is downstream from politics, meaning politics should serve economy.
Something which Hayek seemingly takes for granted throughout the book, but also something he never demonstrates in a satisfactory manner.
I have some pretty mixed thoughts on this one. On the one hand, it has a lot of good information. On the other, I didn't entirely agree with everything Hayek had to say, mainly because it wasn't written with a Biblical foundation. Still, it had some interesting points.
As a person with leftist leanings, I found this book quite repulsive at certain points. To be more precise, the convenient way in which Hayek equates Socialism with Nazism is not only insulting, but intellectually dishonest (in my opinion).
But on the other hand, Hayek does make some valid points. His critique of central planning cannot be ignored. But Hayek assertion that central planning and/or government intervention is always counter-productive is a gross exaggeration. The rise and prosperity of the Nordic states (Sweden, Norway etc.) is a great example that clearly delineates the short-comings of Hayek's philosophy.
The only reason why I decided to give this book 2-stars instead of 1 is because Hayek did present his argument effectively (however wrong may it be) and made some valid points that we can disagree with, but we certainly can't ignore.
But on the other hand, Hayek does make some valid points. His critique of central planning cannot be ignored. But Hayek assertion that central planning and/or government intervention is always counter-productive is a gross exaggeration. The rise and prosperity of the Nordic states (Sweden, Norway etc.) is a great example that clearly delineates the short-comings of Hayek's philosophy.
The only reason why I decided to give this book 2-stars instead of 1 is because Hayek did present his argument effectively (however wrong may it be) and made some valid points that we can disagree with, but we certainly can't ignore.
Obviously this text provokes some pretty intense and polarizing opinions, but I think if one closely considers what Hayek is saying, it isn’t that objectionable (and I say this as a person who doesn’t overtly identify as libertarian, capitalized or not).
Sure, there are aspects of his argument that haven’t aged that gracefully. The author was writing during a particular time and place, and can be forgiven for having some myopia resulting from that experience. Like all theories, there are applications that befit this kind of analysis better than others, and that’s ok! The author is not an absolutist, and makes it clear that government can serve a useful role in economies.
There’s some reminiscence of Marx here, hilariously, in the sense that this is a thoughtful, revolutionary, if somewhat flawed framework that some people seem to have taken to a radical conclusion, and grossly misinterpreted based on their own biases or desires. To me, Grover Norquist doesn’t really seem to be a fulfilling the spirit of this text any more than Stalin realized the vision of Das Kapital.
I think when people lose their minds about this book, they’re similarly doing so because of their own biases, or their biases towards some of its uglier boosters. Also like Marx, I think it’s a set of ideas that everyone should entertain and selectively apply in their study of economics and government.
Sure, there are aspects of his argument that haven’t aged that gracefully. The author was writing during a particular time and place, and can be forgiven for having some myopia resulting from that experience. Like all theories, there are applications that befit this kind of analysis better than others, and that’s ok! The author is not an absolutist, and makes it clear that government can serve a useful role in economies.
There’s some reminiscence of Marx here, hilariously, in the sense that this is a thoughtful, revolutionary, if somewhat flawed framework that some people seem to have taken to a radical conclusion, and grossly misinterpreted based on their own biases or desires. To me, Grover Norquist doesn’t really seem to be a fulfilling the spirit of this text any more than Stalin realized the vision of Das Kapital.
I think when people lose their minds about this book, they’re similarly doing so because of their own biases, or their biases towards some of its uglier boosters. Also like Marx, I think it’s a set of ideas that everyone should entertain and selectively apply in their study of economics and government.