You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by faraday0827
The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek, Bruce Caldwell
4.0
Next up, Marx! (Das Kapital or some other, suggestions?) This is a hard book to do a book review on. It is the subject of much controversy which likely limits its reader base to an admittedly chosen audience. If, however, I might be able to convince you to give this book a read, it would be as a great pair for any read on philosophy. This is because, while branded a book of political philosophy, and it endorses capitalism unabashedly, it is a genuine prospective on the social impacts of economic affairs which is today an intractable subject precisely because it is stubbornly political.
I respect the opinion of those who are unconvinced by Hayek’s arguments. He is thorough in his praise for liberalism (individual freedom) and this does create two vectors from which, it can be construed, creates high-handedness. First, he sets this as his value and attacks political illiberalism (of the traditional conservative and left socialist alike). Second, he attacks economic planning as a left phenomenon of the idealist. It is thus that some get the impression that Hayek believed all against him to be morally wrong. In addition, though he touts capitalism, he condemns laissez-faire and monopoly throughout the book suggesting that these are short-sighted. He also does support government intervention and bemoans the lack of study at the time related to the “positive” cases in which govt intervention is necessary, though he gives the rule of thumb: “nor is the preservation of competition incompatible with an extensive system of social services— so long as the organization of these services is not designed in such a way as to make competition ineffective over wide fields” (87). Though I suspect a great deal of them are simply opposed to the newest iterations of the Austrian School (Friedman) that contradicts some of the merits of this book.
The world in which Hayek *originally* wrote this book is like the base upon which today’s is built. Hayek was one of the Austrians who actually saw Hitler’s rise and it informs a great deal of his arguments in the book. It is the beauty of this book: an unabstracted (non-theoretical) work on economics which isn’t replicable today. You may wonder what I mean by this, or why this is desirable. It is because today we have no real (personal) understanding of the levers which govern our economic lives (monetary theory, risk, govt intervention, inflation) because it is so abstracted from the real power of the innovation machine that is capitalism — the creative energy of the individual. Friedman and other later Austrian School adherents focused more on the former abstractions leaving this book yet more valuable to a broad audience because of one thing we all fear — the democratic backslide to an evil totalitarian state.
Its greatest argument, which I have yet to see elsewhere in histories of the Nazis rise despite having read much about it, is the control of the economic life by union fronts (organized activity, collusion of industry & org labor) in controlling worker’s lives that led to control of the middle class’s political lives.
It is thus man’s economic life — separate his political one (as this given in two flavors by those imposed by his economic life: free to choose or not free to choose) — that determines how he lives, regardless of the system he lives under.
There is a number of things which I agree and disagree with Hayek on, but I don’t think opinion should be determinant of whether or not you read this book. There is much valuable history here which is otherwise unavailable to English readers (because they have gone untranslated from German) and many questions that are both newly opened and left unsatisfied by this book.
It is the former which gives this book some of its key weaknesses for me. Citations were at times incorrect (leaving questions as to why this is so) and sources were in some instances unverifiable being untrained in German. It is also unclear, this being an intellectual history at times, the relative degree of the works cited having significant impact on the German intellectual tradition without more exposure to the field; though this is not my pursuit in reading this and it is in my opinion satisfactorily bridged by the author’s synthesis of historical events in their image.
I’d say this is well worth 20 hours to get a new prospective on the strengths (and inherent vulnerabilities) of our democracies.
I respect the opinion of those who are unconvinced by Hayek’s arguments. He is thorough in his praise for liberalism (individual freedom) and this does create two vectors from which, it can be construed, creates high-handedness. First, he sets this as his value and attacks political illiberalism (of the traditional conservative and left socialist alike). Second, he attacks economic planning as a left phenomenon of the idealist. It is thus that some get the impression that Hayek believed all against him to be morally wrong. In addition, though he touts capitalism, he condemns laissez-faire and monopoly throughout the book suggesting that these are short-sighted. He also does support government intervention and bemoans the lack of study at the time related to the “positive” cases in which govt intervention is necessary, though he gives the rule of thumb: “nor is the preservation of competition incompatible with an extensive system of social services— so long as the organization of these services is not designed in such a way as to make competition ineffective over wide fields” (87). Though I suspect a great deal of them are simply opposed to the newest iterations of the Austrian School (Friedman) that contradicts some of the merits of this book.
The world in which Hayek *originally* wrote this book is like the base upon which today’s is built. Hayek was one of the Austrians who actually saw Hitler’s rise and it informs a great deal of his arguments in the book. It is the beauty of this book: an unabstracted (non-theoretical) work on economics which isn’t replicable today. You may wonder what I mean by this, or why this is desirable. It is because today we have no real (personal) understanding of the levers which govern our economic lives (monetary theory, risk, govt intervention, inflation) because it is so abstracted from the real power of the innovation machine that is capitalism — the creative energy of the individual. Friedman and other later Austrian School adherents focused more on the former abstractions leaving this book yet more valuable to a broad audience because of one thing we all fear — the democratic backslide to an evil totalitarian state.
Its greatest argument, which I have yet to see elsewhere in histories of the Nazis rise despite having read much about it, is the control of the economic life by union fronts (organized activity, collusion of industry & org labor) in controlling worker’s lives that led to control of the middle class’s political lives.
It is thus man’s economic life — separate his political one (as this given in two flavors by those imposed by his economic life: free to choose or not free to choose) — that determines how he lives, regardless of the system he lives under.
There is a number of things which I agree and disagree with Hayek on, but I don’t think opinion should be determinant of whether or not you read this book. There is much valuable history here which is otherwise unavailable to English readers (because they have gone untranslated from German) and many questions that are both newly opened and left unsatisfied by this book.
It is the former which gives this book some of its key weaknesses for me. Citations were at times incorrect (leaving questions as to why this is so) and sources were in some instances unverifiable being untrained in German. It is also unclear, this being an intellectual history at times, the relative degree of the works cited having significant impact on the German intellectual tradition without more exposure to the field; though this is not my pursuit in reading this and it is in my opinion satisfactorily bridged by the author’s synthesis of historical events in their image.
I’d say this is well worth 20 hours to get a new prospective on the strengths (and inherent vulnerabilities) of our democracies.