The Road to Serfdom [Audio CD]

This review is of the unabridged audio version, but the my feelings on the work as a whole applies to the audio and printed versions.

Hayek has been placed on a lofty perch by people that I don't think actually read or understood this book. The Road to Serfdom is one of the most logically thought out and presented arguments against planned economies I have ever heard by a long shot. Friedrich Hayek can't hide his age or German heritage with his older, turn of the century writing style, but is still accessible to anyone with a High School reading comprehension level (something in short supply these days) and a good understanding of European history. I enjoyed his unemotional, serious, and analytical approach to something that today can't be discussed without sarcastic vitriol. Being a German who later moved to England he was uniquely qualified to discuss the subject as he had first hand experience with the clash of political ideas that defined the first half of the Twentieth Century.

What I enjoyed about this book the most is that I thought it was going to be one thing but it turned out to be something very different.
1.) This isn't a book about economic theory. Hayek supposes that the reader understands the difference between free markets, controlled markets, Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism. What the book is really about is the political and social conditions that go hand in hand with these theories. His assertion is that controlled, or planned, economies ultimately rely on the subverting of personal freedoms and the subjugation of liberty to work. Then he actually EXPLAINS WHY! Using history instead of hysterics he methodically lays out how even well meaning Utopian socialism can lead to totalitarian fascism.
2.) From the outset of the book the author, like Milton Friedman, defines the idea of what a "classic liberal" is. He does this, not only because "liberal" is the proper nomenclature for ideologies like Capitalism, democracy, freedom of speech, etc; but because he says, right in the Forward, that he DOESN'T LIKE CONSERVATIVES. He says he finds them backwards and too interested in "mystical" things. Later, he also defends regulation by government as necessary for creating a stable environment within which free markets can grow and succeed. More than once he objects to complete laissez faire.
3.) Unlike Milton Friedman, in Hayek's work I found an absence of the categorical distrust of government that is indicative of "conservative" literature. Hayek of course champions free market capitalism , as well as democracy and independence of thought, but in a way that avoids emotion soaked nationalism. Which seems fitting since he illustrates how easily out of control nationalism also leads to fascism.
4.) Hayek is a humble person with a great intellect that allows him to explain a subject. He doesn't badger the reader with self aggrandizing proclamations that he knows "the truth" or that his work is going to save the world from a grave calamity that is just around the corner. He is eloquent, informed, and persuasive in an educated way that makes theatrics unnecessary. Next to the merits of his arguments, I find the method of his argumentation to be just as important.

I would rank this work up there with Common Sense and the Federalist Papers as important books to read; and like the Federalist Papers or the Christian Bible as a work that is far to often referenced to by people that don't seem to have grasped the work as a whole.

the Road to Serfdom explains the rise of totalitarianism in twentieth century Europe. Yet it also made a more general argument concerning the incompatibility of democracy and comprehensive central planning. Hayek argues that the pursuit of socialist ideals leads to totalitarianism. While socialist ideals seem noble to many, those who persist in realizing these ideals will find it necessary to adopt coercive methods that are incompatible with freedom. Thus socialists must choose between their egalitarian goals and the preservation of individual liberty.

Hayek describes how Europeans came to expect progress, and became impatient for faster progress. The liberal reforms of the 19th century delivered unprecedented economic progress. Much of this was directly due to scientific discovery. The role of free competition in promoting scientific discovery was less obvious. Europeans increasingly came to believe that scientific planning of society itself could accelerate greater progress.

Europeans also changed how they thought about equality and freedom. Insistence upon freedom from want displaced the yearning for freedom from coercion. Democracy came to be seen as a means of realizing an increasing number of social goals, rather than as a means of preserving freedom. To Hayek, these were dangerous errors. Democracy could only work effectively in areas where agreement upon ultimate ends could be attained with little difficulty. A democratic government could enforce general rules of conduct that applied to all equally (i.e. free speech and free association). Democracy can never produce agreement over policies that affect specific economic results. One always gains at the expense of others in such matters. Such Economic planning places impossible demands upon democracy. This is because pursuit of specific ends requires timely and decisive action. Democracies move too slowly to attain specific ends, so arbitrary powers of government will grow. A planned economy will ultimately require acceptance of dictatorship. This is a dire consequence, as it is the worst sort of tyrants who are most adept at wielding dictatorial powers.

Some might say that these arguments are unduly pessimistic. Hayek points to the examples of Hitler and Stalin to support his case. Of course, these are worst case scenarios. Have not England, Sweden, and the US adopted large welfare-regulatory states without such tyranny? This is a fair point, yet we should remember two things. First, Hayek claimed that centralized control of the economy would destroy freedom ultimately, but gradually. Second, Western nations have not yet gone as far in planning their economies as did Russia and Germany in the 1930's. The fact that we have yet realized the horrible results of Stalinism implies neither that were are safe from despotism in the future, nor that our present situation is entirely satisfactory. One can easily argue that we have already started on the wrong path. For instance, Hayek's chapter on `The End of Truth' applies to modern political correctness.

Hayek wrote this book not only to warn people about the limits of democracy and the incompatibility of planning and freedom. This was the start of his project concerning the abuse of reason. His warning is also about the tendency to overestimate the abilities of even the best and brightest individuals. Not even the best and brightest can comprehend modern societies. Socialists who favor comprehensive planning, and even modern liberals and conservatives who want to plan part of society, proceed on a false assumption concerning human reason. Ultimately, Hayek makes a strong case for limited constitutional government. To expect more of democracy than what Madison and Jefferson intended invites disaster.

The Road to Serfdom is a profound defense of commercial society and limited government. The RTS also is where Hayek started his 'abuse of reason' project. To fully appreciate Hayek's genius in the RTS, one should read his subsequent books in this project- The Constitution of Liberty and Law Liberty and Legislation V1-3.

The RTS has its critics, mainly on the left. Due to its insightful nature the Road to Serfdom has produced hysterical responses from the left. Leftists despise the RTS simply because it strikes at the core of both democratic-socialist or Marxist beliefs. Some serious scholars have attacked the RTS (i.e. Farrant and Levy) but their objections are misguided. The Road to Serfdom stands out as a true classic, as timeless as it is insightful. It offers insights that are relevant to our current problems with growing Federal spending and regulation. Read it completely and repeatedly.

As an introduction to the book, check out "The Road to Serfdom in Cartoons" ([...]). It avoids one mistake in the book wherein Hayek allows the state far more room for control than is necessary or wise. The cartoon was also produced into a (27 Mb) video format by Vlad Tarko ([...]). In the forward to the 1956 edition of the book, F A Hayek recommends the Readers Digest Condensed version of The Road To Serfdom ([...]). It is important to note in the introduction, that in 1944 Britain "Liberal" was a term used for what is now known as "Classical Liberal" political thought, today more popularly known in the USA as Libertarianism, which the USA was founded on. Unfortunately, the framers of the US Constitution, despite considerable effort to achieve a small limited federal government, included some room for government to "interpret" the document and march the country down the road to serfdom, which is now nearing a totalitarian end in the USA. Hayek was too generous in the book with the powers he allowed the state, which can be completely avoided as put forward in Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty. Considering all of this, I recommend taking the plunge into the entire book to learn from direct experience, "The Road to Serfdom", by F A Hayek (also available in unabridged audio)

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 3 reviews  5.0 out of 5 stars