|
The Road to Serfdom Fiftieth Anniversary Edition (平装)
by F. A. Hayek, Milton Friedman
| Category:
Politics, Non-fiction |
| Market price: ¥ 158.00
MSL price:
¥ 148.00
[ Shop incentives ]
|
| Stock:
Out of stock. Being replenished |
MSL rating:
 Good for Gifts |
| MSL Pointer Review:
Essential reading for all students of economics and political science. |
| If you want us to help you with the right titles you're looking for, or to make reading recommendations based on your needs, please contact our consultants. |
|
| |
AllReviews |
1 Total 1 pages 7 items |
|
|
Henry Hazlitt (New York Times Book Review, September 1944) (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
One of the most important books of our generation… It restates for our time the issue between liberty and authority with the power and rigor of reasoning with which John Stuart Mill stated the issue for his own generation in his great essay On Liberty… It is an arresting call to all well-intentioned planners and socialists, to all those who are sincere democrats and liberals at heart to stop, look and listen. |
|
|
George Orwell (Collected Essays) (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
In the negative part of Professor Hayek's thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot be said too often - at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough - that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of. |
|
|
David Swan (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
The Road to Serfdom is required reading among conservatives and F. A. Hayek's words can still be heard echoing throughout right wing think tanks. The problem is that an amazing linguistic bait and switch has occurred. Mr. Hayek's main argument is against socialism which he blames for Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy but what the author freely admits in his 1976 preface is that the definition of socialism has changed. When the book was written in the 1940's, Hayek was arguing against complete state ownership of business which he saw as the first step towards fascism. Today, however, socialism has become attached to the redistribution of wealth which is not the dictionary definition. The original ideas of socialism are dead so why is Hayek still so intently read? The fact is that some conservatives are trying to take Hayek's ideas to their extreme limit.
Fredrick A. Hayek was vigorously opposed to collectivism and central planning. His assertion was that distributed planning is superior because decision makers are closer to the problem. The bigger issues are that central planning ruins Democracy by placing authority in the hands of unelected experts and enslaves citizens by creating institutions they may disapprove of. It's interesting to note that unelected experts make decisions all the time. The Judicial branch and the presidents' entire cabinet are unelected. If Hayek wanted to avoid the delegation of authority to unelected officials there would have to be a complete restructuring of the U.S. government. Also, Hayek's problem with central planning projects meeting universal or even majority approval seems unrealistic. Using Hayek's thinking Evolution would still be a restricted subject in the classrooms.
Hayek was not specifying socialism per se as the cause of restrictions on freedom. His fight was against the broader problem of the concentration of power. It just happened that in the mid 1940's socialism WAS the greatest threat to the distribution of power. Mr. Hayek uses a quote by Hilaire Belloc that says, "The control of the production of wealth is the control of human life itself". Hayek mentions his lack of concern over the 50 to 1 disparity in wealth between the wealthiest and poorest Americans but how would he feel about the current 400 times or more disparity? The concentration of wealth IS the concentration of power and as such is as much a threat to freedom and democracy as socialism ever was.
No doubt, F. A. Hayek was a pragmatist. Even while arguing against the socialist aim of bringing business and job placement fully under the control of the state, Hayek still had the foresight to warn against `excessive privatization'. Again, I have to wonder how Mr. Hayek would feel about privatization of Social Security, Education and even in some cases the military.
Mr. Hayek listed some telltale signs of growing totalitarianism that seem eerily recognizable in the U.S. today including groupthink, suppression of information, the politicalization of science and a high state of nationalism. It's poor form to try and speak for the deceased so I wouldn't speculate on Hayek's opinion of the current Conservative movement but their far right members are certainly extending Hayek's ideas far beyond anything he expressed in The Road to Serfdom. Despite his strong beliefs Hayek was still pragmatic enough to recognize moderation and a country run by lobbyists sitting on a mountain of cash doesn't seem like the free and democratic ideal that F. A. Hayek was envisioning. |
|
|
D. Mackenzie (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
The Road to Serfdom explains the rise of totalitarianism in early twentieth century Europe (like Nazism). Yet it also made a more general argument concerning the limits of democracy and human reason. In particular, Hayek argues that the pursuit of socialist ideals leads to totalitarianism. While these 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 is to risk disaster.
The Road to Serfdom is a profound defense of individual liberty. This book has its critics, mainly on the left. Yet this is due to its insightful nature. The Road to Serfdom has produced hysterical responses from the left simply because it strikes at the core of both democratic-socialist and Marxist beliefs. The Road to Serfdom stands out as a true classic, as timeless as it is insightful. |
|
|
J. A. Thacker (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
Fredrick Hayek's The Road to Serfdom echoes Lord Ackin's dictum: "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Writing during World War II, Hayek criticized the trend towards central economic planning. Hayek demonstrates the inability of planned economies to rationally allocate resources where there is fundamental disagreements among members of society in matters of religious or moral beliefs, taste, or ethical codes. He describes how inefficiencies in centralized planning inevitably leads to economic chaos, which in turn can be used as justification for further concentration of power in the hands of the central planners. Ultimately, this leads to the creation of a pervasive bureaucratic infrastructure that can be used by totalitarian regimes such as Hilter's in Germany or Stalin's in the USSR to control the populous.
The Road to Serfdom is not, as some have suggested, an indictment against all governmental regulation of economic actititivity. Hayek identifies several areas were govenmental controls are beneficial, for example in controlling the pollution from factories, John Maynard Keynes critized the work as inconsistant, suggesting that Hayek's allowance for any government intervention would place it on the slippery slope towards the road to serfdom.
Hayek's style in The Road to Serfdom is not elegant, but is readable. Although a Nobel laureate for his work in monetary theory, The Road to Serfdom is far from an academic economic analysis. His arguments tend to be empirical and intuitive, using analogies and examples, rather than strictly grounded technical logic. Hayek himself called the work a political pamphlet. The Road to Serfdom is interesting as an influential historical document, as a critique of centralized planning, and more generally as a warning against the concentration of economic and political power.
The Road to Serfdom shares many of the ideas found in the work of Hayek's friend Karl Popper. In Open Society and Its Enemies, Popper suggests that the key question of political philosophy is not "who should rule", but rather "how do we limit the power of those who rule." Hayek recommends keeping economic power out of the hands of politicians as one essential requirement. |
|
|
Todd Adams (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
This book was first published in 1944, so some of the then comtemporary scenarios he addresses may unfortunately be lost on many readers today. They are simply too far in the past for today's generation to relate to. And ironically, many of the points in history that seem so pivotal today had yet to occur when Hayek wrote this book. Hitler was still in power in Germany for instance.
Further, while some of the political and economic philosophies and insights he lays out in the book may have been an epiphany for many at the time, today they are taken for granted and generally recognized. In a way, this probably diminishes an appreciation for how impactful this book was upon its first publication.
Some of the terms he uses have also become archaic or taken on new meaning. He frequently refers to liberals, but means economic liberals in the laissez faire sense, not in the current American sense, where liberal is synonymous with leftist politics.
In the end though, Hayek has written a treatise that clarifies and gives rejuvenation to the importance of economic liberty. The dichotomy between the maximum freedom, choices, and contentment in a laissez faire economy versus the contention, arbitrariness, use of force, and resentment inherent in a planned/socialist economy is vivid. His logic and reason is unimpeachable.
He also peppers the book with amuzing, but tragic nonetheless, accounts of the best intentions gone wrong. How planners operate from a limited field of knowledge yet are tasked with arranging things they know nearly nothing about, and are clouded by idealistic assumptions and theories that prove entirely unworkable in real life.
Outside of pure economics, the book explores the seminal role planned economics has in the devastating dictatorships of the first half of the 20th century. The author covers the ruthless, unconscionable type of personality common to those who have ambitions for power and the length they go to attain it and supress those who oppose them.
This truly is worthy of the "classic" status that's been bestowed upon it. |
|
|
Don Steiny (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
Some economics books are statistical and metrical. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations argued from simple observations about human nature with which most people will agree. The Road to Serfdom is in that vein.
Hayek's book has paragraph after paragraph that makes me thing "that's just what I think." Only said much better. For instance when he talks about the imporance of economics, or acqusition of money he agrees that to all but a miser it is not the highest of human goals. The seductive idea of planners it that the creation of our necessities could be automated by technocrats. He turns this by pointing out that the reason that in a free society the reason that what money buys is not important is because when we have too little, the things we choose to do without are the very things for which we have the least regard.
The fundemental message is that economies are too complex for humans to direct and that any attempt to do so winds with the worst of both worlds. We wind up without personal freedom and bad economies as well.
Apparetly, this book was utterly rejected when it was written, but history has shown the results of social evolution and what he says reads almost like a history book rather then lucid model of the relationship between politics and economics that it is. |
|
|
|
1 Total 1 pages 7 items |
|
|
|
|
|
|
