The Road to Serfdom (Routledge Classics)

I happen to regularly walk past the house in Cambridge where, I believe, Hayek wrote this book. I also happen to believe, to enlarge my conception of humanity, that I should read books I don't think I am going to agree with. So I confess I had thought this book would be a rant that was to be later eagerly gulped down by the mean-spirited politicians of the 1980s and the neoliberals of this century, for whom I imagine (in my own lazy way) the lofty ideal of 'freedom' elevates what is simply selfishness. Of course I may be doing such people an injustice – I certainly hope I am not being merely envious.This book, however, was not at all as I expected. Yes, it is a polemic against collectivists, socialists and planners; yes, it is fiercely argued, but often in a most generous way to his opponents individually. Hayek is rarely dismissive or contemptuous of the objects of his criticism. His life experience in pre-war Austria helps him to notice when the left-wing intellectuals of his time (he writes in 1943/44) unknowingly repeat the rhetoric of Nazism, but this, for Hayek, is tragic and foolish and rarely malicious. He is of course critical of Marx, but he has clearly read him closely and sympathetically; most unusually but with refreshing fair-mindedness Hayek acknowledges Marx's moral and principled intentions. Hayek's discussion throughout anticipates the arguments of his objectors in a way that suggests the capacity to be empathic with those he disagrees with – his points are deeply considered; his targets are not of the usual 'straw man' type. If, George Orwell-style, the writing style is a book is a prefiguration of the polity the author wishes to bring into existence, I repeatedly had the feeling that a truly Hayekian state would be a more generous one than has, in our days – and we are surely living in a post-Hayek age – come to pass.The emotional intensity of his analysis comes from his personal knowledge of the gradual agglomeration of collectivist or völkisch ideologies and state planning in Germany that led – inexorably, in Hayekian retrospect – to the barbarity of Nazism. Written in exile in Cambridge at the turning of the tide in the Allies' struggle for victory, but with the outcome still not beyond doubt, Hayek debates with urgency the nature of the peace to come, and the founding principles for a just and lasting settlement. This is NEVER facile quasi-deterministic economism, but a passionate plea for freedom and morality. Most strikingly it is a lyrical, loving appreciation, by someone from a very different culture, of the virtues of a *British* market system, not (solely) for the sake of economic efficiency but as a way of increasing individual freedom *and* responsibility.In our post-Brexit age, we may all benefit from a reminder of some of the principles underlying a broader and deeper conception of Britishness. Readers may be also surprised and fascinated to read his arguments for a European federal system.Thoroughly recommended.

Friedrich von Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom in 1944 when the UK was at a turning point. The nationalistion of industry towards the war effort left the British state in an unusual position. Current tendencies and popular thought had meant that British society had, like their German contemporaries, been transitioning from an individualist to a collectivist one. The Second World War led to a jump in this process and to the nationalistion of huge tracts of the British economy. This meant that the government was in a prime position to transition the country into a fully socialist state. This book was written in response to this process in an effort to halt the movement. In many ways it was successful as the election of Thatcher and even Reagan led to a reliberalisation of these societies which was in no small way influenced by Hayek. The book itself states that at the time most people saw the inequality a liberal society had produced as the largest social problem facing them at the time. The impatience for greater equality was leading to the state being called upon to take command over sectors of the economy in order to provide an equitable distribution of income and more security. Hayek argues that what is initially done to promote security eventually leads to a society where people are no longer free to choose how they wish to live. Instead the government chooses where they work and how much they are paid in the interests of securing "equality". A democracy functions as, in areas where the majority agrees, laws can be created to govern people. Where there is not common agreement (e.g. how children should be raised) individuals are allowed to make their own moral choices. In this system the state does not deliberately advantage particular people, instead it provides a standard set of rules which govern all equally. But when the government decides to take control of the factors of production (in collectivism) it must necessarily make choices that disadvantage some over others. For example if the state reduces the pay of industrial workers it has given an advantage to other people. The main distinction is that here the government has made a personal choice and in doing so has forced its citizens to accept its own "moral" standards. In this sense Hayek sees totalitarian states as being unjust as they force all individuals to adhere to the morals of the minority of people who run government. Collectivist states require absolute agreement (you can't create half a plan) and therefore anyone who disagrees with the economic plan will be unable to live according to his/her own morals. The book is written well and is essential reading to understand liberalism regardless of whether you are left or right wing. Its polarising effect can still be seen by reading some of the different reviews of the book.

Haven't read the book yet

PREZADOS SRSº, O LIVRO É EXPETACULAR !!!

Hayek's been dead several years but he is still speaking truth. You'll never look at the Covid scamdemic with anything other than revulsion again because in it you will see the same principles that were used to turn England into a socialist state being used here. Our Canadian friends are already at a point of perilous decision and we are almost there, ourselves.Consider what the landscape would look like if Canada were to become a communist state under Chinese dominance sharing 2,000 miles of barely guarded border with the US.Consider that we have, in our media, a 5th column already in our midst.

A book full of great insights. One of the most popular book of its times. I haven't finished the book, but I'd recommend it to all students of law, economics, political science, among other social sciences. It throws light on a very essential idea of freedom and planning. The theme of Hayek's works on the use of knowledge in the society finds its way throughout the texts. He is one of the finest thinkers, that most people end up not knowing! Happy Reading!The delivery was quick and very efficient. The edition is an unabridged version.

Que dire de plus que la vision développée dans l'ouvrage est originale. Le rapport à Tocqueville peut être rapidement fait: comment concilier la liberté et la passion de l'égalité. Hayek montre que le danger du socialisme (au sens de solidarisme) est l'anéantissement de la liberté.Un excellent ouvrage qu'il faut avoir lu au moins une fois.A noter que cette édition comporte une introduction très intéressante (qu'on ne trouve pas en français) de Friedman.

印象としては、相当出版時には複雑な受容をされたのではと思われます。1943年に書かれたこの本の一番のターゲットはなんと当時のイギリスの知識人（Ｅ．Ｈ．Ｃａｒｒも含まれる）なんです。ドイツとの戦いにほぼ勝利のめどが立ち始めたにもかかわらず、無邪気にも、計画と社会エンジニアリングのアプローチを戦後のイギリス並びにヨーロッパの復興に当てはめていこうとしているイギリスの知識人への批判の書なんですね。このコンテクストが理解されないと、なぜハイエクが、非常に慎重な言葉遣いながらも、自分のオーストリアでの痛切な経験から得られた真理を、イギリス人にこの時点で伝なければいけないと考えたかが理解されません。そして、またこの本があれだけの長い間、知識人の間でなぜ無視されたかが理解できません。結局この本の真価はイギリスでは理解されずに、４０年後に、サッチャー革命の文脈で取り上げられるようになるまで、埃をかぶっていたわけです。ただこの再評価が自体もアメリカ的な文脈の中での誤解という側面も否定しがたくあると思われます。もしこの本が、きちんとした受け止め対策をされていれば、社会主義という失敗することが、また人間を必ず不幸にすることが、原理的にかつ例外なしに保証されているものに、これほどの無駄な知的、人的、経済的な資源が投入されることもなかったのではと思われます。