Customer Reviews
A cobbler should stick to his last - By: Hardheart101, 28 Dec 2007 
This book usually comes highly recommended. A 'classic' by a Nobel prize winner. Hayek wasin fact an economist, but for the purposes of this book he assumed a political commentator's stance. His thesis is that Socialism is slavery, that the fascist Right & the fascist Left are two sides of the same coin, & that where there is dirty work to be done, dirty men will come forward to do it. Now you might say that's a no-brainer & wonder how it merits the 'classic' tag. Well you won't find the answerin the book. Overblown &in places pompous, you could be forgiven for thinking the author was being paid by the line. What is it with academics that one word won't do when four or five can be squeezed out instead? Perhaps they think verbosity succours the thesis. First publishedin 1944 & still going strong, The Road to Serfdom suffers primarily from being blinded by the times it was written in, & the way the world has changed since. Socialism is indeed slavery, but if Hayek had stuck to being an economist he might have foreseen the last gasp of the gold standard, the rise of globalism, fiat money, & fractional reserve banking. For debt is also slavery with the neat twist that the debtor usually can't wait to sign himself into bondage. The first step on the road to serfdom was simply the abolition of hard-asset backed currencies - after that, it was downhill all the way.
An interesting read, at least from a historical perpsective - By: Mr. T. Goodacre, 05 Dec 2007 
I read thisin conjunction with a number of "pro-socialism" books. While I disagreed with much of what Hayek had to say here it was nevertheless an interesting read, & an insight into right-wing economic thinking.
The basic premise of the book is to assert a necessary relationship between socialism & totalitarianism. Obviously the necessity of this link has subsequently been disproven by cases such as Sweden. And his case against the use of propaganda within socialist society can now be equally clearly drawn against capitalist states. The basis of his case was German National Socialism (Nazism). He emphasised the socialist aspect of that regime but I felt that the nationalist aspect of it was underplayed as he tried to make his case against socialism.
He also seriously underplayed the claimed rationale for socialism & made no serious attempt to explore socialist doctrine, although his discussion about collectivism & central planning was interesting (even though such planning may not be essential to a socialist system). He made some small noise about welfare systems & such but frankly these were all but lostin the noise.
Other writersin that period such as Popper & Russell managed to reach some similar results without the overt hostility, & they on the whole were considerably more prepared to discuss hybrid systems & search for compromisal solutions to the problems raised both by pure socialism & pure unfettered capitalism. I'd recommend reading these & other authors for a more balanced thesis.
The book is at least well thought out & cohesive - much more so perhaps than the typical Macarthyist thinking that borrows its conclusion without its reasoning.
That this book was written at the tail of WW2 should not be forgotten. This book, while seriously flawed, is very much a product of a worldin chaos &in a state of rapid change. It is that, moreso than its message that makes this a compelling read.
A terrible book espousing a vile philosophy - By: Rp Wilkinson, 16 Nov 2007 
It is my belief that this text is one of the most abhorrentin the history of political philosophy & that despite the very best intentions (a defense of liberal democracy) by Friedrich Von Hayek, is fundamentally flawedin its arguement & damagingin its impact.
The attack on totalitarian form of governments is logical & articulate, but it is when he turns to socialism that it all falls apart, to an extent I initially thought he was being satirical till the horrible truth dawned. Hayek's uncompromising libertarian views make a huge leap of logicin linking basic socialist reform, such as the establishment of the welfare state, to totalitarianism, even likening Stafford Cripps, a decent hardworking Chancellor whose sole goal was to see the realisation of the Beveridge Report, with Joseph Stalin. Of course this makes perfect sense, likening a man who slaved away to try & stamp out inequality & povertyin Britain & provide a safety net for those on the edges of society with a murdering tyrant responsible for millions of deaths.
He does not even consider the essential nature of the welfare state as a protection from thosein society that are less fortunate, & that cutting back on it just to lower taxes would only benefit the rich while leaving the average hard-working man with no social security, no free healthcare & no private pension.
Then theres the chapter that he likens socialism with Nazism. True, Hitler's party was named the National Socialists, but it wasn't so, merely claimed to be to stir up working class support. Though both do promote economic planning, that is the only similarity. The ideology is completely different. Hitler was a fiersome anti-socialist who rounded up & socialists & sent them to concentration camps! He identifies Bolshevik socialism as the opposite of Nazism (talk about straight from the horses mouth). Fascism is a corporatist philosophy that views property completely differently, it assumes racial superiority & promotes imperialist empire building. Hayek's link between the two is as tenuous as you can possibly get, a clear example of Godwin's law ie the groundless comparison between Nazism & the object of your criticism to discredit it.
Of course the most evil thing about this text apart from the selfish, heartless, morally disgusting philosophy it spouts is the way it influenced the neo-liberalism of Margaret Thatcher. That's right, the tyrant whose reign was characterised by doubled unemployment, civil unrest, TWO recessions attributable to monetarism, unelected Quangos, regressive taxation, a massive wideningin the rich-poor gap, the start of the credit card culture, the poll tax riots, degradations of social occupations, the destruction of british industry, the slashing of workers rights, the selling of state companies for a rediculously low price, botched privatisation of the infastructure, doubled crime & the creation of a broken, selfish society was operating following the gospel according to Hayek!
Yes, as you may have guessed, I am a socialist, but I am also a passionate defender of democracy. To me, Hayek creates a bogeyman picture of the best vehicle for equality & opportunity the world has: democratic socialism. As a result people fear this model & are driven to a selfish & damaging alternative. Hayek thinks that he is standing up for freedom & benefitting the people but he couldn't be more wrong. What use is a small state if people are unemployed & starving? what use are cheap taxes if vital institutions are controlled by greedy profiteering corporations who care less about the people than their prophet margins?
Hayek is not a Karl Popper, mouting an intelligent attack on Marxism, he is a ranting right winger who thinks he is making a blueprint for a libertarian heaven when instead he is pointing towards the hell of a broken society. Do not be fooled by his arguements, what he is promoting is a "survival of the richest & strongest" philosophy that cares not for the needy, the unemployed, the sick, the empoverished or the disadvantaged but merely for those on the top of society. Read it by all means, but do not as many do blindly accept the arguements made. It is a truly vile book.
Ultimately disappoints - By: Lark, 27 Jul 2007 
This is one of the greatest simple anti-state capitalist manifestos you will find, its punchy, its pacey, lots of utopian eulogising of what Hayek thought were much malinged & misunderstood market forces.
However for any sensible & clear sighted reader this book is bound to disappoint, Hayek treats very different ideological & political forces as essentially similar, it has the combination of promise & threat that most market populism has (market forces will deliver/market forces will strike back) & just doesnt seem to take issues like unemployment or other consequences of unmitigated market forces that seriously or treats them with a kind of unreality.
It is a book, I suspect, which will ultimately prove most pleasing to anyone searching for a pretty plain & simple world view with clear cut heroes & villains, much like its mirror oppositesin some socialist & conservative literature.
However that said it is well written & deserves to receive a wide readership,in fact I would say the very socialist or (welfare) liberal circles who Hayek protrays as either villains or the fatally conceited "useful idiots" of villains could benefit from reading it, while, like myself, they are unlikely to agree.
Good defence of liberal democracy from the dark 1940s - By: Gerard Noonan, 05 Jul 2007 First publishedin 1944, Hayek's polemical work is a defence of classical liberalismin the face of totalitarianisms of both right- & left-wing hues. The author deplores all sorts of `collectivism', that is departures from such aspects of liberalism as the free market, individualism & the minimal state. Thus, conservatives such as Bismarck (responsible for business cartels) share the dock with communists such as Lenin. In a chapter entitled `The Socialist Roots of National Socialism', Hayek argues that collectivist achievements such as the welfare state & the war economy paved the way for the collectivism of the Nazis: `Few are ready to recognize that the rise of Fascism & Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period, but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.' (p. 4). This is a mirror image of the classic Marxist argument that Fascism, far from being a reaction against the upheavalin the capitalist economyin the 1930s, wasin fact the logical culmination of capitalism, the last redoubt of the bourgeoisie.
Intriguing an argument as it is, I think Hayek over emphasizes the socialist element of National Socialism: as far as I know Hitler was quite happy to allow German capitalists to make large profits as long as they agreed to economic planning. Also, the German Workers' Party adopted `National Socialist' & `Workers'in the title only to attract working class votes, & not out of any enthusiasm for Marxism. Hayek would probably object that planning is planning regardless of whether capitalists are allowed to make profits or not.
This, of course, is the central conceit of the book & its Achilles heel: that all planning is bad & precipitates the onset of totalitarianism: `There is no other possibility than either the order governed by the impersonal discipline of the market or that directed by the will of a few individuals...' (p. 205). This argument is disingenuous. While Hayek recognizes that there are degrees of classical liberalism - he eschews what he calls the `dogmatic laissez-faire attitude' (p. 37) - he fails to concede that there are likewise degrees of collectivism. As a work of prediction, 'Serfdom' proved very wide of the mark, for although various postwar European governments instituted what Hayek would refer to as `collectivism' & `planning', they operated within the framework of liberal democracy, private property, & individual political liberty.
In spite of such objections, given all I had read about it, I was expecting Serfdom to be worse than it was. Given the atmosphere it was written in, the book's thesis is actually quite progressive. Maybe that's why such progressives as John Maynard Keynes, Bertrand Russell & George Orwell either gave it favorable reviews or were sympathetic to its argument. As a defence of liberal democracy, Hayek's polemic is indispensable.
