Intro
Let’s first speak on what F.A. Hayek meant by “the road to serfdom”. Maybe it’s just me, but I didn’t know what serfdom was. Google basically tells me that serfdom is forced/coerced labor. So, in this book, we are being told how serfdom happens. This book explains ‘the road to serfdom’ as one that is anti-capitalist, rooted in socialism. He explains the threat of “planners” and how central planning only leads to less freedom.
Socialism Definition… Again?
Hayek explains that socialism happens in the form of organization and increased veneration for the state, and he notes that any socialists, for example, Mussolini, all become fascists or nazis. This is the same rhetoric and thought process I have heard many times before: the idea that socialism becomes dictatorship. This idea is rooted in the idea that freedom cannot coincide with socialism, as socialism gives all power to one person to control the means of production. I get that that is not really a good thing, which is exactly why I have issue with capitalism. Big companies having control over means of production gives them power. It’s something we have already discussed, but if socialism is social ownership, then I don’t understand where this idea of “it’s always going to turn into this” comes from. Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but if it is “social ownership”, wouldn’t the people be in control of the means of production? This is an actual question that I am confused about. Hayek says in his book that the idealization of socialism leads to tyranny and explains that socialism is a sure way to eliminate freedom. He again believes that this is because the person controlling the means of production is the leader of the socialist group. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but in history’s case, sure. I won’t discount that.
Competitiveness
Hayek believes that decentralizing power is the best way to give full freedom to all people, and he explains that that is achieved through the competitive market. I do believe that competitiveness in general is a good way to progress society. Even with one person, it is a great path to growth, so I don’t necessarily disagree with that. Power is such a gray area for me. I usually lean toward government regulation and I have believed that the government need to be more involved when it comes to most things, so it is hard for me to completely agree yet, but I do recognize that the more power that is given to an entity, the riskier it gets. Completely decentralizing government is not something I’m for though. Even Hayek agrees that at this point in society, there is no reason that the government can’t supply food and shelter, and considering this was in the 1940s, surely we have progressed even further. Hayek explained how far the western world had come at that point and that society had reached a certain degree of comfort, security, and personal independence. That is another thing I agree with, and I certainly wouldn’t want to make matters worse, but I am also not swayed in one direction more than another yet, because I have lived in a “capitalist” world, and I’m not happy.
Planning
Hayek was very much against “planning”. This is something he mentions a lot, even in the little political cartoon. He believes that planning leads to all facets of human life being controlled to the point that you aren’t allowed to think your own thoughts. He brings in de Tocqueville as evidence to that: "Socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number". This makes me not want to get even close to socialism. I’d like to think of myself as a unique individual, and so is everyone else, and we should all have that right; so to put myself in a position to believe that that is what socialism would do, I absolutely don’t want it. “Planners”, he says, like the communists and nazis have clashed because they are competing for the same exact ideologies. Hayek is basically saying here that communism leads to things like nazism. I’d like to know where he gets that from, but I’ll give it to him that that is a pretty extreme way to tell us that socialism leads to bad. He tells us how “planners” promise a utopia but cannot agree on one version of utopia. I agree that this is where things get bumpy. If we take a utilitarian approach and just try to make things best for the greatest number of people, what happens to the others? That isn’t fair, as every individual deserves their own version of that utopia, but then how would they just make one? I see how that is an issue, and I don’t think there’s any way to fix it. Maybe the answer is decentralizing government, I don’t know; but no one knows until society is as close to perfect as it can be. Hayek tells us that collective freedom is just the freedom of the planner to do with society what they please. I don’t like that idea, so I understand his issue with “planning”.
Final Talking Points
Hayek says how the “Rule of Law” socializes law and therefore does not see the sides of particular people, something he sees as a big issue with collectivism and socialism. This is concerning, as all people deserve to have their individual rights. Every person is different and has different needs. Hayek also explains that money is the way to freedom, explaining that if people were rewarded with food and shelter instead of money, that eliminates their choice. As much as I see where Hayek is going with this, I also believe that people should just be given food and shelter as a baseline for being alive, so it really shouldn't have to be a ‘choice’. I hate the idea that you have to earn your place in society to be given basic necessities, but at least Hayek agrees that those things should and could be provided. Another thing he touches on is this idea that everyone should have the power of choice and the power to walk away, as those are equal to freedom. I absolutely agree. But as of right now, I don't have the power to walk away, because I don't have the means to walk away, so please, what is the answer then? Of course freedom comes at a price, but if this is what freedom looks like, that is concerning. I want more freedom. I need the option to walk away.