Thoughts on The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek

Image Source

Introduction

The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek overall provides a passionate discussion about the risks of totalitarian systems, as well as what factors contribute to creating these systems. Additionally, the author discusses the wide range of effects a totalitarian system can have on society. All in all, this reading contributed new arguments against totalitarian systems I had not previously thought of; however, I found some of the arguments used to be flawed.

Commentary on The Road to Serfdom

All in all, I found this text to be thought-provoking. I had never considered the relation of socialism to totalitarianism in general, but after this author mentions it, it makes a lot of sense that socialist systems could be classified as totalitarian. Additionally, I did not know that throughout history fascism has stemmed from socialism, which I found interesting. Although I already have developed opinions against the socialist system, this provides a new reason why socialism risks our freedoms.

Further, it is described that within totalitarian systems, there is usually a population being forced into doing something they do not want to do. One could argue that this same issue certainly exists within our current system, but as we have discussed in previous classes, this could potentially be fixed through allowing for more states’ rights. With more decisions in the states’ hands, people could remain living in the United States as they wish but move from state to state in order to find a voting population they most agree with. I wonder how the author would feel about this idea and I would speculate that he would support this concept. Additionally, it is described at the beginning of the reading that veneration for the state can be considered a “German feature” of American society, and increasing states’ rights would ultimately lead to less veneration for the United States as a whole as people would rally around their individual states instead.

Also, I enjoyed the author’s consideration for the betterment of science and society. The author includes that scientific advancement is greater within individualist systems, which is something I had never considered. Additionally, the author commonly refers to how these systems affect the lives of citizens, like their career options for example. I found this refreshing because many perspectives on economic systems focus on economic repercussions, but this author puts a lot of emphasis on how each system affects the citizens, not just the economy. This ties back to the idea that many supporters of socialism support it because they associate it with fair and good morals and simply lack an understanding of how these morals could come through in a capitalist system. For example, even though this author is against totalitarian systems, he still expresses support for government control over rights for workers and social services. Although these things may not be as optimal as many would like currently, it still stands that within a democratic capitalist society we can move the power and money where we want to see it go, rather than give it all to one entity that could go against society’s will. Lastly, I enjoyed his point that many dislike our current system because money represents to them how restricted their life is compared to others; however, this got me thinking that another misconception people have about socialist systems is that life will remain the same but they will have more money/ live easier. Instead, a socialist system decreases the value and freedom associated with money as we know it, so this effect would not be as influential as some might think.

Although I generally agree with the author’s opinions, I found some of his arguments to be slightly confusing or weak. Firstly, the author mentions that to “build a better world we must have the courage to make a new start”. This sounds motivating; however, this comes off as more reminiscent of ideas that require more change, like moving to a totalitarian system. This was a small point, but it just did not contribute well to the overall message. Next, I thought the author made some very specific claims yet did not always have proof to back them up. For example, he made a lot of speculations about how socialism and fascism are related throughout history, but I would have liked to hear more development on how that is factually true. Additionally, many of the points that were made were very extreme. A great example is the cartoons towards the end of the reading. These showed the most radical forms of totalitarianism. Obviously, this is still productive for swaying people against these ideas, but I do not think this provides a clear argument against some supporters. For example, it is mentioned that many believe that a sort of loophole to making socialism a good idea could be a democratic socialist system. Although the author does speak against this system, I think I would have gotten more out of the text if an in-depth argument was made against this specific system, which has more support than radical ideas, rather than arguments against radical forms of totalitarianism.

Conclusion

All in all, this reading provided some interesting ideas I would like to look further into, such as the history of socialism’s relationship with fascism. I enjoyed this author’s perspective and found him to be passionate and knowledgeable, but I would have liked to get more objective facts throughout the reading to support his claims. That being said, I agreed with his fundamental ideas and enjoyed learning new perspectives against totalitarianism.