[deMolay]

From the Road to Serfdom.... The Great Utopia
THERE CAN BE no doubt that most of those in the democracies who demand a central direction of all economic activity still believe that socialism and individual freedom can be combined. Yet socialism was early recognized by many thinkers as the gravest threat to freedom.

It is rarely remembered now that socialism in its beginnings was frankly authoritarian. It began quite openly as a reaction against the liberalism of the French Revolution. The French writers who laid its foundation had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by a strong dictatorial government. The first of modern planners, Saint-Simon, predicted that those who did not obey his proposed planning boards would be "treated as cattle."

Nobody saw more clearly than the great political thinker de Tocqueville that democracy stands in an irreconcilable conflict with socialism: "Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom," he said. "Democracy attaches all possible value to each man," he said in 1848, "while socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

To allay these suspicions and to harness to its cart the strongest of all political motives—the craving for freedom — socialists began increasingly to make use of the promise of a "new freedom." Socialism was to bring "economic freedom," without which political freedom was "not worth having."

To make this argument sound plausible, the word "freedom" was subjected to a subtle change in meaning. The word had formerly meant freedom from coercion, from the arbitrary power of other men. Now it was made to mean freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us. Freedom in this sense is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth. The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for a redistribution of wealth.

The claim that a planned economy would produce a substantially larger output than the competitive system is being progressively abandoned by most students of the problem. Yet it is this false hope as much as anything which drives us along the road to planning.

Although our modern socialists' promise of greater freedom is genuine and sincere, in recent years observer after observer has been impressed by the unforeseen consequences of socialism, the extraordinary similarity in many respects of the conditions under "communism" and "fascism." As the writer Peter Drucker expressed it in 1939, "the complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian society of un-freedom and inequality which Germany has been following. Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany."

No less significant is the intellectual outlook of the rank and file in the communist and fascist movements in Germany before 1933. The relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice versa was well known, best of all to the propagandists of the two parties. The communists and Nazis clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties simply because they competed for the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. Their practice showed how closely they are related. To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had nothing in common, was the liberal of the old type. While to the Nazi the communist and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits made of the right timber, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom.

What is promised to us as the Road to Freedom is in fact the Highroad to Servitude. For it is not difficult to see what must be the consequences when democracy embarks upon a course of planning. The goal of the planning will be described by some such vague term as "the general welfare." There will be no real agreement as to the ends to be attained, and the effect of the people's agreeing that there must be central planning, without agreeing on the ends, will be rather as if a group of people were to commit themselves to take a journey together without agreeing where they want to go: with the result that they may all have to make a journey which most of them do not want at all.

Democratic assemblies cannot function as planning agencies. They cannot produce agreement on everything — the whole direction of the resources of the nation-for the number of possible courses of action will be legion. Even if a congress could, by proceeding step by step and compromising at each point, agree on some scheme, it would certainly in the end satisfy nobody.

To draw up an economic plan in this fashion is even less possible than, for instance, successfully to plan a military campaign by democratic procedure. As in strategy it would become inevitable to delegate the task to experts. And even if, by this expedient, a democracy should succeed in planning every sector of economic activity, it would still have to face the problem of integrating these separate plans into a unitary whole. There will be a stronger and stronger demand that some board or some single individual should be given power to act on their own responsibility. The cry for an economic dictator is a characteristic stage in the movement toward planning. Thus the legislative body will be reduced to choosing the persons who are to have practically absolute power. The whole system will tend toward that kind of dictatorship in which the head of the government is position by popular vote, but where he has all the powers at his command to make certain that the vote will go in the direction he desires. Planning leads to dictatorship because dictatorship is the most effective instrument of coercion and, as such, essential if central planning on a large scale is to be possible. There is no justification for the widespread belief that, so long as power is conferred by democratic procedure, it cannot be arbitrary; it is not the source of power which prevents it from being arbitrary; to be free from dictatorial qualities, the power must also be limited. A true "dictatorship of the proletariat," even if democratic in form, if it undertook centrally to direct the economic system, would probably destroy personal freedom as completely as any autocracy has ever done.

Individual freedom cannot be reconciled with the supremacy of one single purpose to which the whole of society is permanently subordinated. To a limited extent we ourselves experience this fact in wartime, when subordination of almost everything to the immediate and pressing need is the price at which we preserve our freedom in the long run. The fashionable phrases about doing for the purposes of peace what we have learned.to do for the purposes of war are completely misleading, for it is sensible temporarily to sacrifice freedom in order to make it more secure in the future, but it is quite a different thing to sacrifice liberty permanently in the interests of a planned economy.

To those who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters, the connection between the two systems is obvious. The realization of the socialist program means the destruction of freedom. Democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is simply not achievable.

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

Is this from the book The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek?

[katkinkate]

Summary?

[americandream]

deMolay

Could you please elaborate on the economic underpinnings of socialism (as contemplated by Marx) and Democracy please. I would like to be clear on the exact basis of your position.

[americandream]

I attach here a link to a critique of Hayek for another perspective...in the spirit of debate:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/hansen/ ... /hayek.htm

[Ludi]

I'll ask my question again to see if there's new perspective.

To the anti-socialists, what is it ok to have socialized, and what is it not ok?

Here is a listing based on my observations of what people seem to find ok and not ok to have socialized:

Ok :

- roads
- water
- sewer
- military
- electric service
- phone service
- police
- fire department


Not ok!

- health care

Please respond with your own listing of "ok" "not ok"

Thanks.

[vision-master]

Ok :

- roads
- water
- sewer
- military
- electric service
- phone service
- police
- fire department

Ok:

- Bloated school systems........
- Unemployment insurance.........

NOT OK:

Old age pensions - aka SS.
Good luck wit dem 401k's.

[Ludi]

Ok:

- Bloated school systems........
- Unemployment insurance.........

NOT OK:

Old age pensions - aka SS.
Good luck wit dem 401k's.

Oh geez, yeah, I forgot schools!

[Cloud9]

History has already given us the final act of both Isms. Whether you are a Nazi or a Communist the end result for those that do not fit the social ideal is a bullet in the back of the head. We are coming up on tuff times my friends. The idealogues on both the left and right will attempt to stampede us into their camps. We the people are in great danger. In times of terror there is a natural tendency to turn to dictators.

Upon Hitler’s ascension to power many Germans sighed a prayer of relief. Thank God, they thought, finally we have a strong leader that will lead us out of the chaos. The torch light parades, the goose stepping storm troopers stirred the souls many German nationalists.

Years earlier, many October Revolutionists dreamed of establishing a workers paradise. Everyone would contribute according to his ability and everyone would receive according to his need. Lenin’s idealism was replaced by Stalin’s realism. In time it became necessary to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

For the moment the left is winning the argument. They will have a super majority in both houses soon. In four years they will control all three branches of government.

To the left a productive citizen is a threat. His access to private resources makes him uncontrollable. By his very nature he is not a team player. He resists the will of the planners because their interests do not coincide with his. He will not be brought on board; he will not join the collective unless he is stripped of his resources. He must be subdued. The proper relationship between the citizen and the state can not be established until the citizen becomes a client. He cannot become a client until he is in need.

[Ludi]

To the left a productive citizen is a threat.

Oh bullcrap!



<<<<<extreme lefty business owner and reasonably "productive citizen."

Oh my god, I'm threatening myself!

[deMolay]

I don't really have a list of what is OK. I think your list is a Red Herring, dragged across the trail. I posted from Haydek in order to start a discussion about the current circumstance. Were we have a central government striving to control the economy since FDR and the last Depression. Delivering the coupe de grace finally after 79 years, with a massive move to full control and full central planning. A huge philosophical change is underway, I think the question should be rather where will it take us, in the end.

[Cloud9]

Really, then why doesn’t the Communist system reward its most productive citizens? Kalashnikov after all his contributions to the defense of the mother land is still a ward of the state. According to his own account, he made no money off of his inventions. He lives off of a modest state pension. While on this side of the political spectrum, Colt, Browning and Winchester built industrial empires.

[Cloud9]

Ludi, how about sharing the wealth. Let's have a 100% tax of anything more than $200,000.

[nobodypanic]

Really, then why doesn’t the Communist system reward its most productive citizens? Kalashnikov after all his contributions to the defense of the mother land is still a ward of the state. According to his own account, he made no money off of his inventions. He lives off of a modest state pension. While on this side of the political spectrum, Colt, Browning and Winchester built industrial empires.

gee this is simple... because the soviet union collapsed, that's why. if the KSA hadn't torpedoed them by crashing the price of oil, kalashnikov would be far far better off right now.

also, doesn't this sort of fly right in the face of the notion that people won't do anything unless there's a monetary reward attached to it? if as you say, the communist system never rewarded its most productive citizens w/as you imply *money*, then one wonders why russians ever became doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. what was the point if they weren't going to get a big fat check?

[Cloud9]

Oh, the Soviet Empire collapsed, but the head of the KGB is running the state. Right. Same good old boys different title.

[Cloud9]

Better to be a Doctor making $20 a month than to be a coal miner making $20 a month.

[green_achers]

I have a list, but who cares? A better point would be that almost everyone has a list. Therefore very few whacko idealists are total socialists or total capitalists. Most of us make our decisions based on what makes sense to us. Most Americans think socialism makes pretty good sense, whether they would call it that or not, for things like the Post Office, roads, etc. Most people in the world think it makes pretty good sense for health care, and it works pretty darned well for them, at least compared to our system.

Most people think a free market makes sense for the majority of consumer goods. Ho Chi Minh believed in land reform, which basically amounts to splitting large holdings into small, private farms.

It's the ideologues on both sides that try to force economic activity into a straitjacket. And that are likely to be dangerous to both economic activity and freedom.

[green_achers]

Better to be a Doctor making $20 a month than to be a coal miner making $20 a month.

Better yet to be on the dole, yet you find both doctors and coal miners in socialist countries.

[americandream]

Better to be a Doctor making $20 a month than to be a coal miner making $20 a month.

Better yet to be on the dole, yet you find both doctors and coal miners in socialist countries.

Cuban doctors and miners are offered free of charge across the "freedom" ravaged third world. Yet we know that for each aristocratic dollar of the first world, a pound of flesh is extracted (fascism anyone?).

PS: I refer you to the forum item on closure of a hedge fund. Straight out of the horses mouth.

[jlw61]

I'll ask my question again to see if there's new perspective.

To the anti-socialists, what is it ok to have socialized, and what is it not ok?

Here is a listing based on my observations of what people seem to find ok and not ok to have socialized:

Ok :

- roads
- water
- sewer
- military
- electric service
- phone service
- police
- fire department


Not ok!

- health care

Please respond with your own listing of "ok" "not ok"

Thanks.

I'm sorry, I reject your argument. If a group of citizens get together and decide to provide services based on taxes, that is not socialization. Socialization is government ownership and administration of production and distribution. All governments based on the rule of law will have a need for certain services, but who owns them and adminstrers them (under a democracy, the people use their voice and vote to make changes, in socialism the people tend to have limited say) is the primary issue.

Socialism, unlike democracy, fails to take into account one very important human trait: self interest. The fact that there is greed and jealousy in the human heart means socialism will never work to spec. Democracy has a hard enough time making it work to spec, socialism doesn't stand a chance.