ასე გემრიელად არავის დაუმხია სოციალიზმი, კომუნიზმი, ნაციზმი, ფაშიზმი და საერთოდ ყველა სახის ტოტალიტარი���მი. წყალივით იკითხება. აზრები თანმიმდევრულია. თარგმანი - შესანიშნავი.

ზოგადად შთაში, კანტის შემდეგ, second best.
შთა 2-ში საუკეთესო.

კაცმა იმდენი ხანი იცოცხლა ორივე რეჟიმის დამხობას მოესწრო, he's the only one who gets to say "I told you so"

This is one of those books that inspires strong emotion from several camps, readers and reviewers either loving it or hating.

First written in the early 1940s and first published in 1944, this was a direct response to not only national socialism but to Britain’s trend towards greater centralization and social programs. In summary, Hayek is explaining his cautionary treatise that going down the road towards socialization in government will lead to totalitarian rule and state domination of the individual.

Championed by classical liberals the world over and libertarians and anarchists in the past couple of decades this has also been the target of derision and scorn from socialists and other proponents of central economic planning since its publication. Hayek was also critical, in 1944, of Stalinist programs and was concerned about Britain and America following in the same programs.

When I think of a group of economists, I imagine a cacophony of sound, hands waiving in the air with reams of paper flying discordantly around the chaotic scene. This work has certainly contributed to the acrimony.

Enjoy!

Friedrich A. Hayek was a member of the Austrian School of economics. We've heard about that school in recent times because Milton Friedman advocated many of the ideas the school expressed, primarily the freedom to choose provided by a free market.

This book is a warning to England, written during the closing days of World War II, that the policies of socialism being advocated at the time were the same policies Hayek has seen in Germany 20 years before.

On first thought, one would wonder how socialism could be harmful. Isn't it all about spreading the wealth and trying to create a fair allocation of resources to all?

In theory, this is true, but in application it would mean planning from above and the suppression of individual desires for the "common good". This planning would gradually extend into every nook and cranny of society as control and direction would be paramount. This contest between individual freedom and the supposed good of society as a whole extends back to Plato and was greatly developed by John Locke (for individual freedom or "natural law") and Thomas Hobbes (for the good of society and the control of individuals in his Leviathan

Hayek's writing is concise and illustrates how Nazi Germany is the best example of the willing, in fact, enthusiastic, surrender of the self to the nation. He pleads with us to value the rule of law and to accept that it is a result of our laws protecting the individual that society cannot be given a direction but must move unpredictably into the future. (he avoids a critique of the USSR as it was an ally of England at the time of writing). He denies that the developments in Germany were simply a product of WWI or Hitler. The mindset was being built for many decades, exemplified by the admiration of the dedicated and obedient public servant in Germany along with the mystic elevation of the nation as almost a deity for which the individual should eagerly sacrifice all.

As important a read today as it was in 1944, The Road to Serfdom is a reminder that we must trade our freedom if we choose to prize security above all. The two cannot be had in equal measure, one must be sacrificed for the other. The best solution, in Hayek's view, is the protection of our right to be treated equally under the law; that it must be blind. No perfect justice can be achieved, but with individual freedom intact we are best armed for the pursuit of what justice is possible.

The Road to Serfdom is not an anti-government book, it's definitely not a libertarian or pro-laissez-faire capitalism or even a pro-democracy book. It's purely and simply an anti-socialism book. And, just to be clear, to Hayek, socialism primarily means central-planning. It's chapter after chapter of reasons why socialism, despite it's apparently noble goals, both will not work in the practical sense, and how it tends to lead to totalitarianism.

Hayek's arguments are level-headed and logical. He is careful not to insult his opponent and goes out of his way to point out their good intentions.

Despite the fact that The Road to Serfdom is currently being championed by conservatives, Hayek calls himself a liberal and the book is written with fellow liberals in mind. There is no contradiction. Definitions, especially in the world of politics, have a way of changing. For Hayek liberalism was tantamount to freedom and liberty. Today the definition of the world "liberal" has shifted. In economics, liberalism is now a synonym for equality, and significantly, not equal freedom for all, but rather equal, or at least more equal, distribution of resources.

In a time when on one hand the accusation of socialism is bandied about as a slur and on the other there is a strong anti-capitalist movement that champions the same socialism, it's useful to understand not only what socialism really is, but what the implications for society are. They might not be what you think.

Friedrich A. Hayek’s title “The Road to Serfdom” is fitting as there is in fact such a road and the philosophy behind venturing down that path has consequences. Hayek issues a strong warning to civilization that when a centralized government strays from the free market enterprise and becomes obsessed with planning fairness to all citizens by means of socialism an adverse effect generally results in dependence, suppression and most importantly an overall loss of economic and personal freedom. Increased meddling by those in power could further create offshoots of nationalism or totalitarianism.

The book published in 1944 during WWII became an economic and political classic expanding one’s thought process. At the time the writings described the culture changes within England, Hitler’s regime and the United States. Twenty years later Senator Barry Goldwater, the 1964 republican candidate for president, considered the book as one of his favorites and a cornerstone guarding his platform. With good reason the book continues to survive through the ages.

امتیاز کتاب: 3.5
ترجمۀ افتضاح، سراسر غلط
عدم تسلط مترجمان گمنام
البته لازم به ذکر که این رویۀ پلید و شومی است که مدتهاست در مورد کتابهای خاص به قصد تخریب انجام می‌گیرد.
موقعیت جغرافیاییِ این انتشارات گویا همه چیز است:
نشر نگاه معاصر: (تهران) مینی‌سیتی، 'شهرک‌محلاتی'

"ما را به حال خود رها کنید"


هیچ چیز از دخالت در کار نهاد هایی که به شکلی ارگانیک در طول هزاران سال به کار خود مشغول بودند و توانستند خود را با تمام شرایط مقتضی وفق بدهند ترسناک تر نیست. و این ترسی است که شیفتگان برنامه ریزی های اقتصادی در دل هایک می‌اندازند.

هایک در کتاب راه بردگی تلاش می کند نشان دهد اساسی ترین ویژگی سوسیالیسم را می توان در یک کلمه خلاصه کرد: "برنامه ریزی". سوسیالیسم با سودا کردن آزادی به امید به دست آوردن برابری، تلاش می کند تا مفهوم اتوپیایی عدالت اجتماعی را در جامعه پیاده کند و برای این منظور ناچار است که نهاد بازار را به کنترل خودش درآورد. بازار هر چند که بر مبنای تفاوت های طبیعی انسان ها عمل می کند، اما سوسیالیسم معتقد است با از بین بردن رقابت های بازار، و به دست گرفتن کنترل قیمت ها و توزیع درآمد، می توان جامعه ای مصنوعی خلق کرد و یا حتی انسان های تازه ای که مشخصه‌‌ی اصلیشان برابری است.


جدا از تمام نقد هایی که هایک به آرمان های برابری و سوسیالیسم وارد می کند و دائما یادآوری ضدیت این آرمان ها با آزادی، در بخش اصلی کتاب هایک ابزارهای سوسیالیسم را برای رسیدن به اهدافی که مدعی توانایی رسیدن به آنهاست به چالش می کشد. نقد او در اساسش نقدی اپیستمولوژیک (شناختی) است.


حقیقت این است‌ که ما انسان ها بیش از آنکه بدانیم و بتوانیم بدانیم، دست به عمل می‌زنیم. و ناچارا نتایج اعمالمان نیز از دایره توانایی های شناختی ‌مان فراتر خواهد رفت. از سوی دیگر قضیه، دانشی که بازار را فراگرفته میان تمام اعضای مشارکت‌کننده در آن پخش شده و هیچ گاه نمی‌توان از موضعی فراتر به تمام ساز و کار های آن احاطه پیدا کرد. نهاد قیمت و بازار، همچون فرهنگ و زبان، به معنایی که یک ساختمان یا سازه می‌تواند ساخته‌ی دست بشر باشد، ساخته دست بشر نیستند. شکل گیری تمام این نهادها‌ نتیجه‌ی‌ برهمکنش میلیون ها انسان است که هر‌ کدام با تمام امیال و آرزوها‌و خواسته های منحصر به فردی که دارند بخشی از این نهاد ها را تشکیل می دهند. در واقع هایک به تاسی از کانت، تلاش می کند تا حدی بر قوای شناختی انسان بزند تا او را از ماجراجویی های نظرورزانه بازدارد.


به همین دلیل است که هایک ذهنیت برنامه ریزان اقتصادی و سیاسی را ذهنیتی مهندسانه می داند. چرا که تصورشان این‌است‌ جامعه و فرهنگ می تواند محصول دست‌ دولت باشد و بازار یکی از نهاد هایی است که حکومت های تمامیت خواه، اولین میخِ سلطه‌ی خود را بر زمین‌ آن می‌کوبند. با کنترل درآمد ها، مالکیت، سود، قیمت و ابزارهای تولید، می توان رفته رفته کنترل تمام زندگی یک انسان را به دست گرفت. هایک با بازخوانی دوباره‌ی قرن بیستم، خوانندگانش را نهیب می زند که تمام حکومت های تمامیت خواهی که زندگی انسان های بسیاری را به آتش کشیدند، در ابتدا، جامه‌ی برقراری عدالت های اجتماعی به تن کرده بودند. راه جهنم را بر زمین انسان هایی سنگ فرش می‌کنند که در دل امید برپاکردن بهشت دارند.

سوسیالیسم، هیچ‌گاه ستاندن ابزارهای تولید از دست سرمایه‌داران به دست مردم نیست، بلکه در نهایت این دولت ها هستند که با ادعای ملی سازی، کنترل حیات اقتصادی را به دست می‌گیرند و سرانجام روح مردم را قبضه می‌کنند و سپس همچون گِلی بی شکل، تلاش می‌کنند تا صورت مورد پسند خود را بر آن ایجاد کنند و جامعه و انسان طراز نوینی بسازند. اگر قرار است نابرابری در سرمایه داری رقابتی که سرمایه دارانش به مدد حکومت قانون مهار شدند به نابرابری در سوسیالیسمِ تمامیت خواهی که قانونش را خود دولت به میل خود می نویسد تبدیل شود، پس بگذارید به بهای بخس عدالت، آزادی گران خود را نفروشیم. یا همانطور که هایک می‌گوید: چه‌کسی می تواند انکار کند که جهانی که در آن ثروتمندان دارای قدرت هستند هنوز هم بهتر است جهانی است که در آن "فقط" قدرت‌مندان می‌توانند به ثروت دست یابند؟



پی نوشت: ترجمه‌فارسی کتاب افتضاح بود! متن انگلیسی از متن فارسی خیلی خیلی روون تر بود.

Summary: An argument that collectivist, planned economies lead to the erosion of individual liberties, the rule of law, and result in the rise of totalitarian governments.

It is probably not insignificant that F. A. Hayek, an economist who grew up and was educated in Austria, emigrated to England in 1938 and wrote this work during World War Two. He later moved to the United States. This book, less a work on economics than political philosophy, is an argument for the classic (not contemporary) liberal ideal that emphasized the rights and initiative of the individual, a limited role for government, a relatively unrestrained marketplace, and the rule of law. His basic argument is that the shift he was seeing from this liberal ideal to socialist, planned economies in England reflected the same course that he witnessed in the rise of National Socialism in Nazi Germany and Communism in the Stalinist Russia.

He argues that planned economies can never plan for all the variables of the marketplace, that those who buy and sell goods and services can more nimbly respond to. Planning undercuts the initiative of the individual and leads to increasingly authoritarian forms of government, required to enforce the efforts needed toward economic plans. Instead of seeking equality in liberty, the collectivist system achieves equality through restraint and servitude. These increasing coercive efforts result in the arbitrary use of authority rather than the rule of law. Paradoxically, even the poor are less free under such a system.

The question is who ultimately occupies the role of planners. Hayek offers a telling critique of the idea of the “common good,” which often remains undefined. And often, this happens to be the worst among us, those who are not constrained by moral restraints or concerns about truth. Perhaps the most chilling chapter in this work is the one titled, “The End of Truth,” reminding one of the “Post-truth era” in which we live. Authoritarian rulers develop their own myths to justify their rise to power and rule. Instead, all the channels used to spread knowledge are pressed into service to “strengthen the belief in the rightness of the decisions taken by the authority” (p. 175).

Hayek does allow a role for government in a capitalist economy, not in restricting trade but in regulating methods of legal production, sanitary and safe practices, the protection of environmental resources, and preventing fraud. He also allows a basic level of economic and health security as a concern of government.

It strikes me that Hayek’s fears of planned economies have not been realized in the socialist countries of Europe. My own sense is that what has occurred instead is an enlarged role of government to protect us from recessions, economic cycles, the consequences of shifts in the marketplace, and even personal misfortunes. This diminishment of the individual and dependency does leave us vulnerable to Hayek’s feared authoritarianism and the eclipse of the rule of law.

What troubles me in Hayek’s liberal ideal of individual liberty is that such systems are often blind to the inequities baked into the system, protecting individual liberty for only some who are citizens. Furthermore, these systemic inequities leave capitalist economies vulnerable to being supplanted by more planned economies that offer a vision of equality for the disadvantaged.

Nevertheless, Hayek’s critique of “planning,” of the rise of coercion, of the justification of means to achieve ends, the rise of authority and the suspension of rule of law, and the jettisoning of truth are all important to consider in our day. Hayek’s concern in looking at Nazi Germany was the recognition that it could happen in socialist England. While I suspect that there are more variant roads to totalitarian, Hayek’s recognition of the important elements of liberal democracy are worth attending to, as is the recognition that should we neglect these elements, it can happen here as well.

2020-06-24 - I first read this book my senior year in college, over spring break, on a trip to Florida (1977). I remember trying to talk about some of the amazing ideas I was reading in the book with the two other students in the long car rides from northern NY state to Panama City, FL and back ... and being pretty disappointed. Both were quite reflexive, though fairly moderate, statist/socialists. One was into history, but he was so smart and lazy, that he did not seem to take anything seriously. The other was not really into thinking these kind of issues through very much. Not auspicious.

But that reading, and reading various chapters again, several times since, has stuck with me very well all these years. Some references and footnotes also helped cement my growing awareness of and appreciation for the writings of Ludwig Mises, whose path breaking work "Socialism" turned Hayek from his previous social democratic convictions to a much more classical liberal approach - making this book possible!

Hayek writes compelling, fascinating history, economics and philosophy using clear logic and creative arguments in this book (and other books and articles for sure), that defend a free society and explain the flaws of socialism. But there is a somewhat compromising tone, and line of argument by Hayek, beginning with the dedication to the "Socialists of all parties," that just is not as satisfying to me, as the more consistent lines that Mises pursues.

However, considering how many folks have found this book to be revelatory in their examinations of the ideas of socialism and free markets, I do not want to pooh pooh it at all. 2023-06-11 For instance, I just learned in the new documentary The HongKonger (about Jimmy Lai) that he was HUGELY influenced by this book - "It changed my life forever." That is but one person highly influenced to act on ideas Hayek wrote. There are many, many more.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in exploring the implications of various socialist policies that have been and continue to be proposed and implemented. The truths that Hayek outlined over 80 years ago have stood up very well, as befits any classic work such as this.

The writing may not be the easiest for the current generation to follow, but I assure you the energy expended will be very worthwhile in enlightenment gained. And don't miss the footnotes for further exploration. Most are simply marvelous, and may clue you in to even better books and ideas, or at least provide great back up for various points made here.

Friedrich Hayek makes the same mistake as Milton Friedman in "Capitalism and Freedom", they both denounce the misuse of the word "liberal" in contemporary public discourse while, at the same time, they misuse the word "socialism".

To quote socialist activist Daniel de Leon from an article written in 1908:

"Socialism means but one thing, and that is the abolition of capital in private hands, and the turning over of the industries into the direct control of the workmen employed in them. Anything else is not socialism, and has no right to sail under that name. Socialism is not the establishment of an eight-hour day, not die abolition of child labor, not the enforcement of pure food laws, not the putting down of die Night Riders, or the enforcement of the 80-cent gas law. None of these, nor all of them together, are socialism. They might all be done by the government tomorrow, and still we would not have socialism. They are merely reforms on the present system, mere patches on the worn out garment of industrial servitude, and are no more socialism than the steam from a locomotive is the locomotive."

Yet, Hayek equates socialism with the centralized planning of the economy, and then keeps on hammering in the notion that it leads to Nazism. One cannot ascribe intentions to other people, but this entire book reads as an entire smear campaign against the original socialist movement, not just a critique of centralized planning. And because of this I will call what I called Milton Friendman's work, a fluff piece.I must agree with Hayek on his points that centralized planning inevitably leads to accumulation of power, and it poses organizational problems that simply cannot be overcome. Of course, at no point does he realize that it is in the nature of capitalism to also concentrate economic power. That is why we live in a world where the company Apple has more money than the GDP of the Czech Republic.

Hayek constantly talks about the liberty of the individual, even quoting Kant (chapter 6) in saying:

"A man is free if he needs to obey no person, but solely the laws."

I wholeheartedly agree with the author on this, but in his staunch defense of private ownership of the means of production, he overlooks the inevitable coercive powers over others that such accumulation gives to the owners. And the author doesn't even acknowledge the inevitable problem of principle: why is it fundamentally different to be under the authority of the state, or under the authority of private owners? Former US slaves surely didn't think that there was a difference.

And in the same sense of irony, the author quotes (in chapter 7) Hilaire Belloc:

"The control of the production of wealth is the control of production itself."

And again the same problem, the author doesn't ask himself the question: why is it fundamentally different for the state to control production, or for few private individuals to control production? The vast majority of people in the former system are deprived of any right of control.

It is the great irony of all the capitalist liberals that all the ideals of liberty that they uphold are impossible to achieve while allowing the private ownership of the means of production, but are potentially attainable under true socialism, where the means of production are under the democratic control of the people who actually make use of them.

I was honestly hoping to find an actual critique of socialism, but all I found was a critique of something unrelated. The intellectual laziness of the socialist's opponents is getting more and more jarring, is there anyone out there who can actually point me to a text that's not full of, what is effectively, anti-socialist propaganda?

I recently saw an edition of this book citing Glen Beck on the back cover and claiming it was an inspiration for the Tea Party. I couldn't help wincing at what the reaction of many potential readers would be to that. For Hayek, a Nobel-Prize winning economist, doesn't deserve to be dismissed with a sneer by those on the other side of the political divide. Hayek dedicated the book to "socialists of all parties" and said in the 1957 Preface to the American edition that was meant "in no spirit of mockery" and that the ideas in the book were honed by arguments and discussion with socialists, and above all directed to them; he believed "socialism can be put into practice only by methods which most socialists disapprove." Indeed, in that Preface he was scornful of conservatism, which, he wrote, "in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power-adoring tendencies... is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."

Mind you, right at the start, Hayek admits: "This is a political book." Published in 1944, the book's kernel began as a 1938 journal article inspired by a common conception that the National Socialists in Germany were a capitalist reaction to socialism: Hayek believed they were a natural outgrowth of it. In a way, Hayek's argument has lost a lot of power simply through its own success. Most people today, I think, see the connections between the two extremes of the political spectrum and don't have to be convinced of the similarities between say, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.

The heart of the book, and to me of most interest, was the twelfth chapter, "The Socialist Roots of Nazism." Hayek cautioned against seeing Nazism as rising from a German character--that would be to adopt many of the assumptions of Nazism itself. He points out that it "It overlooks the fact that, when eighty years ago John Stuart Mill was writing his great essay On Liberty, he drew his inspiration, more than from any other men, from two Germans—-Goethe and Wilhelm von Humboldt—-and forgets the fact that two of the most influential intellectual forebears of National Socialism—-Thomas Carlyle and Houston Stewart Chamberlain—-were a Scot and an Englishman." A lot of the intellectual history presented in that chapter was new to me and thought provoking.

This book isn't easy reading--truly this is the opposite of some simplistic populist bromide. It's highly abstract, erudite, sophisticated and nuanced and not what you might expect given it's characterization as a polemic of the right wing. The third chapter, "Individualism and Collectivism" discusses what Hayek saw as limitations of the market and its ninth chapter, "Security and Freedom" even concedes the need for a welfare state. It's timely and timeless and surprisingly modern in its tone. Parts are a slog to be honest, but I think it's worth pushing through and thinking about.

The Road to Serfdom’ is pretty much a criticism of socialism and its attempts to plan the economy centrally that lead to tyranny of various degrees. It is also a celebration of liberty and the free market. It’s an interesting read, and gives food for thought on planned economies, but I don’t see any argument for why individual freedom should be an organizing feature of any society when it is that very individual freedom that promotes a selfishness that leads to sweat shops, exploitation, homelessness, and poverty.