Although this book is generally used as a hammer by right wing people to create slippery slope arguments against providing general government services and Progressive policy (as it will eventually lead to full blown Socialism), I found the actual material of the book Tobe vastly more moderate in tone.

Generally speaking, I found it to be fairly moderate by todays standards of conservative thought (where the government is literally viewed as the ultimate source of all evil and flaws in society).

Hayek, at least in the 40's, generally supported government services. He thought that there was a good case for a national healthcare service of some kind. He supported a basic income. He thought it a moral benefit for the government to provide for the general welfare (unlike the Randian morality that literally dictates such a thing as wildly immoral).

What he basically preaches is careful scrutiny of such plans. That and a heavy dose of criticism and opposition to full-blown Socialism, which seems outdated and quant today from an American perspective (where the idea of a national healthcare service of any kind is wrongly viewed as full blown Socialism).

I wouldn't exactly say that I aggree with Hayek very much in his thinking. We disagree heavily in the minimum threshold for what we would consider an unacceptable degree of market failure demanding public action to rectify. That much is obvious.

We also are not on the same page in terms of the central fear of his book: that Progressive social policy is simply a precursor to full blown Socialism, enforced under authoritarian violence.

Although "Creeping Socialism" really isn't brought up in the book, that is essentially the takeaway the conservative movement has gotten from this book and I just don't see it. It's been more the 2-3 generations since his prediction..... And it has not happened. It's time to accept it as bunk and move on.

Of course, we aggree in criticism of "real" Socialism. So in that, We are on the same page.

Either way, I'd say this is a solid 3/5 star book, especially compared to current conservative books (which makes this material look mild and reasonable by comparison).

Review written in 2010


The temptation here will be to try and say too much. This is a short book, though it is thickly packed. I won't try to relate here what the author relates in the book. I will try to say a few words about the book and recommend it.

This is the same book that was released in England in 1944, but it is a new edition and thus has a new intro by the author. If you can get this edition I recommend it for the intro. This book was written during (near the end of)WWII and thus will be in some ways a bit dated. This is not in all ways a bad thing. The author expresses an opinion that the central idea argued against in this book is no longer the main threat to "liberty" or "freedom". This he states as "hot socialism". It might also be called overt socialism. He feels this has been superseded by more subtle forms. I think however this is not totally so. I also think that if read with an open mind the reader will see in action many of the things the author warns of as possibilities. Many have now come about and are fact instead of conjecture of things to come. I'll probably mention one or two as examples below.

A main reason I recommend that you find the newer edition and read the intro is language. Words mean things and words change meaning. It must be remembered that this book is not only aimed at the English, it's aimed at citizens of England in the early and middle twentieth century. In America today the word "conservative" means to most who consider themselves conservatives the conservation of the rule of law and the individual rights laid out in the U.S. Constitution. Historically conservatism has referred to the preservation or conservation of the special rights, powers and privileges of a ruling class. Today in Russia the word conservative means those who wish to conserve the Soviet system (a fact which appealed greatly to some news people in America who were of the politically left persuasion. At the time of and just after the fall of the Soviet Union they seemed to love referring to the Communist party in Russia as the conservatives). So, in this book when Dr. Hayek uses the word "conservative" this school of thought would actually be much closer to socialism and what he refers to as "collectivist thought" than otherwise.

By the same token the "Liberal" today in America tends to mean those who are of a socialist bent. Not so here. The author is using the word in the European, historical way, as in "nineteenth century liberal thought". Dr. Hayek wonders in his intro why Americans Libertarians have allowed the loss of this word to the political left (and indeed have actually begun using it). He believed that it was an essential word for the arguments. When in this book Dr. Hayek uses the word "liberal" and the phrase "liberal thought" the position he's referring to is much closer to American conservatism than liberalism.

There are other ideas and words that will be slightly different or even new to some. Understanding of language is very important here.

In the book's discussion of the world much that is current to WWII will be in the forefront but the ideas are still applicable. His discussion of (for example) the "rule of law" is universal. America was set up under "the rule of law". Our legislature is constrained by our Constitution as to what new laws it can pass and what actions it can take by laws and rules laid out establishing the nation and said legislature. The rule of law is in a very real sense all that stands between any people and despotic and/or totalitarian rule. (Side note, this past year an American legislator said that congress could pass any law it wished with no restriction. This past week the President of the U.S. signed a law that "at least says" the American military can detain any person without warrant, charge or attorney. No Habeas Corpus, apparently no recourse... Yesterday he made an illegal appointment claiming the Senate was in recess, yet the Senate isn't in recess. This is not the rule of law and it will be "more than interesting" to see if it's allowed. If so, we're in trouble.).

I recommend this one. While it isn't the easiest book it's not really difficult either. It simply requires a bit of thought (and willingness to think of course) and understanding of what the author is saying.

Read October 23, 2024

I suspect that you would call The Road to Serfdom F.A. Hayek’s magnum opus. It was written in 1944 towards the end of the Second World War, when countries had been exposed to various socialist political experiments and the effect they had on the countries that adopted them were very, very evident. But Hayek did not take for granted that people’s common sense would see the dangers. He was well aware of the hazards socialism still posed with its pernicious ideology and promises of a better future where everyone would be equal, the rich would pay their fair share, and all would be secure within the society.

Born in Austria and living in England, Hayek saw socialism creeping into English and American life in the same ways that it had infected Germany and the Soviet Union previously. While this book is a well-reasoned apology for an economic free-market, it is more to expose the flaws and dangers within a socialist system, which always sounds sensible with its emphasis on equality and moral superiority, with the government sensibly running society but, in fact, the reality is completely different. One of Hayek’s pertinent quotes is: “If socialists understood economics, they wouldn’t be socialists.”

After a few prefaces and an introduction, Hayek sets his work up within the following chapters:

1. The Abandoned Road
2. The Great Utopia
3. Individualism and Collectivism
4. The “Inevitability” of Planning
5. Planning and Democracy
6. Planning and the Rule of Law
7. Economic Control and Totalitarianism
8. Who, Whom?
9. Security and Freedom
10. Why the Worst Get On Top
11. The End of Truth
12. The Social Roots of Naziism
13. The Totalitarians in Our Midst
14. Material Conditions and Ideal Ends
15. The Prospects of International Order
16. Conclusion

It helps to understand the changes in the word “liberal” which has occurred over the decades. Hayek explains:

“I use throughout the term ‘liberal’ in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftist movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that ‘liberal’ has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control.”

This is an important distinction.



Hayek explains how traditional socialism transformed into the “new” socialism and also how socialism made its transformation into fascism.

Marxism tends to begin in the universities and be transmitted outwards. The first people who are infected by this ideology are often professors and scientists. The professors and scientists who challenged the National Socialist movement in Germany were disposed of, but the many who were left lauded and perpetuated its growth.

The early socialists freely admitted that to implement their ideology, an authoritarian government was not only preferred but necessary. Democratic governments function on broad mandates and general ideas which most people can agree on, but socialists must suppress the Rule of Law ( a safeguard and the embodiment of freedom. It ensures that all the actions of government must be bound by rules which are fixed and declared beforehand so your average person is capable of seeing and predicting with fair certainty, how the authority will use its power in any given circumstances so one is able to plan one’s affairs based on this knowledge), as they must also dispense with individual freedoms for the functionality of their central planning.

If we think that economic ends can be separated from other ends in life, in that we can restrict central planning to economics only, we are sadly mistaken; everything intersects. Economic factors affect our circumstances, and those circumstances influence our striving for other ends.

The government’s meddling, or central planning, not only causes problems economically, eventually the control becomes more and more ridged and spread over more and more areas that our freedom eventually disappears. The continuous giving over of freedom may be trumpeted as being for the good of society but when one looks at the results of the original utopian plan, one often sees a worsening in all areas that were supposed to be improved and a concentrated power at the top of the pyramid, which ushers in a totalitarian format. Central planning leads to dictatorship simply because dictatorship is the most effective way of coercion and the reinforcement of ideals.

Hayek outlines many of the Dangers of Socialism but this point is particularly concerning:

“…. the most important change which extensive government control produces is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people. This is necessarily a slow affair, a process which extends not over a few years but perhaps over one or two generations. The important point is that the political ideals of a people and its attitude toward authority are as much the effect as the cause of the political institutions under which it lives. This means, among other things, that even a strong tradition of political liberty is no safeguard if the danger is precisely that new institutions and policies will gradually undermine and destroy that spirit. The consequences can of course be averted if that spirit reasserts itself in time and the people not only throw out the party which has been leading them further and further in the dangerous direction but also recognize the nature of the danger and resolutely change their course.” Chapter 1



Why do people continue to choose socialism despite many, many examples of the terrible consequences of its implementation? Hayek thinks there are a few reasons. First of all, people like to think they’re in control. In a free market society, one must be content with not being able to predict everything and must be willing to ride out these unknowns and learn from them. If the government controls everything, the average person doesn’t have to make the effort to understand the economic factors and there is the illusion that someone else is handling everything. It gives them a false impression of security, that everything will be fixed or at least will be in a short time. A visual image that comes directly to my mind is an ostrich with its head in the sand.

A particularly valuable aspect of Hayek’s writing is that he traces the transformation of National Socialism in Germany pre-WWII and thus gives us a snapshot into those times. He does not villainize the German population but reveals how such thinking can permeate a society of generally rational people.

Being someone who is sceptical of the nearly unchecked progressivism, and knowing deeply the pitfalls of human nature, Hayek’s book resonated deeply with me. And after seeing, especially recently, how easily people are willing to demonize each other for simply having different ideas or philosophies, I can see the boots of socialism marching across our culture and its outcome remains to be seen. One hopes for the best but with the examples of Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Venezuela, Argentina and a number of other socialist countries, we can expect times of upheaval and loss of individual freedom and possibly worse if the march continues.

Here are some quotes from Hayek that deserve to be remembered:

“Our freedom of choice in a competitive society rests on the fact that, if one person refuses to satisfy our wishes, we can turn to another. But if we face a monopolist we are at his absolute mercy. And an authority directing the whole economic system of the country would be the most powerful monopolist conceivable…it would have complete power to decide what we are to be given and on what terms. It would not only decide what commodities and services were to be available and in what quantities; it would be able to direct their distributions between persons to any degree it liked.”



“It is true that the virtues which are less esteemed and practiced now–independence, self-reliance, and the willingness to bear risks, the readiness to back one’s own conviction against a majority, and the willingness to voluntary cooperation with one’s neighbors–are essentially those on which an individualist society rests. Collectivism has nothing to put in their place, and in so far as it already has destroyed then it has left a void filled by nothing but the demand for obedience and the compulsion of the individual to what is collectively decided to be good.”



“Freedom to order our own conduct in the sphere where material circumstances force a choice upon us, and responsibility for the arrangement of our own life according to our own conscience, is the air in which alone moral sense grows and in which moral values are daily recreated in the free decision of the individual. Responsibility, not to a superior, but to one’s own conscience, the awareness of a duty not exacted by compulsion, the necessity to decide which of the things one values are to be sacrificed to others, and to bear the consequences of one’s own decision, are the very essence of any morals which deserve the name.”



“Probably it is true enough that the great majority are rarely capable of thinking independently, that on most questions they accept views which they find ready-made, and that they will be equally content if born or coaxed into one set of beliefs or another. In any society freedom of thought will probably be of direct significance only for a small minority. But this does not mean that anyone is competent, or ought to have power, to select those to whom this freedom is to be reserved. It certainly does not justify the presumption of any group of people to claim the right to determine what people ought to think or believe.”

1/2 star not simply for Hayek's preachy, condescending tone, but because this book was the catalyst for the gutting of the State by the flying monkeys of the Chicago School under Milton Friedman. From Pinochet's Chile to Thatcher's Britain to post-Soviet Russia, Hayek's callous version of individualism and "competition" gave a veneer of legitmacy to an explosion of untramelled human greed in which millions of people lost any security of income or employment whilst a few within the charmed circle of power were enriched outrageously. In fact, outrage is the only appropriate response to this book.

There is something a little awe-inspiring about reading a book and realizing how much of your personal philosophy and intellectual heritage you owe to it. I got the same feeling the first time I read Two Treatises of Government. When I consider the impact this book has had on my life and work, it amazes me it took me this long to read it.
This should be required reading alongside 1984. It conveys the problems of socialism and yet eerily resembles a conversation we could be having today.
Thought-provoking and inspiring, I highly recommend this one.

I enjoyed this a lot more than I thought I would. To begin with, I tried to purge everything I knew (or thought I knew) about Hayek, especially the negative baggage often associated with him. Hayek’s main thesis in The Road to Serfdom is a provocative one. He argues that the economic and political planning required to implement the popular types of socialism advocated during his time would likely result in A) a highly authoritarianism system opposed to both liberal and socialist goals, and B) the “worst” people would inevitably be the ones “on top” of the resulting system. Even more controversially, Hayek goes on to detail the parallels and overlaps between socialism and fascism. This will likely be dismissed out of hand by progressives and uncritically latched onto without context by conservatives. However serious anti-fascist leftists and libertarians who understand how fascists routinely borrow from the traditional right and left, often proposing their ideology as a “third position,” will find a lot to grapple with and should take Hayek’s warnings seriously even if they don’t accept Hayek’s proposed classical liberal alternative. The most glaring weakness in The Road to Serfdom is the lack of engagement with more libertarian versions of socialism.

Hayek, an Austrian who moved to Britain in the 1930s, sounded as clear a set of warnings for Britain and America in 1944 against the dangers of creeping socialism as Alexis de Tocqueville had done for France and America 100 years previously. Hayek saw the danger for Britain contained in the Fabian socialism of H.G. Wells et al. based on how the welfare programs begun in Germany under Bismarck led to the disaster of "National Socialism" under Hitler.

De Toqueville had seen the same trends in France in the early 1800s, when he warned against the "passion for equality." In fact, the trend that De Toqueville identified led to the Socialist revolutions that swept France and other European countries in 1848.

More recently, we saw the socialism against which Hayek warned nearly destroy Britain's economy until its partial rebirth under the free market reforms instituted by Thatcher's government in the '80s, and the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union caused by its own, brutal socialist vision. Today, in my view, China inevitably conceals much inner decay behind its shiny, state-controlled facade.

Reading Hayek over 50 years later reminds us that the socialist threat never quite goes away no matter how often it is vanquished by events. The Road to Serfdom is a bracing call to vigilance if we are to retain our exceptional freedoms today and for future generations.

Αυτό είναι ένα βιβλίο που απέφευγα να διαβάσω για χρόνια και ένας οικονομολόγος/ φιλόσοφος που οι μεν κήνσορές του δαιμονοποιούν, οι δε υπέρμαχοί του λατρεύουν ως Προφήτη. Παρέμενε να προσδιορίσω την αξία του ίδιου του έργου, όσο το δυνατόν αποστασιοποιημένα και κλινικά.
Έχει πολύ σωστά λεχθεί πως οι φιλόσοφοι/ θεωρητικοί δεν πρέπει να κρίνονται από τις πράξεις των "μαθητών" τους, αλλά από τα όρια της σκέψης τους. Πιστεύω πως αυτό ισχύει τόσο στην περίπτωση τόσο του Χάγιεκ όσο και του Μαρξ, του Νίτσε κ.ο.κ. Το γεγονός πως η Θάτσερ όμνυε στο όνομα του ενός ή ο Στάλιν του άλλου, δεν πιστεύω πως πρέπει να αποτελεί δικαιολογία αποκλεισμού, τουλάχιστον από πλευράς μου.
Αφότου επομένως ξεπέρασα τις όποιες ιδεολογικές αγκυλώσεις μου, αφοσιώθηκα σε ένα κείμενο ευφυές, έμπλεο επιχειρημάτων και εμπεριστατωμένης κριτικής, παθιασμένης υπεράσπισης της ελευθερίας και του δυτικού ατομοκεντρισμού, απευθείας επίγονο των κλασικών κειμένων του Διαφωτισμού και Φιλελευθερισμού, στην παράδοση των Mill, Smith, Locke κ.ο.κ.
Προφανώς είναι πολύ πιο εύκολη η ανάγνωσή του πλέον, δεδομένου πως ο βασικός του αντίπαλος, ήτοι ο κεντρικός σχεδιασμός, ο κολεκτιβισμός, έχουν όχι μόνο εξαφανιστεί ως υπαρκτές εναλλακτικές, αλλά έχουν χάσει και την όποια βαρύτητά τους στο φαντασιακό των Δυτικού τύπου δημοκρατιών. Βεβαίως ο Χάγιεκ δεν στέκεται εκεί, παρά συνεχίζει απτόητος ως τον πυρήνα των απόψεων του αντιπάλου του – του σοσιαλισμού όχι μόνο ως οικονομικού μοντέλου, αλλά ως κοσμοθεωρίας αλλά και νοοτροπίας ακόμα.
Και το πράττει μεθοδικά, ανελέητα, με γνώση και επιχειρήματα άξια θαυμασμού - ιδίως αν σκεφτούμε πως την εποχή που το έγραψε οι συζητήσεις περί κεντρικού σχεδιασμού (από Δεξιά και Αριστερά) ήταν της μόδας και ο ίδιος εκτός. Έπρεπε να περάσουν κάποιες δεκαετίες για να δει τις ιδέες του να έρχονται στο προσκήνιο και να γίνονται πράξη (τουλάχιστον εν μέρει, και όχι πάντα από τους ιδανικότερους εκπροσώπους, αν και αυτή είναι η ιλαροτραγική μοίρα των ιδεών).
Υπάρχουν δευτερευόντως κάποιες άλλες σκέψεις, οι οποίες όμως δεν έχουν να κάνουν τόσο με την κριτική αποτίμηση των ιδεών του Χάγιεκ (μου λείπουν οι γνώσεις για κάτι τέτοιο): Ως γνήσιος εκπρόσωπος του πνεύματος του Διαφωτισμού αποδεικνύεται αξεπέραστος στην κατάδειξη των θεωρητικών αδυναμιών, των κενών, των αντιφάσεων των αντιπάλων του. Αλλά όπως συμβαίνει και με εκείνους, τα προβλήματα αρχίζουν όταν επιχειρείται το αναπόφευκτο πέρασμα από το αρνητικό στο θετικό. Όχι στο πόσο τρωτά είναι τα επιχειρήματα των αντιπάλων, αλλά πόσο στέρεα δομημένη και "αεροστεγής" είναι η κοσμοθεωρία που οι ίδιοι ευαγγελίζονται.
Μπορεί λοιπόν ο φιλελεύθερος καπιταλισμός του Χάγιεκ να λειτουργεί εξαιρετικά στο έργο του και να σε πείθει -πιθανώς- για την μοναδική και αναπόδραστή του αλήθεια, αλλά η σκληρή πραγματικότητα έχει πάντα τον τρόπο να εισβάλλει στα κενά και να αποδομεί και την πλέον "αεροστεγή" κατασκευή. Λογικό, δεδομένου πως κάθε ανθρώπινη θεωρία φέρνει αναπόφευκτα εντός της τον "σπόρο" του ανολοκλήρωτου, του ημιτελούς, του πεπερασμένου. Ως τέτοια λοιπόν αξίζει να αντιμετωπιστεί (από εμένα τουλάχιστον) και η οπτική του Χάγιεκ.
Τι απομένει; Ο θαυμασμός για τον ρυθμό του κειμένου και το πάθος για Ελευθερία (όπως την εννοεί ο ίδιος, τέλος πάντων). Ταυτόχρονα, η ενστικτώδης επιφύλαξη στον κλασικό πειρασμό των αναγωγών (άλλη αναπόφευκτη παγίδα, στην οποία οι περισσότεροι θεωρητικοί υποκύπτουν) ή, τέλος, στο γεγονός πως εκείνοι που ασπάζονται ασμένως την κοσμοθεωρία του Χάγιεκ είναι – ως επί το πλείστον- άνθρωποι που έχουν (πολύ) φαγητό στο τραπέζι τους και (μεγάλη) στέγη στο κεφάλι τους. Οι λοιποί "κολασμένοι της Γης", ούτως ή άλλως, δεν έχουν την πολυτέλεια των θεωρητικών αντιπαραθέσεων, ώστε να συνδράμουν με τα επιχείρηματά τους.

Somehow I feel like the main argument was an obvious one, yet I have to painstaking admit that i also see the necessity of the existence of this book and would actually recommend that many Americans read this, especially nowadays.

This is one of the books that has most influenced my thinking on economics and political philosophy. Hayek wrote this book during World War II, when it seemed that the world was falling into a permanent dark age of statism. It was his lonely voice in the wilderness that reminded Americans of what they were actually fighting for--the preservation of a truly free society with high respect for individuals and free institutions.

I've learned so much from this book. How alike socialism and fascism were and are; why people dreamed of utopia and how crushingly disappointed they were when their leaders led them to abject slavery; how the free West differs as much from the collectivism of socialism as it does from the collectivism of fascism; the difference between individual planning and the state's coercive planning; why it is that the totalitarians aim first at all for total control over the target nation's economic system; why statist systems attract bullies and thugs; and most importantly of all, why we can never ever ever hope to create a wonderful society by command.

Please read this book. It is a difficult read, but well worth your time and effort.

ترجمه بده. فقط به یک نمونه اشاره می‌کنم:
«نفرت عمیق آلمانی از هر چیزی به جای نفرت از باورهای خاص که هم‌اکنون بر آلمانی‌ها سیطره دارد بیش از هر چیز خطرناک است.» منظوری که می‌شه از این جمله برداشت کرد اینه: «نفرت عمیق از آلمانی‌ها به‌جای نفرت از باورهای خاصی که هم‌اکنون بر آلمانی‌ها سیطره دارد بیش از هر چیز خطرناک است.»
این جمله‌ای است که به‌هرحال بدون مراجعه به متن اصلی می‌شه اصلاحش کرد، ولی وقتی تعداد این اشکالات زیاد بشه، مثل خوردن ماهی با تیغ می‌شه، عذاب‌آور و ناممکن. عطا بخشیده شد به لقا. باشد که روزی از متن اصلی بخونم.

Ya, buku ini penting di dalam sejarah. Ia patut dibaca, difahami etc etc etc.

Seperti yang saya agak, kandungan buku ini kering. 'Kering seperti tulang'. Pernah tak anda dengar perumpamaan itu dalam BM? Tak pernah, bukan? Sebabnya ialah perumpamaan itu lebih sesuai digunakan dalam bahasa asalnya. 'Dry as a bone'. Mengapa saya menyentuh perkara ini? Sebab kualiti penterjemahan buku ini ke BM amatlah tidak memuaskan. Seolah-olah si penterjemah tiada daya imaginasi. Contoh paling ketara ialah penggunaa perkataan 'perlindunganisme'. Protectionism, kalau dalam BI. Saya terpaksa berhenti membaca seketika untuk ketawa.

Kini saya terpaksa cari buku asal di dalam BI supaya saya boleh memahami betul-betul apa yang Hayek cuba hendak sampaikan walaupun saya tahu yang buku itu juga 'will be dry as a bone'.

2 bintang sebab kualiti terjemahan, bukan sebab kandungan.