This book captures the frustration of classical liberals (as opposed to modern liberals) when they see collectivist policies enacted despite the overwhelming evidence that socialism brings about disastrous results.

Having grown up and lived in Austria during World War I and later moving to Great Britain, Hayek was particularly frustrated when he saw Britain and the United States making the same mistakes of the Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Hayek argues that collectivism eventually leads to tyranny. Central economic planning gives too much power to the government, which essentially puts that power in the hands of a small group rather than in each individual.

My favorite quote: “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.”

Hayek’s thesis is very pertinent today in that when the federal government does meddle too much with the free market it causes problems and then those problems ironically are seen as the failing of the free market and not the ineptitude of government.

A life-changing and fascinating argument against 'socialism', 'collectivism' and 'social planning'.

What I particularly liked was how different the book was than has been portrayed—both by my more liberal friends ('It's trash') and my conservative ones ('It's gospel')—despite being steadfast in it's well researched condemnation of 'social planning', it was far more balanced in both informing the reader of his views, the arguments against them, and the very surprising admission that he is not simply shilling for capitalism (which is surprising, considering his love for open markets), going so far as saying it has a variety of ills needed to be addressed.

Basically, in my humble opinion, it is essential reading, particularly as something used temper one's own biases—including mine for capitalism.

هذا الكتاب دمر لي واحدا من أكبر أوهامي أو أمنياتي.
الكتاب كان من ضمن قائمة موقع معارج للقراءة في علم الاقتصاد
لكن أهميته تجاوزت ذلك عندي كما قلت

ما كنت أفكر فيه اختصارا أن حالنا ربما يكون أفضل إذا عشنا في نظام اشتراكي .. خيل لي عقلي المريض أن ذلك سيكون أفضل إذا وصل للسلطة أشخاص جيدون أو محترمون أو من الثقات .. نسيت ١٩٨٤ ونسيت الفاشية الألمانية والسوفيتية .. نسيت الصين وكل هذه الأمثلة الفجة التاريخية منها والخيالية..
إلى أن قام هذا الكتاب بصفعي على دماغي وأزاح الغشاوة وذكرني بما نسيت .. لا أخيار في وجود سلطة مطلقة
ولا قيمة للفرد في ظل الاشتراكية
لا قيمة لحريته ولا أفكاره ولا أحلامه .. لا قيمة له كإنسان .. هو فقط ترس .. أو حيوان في القطيع
فقط يفعل ما يؤمر به .. أو ما يرى أصحاب السلطة أنه الصحيح.
عبودية كما قال الكاتب.

الكتاب تناول الفكرة من كل جوانبها بتنظيراتها وتطبيقاتها وآثارها .. اقتصاديا وسياسيا واجتماعيا .. على مستوى الأفراد والجماعات والدول وعلى المستوى القاري والعالمي.

لا أدري ما هو النظام الذي قد يكون أفضل لعالمنا الإسلامي، لا أظن أنه الاشتراكي ولا الليبرالي، لعله ثمة إجابة في كتاب ما، أتمنى قراءتها في يوم ما، أو رؤيتها متجسدة مطبقة عما قريب.

Audio-format
This is not an easy thesis to digest but I more or less understood the main arguments and I agree with the author analysis. What so sobering in reflection of the arguments in this book is the realization as to how little we learn from history that socialism is only good in theory but in practice it bring nothing but misery to humanity and it would takes decades to recover from it, if any. Democracy isn't perfect but only in this system of governance that humanity able to thrive and prosper and live in relative peace with each other. Presently, liberty and individual freedom is under threat, it's a global phenomenon. Should we be concern? Absolutely. Just imagine living in a world where you can't even think for yourself. You life is regulated by someone higher up. You can't question authority, just obey. You can't do what you love and love what you do. You're one of many. No individuality. How bleak is that? Liberty and individual freedom, once gone, it may not return in your life time, so it's pays to fight for it in order to preserve it and pass it on to future generations. (Disclaimer: I'm not promoting violence here but active participation in political process, dialogue, education.)

Fantastic book. Very dense. Be prepared to re-read sections often. I did it by audiobook while commuting on the motorcycle (the only leisure reading time I really have). At times, it was easy to forget that this book was written in the 40's and not today!

Highly recommended for those wanting to learn a bit about economic policy, socialism, and how they go together.

I went in with low expectations and the book easily surpassed them.

My expectation was that it would be a strongly partisan take down of socialism, but I was surprised at the author’s nuance and thoughtful approach and willingness to engage ideas from “the other side.”

Một quyển dizz CNXH túi bụi :v Và vì được viết bởi một cây đại thụ của Tự do Chủ nghĩa nên đương nhiên là lập luận rất chặt chẽ, càng về sau càng có sức nặng. Nhưng anw 5* respect chứ không hẳn là hoàn toàn đồng tình hay bị thuyết phục. Đơn giản là chưa đủ kiến thức để đưa ra dù 1 trong 2 quyết định đó. Sự yêu thích này tương tự như fan BRay thích Bản Kiểm Điểm thôi :))

p/s Tổng quan nhận xét thì nên đọc. Nên tận dụng ‘cơ hội’ được là con dân của số ít quốc gia có góc nhìn trực tiếp với những gì được nói đến trong này.

من تقریبا هیچ کتابی را به همه کس پیشنهاد نمی‌کنم. به دلایل روشن و متعدد، کتاب‌ها الزاما برای تمام افراد مناسب و مفید نیستند. اما این بار می‌خواهم درباره‌ی این کتاب این سنت را کنار بگذارم و اینکار را بکنم. «راه بردگی» را به همه، تمام آن‌هایی که علاقه‌مند به اقتصاد، سیاست، اخلاق، و بیشتر از این‌ها، تمام کسانی که دغدغه دارند و خواستار زیست مسئولانه به عنوان یک شهروند در جامعه هستند، پیشنهاد می‌کنم. هایک بی‌شک، شاهکار خلق کرده؛ شاهکاری اعجاب‌انگیز که سادگی و روانی بیانش، خود شگفتی دیگری در این اثر است.
تنها ایرادی که چاپ فارسی این کتاب دارد، ترجمه‌ی نایکدست و گاهی دشوار کتاب است. هرچند بیشتر کتاب ترجمه‌ی بسیار خوبی دارد اما بخش‌هایی از ترجمه کم کیفیت است و دست‌انداز زیادی دارد.
این اثر بیشتر از همه چیز، درباره‌ی آزادی‌ست. و هر فردی که دغدغه‌ی آزادی دارد و علاقه‌مند به آزادی‌ست، واجب است که این اثر بی‌نظیر هایک را مطالعه کند.

One of Hayek's arguments in favor of American style capitalism is that Soviet Russia and the USA had the same ratio of top to bottom salaries of about 15 to 1. Maybe this was true in the 1930s, but clearly we have much much higher inequality now in the US since the ratio is around 300. If the people who think Hayek is a prophetic genius actually read the book and agree with what he thinks is a good limit to inequality, then that would be good. And this applies also to numerous other issues where he severely critiques actual (as opposed to theoretical) capitalism.

Overall, this is a long and somewhat incoherent essay about political philosophy. It's not good history or economics, let alone any kind of science. I'm willing to believe that Hayek was sincerely worried about Stalinism. But he does not successfully make the case that a fear of Stalinism means you should avoid social democracy like the plague and run into the arms of (crony) capitalism. If you take the bits that are connected to factual reality and that make logical sense, then there is some wisdom in here but it's overwhelmed by the nonsense it's mashed up into.

The whole book is in a context of no context. The arguments only make sense if you know nothing about history, let alone what has happened since the book was written. The 19th Century, with chattel slavery, was the time of freedom? The post 1929-crash Depression era reforms in England were a radical transformation of that nation into a socialist country? What about some mention of the crash or the depression as failures of capitalism?

Hayek Just keeps repeating the same questionable things over and over and over again without backing them up with anything. For example, the idea that Socialism is the reason for Nazism seems insane. There was nothing going on in Germany after World War I other than socialism? There wasn’t for example that they just lost the World War? Centuries of anti-Semitism? Maybe those had something to do with the rise of Hitler?

There's a general failure to define what he means by socialism when he say that socialism leads to all this bad stuff. After making this claim that everybody was turning to Socialism and that Socialism killed Liberalism, then he remarks that a bunch of the Nazis were former socialists. What else could they possibly have been if his previous statement is true? So it’s just nonsense. The Nazis said that Nazism was Socialism and Democracy and Christianity; he points out clearly himself how that’s bullshit. What do we care what the Nazis said ? They were evil lying propagandists.

“That Democratic Socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations is not only unachievable, but that to strive for it produces something so utterly different that few of those who now wish it would be prepared to accept the consequences, many will not believe until the connection has been laid bare in all its aspects.” When has there ever been laissez-faire free market capitalism without government subsidies, etc.? You can’t equate social democracy with totalitarianism; it’s just absurd. You do need the government to break up monopolies and to maintain order for markets to work. Hayek admits no one can object to planning in general, and that we actually need planning for competition. He says Laissez-faire doesn’t mean leaving things as they are, even though that’s literally what it means, because he admits that you can’t have complete anarchy and have an economy. He says you need a legal system to have a good competitive system. And you need government to make road signs and to regulate polluters. So everything isn’t just about owning property. Nobody owns the road signs. And it’s not up to just the owner of the factory to decide whether or not he gets to kill everybody with his pollution and whatever. Hayek is clearly against corporate monopolies fixing prices, but that is a feature of capitalism. So is the issue that we have "crony capitalism" and not "real" capitalism? Well, then when and where has "real" capitalism ever existed? If Hayek makes the argument that true socialism is foolish idealism because it can't be achieved in the real world, then how does that question not get applied in exactly the same way to capitalism?

England was all about free competition, free markets etc. until 1931??? As if they did not use centuries of extreme state intervention in the UK and around the world to build the British economy in the first place.

There was amazing progress in the standard of living of the working people under laissez-faire begininng in the years before the 19th century? That's preposterous. Life expectancy crashed with the Industrial Revolution and with kicking people off the land/destruction of the commons. And Hayek admits that the problems of people living in a city, for example, cannot be solved by market competition alone.

If the argument is not against state intervention, but is limited to opposing central planning whether it’s by the state or a giant monopoly then that’s a separate story. But then that would be an argument for social democracy and against Amazon and Google for example.

He also makes some good points about how militarism is a form of socialism, because armies are organized in a socialist way, and a war-time economy is organized socialistically. But then somehow he makes a leap from the dangers of militarism back to blaming socialism, as if wars have only existed since Marx.

He says respect for truth is the foundation of all morals. Amen!

Page 39:

"It is important not to confuse opposition against [central economic planning] with a dogmatic laissez-faire attitude...The liberal argument is in favour of making the best possible use of the forces of competition as a means of co-ordinating human efforts, not an argument for leaving things just as they are. It is based on the conviction that where competitive competition can be created, it is a better way of guiding individual efforts than any other. It does not deny, and even emphasises, that, in order that competition should work beneficially, a carefully thought-out legal framework is required, and that neither the existing one nor the past legal rules are free from grave defects."

A timeless masterpiece. As an economics student, a lot of this book was review of the common sense things you know after having studied the subject, but apparently the general public does not.
Hayek compares a free market economy with planned economies such as fascism, socialism, and what the Soviets called "communism," going quite in depth. I have a much better understanding after having read the book of what fascism actually is.
As a bonus, I learned a lot about history from reading the book, which was first published in the 1940's. He has a lot of fresh insights regarding Nazi Germany and how and why their society morphed in the fascism of Hitler. I found it just fascinating.
Very good book. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this should be required reading for everyone. It is long and a bit dense at times but not difficult. It's a classic, as relevant today as it was when Hayek penned it 80 year ago.

A must read for every liberal, socialist or communist ;-)