Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom"

[James]

Hello,
I thought that i would put this thread in this forum, so that as to allow the greatist range of feedback.

Basically i'm very interested in any and everyone's opinion on Hayek's Road to Serfdom. Less criticism of structure and language, more on what you think of his ultimate argument, which partly stems from his basic point that:

“the common features of all collectivist systems may be described… as the deliberate organisation of the labours of society for a definite social goal”
(page 63 of the 1994 edition i'm using)
From here he then states the general "road to serfdom" which ultimately follows.




a VERY basic outline of his argument can be found at
http://www.mises.org/TRTS.htm






I appreciate any feedback, but am aware that OI threads can easily degenerate. So please try to prevent this from happening.

Mods, i was thinking of posting this in one of the other threads (theory), but also wanted right wing views: or rather, i simply wanted a debate on it beyond "the marxist perception". the only problem with posting it in OI, is that i fear alot of members won't see it (who i know avoid OI, with good reason).


thanks

[Publius]

Well, as an OP member, I love it.

I'm actually currently reading THe Fatal Conceit: THe Errors of Socialism by him right now.

I found it to be a pretty good argument. I believe that all attempts at socialism will turn out to be totalitarian, for a number of reasons.

[James]

and yes, i am writing an essay on the subject, but the question is limited to a basic description of his argument. So no, i'm not posting in the hope that someone will write what will amount to an outline of an essay for me!

I'm just interested in what people think of his argument (in road to serfdom of course; not on his other work).

[James]

I found it to be a pretty good argument. I believe that all attempts at socialism will turn out to be totalitarian, for a number of reasons.


good good (as in thanks for replying), please expand though (i want to try and get get this going beyond a "yes/no" vote). What are these number of reasons? (for example)





I'm actually currently reading THe Fatal Conceit: THe Errors of Socialism by him right now.


aaah, i got this one out of the library. Although due to the fact i've left this essay a bit late, i might not get around to reading it.

[Jadan ja]

I dont know a lot about Hayeks work, but if I interpreted this cartoons correctly Hayek developes two arguments:
1) The nature of planning requires a dictatorship, because planners disagree.
2) Planning must lead to totalitarianism, because "once started, planners cannot stop."

Did I misinterpret anything? Is there a better way to summarize ideas of "Road to Serfdom"?

Unfortuantely, these cartoons on http://www.mises.org/TRTS.htm are more made as a propaganda then as a clear presentation of Hayeks ideas (in other words, this outline of "Road to serfdom" is made to convince, not to explain).

[NovelGentry]

I just bought this book, give me some time to finish it.

[JKP]

I haven't read Hayek, but I've recently been reading something similar written by Peter Huber, the Harvard educated lawer who co-authored "The Bottomless Well". ( He is an ardent supporter of intellectual property rights, yet ironically enough, most of his work is openly plagiarised from George Orwell, but I digress)

Essentially Huber's argument rests on the fact that centralized power structures lead to totalitarianism, realized all the more by the latest telecommunications technology. ( Think tele-screen from 1984). After all, the planning and leadership which Hayek speaks of( and which the Leninists speak of aswell) cannot happen without centralization. Indeed centralism is the prerequisite for totalitarianism.

[James]

1) The nature of planning requires a dictatorship, because planners disagree.
2) Planning must lead to totalitarianism, because "once started, planners cannot stop."

Did I misinterpret anything? Is there a better way to summarize ideas of "Road to Serfdom"?

Well; as far as i understand it, Hayek believes the "road to serdom" (slavery) begins with a desire for a planned economy (its appeal stems from its diverse defintion - collectivism is after all just a method, a means. It isn't an end in itself).

So socialists get elected, or take control, but then can't agree on one over all plan. Hayek points out it would be possible to agree on certain elements of a plan, or seperate little plans, but a planned economy requires, by definition, a unitary concept. Hhayek believes that a planned economy has to be total, eventually. Thus everything has got to be planned - therefore there are lots of different points of conflict. Also, Hayek argues that nobody can can "consciously blanace all the considerations bearing on the decisions of so many individuals".


Indeed, the problem is not what the plan will be, but what the plan should aim to do: the goal; the ends (collectivism being the method, which many agree on). Hayek describes this as "the social goal", or the perceieved "common good". We are all "specialists" however, and rank things differently.

These socialists are idealists (he is sympathetic toward them), and do believe in democracy, so remain adament that some form of consensus will emerge. However this doesn't happen. As time passes by, people become disgruntled with democracy (inefficient, ineffective). Democracy is seen as a block to a planned society.
The centre may come up with a plan; but it will only be agreed to by the centre (usually a minority in the centre). This results in the need for forced implementation in the localities.

Hayek thinks that this democratic failure will lead to demands for such decisions to be taken out of democracy (the talk shops); and given to professional experts. However, again these will fail to come up with a plan that will be agreed to.

In the words of Hayek: “democracy will inevitable destroy itself”, and be replaced by coercion.

thus gives rise to the demans for an economic dictator. To be fair to Hayek, he does give examples of each of these stages that he descirbes. For example, Hitler was not the first german economic dictator.

Hitler was however the result of the failure for all to agree on one plan. He was the "strong man" demanded. Obviously, this has now moved beyond democracy and consesnsus, and more into forced planning. Totalitarianism. The strong man will never be a "decent" human, as he needs to be able to inspire the lazy and the ignorant, and also be able to command the attention/discipline of men who will force his plan into action.

Planning leads to dictatorship; according to Hayek, because dictatorship is the most effective form of coercion and the enforcement of ideals – this is essential to allow planning on a large scale. The strong man will organise his party along the lines required for a planned economy: military (as such plans are essentially similar: a single plan is required which is implemented completely. You can't have democracy in the planning of an invasion.... according to hayek). Socialists “set themselves a task which only the ruthless ready to disregard the barrtiers of accepted morals can execute”.

With such a dictatorship, the state finally becomes moral: it achieves the aim, for the method to work for. With this, the rule of law, becomes the law of the state (which has to enforce its plan on the people). The end's (now defined), justify the means. Concepts of humanity are, to hayek, individualist. In collectivism, the "social demand" is to follow the plan. The state comes first.

This moral power becomes total, because "economic control is control of the means for all our ends". It is control over what ends should be met. What men should believe and strive for. This is made easier by implementing something to be against: for example a race, a class or an opinion. This is an element of Hayek's thinking which demonstrates consistancy. Collectivism is only popular, because it is a method many agree with, in opposition to the free market organisation of the economy. This is simply going back to "basics". Uniting people, by giving them something to be against.

Hayek believes a free market has more choice than a totaltarian collective state,because in a free market, you can make a choice to meet your need/desire. If one source doesn't provide it, another will. Hayek rather interestingly, and i found this a very interesting argument, argues that this freedom of the market is destroyed by manopolies - indeed, hayek believes in state action to keep the market competitive. A monopoly has complete control and dominance on that area. A planned economy, where there is no individual entreprenourism, isquite simply a monster monopoly. Monopolies are the concentration of power (and the decline of freedom): collectivism is one monopoly: which results in ultimate power, and ultimate "no freedom".

A planned economy can conciously, and unconciously not meet certain needs. Unconciously is far more likely, and indeed inevitable in Hayek's opinion (whereas the free market is "blind", it only exists when demand/need exists) as it is impossible to collect and review all the nesecary information on everyone's seperate needs and desires.

Conciously it can not meet needs too; in the obvious manner.

So according to Hayek, the system of private property is the "most important guaranty of freedom", as it divieds the means of production, and its control. Nobody or group have complete power over everyone (again, hayek strongly supports government action to increase competition - thus preventing such concentration of power). This means individuals are relatively free to decide what to do with ourselves. They are more free, than in a situation where monopolies control the means of production.


Ultimately, Hayek argues that:
Individual freedom cannot be reconciled with the supremacy of one single purpose to which society must be entirely and permanently subordinated.
Individualist society rests on a readiness to back one’s conviction against a majority, willingness to voluntarily coop with neighbour, independence, self-reliance, willingness to bear risks.
Collectivism has nothing to put in their place. All it is, is a demand for obedience and the compulsion to do what is collectively decided to be "good": the end. Hayek argues that progress and freedom comes from releasing “creative energy of individuals”: not by devising "further machinery for guiding and directing them”. Hayek argues for government action to create conditions favourable to progress rather than to "plan progress". “A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy”.



Sorry that is rather long. I have to described his argument though for this essay. So i think the above will become my basic plan..... although it needs serious editing. I'll try and edit this copy after i've done my plan.







Unfortuantely, these cartoons on http://www.mises.org/TRTS.htm are more made as a propaganda then as a clear presentation of Hayeks ideas (in other words, this outline of "Road to serfdom" is made to convince, not to explain).

aye, but sadly its the closest thing i have found free online. Its more helpful to someone who has read road to serfdom; and is using it as a way to remember it (rather than a substitute for reading the book).

[Publius]

Excellent summary.

I would like to add a few points though.

Hayek also doubts that the supposed economy could even work.

Read his seminal essay on that topic: http://www.econlib.org/library/NPDBooks/Thirlby/bcthLS3.html


I don't know of any serious rebuttal to that. I would like to hear one.



I would make specific note of the fact that a social goal can not be reconciled with individual freedom, ever.

For example, am I free to deviate from the social goal? No? Then I'm not free.

The larger a target this social goal entails, the less my freedom.



I think to fully understand Hayek's arguments, particularly his historical/rational/societal/philosophical points, you need to read the Fatal Conceit.

A significant point Hayek makes in this book is that human orders cannot be planned. He somewhat extends the point made in his earlier essay.

I don't quite agree with some of his points and I'm sure you won't either, but it's actually quite compelling.

The gist of it is that human order is spontaneous, the result of individual actions, and cannot be planned or even reconciled logically.

It can't be understood or created.

One couldn't make it if one tried.

Human societies and customs developed not because of rationality, but through an evolution he quite likens to biological evolution.

Human societies exist as they do for evoltionary (societal) reasons, not necessarily for rational or planned reasons.

[YKTMX]

For example, am I free to deviate from the social goal? No? Then I'm not free.

The larger a target this social goal entails, the less my freedom.


What's a social goal?

Does the pursuit of profit at any cost count?

The workers are unable to 'opt-out' of that 'social goal' - are they 'unfree'?


Human societies and customs developed not because of rationality, but through an evolution he quite likens to biological evolution.

Human societies exist as they do for evoltionary (societal) reasons, not necessarily for rational or planned reasons.

Which is why Marx never set out a 'detailed plan' for Communism. He said that the structures of the communist society would arise naturally out of the revolution. He spent lots of time excoriating socialists who made 'great plans' about socialist society for exactly this reason.

This is typical of Hayek and others on the far right. They create phantoms on the left and then spend their time meticulously deconstructing them.

[Publius]

good good (as in thanks for replying), please expand though (i want to try and get get this going beyond a "yes/no" vote). What are these number of reasons? (for example)


Basically, I don't see how individual freedom (Including the freedom to do the wrong thing) can be reconciled with an overarching central good.

They're logical enemies.

If you support one, fine, but don't act like you're a 'socialist' AND an 'individualist' in terms of freedom.

They are contradictory.

I believe that all planning is inneffective, as was shown by Hayek in his essay on knowledge, and that all sociliast systems, including supposed anarchic systems, demand this type of planning.

Simply, running an economy without prices is incomprehensible: How can knowledge be properly demonstrated?

An economy cannot be run without a price system. It's an impossibility.



aaah, i got this one out of the library. Although due to the fact i've left this essay a bit late, i might not get around to reading it.

It's pretty short.

Not more than an hour or two.

[James]

Thanks for that link. My essay is in for thursday.... so i'm going to try and read it tonight or tomorrow. Hopefully it will give me some more ideas/improve the ideas i already have.


I think to fully understand Hayek's arguments, particularly his historical/rational/societal/philosophical points, you need to read the Fatal Conceit.

Well i have gone through bits of it. Sadly the fact i have a few essays to do this week has meant that my research has been very scetchy. But yes i agree, it has furthered my understanding of his key arguments/point of views.

Its not that he says anything different in this book, than he does in road to serfdom, its more than he summarises each of his key thoughts/values/beliefs.

Road to serfdom seems to me, to be more of a warning against implementing state planning. I found it to be a sort of narrative of how and what happens when it is attempted; although he does discusse all of his beliefs/opinions. I agree, it is a good book to read to understanding his "stance".




A significant point Hayek makes in this book is that human orders cannot be planned. He somewhat extends the point made in his earlier essay.

I would say that his main point is two fold.
1) the concept of a planned, collective society is based upon a theory of rationality (constructionist) which is fundamentally flawed. Thus it will never be as effective/productive. It will fail.
2) a planned collective should not be attempted, not simply because it will fail, but because of what it will develop into: serfdom.


This (serfdom) happens because, as you stated, a social goal is the aim of the collective. for a free market to work there has to be a rule of law applicable to all (for it to be competitive). This is why the rule of law exists.
A collective society is based on the rule of achieving the social goal. It becomes the purpose of the society. As i stated in my summary before; the law becomes law of the state. The ends truely justifies the means. Indeed; the means is not at all important morally, as long as it achieves the end.


hayek basically believes in negative liberty, and i quote from my essay ;)



Another key opposition of Hayek’s to collectivism was that collectivism collects and concentrates power. This is because the ability, or power, to exercise authority is based on the control of production. In Hayek’s freemarket power is divided as the means of production are privately owned: it is not concentrated. Individuals enjoy a degree of freedom of choice because if one doesn’t provide for the individual’s need, another will. This is ensured by the competition that exists in the freemarket; such competiton is “blind”, (“like the ancients diety of justice”, hayek pointed out) it is “no respector of persons”, thus does not discriminate. Like with the rule of law, all are equal (112).
However, this freedom rapidly declines the more the means of production become concentrated. In the free market this may happen occasionally, via monopolies. This is the area that Hayek stated that coercive power can and should be used to prevent or rectify, and thus to restore the market to competitiveness (and its blind justice). Hayek opposed collectivism because a planned economy is “the most powerful monopolist conceivable” (102). This means citizens in a collective society have no freedom of choice, as they are “at the mercy” (102) of an all powerful monopoly, that faces no competition. Hayek therefore basically argued that a divided means of production control meant that nobody has complete power. This means that “we can decide what to do with ourselves”. (115)

[James]

"Which is why Marx never set out a 'detailed plan' for Communism. He said that the structures of the communist society would arise naturally out of the revolution. He spent lots of time excoriating socialists who made 'great plans' about socialist society for exactly this reason."




How would it arise naturally?
Surelly it would either have to be agreed to collectively, or enforced on the majority by a minority?

Unless Marx was actually a evolutionist (which actually i think he was to an extent).

[James]

What's a social goal?

Does the pursuit of profit at any cost count?

The workers are unable to 'opt-out' of that 'social goal' - are they 'unfree'?


Well i would say that Hayek argued that profit is the driving force behind the economic system.
However, there is no social goal commanding how you spend your profit/fruits of your labour.
you can for example invest it/spend it "morally".


Hayek does not think the free market is perfect. He thinks there are "burdens". But he thinks they are easiy superior to other systems
profit isn't a "moral" force or aim: but it ensures an amount of negative liberty. You would advocate a moral social goal - equality, via collectivism.
However, collectivists differ over the actual social goal (for there can only be one aim of a collectivist system). For example, some argue it should be purity of the race. The point is that collectivism is total: there is no freedom of choice, just an obligation to do as the collective demands.

You are free to spend your money morally. But you arn't forced to spend it according to another's individual morality.

[Amusing Scrotum]

From what has been posted and that little cartoon, it seems Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" is an act of intellectual dishonesty.

First off Hayek seems to imply that central planning leads to fascism. No doubt an argument could possibly be made, but the historical evidence does not back up that argument.

In Germany, Italy and Spain pre-fascism, there was no "central planning" and no "planners." Certainly not in the Socialist sense and to even hint that they were planned economies pre-fascism is completely absurd.

Secondly, Hayek thinks that central planning will always lead to failure and that it can't work. Now I don't know if he noticed but Russia rose to prominence as a planned economy and China has done the same, only faster.

Plus a country like Cuba has possibly the best overall statistics (best health-care, least poverty etc.) of all the third world countries. It certainly outdoes most other South American countries, even the richer ones. All under a planned economy.

Now if anything, overtime Russia and China ended up with more "planners." People don't refer to the massive bureaucracies for no real reason, they refer to them because the "Party" over time became huge.

Also since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the statistics show that the "average Joe" has a lower standard of living and less choice. As the saying goes "it was better to queue for bread, than to have no bread at all."

Thirdly, Hayek seems to have ignored the few occasions when there were collective economies. Paris 1871, Russia 1917-18, Germany for a short period after the first world war and Spain during the Civil war.

None of these places failed or elected a "strong man." The Paris Commune and the Republican areas were militarily crushed, the workers councils in Germany were put down by the Freikorps and the Soviets were turned into ceremonial bodies during the consolidation of power by Lenin and co. during the "counter revolutionary" periods.
_________

There seems to be no historical basis for Hayek's arguments, only an ideological basis and this in my opinion makes Hayek an intellectual fraud at best, at worst a professional liar.

[JKP]

It isn't so much about economic growth as the effect that the state has on freedom. I think you'll admit the Leninist states were not free by any measure.

[Publius]

What's a social goal?

A goal set for or by society.


Does the pursuit of profit at any cost count?

No, because it doesn't fit my criteria.



The workers are unable to 'opt-out' of that 'social goal' - are they 'unfree'?

No, because they make up their own 'social goal'.

You can't escape your own social goals, obviously.



Which is why Marx never set out a 'detailed plan' for Communism.

Which is why Marxism is inherently flawed.



He said that the structures of the communist society would arise naturally out of the revolution.

Did he know?

Like what happend in all the supposed revolutions?

How can you predict something like this without resorting to making groundless assumptions?

Don't try to answer; you can't.

A plan without specific details is no plan at all.

You watch much South Park?

1. Revolution
2. ??????????
3. Communism!

Tell me the flaw with that plan.

Hint: It occurs between 1 and 3.



He spent lots of time excoriating socialists who made 'great plans' about socialist society for exactly this reason.

Good for him.

But that doesn't make his lack-of-a-theory any more correct, now does it?





This is typical of Hayek and others on the far right. They create phantoms on the left and then spend their time meticulously deconstructing them.

'Create phantoms'? How so?

And even if they are 'creating phantoms' it's because they have to, because, as you stated, Marx didn't lay out a specific plan.

What then are they to criticize?

[Publius]

From what has been posted and that little cartoon, it seems Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" is an act of intellectual dishonesty.

The cartoon is very incomplete, but whatever.




First off Hayek seems to imply that central planning leads to fascism. No doubt an argument could possibly be made, but the historical evidence does not back up that argument.

Ah, but it does.



In Germany, Italy and Spain pre-fascism, there was no "central planning" and no "planners." Certainly not in the Socialist sense and to even hint that they were planned economies pre-fascism is completely absurd.

The fascists brought the planners with them.

They go hand in hand.


Secondly, Hayek thinks that central planning will always lead to failure and that it can't work. Now I don't know if he noticed but Russia rose to prominence as a planned economy and China has done the same, only faster.


Russia didn't 'rise to promenance'.

It's growth rates were absurdly overinflated. They were supposedly over 3 times that of the west.

Guess what? They weren't.

And the point is meaningless as the economy would have behaved more effectively if it were under market control.

China's growth started when the government moved away from government control.

Yes, it still maintains a lot, but the growth was entirely capitalist.

And look at the political freedom in both of those countries; rather fascistic innit?

THe economies may not totally fall as in capitulate, but they will always be innefficient compared the capitalism and will always curtail personal freedom.

This is his argument. It's quite correct.




Plus a country like Cuba has possibly the best overall statistics (best health-care, least poverty etc.) of all the third world countries. It certainly outdoes most other South American countries, even the richer ones. All under a planned economy.

Really?

Because it's GDP actually shrunk from the takeover from Batista to around 1998.

I believe it's risen slightly since then, but over that course, the economy was an abject failure that relied entirely on subsidies from the Soviet Union.

I'd like to see your numbers on poverty. I don't think accurate ones even exist.

All the evidence I've seen leads me to belive the poverty is crushing.

It's overall economic performance is one of the worst in Latin America. It's growth is pitiful.




Also since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the statistics show that the "average Joe" has a lower standard of living and less choice. As the saying goes "it was better to queue for bread, than to have no bread at all."


Which is to be expected in a kleptocratic, nearly-authoritarian, borderline state-socialistic country in which massive economic problems, including hyperflation have ruined the economy on many occasions.

From the CIA World Factbook:


Russia ended 2004 with its sixth straight year of growth, averaging 6.5% annually since the financial crisis of 1998. Although high oil prices and a relatively cheap ruble are important drivers of this economic rebound, since 2000 investment and consumer-driven demand have played a noticeably increasing role. Real fixed capital investments have averaged gains greater than 10% over the last five years, and real personal incomes have realized average increases over 12%. Russia has also improved its international financial position since the 1998 financial crisis, with its foreign debt declining from 90% of GDP to around 28%. Strong oil export earnings have allowed Russia to increase its foreign reserves from only $12 billion to some $120 billion at yearend 2004. These achievements, along with a renewed government effort to advance structural reforms, have raised business and investor confidence in Russia's economic prospects. Nevertheless, serious problems persist. Economic growth slowed down in the second half of 2004 and the Russian government forecasts growth of only 4.5% to 6.2% for 2005. Oil, natural gas, metals, and timber account for more than 80% of exports, leaving the country vulnerable to swings in world prices. Russia's manufacturing base is dilapidated and must be replaced or modernized if the country is to achieve broad-based economic growth. Other problems include a weak banking system, a poor business climate that discourages both domestic and foreign investors, corruption, and widespread lack of trust in institutions. In addition, a string of investigations launched against a major Russian oil company, culminating with the arrest of its CEO in the fall of 2003, have raised concerns by some observers that President PUTIN is granting more influence to forces within his government that desire to reassert state control over the economy.


They also have a GDP per capita of 10,000 dollars, which isn't that bad.

I woud like to see evidence that they're 'worse off' now.



Thirdly, Hayek seems to have ignored the few occasions when there were collective economies. Paris 1871, Russia 1917-18, Germany for a short period after the first world war and Spain during the Civil war.


Paris 1871? How long did that last?

Russia? See: Soviet Union.

Germany? See: Hyperinflation. Are you really extolling the Weimer Republic here? THe economy was an absolute failure!

And it was this attempt at a socialist control of the economy (Which directly contradicts your previous statement about there being 'no planning' in pre-fascist germany) that made a Hitler inevietable.



None of these places failed or elected a "strong man."

Because they all collapsed or were crushed.



The Paris Commune and the Republican areas were militarily crushed, the workers councils in Germany were put down by the Freikorps and the Soviets were turned into ceremonial bodies during the consolidation of power by Lenin and co. during the "counter revolutionary" periods.
_________[quote]

So basically, your examples of times when government control didn't lead to fascism all led to fascism, or lasted 2 months.

Got it.

[quote]

There seems to be no historical basis for Hayek's arguments, only an ideological basis and this in my opinion makes Hayek an intellectual fraud at best, at worst a professional liar.

THe only example you provided of socialism that didn't directly lead to fascism was the Paris Commune, which lasted 2 months.

:rolleyes:

Russia? Serfdom. Postwar Germany? Fascism.

A rise in government control of the economy or otherwise encroachment will always result in decreased freedom, overall.

[Amusing Scrotum]

The fascists brought the planners with them.

They go hand in hand.

How does this "prove" Hayek's blather? .....he asserts that the attempt to control the economy leads to fascism, not that the fascist "bring the planners with them."


Russia didn't 'rise to promenance'.

From a backward shit-hole in 1917 to an economic powerhouse. That certainly seems like a "rise to prominence."


It's growth rates were absurdly overinflated. They were supposedly over 3 times that of the west.

They were the second largest economy behind the US.


And the point is meaningless as the economy would have behaved more effectively if it were under market control.

How the fuck do you know? ......the economy has been less beneficial to the majority since it became free market.


China's growth started when the government moved away from government control.

No, it started once they built a functioning industrial sector.


And look at the political freedom in both of those countries; rather fascistic innit?

You throw around the term fascist too much, which diminishes its meaning. As I pointed out in another thread it has a specific meaning.

So totalitarian? ....yes. Fascist? .....no.


THe economies may not totally fall as in capitulate, but they will always be innefficient compared the capitalism and will always curtail personal freedom.

Who's freedom will it curtail? .....the poor Russians and Chinese certainly gained many benefits.


Really?

The Cuba Truth Project (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/cuba/index.html) -- Sources - UNESCO, UNDP, UNSD, EPICA, CIA World Fact Book, UNICEF & the Cuban Ministry of Public Health.

Click on the various categories.


All the evidence I've seen leads me to belive the poverty is crushing.

Not as "crushing" as other parts of the third world.


It's overall economic performance is one of the worst in Latin America. It's growth is pitiful.

There has been a trade embargo for 40 years. Kinda' hinders growth.


Which is to be expected in a kleptocratic, nearly-authoritarian, borderline state-socialistic country in which massive economic problems, including hyperflation have ruined the economy on many occasions.

Is that your way of admitting that ordinary Russians are worse off now?


I woud like to see evidence that they're 'worse off' now.

Browse the forums, there are plenty of links lying around.


Russia? See: Soviet Union.

No, the Soviets didn't elect a "strong man." Lenin and co. conducted a coup, most likely against popular will.


Germany? See: Hyperinflation. Are you really extolling the Weimer Republic here? THe economy was an absolute failure!

Do you know anything about German history or are you trying to show off by blagging? ......I was referring to the workers councils just after world war one. They had nothing to do with hyperinflation or the Weimer Republic.


And it was this attempt at a socialist control of the economy (Which directly contradicts your previous statement about there being 'no planning' in pre-fascist germany) that made a Hitler inevietable.

There was no planning in pre-fascist Germany. You just don't know what you are discussing.


Because they all collapsed or were crushed.

None of them "collapsed," they were all crushed and being militarily crushed doesn't not amount to an economic failure.


So basically, your examples of times when government control didn't lead to fascism all led to fascism, or lasted 2 months.

None of my examples led to fascism. Certainly not in the way Hayek says they will lead to fascism. No "strong man" was ever elected.


THe only example you provided of socialism that didn't directly lead to fascism was the Paris Commune, which lasted 2 months.

Hayek says that planned economies will elect fascists right? ......yes. Now the fascists came to power in Spain because they militarily defeated the Republicans, the Soviets were closed down by Lenin after his minority coup and the workers councils in Germany were crushed by the Freikorps, a right wing nationalist organisation.

None of these prove Hayek right.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 14 2005, 09:21 PM




How does this "prove" Hayek's blather? .....he asserts that the attempt to control the economy leads to fascism, not that the fascist "bring the planners with them."

Government planning is the road to serfdom.

The Weimar Republic led directly to the Nazis.

Are you denying that Weimar Republic socialist?




From a backward shit-hole in 1917 to an economic powerhouse. That certainly seems like a "rise to prominence."

Based on the hostile takeover/control of other countries.

If the US invaded Canada it would certainly beef up its economic numbers, but it wouldnt necessarily denote a good economy.



They were the second largest economy behind the US.

With all of Eastern Europe thrown in, yes.




How the fuck do you know? ......the economy has been less beneficial to the majority since it became free market.

For specifiic reasonsl.



No, it started once they built a functioning industrial sector.


You don't think Deng's market oriented reforms had anything to do with it?



You throw around the term fascist too much, which diminishes its meaning. As I pointed out in another thread it has a specific meaning.

Yes, I do use it generally.




Who's freedom will it curtail? .....the poor Russians and Chinese certainly gained many benefits.


At the cost of living in a prison-state.



Not as "crushing" as other parts of the third world.

Is it better than Mexico? Chile? Brazil?




There has been a trade embargo for 40 years. Kinda' hinders growth.

So does socialism.



Is that your way of admitting that ordinary Russians are worse off now?

Yes. The probably are.





No, the Soviets didn't elect a "strong man." Lenin and co. conducted a coup, most likely against popular will.

But not with the intent of starting totalitarian state.

They attempted planning (Though not democratically) and it led to a strong man, Stalin.

If they would have been elected, same thing.

Planning leads to loss of freedom, not necessarily democratic planning.


Do you know anything about German history or are you trying to show off by blagging? ......I was referring to the workers councils just after world war one. They had nothing to do with hyperinflation or the Weimer Republic.

Admittedly, no.

Only a very little about Rosa Luxembourg.




There was no planning in pre-fascist Germany. You just don't know what you are discussing.


Are you denying the the Weimar Republic was socialist?

Yes, there wasn't planning, but it certainy was socialistic and the people were supportive OF planning.

Hitler was elected, remember. They elected central planning, as an extension of their socialism.

Yes, the government itself did not practice planning, but the people elected a leader who would, and did.



None of them "collapsed," they were all crushed and being militarily crushed doesn't not amount to an economic failure.

But it does display a military failure.

'Economy' means nothing without defense.



None of my examples led to fascism. Certainly not in the way Hayek says they will lead to fascism. No "strong man" was ever elected.


Hitler?


Hayek says that planned economies will elect fascists right? ......yes. Now the fascists came to power in Spain because they militarily defeated the Republicans, the Soviets were closed down by Lenin after his minority coup and the workers councils in Germany were crushed by the Freikorps, a right wing nationalist organisation.

None of these prove Hayek right.

Hayeks point wasnt' strictly that democratic planning would be fascistic, but that all planning, including democratic, would be fascistic.

All planning, not just democratic. This has been proven right.

Soviet Union? Yep. Germany? Yep. Italy? Yep. Spain? Yep.

Planning begats fascism, or rather, they go hand in hand.

Fascism needs planning, and planning is inherently fascistic.

Have you read the book?

[redstar2000]

There is quite a lot of information on Friedrich Hayek at the Wikipedia site...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

He was a prominent member of the "Austrian School" of bourgeois economics...a group of scholars who mark, in my opinion, the more or less definitive rejection of the scientific method of studying economics in bourgeois academia.

This was based on an assumption of "a limit to reason's ability" to grasp complex phenomena.

The attempts by Marxists and even his contemporary bourgeois economists (like Keynes) to actually understand what takes place in economic activities were derided as "scientism".

Since Hayek was raised a Catholic, I presume he absorbed that infamous Catholic prejudice against "the power of reason" and applied it throughout his life.

What he and the other "Austrians" created was essentially an ideology -- a kind of "Faith" in the presumed "moral virtues" of capitalism.

They ignored, and continue to ignore to this day, how capitalism actually works while constructing elaborate visions of "what it is".

One could, with considerable justification, call them all Utopian Capitalists.

I don't think that Hayek or any of the rest have anything of interest to say about the real world...much less changing it.

The fact that they are currently fashionable simply reflects our own ruling class's retreat from reason.

Hayek makes a good "rest stop" on their "road to Jesus". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 04:36 AM
There is quite a lot of information on Friedrich Hayek at the Wikipedia site...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

He was a prominent member of the "Austrian School" of bourgeois economics...a group of scholars who mark, in my opinion, the more or less definitive rejection of the scientific method of studying economics in bourgeois academia.

This was based on an assumption of "a limit to reason's ability" to grasp complex phenomena.

The attempts by Marxists and even his contemporary bourgeois economists (like Keynes) to actually understand what takes place in economic activities were derided as "scientism".

Since Hayek was raised a Catholic, I presume he absorbed that infamous Catholic prejudice against "the power of reason" and applied it throughout his life.

What he and the other "Austrians" created was essentially an ideology -- a kind of "Faith" in the presumed "moral virtues" of capitalism.

They ignored, and continue to ignore to this day, how capitalism actually works while constructing elaborate visions of "what it is".

One could, with considerable justification, call them all Utopian Capitalists.

I don't think that Hayek or any of the rest have anything of interest to say about the real world...much less changing it.

The fact that they are currently fashionable simply reflects our own ruling class's retreat from reason.

Hayek makes a good "rest stop" on their "road to Jesus". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Ahahahahahaha

beware, there are here in the OI some very faithful followers of Austrian school economics. :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Are you denying that Weimar Republic socialist?

Yes I am.

If we just take a quick browse through Wikipedia we see that the Weimer Republic was the "first attempt to establish a liberal democracy in Germany." It was headed by the Social Democrats (who even Von Mises thinks are not real Socialists, the story about the petty thief springs to mind) and the various German Communists and Socialists all declared that the Social Democrats had "sold out."


Originally posted by The early years: internal conflict (1919-1923)
The Republic was under great pressure from both left and right-wing extremists. The left accused the ruling Social Democrats of having betrayed the ideals of the workers' movement by avoiding a communist revolution. The right was opposed to any democratic system, preferring an authoritarian state like the 1871 Empire.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimer_republic#The_early_years:_internal_conflict _.281919-1923.29).

The Weimer Republic was a liberal parliamentary democracy with a capitalist economy.

Apparently you and Hayek don't think this is so, which is a strange view that ignores all the historical evidence.


Based on the hostile takeover/control of other countries.

Russia made losses on some of its "satellite states" and the majority of places under Russian control were "shit-holes."


If the US invaded Canada it would certainly beef up its economic numbers, but it wouldnt necessarily denote a good economy.

The US makes money off all its neo-colonies in South American and it treats these colonies worse than Russia treated its neo-colonies.


With all of Eastern Europe thrown in, yes.

.....and America has all of South America thrown in as well.


You don't think Deng's market oriented reforms had anything to do with it?

They may well have, but the "state planning" was what created the industrial sector first. Tell me how many third world countries since 1900 have managed to create thriving economies without state planning?

There have been very few cases where "free market" economics have developed third world countries.


Yes, I do use it generally.

You use "Socialist" generally as well. Which means that when you use the word no one really knows what you are referring too.


At the cost of living in a prison-state.

You have an odd view of the former "Socialist" states. True certain freedoms were limited, but I know plenty of people who visited these places who would tell you they are nothing like a "prison state."


Is it better than Mexico? Chile? Brazil?

I wasn't aware Mexico, Chile and Brazil were considered third world countries. They are generally considered second world countries. Anyway Cuba still beats Mexico and Brazil in some areas, notably less poverty.


So does socialism.

So you consider Socialism more of a hindrance than an economic embargo? :lol:


They attempted planning (Though not democratically) and it led to a strong man, Stalin.

News flash, if the planning isn't democratic then the economy can't be considered collective and therefore Hayek's thesis is bullshit.


If they would have been elected, same thing.

Well there is no historical precedent for a collective economy electing a "strong man."


Are you denying the the Weimar Republic was socialist?

Yes, because it wasn't.


Yes, there wasn't planning, but it certainy was socialistic and the people were supportive OF planning.

It was "socialistic" as in it had elements that could be considered Socialist. America has elements that could be considered "fascistic" but that doesn't make America fascist.


Hitler was elected, remember. They elected central planning, as an extension of their socialism.

Your ignorance of German history is showing again. The Nazi Party was a member of a coalition which had a tiny majority and the Nazi Party was not the biggest party in the coalition.


Yes, the government itself did not practice planning, but the people elected a leader who would, and did.

Despite the obvious errors in this statement, the question has to be asked. So what? .....everyone knows if you elect fascism you get fascism. Hayek however argues that collective control in a Socialist sense leads to fascism. Something which is not confirmed by the historical evidence.


But it does display a military failure.

Yet that is not Hayek's argument is it, that collectives have problems defending themselves.


Hitler?

As I have already discussed the Nazi's did not have the support of anything close to the majority of the German population.


Hayeks point wasnt' strictly that democratic planning would be fascistic, but that all planning, including democratic, would be fascistic.

Yet there is no historical evidence that supports this assumption.


All planning, not just democratic. This has been proven right.

Where?


Soviet Union? Yep. Germany? Yep. Italy? Yep. Spain? Yep.

First of all, the Soviet Union wasn't fascist, Germany never had "planning" and neither did Italy and Spain was defeated by an outside force (German and Italian armies). None of these examples proves Hayek's thesis.


Planning begats fascism, or rather, they go hand in hand.

Fascism needs planning, and planning is inherently fascistic.

Or maybe, fascism like most systems uses a degree of planning?


Have you read the book?

No and I don't want to either. It sounds like a steaming pile of shit.

[JKP]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 15 2005, 08:31 AM


There have been very few cases where "free market" economics have developed third world countries.




Try none.

http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm

[spartafc]

I am amazed at the fairly superficial treatment Hayek meets out to Socialism. The first point: the entirely unproblematic reading of 'Socialism' (as though such a homogenous entity ever existed) expresses many of the subsequent flaws in his thought.

Linked to this point there is a wider-misconception about the role of class which runs right through the book. By aligning Fascism and 'Socialism' together on the basis of the 'planned' nature of each Hayek ignores the wider historic class factors involved in the genesis of Fascism, for example - failing to adaquetly address the widely accepted view that Fascism served to reinforce the interests of a threatened capitalist class strata (as expressed by Marxists and non-marxists alike - see: Paxon and Mann).

Linked to this fact is a view expressed elsewhere by Hayek that thought is guided by the "beauty of the idea" which guide it - ignoring the wider material factors involved (as expressed most clearly within 'the Consitituon of Liberty').

[Lark]

I thought it was a great book, liked some of the cartoon strip adaptations of it too, in fact I remember doing a thread on "comrade hayek" on another forum and people did their nuts, the communists and the capitalists hated that idea that someone didnt fit the neat categories of pro or contra they thought fitted.

Although the same as Orwell's review of the book, I dont think Hayek takes unemployment seriously, he doesnt acknowledge any fault or flaw in capitalism, nor any contradictions. In fact I find the book and a lot of capitalism of its sort to be really utopian. I think that's what makes it popular.