Title : The Reader's Digest condenced version of
Title : The Reader's Digest condenced version of
Author : Friedrich A. Hayek
Publisher : The Institute of Economic Affairs
How to get : I got from amazon.co.jp
Volume : 5 mm thin book, 83 pages.
Contains :
- Hayek's text
- Foreword by Edwin J. Feulner Jr
- Introduction by John Blundell
- The Road to Serfdom in Cartoons
Professor Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" was published in Britain in April 1944, and was published in the United States in September. The book creates a big sensation to people, and extraordinary sale was shown. But by means of wartime paper shortages, the publishers were unable to keep up with demand.
In April 1945, the condensed version of the book appeared in the Reader's Digest. The condensed version was placed at the front of the magazine for first and still the only time through the history of the Reader's Digest.
With this condensed version, Hayek's thought reached to many people in unit of 100,000 copies.
The condensed edition was republished for the first time by the IEA (The Institute of Economic Affairs) in 1999.
Explanation of an itemized statement by Haruki Imanishi
Author Hayek is the famous economist who moved from Austria to Britain. He has noticed that the same tendency of thought that he had seen in Austria for tens years ago being overdue with the background in Britain, and increasing influence. Then, he warned to people by writing this book in the end of the World War II (1945).
The policy, which a socialist is now trying to perform in Britain, is a perfect duplicate of the one that produce the totalitarianism in Italy and the Nazis in Germany. The rise of fascisms and Marxism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of socialist tendencies.
It is the policy, which pulls back people to a medieval serfdom. It is just "the road to serfdom." Don't pave the road.
Planning and power
A plan that is made by the state, such as "first five-year plan", cannot be carried out without restricting people's freedom. Therefore, a plan is not realized if democracy remains it's normal situation. Therefore, such a plan cannot success, without oppressing freedom and democracy.
When economic power is centralized in the center, there will appear the situation almost equal to slavery.
Background to danger
Liberalism succeeded greatly in the 19th century. People had an illusion that the freedom is forever, and want much more. And they tried to concentrate power to ask for a bigger success.
It was perfected in Germany in the form of "socialism". Long before the Nazis, German socialists announced the policy "from cradle to grave." Moreover, they prepared the place to educate youths in the party organization, systematized the club of a party for sport and recreation, carried out the peculiar greeting of fellows, and made the surveillance system of "cells" and "devices". The Nazis should just merely have followed it.
Those who saw nearby know that well. However, democratic country in the distant, many people still believe that socialism and freedom are combinable.
It was the slogan of writers' "conservative socialism" which cut and made National Socialism in Germany. Now, the slogan is governing the ground in Britain.
The liberal way of planning
The liberalist has not denied the plan. Liberalism aims at the society by which individual knowledge and originality are realized most. The condition is realizable in the society that can use competition effectively.
The method, which is characteristic in planed economy, of guiding economy is far inferior compared with competitive system. It is because compulsion and intervention by authority will lose the view to the result of spontaneous work of people.
The plan that liberalists ask for a state is "planning for competition".
The great Utopia
From an early stage, by many thinkers, socialism was considered to be the most serious danger for freedom. Socialism started as reaction over the liberalism in the French Revolution. Yet, people of socialistic views still believe that socialism and individual freedom can be combined.
Socialists having redefined freedom with the word "new freedom" settled such a standing. There, it was thought that "freedom" would be got at the society that buries the difference of the rich and the poor.
However, there were few people who paid attention to whether a difference is, between original freedom and new freedom, and the persons who investigate the problem whether these two can be connected were almost few. Thus, the way that leads toward socialism was regarded as "the way to freedom."
However, the route that German, Italy and Russia followed is proving that the view supposed by the past thinker, "the socialism is the most serious danger for freedom" is right. In fact, the road promised as the Road to Freedom is "Highroad to Servitude."
It is because society of which a socialist thinks cannot be realized without centralizing power in the center. Even if the power is centralized by democratic procedure, the person who seized the power will seize dictatorial power. He is just a dictator
Individual freedom cannot harmonize with the hegemony, which aims at one purpose, and by which a whole society is made eternally subordinate. If power is centralized toward a policy with the terminal point carried out clearly, it is also understood, but the purpose of "being equal" makes individual freedom subordinate to society eternally.
Democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generation, is simply not achievable.
Why the worst get on top
There are strong reasons for believing that the totalitarianism system surely ends up to the worst system as they made.
When planning an economic activity, a democratic politician will soon has to make selection whether he should take a dictatorial way to carry out, or he should give up a plan. The totalitarian leader will soon become selection whether he should take immoral methods, or he should take failure. Therefore, in totalitarianism society, unconscionable people have a strong probability of success much more.
The totalitarian leader must to assemble many sympathizers in his surroundings. However, such people tend to be organized by the worst elements of any society.
(1) The group organized by people whose values are very similar will be consist of people without individuality, and they tends to fall to a low moral level.
(2) In order to increase the member further, the totalitarian leader must blow a single doctrine to teachable and deceivable people, to gain support.
(3) To raise union of a backer, he takes programs of negative propaganda such as to hate an enemy, or to envy better people. Because, such a technique is rather easy than raising the advantage of his policy, and is little possibility of failure.
In totalitarianism society, "to achieve results" will come to be considered as the highest good. Therefore, the usual moral rule will be destroyed in many scenes. A tenderhearted person will face an incredible scene to do immoral deed in order "to achieve results".
And what is worse, totalitarianism society is mentioning the highest fruit by making each constituent believe "The ideal to which this country goes is the same as that of the ideal which we are holding at all times." In order to achieve this purpose, they were changing the meaning of an old word. The greatest victim is the word "freedom."
The tragedy of their thought is that they start considering reason as the highest thing, and end destroying reason.
Planning vs. the Rule of Low
"The Rule of Low" is the great principles of a free country. It means that the government's action is restricted by the law which was decided before, and which is known by everybody. By "the Rule of Low", an individual can foresee the result of his own plan, and it offers the firmest frame for an individual to form his own future freely.
However, naturally, such law will restrict the government's action, and it will become an obstacle for socialist planned economy. Therefore, in the planned society, the law must legalize an absolute method in almost all cases. However, if a certain specific individual and specific political party were allowed use of arbitrary power, it cannot be said that it is under "the Rule of Law".
"The Rule of Low" is the legal embodiment of freedom. As Immanuel Kant put it, "Man is free if he needs obey no person but solely the lows."
Is planning "inevitable"?
Planners say by the end of today, "We must make plan by the complexity of contemporary civilization." However, what solves the complexity is not the instructions by a center but many people who compete, and automatic adjustment by a price system.
Moreover they say, "By increase of the number of production, the private monopolistic company has controlled production. We should control it by government instruction." However, in most cases, the growth of monopolistic enterprises was done by participation of the government. The monopolistic enterprises always asked for assistance and actually worked on the government.
Can planning free us from care?
Money is one of the greatest tools that promise people freedom. People ask for money because, only with money, people can choose freely the thing (and future) that he wants. Is there anything that secure selection free without money? If the counter value of labor is decided except money (by things, status, pleasure), those who pay payment will decide not only the amount of the payment but also how we use the payment. Money separates payment from regardless of lank of labor, and separates it from those who pay money, and separates it from the intention of the authorities that publish money. The value is secured to the person who got money by itself
However, people who gained few money incomes were always troubled with money. And they came to think that just the system using money would be wrong.
Socialists' promise was like this, "You need not worry about economy any longer. Social wealth would be equally distributed to everyone. Furthermore, the wealth would secured by the national plan in the maximum productivity."
Unfortunately, it has been proved in fact that planned economy by national cannot produce the wealth more than competitive markets.
Disappointedly, people realized with hell the fact that to control production is same as to control consumption. The freedom people could choose a full of wealth turn into freedom in the range restricted by the authorities.
Hayek says in condensed, "The economic freedom which is the prerequisite of any other freedom cannot be freedom from economic care which socialists promise us and which can be obtained only by relieving us of the power of choice. It must be that freedom of economic activity which, together with the right of choice, carries also the risk and responsibility of that right."
Two kinds of security
"Economical security" is as important as "economical freedom" is. Because, we saw the money secures our freedom. So, for those who cannot open their freedom in economic life, security is the only help that maintains their freedom. (Neither a child nor the old man without a relative can live himself - Imanishi)
"Economical security" that all people can receive minimum life security must be performed by the state by all means.
The problem what we must considered is the security that give someone to enjoy a standard life compared with other people. This kind of security is ought to prevent the income decrease of the specific individual or a group, which have the effect of invading freedom.
The second security stands in a row in a privilege and exclusive rights and interests. All of these exemption matters should be abolished.
Toward a better world
We must have the courage to make a free society. We must have the courage to override the evil that makes the war and troubles for many of us.
The guideline to create a free society is only one: The policy that aims at individual freedom is the only truly progressive policy.
The comics version is contained in the book published from IEA. Here is one flame.
A negative aim welds party unity …
Early step of all dictators is to inflame the majority in common cause against some scapegoat minority.
In Germany, the negative aim was Anti-Semitism.