Volkan Ertit's introduction to The Road to Serfdom
Friedrich A. Von Hayek is regarded the most influential liberal philosopher of the 20th century. The Road the Serfdom that was published in 1944 has caused rising of Hayek’s reputation all over the academician world. This is not surprising because the Road the Serfdom, although, does not include very much original ideas it is so influential due to its content. The book is assumed one of the most important sign for freedom.
The Road to Serfdom was published because Hayek felt that he is responsible of his society where he has been living and realized that Britain is in the way in which Germany lived 20 years ago.What make that book such an interesting and striking are its basic questions: What is relation between socialism and fascism? Should we give up our life styles because of security? What does collectivism mean and why does it cause unethical society etc…
He started his book by the history of Europe. In his opinion Europe has heritage which can be called liberalism but it has been abolished gradually last 50 years. European could not manage to protect Liberal values. Hayek pointed out two main reasons for this process: Firstly the assumption that the progress which was consequences of liberalism relatively slow and secondly the things which are not convenient for society is defended on behalf of liberalism by some people.
Because socialism was rising trend in Europe Hayek continues his book with criticism of socialism. It is clear that socialists use freedom as a motto. However for Hayek this is trick. Socialism which took breath after French Revolution takes his nutrition from hostility of liberalism that is based on freedom. Hayek thinks that socialism and fascism are the branches of same tree. Though they fought against each other, we shouldn’t interpret this as if they are two completely different groups rather than they are like two denominations of same religion.
Social justice, equality and more powerful security are aims of socialism at the first glance. However the main problem is not these aims rather than how do we success these aims? Instead of defining socialism by using these aims as a target, Hayek regards socialism as an obstacle in front of property rights and individual initiative. Planned economy, which is goal of socialism, will create wall against individual who wants to make profit.
For collectivism it can be said that it is a system in which income is divided or shared consciously. This requires planned economy and Hayek strictly against it due to its authoritarianism. However this does not mean that Hayek defends Laissez Faire liberalism. Unlike some liberals, Hayek says that for very appropriate Liberalism, we need somehow plan but it should not be same amount that used by collectivists. For the conditions which are the basic characteristics of liberalism we need successful competing regime. And of course for competing regime what we need is powerful juridical system or civil law.
Having powerful civil law gives us opportunity to live in a world where there will be no any classes which are superior to other people and no one will has power to grant rights to someone that cause abolish of competition regime.
Lots of people assert that because of technological progress competition regime should be abolished. What lie behind this view are that technological progress changed production dynamics and big corporations, because of their cost decreased, started to produce less expensive and sell more. This causes vanishing small corporations and creates monopoly.
Hayek does not agree with such ideas. He claims that, if we have powerful competition regime then being afraid of monopoly is not logical. However, Hayek says that for competition regime system need “price system” that is leitmotif of competition regime. It gives opportunity to entrepreneurships to make observations and by using data which are hold by observations to decide what to do. The more powerful competition regime means the more successful price system.
Main target of collectivist is to plan social affairs according to conscious aim. By comparing liberalism, that is the main difference of collectivism because collectivist do not permit individual to move for their individual targets.
The idea “power can not be illegitimate if election was convenient according to democracy is not acceptable for Hayek because he knows that Hitler won elections by democratic way. What makes government legitimate is not the way how is elected rather than its border.
What show us the freedom of a country is the existence and application of law. If civil law is applicable then society can observe the governmental activities before they act. Hayek explains in two ways why state should not make plan. Economically and ethically.
Economically, state should put only some concrete and definable rules for powerful price system regulation. Ethically, Hayek claims that states should not have ethical position. State should not keep society under its thumb. The politics neutrality is what is desirable for state.
The law of rule means freedom for human beings. It is clear that, if planned economy is created by government then it is unavoidable that government will create some classes in society which are superior to other people. This is contradiction when thinking rule of law. In competition regime, people are free unless they do not pay for what they want. However in planned economy everything is controlled by state and we can not talk about freedom of individual.
This is reality that in competition regime poor has fewer chances than riches have. However we know that poor people in competition regime are free than rich people who live in planned economy because in competition regime individual has right to choose his work, his residence and to decide how to evaluate his leisure time, his desire and to struggle for them. But riches of Soviet Union and Germany had no such rights.
He thinks that fascism and Nazism borrow their ideological background from socialist.
Another important subject of The Road to Serfdom is that the relation or conflict between security and freedom. This should be noted that it is impossible to give all people a stable income in the system where people choose their job according to their desires. If stable income is granted it means that some people’s individual rights must be violated.
What is more a society should not give up its freedom because of security. If this security is given some groups, day by day, lack of tranquility will increase in that society since if we supply a group security for their incomes, it increases the security demands of other groups.
At the tenth part of the book, the founding process of military party, which is an obligatory for planned economy, is examined. Nation goes towards someone or a party that can solve problem quickly and seem to have enough power because of clumsy structure of democracy. So after having national base, party become too powerful that it can do whatever it wants. For militarily organizing it become powerful enough.
At this point of process Hayek believes that this group, I mean who has power for ruling society; can not be people who have good intention. There are 3 reasons for this: Firstly it is hard to find common values for people if their education is not in the low level. If their perception capacity is good enough then it will not be easy to make them to believe same things. If their cognitive systems are same it means that simple and inferior tastes are popular in that society. After this homogeneity, negative discrimination is going to start.
What all of these explain that collectivism can not be successful without racism or nationalism. The other reason, why people who support planned economy do not be internationalist, is that they do not want society make contact with outside.
Hayek gives an interesting example to state which behavior is acceptable in collectivist society and which one seems like an evil. We should look at Britain and Germany to understand this. Germans make their duties in incredible discipline even sometimes they challenge insecure conditions. However individual tolerance, respects for others, independently cognitive capacity are very far from them. Politeness, sense of humor, humility and such virtues can be observable in England but not any collectivist societies.
In collectivist society, there are intellectual crisis. Lots of concepts have been lost their real meanings. All tools which are used for public communications are hold by collectivists. In totalitarian country the life is not different from a country that is being in war. All doctrines are imposed on society by collectivists. Hayek thinks that this is very dangerous way because to restricted reason or organize it, can not help human furthermore it causes dullness of mind.
Some collectivist thinks that monopoly is unavoidable so it must be state that has monopoly on behalf of whole society. Hayek challenges this idea and recommends America’s system in where state has not monopoly but has noteworthy power on monopoly for control them in the boundary of civil law.
Hayek through the last parts of the book expresses his views about ethics. According to him, ethics should be based on the behaviors which are conducted independently. A movement can not be ethical if its main aim is to rescue human beings from taking responsibility. Hayek says that independency, self confidence, courage of taking risk to defend for true are the guarantee of our individuality.
To give up liberalism at the international arena, this causes very serious problems all over the world. It should not be forget that, the battle between poor and rich in the internationally planned economy will be more violent than it occurs in free market.
Poor countries may be helped to improve their economic conditions and to rise their life standards. If there will be an international authority that protect international system and make nations more eager to fulfill themselves then it will assist to capture economical wealth.
We need international political authority that will not impose a nation what to do and to prevent any evil action of a nation on another nation. Then federalism seems the best way to solve this problem. Federalism is defined by Hayek like that: States are free in their internal affairs however they transfer theirs some defined and restricted sovereignty.
In conclusion, the freedom of individual seems the only progressive program in 20th century like it was in 19th century.
Volkan Ertit is a Turkish liberal activist.
He sits on the board of the Mises Youth Club.
The Road to Serfdom was published because Hayek felt that he is responsible of his society where he has been living and realized that Britain is in the way in which Germany lived 20 years ago.What make that book such an interesting and striking are its basic questions: What is relation between socialism and fascism? Should we give up our life styles because of security? What does collectivism mean and why does it cause unethical society etc…
He started his book by the history of Europe. In his opinion Europe has heritage which can be called liberalism but it has been abolished gradually last 50 years. European could not manage to protect Liberal values. Hayek pointed out two main reasons for this process: Firstly the assumption that the progress which was consequences of liberalism relatively slow and secondly the things which are not convenient for society is defended on behalf of liberalism by some people.
Because socialism was rising trend in Europe Hayek continues his book with criticism of socialism. It is clear that socialists use freedom as a motto. However for Hayek this is trick. Socialism which took breath after French Revolution takes his nutrition from hostility of liberalism that is based on freedom. Hayek thinks that socialism and fascism are the branches of same tree. Though they fought against each other, we shouldn’t interpret this as if they are two completely different groups rather than they are like two denominations of same religion.
Social justice, equality and more powerful security are aims of socialism at the first glance. However the main problem is not these aims rather than how do we success these aims? Instead of defining socialism by using these aims as a target, Hayek regards socialism as an obstacle in front of property rights and individual initiative. Planned economy, which is goal of socialism, will create wall against individual who wants to make profit.
For collectivism it can be said that it is a system in which income is divided or shared consciously. This requires planned economy and Hayek strictly against it due to its authoritarianism. However this does not mean that Hayek defends Laissez Faire liberalism. Unlike some liberals, Hayek says that for very appropriate Liberalism, we need somehow plan but it should not be same amount that used by collectivists. For the conditions which are the basic characteristics of liberalism we need successful competing regime. And of course for competing regime what we need is powerful juridical system or civil law.
Having powerful civil law gives us opportunity to live in a world where there will be no any classes which are superior to other people and no one will has power to grant rights to someone that cause abolish of competition regime.
Lots of people assert that because of technological progress competition regime should be abolished. What lie behind this view are that technological progress changed production dynamics and big corporations, because of their cost decreased, started to produce less expensive and sell more. This causes vanishing small corporations and creates monopoly.
Hayek does not agree with such ideas. He claims that, if we have powerful competition regime then being afraid of monopoly is not logical. However, Hayek says that for competition regime system need “price system” that is leitmotif of competition regime. It gives opportunity to entrepreneurships to make observations and by using data which are hold by observations to decide what to do. The more powerful competition regime means the more successful price system.
Main target of collectivist is to plan social affairs according to conscious aim. By comparing liberalism, that is the main difference of collectivism because collectivist do not permit individual to move for their individual targets.
The idea “power can not be illegitimate if election was convenient according to democracy is not acceptable for Hayek because he knows that Hitler won elections by democratic way. What makes government legitimate is not the way how is elected rather than its border.
What show us the freedom of a country is the existence and application of law. If civil law is applicable then society can observe the governmental activities before they act. Hayek explains in two ways why state should not make plan. Economically and ethically.
Economically, state should put only some concrete and definable rules for powerful price system regulation. Ethically, Hayek claims that states should not have ethical position. State should not keep society under its thumb. The politics neutrality is what is desirable for state.
The law of rule means freedom for human beings. It is clear that, if planned economy is created by government then it is unavoidable that government will create some classes in society which are superior to other people. This is contradiction when thinking rule of law. In competition regime, people are free unless they do not pay for what they want. However in planned economy everything is controlled by state and we can not talk about freedom of individual.
This is reality that in competition regime poor has fewer chances than riches have. However we know that poor people in competition regime are free than rich people who live in planned economy because in competition regime individual has right to choose his work, his residence and to decide how to evaluate his leisure time, his desire and to struggle for them. But riches of Soviet Union and Germany had no such rights.
He thinks that fascism and Nazism borrow their ideological background from socialist.
Another important subject of The Road to Serfdom is that the relation or conflict between security and freedom. This should be noted that it is impossible to give all people a stable income in the system where people choose their job according to their desires. If stable income is granted it means that some people’s individual rights must be violated.
What is more a society should not give up its freedom because of security. If this security is given some groups, day by day, lack of tranquility will increase in that society since if we supply a group security for their incomes, it increases the security demands of other groups.
At the tenth part of the book, the founding process of military party, which is an obligatory for planned economy, is examined. Nation goes towards someone or a party that can solve problem quickly and seem to have enough power because of clumsy structure of democracy. So after having national base, party become too powerful that it can do whatever it wants. For militarily organizing it become powerful enough.
At this point of process Hayek believes that this group, I mean who has power for ruling society; can not be people who have good intention. There are 3 reasons for this: Firstly it is hard to find common values for people if their education is not in the low level. If their perception capacity is good enough then it will not be easy to make them to believe same things. If their cognitive systems are same it means that simple and inferior tastes are popular in that society. After this homogeneity, negative discrimination is going to start.
What all of these explain that collectivism can not be successful without racism or nationalism. The other reason, why people who support planned economy do not be internationalist, is that they do not want society make contact with outside.
Hayek gives an interesting example to state which behavior is acceptable in collectivist society and which one seems like an evil. We should look at Britain and Germany to understand this. Germans make their duties in incredible discipline even sometimes they challenge insecure conditions. However individual tolerance, respects for others, independently cognitive capacity are very far from them. Politeness, sense of humor, humility and such virtues can be observable in England but not any collectivist societies.
In collectivist society, there are intellectual crisis. Lots of concepts have been lost their real meanings. All tools which are used for public communications are hold by collectivists. In totalitarian country the life is not different from a country that is being in war. All doctrines are imposed on society by collectivists. Hayek thinks that this is very dangerous way because to restricted reason or organize it, can not help human furthermore it causes dullness of mind.
Some collectivist thinks that monopoly is unavoidable so it must be state that has monopoly on behalf of whole society. Hayek challenges this idea and recommends America’s system in where state has not monopoly but has noteworthy power on monopoly for control them in the boundary of civil law.
Hayek through the last parts of the book expresses his views about ethics. According to him, ethics should be based on the behaviors which are conducted independently. A movement can not be ethical if its main aim is to rescue human beings from taking responsibility. Hayek says that independency, self confidence, courage of taking risk to defend for true are the guarantee of our individuality.
To give up liberalism at the international arena, this causes very serious problems all over the world. It should not be forget that, the battle between poor and rich in the internationally planned economy will be more violent than it occurs in free market.
Poor countries may be helped to improve their economic conditions and to rise their life standards. If there will be an international authority that protect international system and make nations more eager to fulfill themselves then it will assist to capture economical wealth.
We need international political authority that will not impose a nation what to do and to prevent any evil action of a nation on another nation. Then federalism seems the best way to solve this problem. Federalism is defined by Hayek like that: States are free in their internal affairs however they transfer theirs some defined and restricted sovereignty.
In conclusion, the freedom of individual seems the only progressive program in 20th century like it was in 19th century.
Volkan Ertit is a Turkish liberal activist.
He sits on the board of the Mises Youth Club.
gepost door Cincinnatus@ 04:39
0 reacties
0 reacties:
Een reactie posten
Aanmelden bij Reacties posten [Atom]
<< Homepage