The Road to Serfdom - Chapter 2 - The Great Utopia
Posted by LionelHutz 11 years, 8 months ago to Books
The Great Utopia is the idea that Democracy is compatible with Socialism. When you see a political party or a country pair up these two terms in their name, know their goal is impossible because the two concepts are incompatible.
Hayek points to the time of the French Revolution as the origin of modern Socialism, and notes that it developed as a COUNTER-FREEDOM movement.
Page 28
It is rarely remembered now that socialism in its beginnings was frankly authoritarian. The French writers who laid the foundations of modern socialism had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by strong dictatorial government. To them, socialism meant an attempt to "terminate the revolution" by a deliberate reorganization of society on hierarchical lines and by the imposition of a coercive "spiritual power". Freedom of thought, they regarded as the root-evil of 19th century society. The first of modern planners, Saint-Simon, even predicted that those who did not obey his proposed planning boards would be "treated as cattle."
I have no idea how Naziism could develop from this! :-)
On the matter of Saint-Simon, I think everyone would be interested in reading the Wikipedia article on him. Specifically, sheck out the sections titled "Politics" and "Early Socialism".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Henr...
How did the socialists capture power from people enjoying freedom? By perverting the language. There is nothing new under the sun. Today, Liberalism is nearly synonymous with Socialism. That is no accident. Liberalism has as its root "liberty", or freedom. Is Socialism about freedom?
Page 29
...to harness to its cart the strongest of all political motives - the craving for freedom - socialism began increasingly to make use of the promise of a "new freedom."
The subtle change in meaning to which the word "freedom" was subjected in order that this argument should sound plausible is important. To the great apostles of political freedom the word has meant the freedom from coercion, freedom from the arbitrary power of other men, release from the ties which left the individual no choice but obedience to the orders of a superior to whom he was attached. The new freedom promised, however, was to be freedom from NECESSITY, release from the compulsion of the CIRCUMSTANCES which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us.
In other words - the Liberal wanted men to be free to act as they wished - with no allegiance to a king or other superior authority.
The Socialist wanted men to be free from necessity and bad circumstances. "You shouldn't have to worry about the necessities of life. We want to provide you food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education, etc. You can't truly be FREE to do what you want when you have to worry about these things. Let us bring you this FREEDOM from worry."
Page 30
...Freedom is this sense is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth. The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for an equal distribution of wealth. But the new name gave the socialists another word in common with the liberals, and they exploited it to the full. And, although the word was used in a different sense by the two groups, few people noticed this and still fewer asked themselves whether the two kinds of freedom promised really could be combined.
Page 32 - quoting Walter Lippmann
The generation to which we belong is now learning from experience what happens when men retreat from freedom to a coercive organization of their affairs. Though they promise themselves a more abundant life, they must in practice renounce it; as the organized direction increases, the variety of ends must give way to uniformity.
Page 29 - quoting De Tocqueville
Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom...socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. 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.
Fantastic...just fantastic. That is it in a nutshell. Socialism promises freedom, but is at its heart all about conformity to the system.
Hayek points to the time of the French Revolution as the origin of modern Socialism, and notes that it developed as a COUNTER-FREEDOM movement.
Page 28
It is rarely remembered now that socialism in its beginnings was frankly authoritarian. The French writers who laid the foundations of modern socialism had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by strong dictatorial government. To them, socialism meant an attempt to "terminate the revolution" by a deliberate reorganization of society on hierarchical lines and by the imposition of a coercive "spiritual power". Freedom of thought, they regarded as the root-evil of 19th century society. The first of modern planners, Saint-Simon, even predicted that those who did not obey his proposed planning boards would be "treated as cattle."
I have no idea how Naziism could develop from this! :-)
On the matter of Saint-Simon, I think everyone would be interested in reading the Wikipedia article on him. Specifically, sheck out the sections titled "Politics" and "Early Socialism".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Henr...
How did the socialists capture power from people enjoying freedom? By perverting the language. There is nothing new under the sun. Today, Liberalism is nearly synonymous with Socialism. That is no accident. Liberalism has as its root "liberty", or freedom. Is Socialism about freedom?
Page 29
...to harness to its cart the strongest of all political motives - the craving for freedom - socialism began increasingly to make use of the promise of a "new freedom."
The subtle change in meaning to which the word "freedom" was subjected in order that this argument should sound plausible is important. To the great apostles of political freedom the word has meant the freedom from coercion, freedom from the arbitrary power of other men, release from the ties which left the individual no choice but obedience to the orders of a superior to whom he was attached. The new freedom promised, however, was to be freedom from NECESSITY, release from the compulsion of the CIRCUMSTANCES which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us.
In other words - the Liberal wanted men to be free to act as they wished - with no allegiance to a king or other superior authority.
The Socialist wanted men to be free from necessity and bad circumstances. "You shouldn't have to worry about the necessities of life. We want to provide you food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education, etc. You can't truly be FREE to do what you want when you have to worry about these things. Let us bring you this FREEDOM from worry."
Page 30
...Freedom is this sense is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth. The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for an equal distribution of wealth. But the new name gave the socialists another word in common with the liberals, and they exploited it to the full. And, although the word was used in a different sense by the two groups, few people noticed this and still fewer asked themselves whether the two kinds of freedom promised really could be combined.
Page 32 - quoting Walter Lippmann
The generation to which we belong is now learning from experience what happens when men retreat from freedom to a coercive organization of their affairs. Though they promise themselves a more abundant life, they must in practice renounce it; as the organized direction increases, the variety of ends must give way to uniformity.
Page 29 - quoting De Tocqueville
Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom...socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. 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.
Fantastic...just fantastic. That is it in a nutshell. Socialism promises freedom, but is at its heart all about conformity to the system.
"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy..." Plato
Regards,
O.a.