The Road to Serfdom (Reader’s Digest Condensed version)

2. The Road to Serfdom (Reader's Digest Condensed version)

2.1. Terminology

2.1.1. Socialism vs. Individualism

2.1.2. organized capital / organized labour

2.2. Words

2.2.1. veneration

The act of honoring a saint, a person who has been identified as having a high degree of sanctity or holiness.

2.2.2. fallacious

2.2.3. bents

a special inclination or capacity : TALENT

2.2.4. Laissez faire

Abstention by governments from interfering in the workings of the free market

2.2.5. Supplant

To take the place of

2.2.6. irreconcilable

impossible to bring into agreement or harmony

2.2.7. proletariat

The proletariat ( from Latin proletarius "producing offspring") is the class of wage-earners in an economic society whose only possession of significant material value is their labour-power.

2.2.8. docile

someone docile is easy to teach

2.2.9. contempt

a strong feeling of dislike

2.2.10. condone

to treat (something bad) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless

2.2.11. extoll

to praise highly

2.2.12. spurious

based on false reasoning or information that is not true, and therefore not to be trusted

2.2.13. diminution

a reduction in size, importance or value

2.2.14. disparagement

to speak of as unimportant or bad; belittle

2.2.15. folly

a foolish act or idea

2.3. Scanning

2.3.1. Basic roadmap (TOC)

Planning and power
Background to danger
The liberal way of planning
The great utopia
Why the worst get on top
Planning vs. the Rule of Law
Is planning "inevitable"?
Can planning free us from care?
Two kinds of security
Towards a better world

2.3.2. General ideas

Democracy is based on Christinanity of giving people the choice to determine how they are going to live.

Planning/Socialism causes disasters.

In a socialist country, the worst of all gets to the top of the system.

A policy of freedom for the individual is the only tryly progressive policy.

2.4. Analytical reading

2.4.1. Summary by Hayek

Is there a greater tragedy imaginable than that in our endeavour consiously to shape our future in accordance with high ideals we should in fact unwittingly produce the very opposite of what we have been strivin for?
The contention that only the peculiar wickedness of the Germans has produced the Nazi system is likely to become the excuse for forcing on us the very institutions which have produced that wickedness. ?
Totalitarianism is the new word we have adopted to describe the unexpected but nevertheless inseparable manifestations of what in theory we call socialism.
In a planned system we cannot confine collective action to the tasks on which we agree, but are forced to produce agreement on everything in order that any action can be taken at all.
The more the state "plans" the more difficult planning becomes for the individual.
The economic freedom, which is the prerequisite of any other freedom, cannot be the freedom from economic care which the socialists promise us and which can be obtained only by relieving the individual at the same time of the necissity and of the power of choice: it must be the freedom of economic activity which, with the right of choice, inevitably also carries the risk and the responsibility of that right. ?
What our generation has fogotten is that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. ?
We shall never prevent the abuse of power if we are not prepared to limit power in a way which occasionally may prevent its use for desirable purposes.
We shall all be the gainers if we can create a world fit for small states to live in.
The first need is to free ourselves of that worst form of contemporary obscurantism which tries to persuage us that what we have done in the recent past was all either wise or unavoidable. We shall not grow wiser before we learn that much that we have done was very foolish.

2.4.2. Assertions

2.4.2.1. First assertion

Few recognize that the rise of fascism and Marxism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.

2.4.3. Planning and power

To achieve planning, the planners must create power of a magnitude never before known.

A change in quantity (uniting the power from individuals into the hand of a single body) will lead to the change in quality (the power created is infinitely greater than any that existed before, as almost to be different in kind).

In the hands of private individuals, what is called economic power can be an instrument of coercion, but it is never control over the whole life of a person. But when economic power is centralized as an instrument of political power, it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distnguishable from slavery.

2.4.4. Background to danger

Individualism is based on the respect of Christianit for the individual man and the belief that it is desirable that men should be free to develop their own individual gifts and bents. The general direction of social development was one of freeing in the individual from the ties which bound him in faudal society.

2.4.4.1. They do not realize that

They do not realize that democratic socialism, the gret utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for it produces something utterly different - the very destruction of freedom itself. (But now we have politicians advocating UBI & Medicare 4 All)

2.4.5. The liberal way of planning

The "planning" comes from the desires of men that we shuold handle common problems with as much foresight as possible. But the dispute is actually what is the best way of doing so. It is whether we should create conditions under which the knowledge and initiative of individuals are given the best scope so that they can plan most successfully; or whether we should direct and organize all economic activities to a "bluprint".

Liberalism regards competition as superior not only because in most circmstances it is the most efficient method known, but because it is the only method which does not require the coercive or arbitrary intervention of authority.

2.4.5.1. No middle way between competition and central direction

Compoeition can bear some mixture of regulatoin, it cannot be combined with planning to any extent we like without ceasing to operate as an effective guide to production. Both competition and central direction become poor and ineffecient tools if they are incomplete, and a mixture of the two means that neither will work.

Planning and competition can be combined only by planning for competition, not by planning against competition.

2.4.6. The great utopia

'Democracy extends the sphere of individual free- dom,' he (de Tocqueville) said. ‘Democracy attaches all possible value to each man,’ he said in 1848, ‘while 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.’

2.4.6.1. Planning leads to dictatorship

Planning leads to dictatorship because dictatorship is the most effective instrument of coercion and, as such, essential if central planning on a large scale is to be possible.

2.4.7. Why the worst get on top

2.4.7.1. Socialists relying on the miracle of a majority's agreement will lead to disaster

Socialists that preceded the success of fascism in both Germany and Italy refused to take over the responsibility of government, resulting from their hope for the miracle of a majority's agreeing on a particular plan for the organization of the whole of society. However, said majority with fairly similar views, is likely to be formed by the worst elements of any society. Three resaons explain why that is true.

First, the higher the education and intelligence of individuals become, the more their tastes and views are differentiated.
Second, since this group is not large enough to give sufficient weight to the leader’s endeavours, he will have to increase their numbers by converting more to the same simple creed.
Third, to weld together a closely coherent body of supporters, the leader must appeal to a common human weakness. It seems to be easier for people to agree on a negative programme – on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of the better off – than on any positive task.

Note: the third technique seems to be used everywhere in all politics.

2.4.8. Planning vs. the Rule of Law

Socialist economic planning necessarily involves the very opposite of this (the Rule of Law). The planning authority cannot tie itself down in advance to general rules which prevent arbitrariness. When the government has to decide how many pigs are to be raised or how many buses are to run, which coal-mines are to op- erate, or at what prices shoes are to be sold, these decisions cannot be settled for long periods in advance. They depend inevitably on the circumstances of the moment, and in making such decisions it will always be necessary to balance, one against the other, the in- terests of various persons and groups.

2.4.9. Is planning "inevitable"

Central planning is clumsy and primitive compared to competition, but is it possible to use it in some parts of society, where most conditions can be monitored and controlled? For example, state-owned-enterprises.

2.4.10. Can planning free us from care

The consolation our planners offer us is that this authoritarian direction will apply ‘only’ to eco- nomic matters.

2.4.11. Two kinds of security

The certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all
The security of a given stardard of life, of the relative position which one person or group enjoys compared with others

2.4.12. Toward a better world

A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy.

2.5. Excerpts

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." — Benjemin Franklin

"The principle that the end justifies the means, which in individualist ethics is re- garded as the denial of all morals, in collectivist ethics becomes necessarily the supreme rule. There is literally nothing which the consistent collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves ‘the good of the whole’, because that is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done."

"Collectivism means the end of truth."

"It could almost be said that wherever liberty as we know it has been destroyed, this has been done in the name of some new freedom promised to the people."

"It is not difficult to deprive the great majority of independent thought. But the minority who will retain an inclination to criti cize must also be silenced. Public criticism or even expressions of doubt must be suppressed because they tend to weaken support of the regime."

"Perhaps the most alarming fact is that contempt for intellectual liberty is not a thing which arises only once the totalitarian system is established, but can be found everywhere among those who have embraced a collectivist faith. The worst oppression is condoned if it is committed in the name of socialism. Intolerance of opposing ideas is openly extolled. The tragedy of collectivist thought is that while it starts out to make reason supreme, it ends by destroying reason."

"The more the state 'plans', the more difficult planning becomes for the individual."

"If we strive for money, it is because money offers us the widest choice in enjoying the fruits of our efforts – once earned, we are free to spend the money as we wish."

"It may be bad to be just a cog in a machine but it is infinitely worse if we can no longer leave it, if we are tied to our place and to the superiors who have been chosen for us."

"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision." - This is definitely not happening in the U.S.

2.6. Thoughts

2.6.1. Part 1

The book is itself a prophet in foreshadowing many of the terrible things that will happen in a so-called "socialist" country. Its claims are powerful and fit many of our daily experiences, if you somehow follow the social events in the country.

No matter who we are, we are, to a large extent, sadly defined by the events of our time. For the author of the book, it was the wars between countries. For people in my age, it is going to be the war between us and the pandemic that is certainly leaving an insulting mark. Reading the book during this time when a pandemic is sweeping the world is certainly something I didn't expect, but the opportunity couldn't have come at a better time because it's provided us another perspective that somehow defies the claims in the book.

First and foremost, we must define what is "Socialism". Defining a question is always the most important thing to do when starting any meaningful discussion, though almost always, we jump into a discussion with others concerning two different topics disguised under one word/phrase. So, what is "Socialism", or at the very least, what is the socialism that this book refers to? Amazingly, it's still a tough question to answer as the book (condensed version) does not give a definitive answer. Turning to Wikipedia gives us somewhat vague idea of what Socialism is.

Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of enterprises. It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems.

Now, we can add this to it the characteristic the book has provided - "Planning", which is actually the defining characteristic in the book in reasoning why everything will end up unfortunate in a socialist country. We also view socialism as generally the opposite of individualism, as comparison of the two was often made.

Everything starts with planning. It is claimed in the book that in order to plan, the planners must gain enough power to do so, and in doing so, the planners will accrue enough power unbeknownst to us all. First, we must bear in mind that this "us" only concerns the Anglo-Saxon people, of whom Christianity has defined the nature since the dawn of its civilisation and whose feudal societies almost never peaked and stablised to the point where China was. Therefore the degree of consolidation of power that has been seen numerous times in China almost whenever an emperor took Tade (his/her) crown has never been seen in the west.

Second, the amount of power that can be absorbed into one group is different now and it goes both ways. One can say that with the advancement of technology, consolidation of power is easier to achieve; by the same token, another can say that internet did de-centralise power, or internet increased the amount of power in each one of us by giving us the ability to voice our opinions.

In conclusion, it should be noted that by different standards, we are at utterly different level of acceptance of the consolidation of power.

As for whether that acceptance level is acceptable, we need to ask "what is the purpose of our efforts and sacrifice?". The book says that "Individualism is based on the respect of Christianity for the individual man and the belief that it is desirable that men should be free to develop their own individual gifts and bents. The general direction of social development was one of freeing in the individual from the ties which bound him in feudal society." So what is the purpose of our society? I do not have an answer for that but one possible answer is probably "[the] freeing in the individual from the ties which bound Ta in feudal society". If we recall all the classes we had in politics, the final goal of our socialism is to achieve communism, which embodies an ideal society where "one gets what Ta needs". Isn't this society the one that was described by the author of this book where the individual is freed from the ties which bound him in feudal society? Furthermore, it also frees an individual from any ties possible, if Ta chooses to, from any society. All said person needs to maintain is the tie which Ta needs to keep Ta alive, if we still need to be alive at that time.

Now our immediate goal is to eradicate poverty. That alone requires a tremendous amount of discipline and high level of acceptance of a centralised regime. Did we accept that? Yes. Do we still accept that? If the trend continues and we can see that we are on the path to our goals, we probably still will.

This discussion touches another issue brought up by the book that we are still using the end to justify the means, that in order to achieve the freeing of individuals, we are justifying the adoption of socialism. However, one can also ask the same question here: "Is there a greater tragedy imaginable than that in our endeavour consciously to shape our future in accordance with high ideals we should in fact unwittingly produce the very opposite of what we have been striving for?", as we are seeing the pandemic burning through countries that worship individualism the most. Isn't individualism a means to achieve the freeing of individuals but by itself is also causing the destruction of itself in this crisis thanks to years of de-educating its followers?

It is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to bring the majority of a society to the same page, let alone if the page requires some level of reason. Therefore the book claims that the majority group will form the worst element of any society. But we need to ask ourselves, do we then just let the majority in our country to roam free and exclude them from our decision-making process? If so, then what is the point of universal suffrage in almost all modern countries? To achieve the goal both worlds agree on, the society has a responsibility to not only allow its citizens to receive education, but also to enforce education to some degree that resonates with the advancement of society.

2.6.2. Part 2

What we describe here as de-education is, in general, the process of dipossessing the public of the level of education that suits the development of a society, regardless of whether intentional or unintentional.

The most devastating evidence of de-education perhaps come from the U.S., where individualism is not only widely accepted and practiced, but also worshiped almost as a religion, through infamous student loans and popular culture that generally disencourages engagement in education in low income communities. The comeback of measles in recent years, a disease that was declared to be eliminated in 2000 in the U.S, thanks to vaccination, is just one of the countless symptoms. The whole fiasco of 5G leading to COVID-19 is another one.

It is hard for us who grew up in a country that largely agrees on the importance of education, though sometimes overly exagerating, to imagine that people would deliberately evade vaccination because of some nonsense that it is harmful and a way to control the population by the government, or to burn 5G tower down to protect ourselves from contracting a virus that is spread by droplets.

This absence of reason is a direct result of de-education, in the process of which one is deprived of the opportunity to cultivate the ability to deduce a logical conclusion from very basic facts. The same happened again when many threatened the life of Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of NIAID, for fear mongering, and depicted Bill Gates as the culprit behind the coronavirus, for his "attempt to reduce the population".

To counter this de-education, we again come back to the topic of planning, and enforceable planning is needed. There must be some body to create a general goal of education, create a plan to achieve that goal, and oversee the implementation of such plan.

We came to this conclusion because adequate education should not be a pure economic activity, where planning is not suitable and will cause trouble, but be regarded as staple food for the society that one must have in order to survive and thrive.

Finally, who has the power to decide what is a "pure economic activity"? Or to put it more blatantly, who should hold the greatest power in a society? Our animal nature wishes an all-might being to be the final judge of all, so that the society is fair and just, but there is no such being, and we are likely not going to meet one until the advent of skynet. At least at the moment, there seems to be no good answer to answer this question. Universal suffrage seemed to have worked in some countries but demagogues end up running the most of them; A socialist country has succeeded economically executing directives but is also struggling to deal with its side effects.

Maybe the time has come for us to create something new.