mirror of git://git.acid.vegas/ircart.git
3375 lines
181 KiB
Plaintext
3375 lines
181 KiB
Plaintext
The Road to Serfdom
|
||
with The Intellectuals and Socialism
|
||
The Road to Serfdom
|
||
with The Intellectuals and Socialism
|
||
FRIEDRICH A. HAYEK
|
||
t h e c o n d e n s e d v e r s i o n o f t h e roa d t o s e r f d o m
|
||
by f . a . h ay e k a s i t a p p e a r e d i n t h e a p r i l 1 9 4 5
|
||
e d i t i o n o f r e a d e r’ s d i g e st
|
||
The Institute of Economic Affairs
|
||
5
|
||
This combined edition fi rst published in Great Britain in 2005 by
|
||
The Institute of Economic Affairs
|
||
2 Lord North Street
|
||
Westminster
|
||
London SW1P 3LB
|
||
in association with Profi le Books Ltd
|
||
This condensed version of The Road to Serfdom was fi rst published in Great Britain in 1999
|
||
in the ‘Rediscovered Riches’ series by The Institute of Economic Affairs, and reissued as
|
||
Occasional Paper 122 in 2001
|
||
This condensed version of The Road to Serfdom © Reader’s Digest,
|
||
reproduced by kind permission
|
||
The Road to Serfdom is published in all territories outside the USA by Routledge.
|
||
This version is published by kind permission.
|
||
‘The Intellectuals and Socialism’ previously published in Great Britain in 1998 in the
|
||
‘Rediscovered Riches’ series by the Institute of Economic Affairs
|
||
‘The Intellectuals and Socialism’ © The University of Chicago Law Review 1949.
|
||
Reproduced by kind permission.
|
||
All other material copyright © The Institute of Economic Affairs 2005
|
||
Every effort has been made to contact the copyright holders associated with this edition.
|
||
The IEA will be pleased to include any corrections in future printings.
|
||
The mission of the Institute of Economic Affairs is to improve public understanding of
|
||
the fundamental institutions of a free society, with particular reference to the role of
|
||
markets in solving economic and social problems.
|
||
The moral right of the authors has been asserted.
|
||
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part
|
||
of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system,
|
||
or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
|
||
recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright
|
||
owner and the publisher of this book.
|
||
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
|
||
ISBN 0 255 36576 4
|
||
Many IEA publications are translated into languages other than English or are reprinted.
|
||
Permission to translate or to reprint should be sought from the Director General at the
|
||
address above.
|
||
Typeset in Stone by MacGuru
|
||
info@macguru.org.uk
|
||
Printed and bound in Great Britain by Hobbs the Printers
|
||
The authors 7
|
||
Foreword by Walter E. Williams 10
|
||
THE ROAD TO SERFDOM
|
||
Foreword by Edwin J. Feulner Jr 19
|
||
Introduction: Hayek, Fisher and The Road to Serfdom
|
||
by John Blundell 22
|
||
Preface to the Reader’s Digest condensed version of
|
||
The Road to Serfdom 34
|
||
Summary 35
|
||
The Road to Serfdom (condensed version) 39
|
||
Planning and power 40
|
||
Background to danger 42
|
||
The liberal way of planning 45
|
||
The great utopia 47
|
||
Why the worst get on top 51
|
||
Planning vs. the Rule of Law 57
|
||
Is planning ‘inevitable’? 59
|
||
Can planning free us from care? 61
|
||
Two kinds of security 66
|
||
Toward a better world 70
|
||
CONTENTS
|
||
7
|
||
The Road to Serfdom in cartoons 71
|
||
THE INTELLECTUALS AND SOCIALISM
|
||
Foreword by Edwin J. Feulner Jr 93
|
||
Introduction: Hayek and the second-hand dealers in ideas
|
||
by John Blundell 96
|
||
The Intellectuals and Socialism 105
|
||
About the IEA 130
|
||
Friedrich A. Hayek
|
||
Friedrich A. Hayek (1899–1992) was born in Vienna and obtained
|
||
two doctorates from the University of Vienna, in law and political
|
||
economy. He worked under Ludwig von Mises at the Austrian
|
||
Institute for Business Cycle Research, and from 1929 to 1931 was
|
||
a lecturer in economics at the University of Vienna. His fi rst
|
||
book, Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle, was published in 1929.
|
||
In 1931 Hayek was made Tooke Professor of Economic Science
|
||
and Statistics at the London School of Economics, and in 1950
|
||
he was appointed Professor of Social and Moral Sciences at the
|
||
University of Chicago. In 1962 he was appointed Professor of
|
||
Political Economy at the University of Freiburg, where he became
|
||
Professor Emeritus in 1967. Hayek was elected a Fellow of the
|
||
British Academy in 1944, and in 1947 he organised the conference
|
||
in Switzerland which resulted in the creation of the Mont Pèlerin
|
||
Society. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1974 and
|
||
was created a Companion of Honour in 1984. In 1991 George Bush
|
||
awarded Hayek the Presidential Medal of Freedom. His books
|
||
include The Pure Theory of Capital, 1941, The Road to Serfdom, 1944,
|
||
The Counter-Revolution of Science, 1952, The Constitution of Liberty,
|
||
1960, Law, Legislation and Liberty, 1973–9, and The Fatal Conceit,
|
||
1988.
|
||
THE AUTHORS
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom with t h e i n t e l l e c ua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
8 9
|
||
t h e authors
|
||
John Blundell
|
||
John Blundell is Director General of the Institute of Economic
|
||
Affairs. He was previously President of the Institute for Humane
|
||
Studies at George Mason University and the Atlas Economic
|
||
Research Foundation, founded by the late Sir Antony Fisher to
|
||
establish ‘sister’ organisations to the IEA. He serves on the boards
|
||
of both organisations and is a former Vice President of the Mont
|
||
Pèlerin Society.
|
||
Edwin J. Feulner Jr
|
||
Edwin J. Feulner Jr has served as President of the Heritage Foundation
|
||
since 1977. He is a past President of the Mont Pèlerin Society.
|
||
He previously served in high-level positions in both the legislative
|
||
and executive branches of the United States federal government.
|
||
He received his Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh and was
|
||
awarded the Presidential Citizen’s Medal by Ronald Reagan in
|
||
1989 for ‘being a leader of the conservative movement by building
|
||
an organisation dedicated to ideas and their consequences . . . ’
|
||
Walter E. Williams
|
||
Walter Williams is John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of
|
||
Economics at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia. In
|
||
addition, he serves as an Adjunct Professor of Economics at Grove
|
||
City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania. He has also served on
|
||
the faculties of Los Angeles City College, California State University
|
||
Los Angeles, and Temple University in Philadelphia. He is the
|
||
author of over eighty publications that have appeared in scholarly
|
||
journals such as Economic Inquiry, American Economic Review,
|
||
Georgia Law Review, Journal of Labor Economics and Social Science
|
||
Quarterly, as well as popular publications such as Newsweek, The
|
||
Freeman, National Review, Reader’s Digest, Cato Journal and Policy
|
||
Review. Dr Williams serves on the boards of directors of Citizens
|
||
for a Sound Economy, the Reason Foundation and the Hoover
|
||
Institution, and on the advisory boards of the IEA, the Landmark
|
||
Legal Foundation, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, the Cato
|
||
Institute and others. He has frequently given expert testimony
|
||
before Congressional committees on public policy issues ranging
|
||
from labour policy to taxation and spending. He is a member of
|
||
the Mont Pèlerin Society and the American Economic Association.
|
||
10
|
||
foreword
|
||
11
|
||
order later expressed in the writings of British philosophers such
|
||
as John Stuart Mill and David Hume.
|
||
What happened in Germany? Hayek explains, ‘The supreme
|
||
tragedy is still not seen that in Germany it was largely people of
|
||
good will who, by their socialist policies, prepared the way for
|
||
forces which stand for everything they detest’. Hayek’s explanation
|
||
for the rise of Nazism was not understood and appreciated
|
||
in 1944, and it is still not fully understood and appreciated today.
|
||
Collectivism, whether it is in Germany, the former Soviet Union,
|
||
Britain or the USA, makes personal liberty its victim.
|
||
How do we combat collectivism? Hayek provides some
|
||
answers in The Intellectuals and Socialism. In a word or two, those
|
||
who support the liberal social order must attack the intellectual
|
||
foundations of collectivism. Hayek urges that an understanding
|
||
of just what it is that leads many intellectuals toward socialism
|
||
is vital. It is neither, according to Hayek, selfi sh interests nor evil
|
||
intentions that motivate intellectuals towards socialism. On the
|
||
contrary, they are motivated by ‘mostly honest convictions and
|
||
good intentions’. Hayek adds that it is necessary to recognise
|
||
that ‘the typical intellectual is today more likely to be a socialist
|
||
the more he is guided by good will and intelligence’. Joseph A.
|
||
Schumpeter differed, seeing Hayek’s assessment as ‘politeness to
|
||
a fault’.2
|
||
Hayek argues that the roots of collectivism have nowhere originated
|
||
among working-class people. Its roots lie among intellectuals
|
||
– the people Hayek refers to as ‘second-hand dealers in ideas’
|
||
– who had to work long and hard to get working-class people to
|
||
2 J. Schumpeter, review of The Road to Serfdom, Journal of Political Economy, June
|
||
1946: 269–270.
|
||
FOREWORD
|
||
Friedrich A. Hayek was one of the twentieth century’s greatest
|
||
philosophers. While he is best known for his work in economics,
|
||
he also made signifi cant contributions in political philosophy and
|
||
law. The publication for which Professor Hayek is most widely
|
||
known is The Road to Serfdom, written during World War II, the
|
||
condensed Reader’s Digest version of which is presented here along
|
||
with what might be seen as his follow-up, The Intellectuals and
|
||
Socialism, fi rst published by the University of Chicago Law Review
|
||
in 1949.
|
||
A focal point of The Road to Serfdom was to offer an explanation
|
||
for the rise of Nazism, to correct the popular and erroneous
|
||
view that it was caused by a character defect of the German people.
|
||
Hayek differs, saying that the horrors of Nazism would have been
|
||
inconceivable among the German people a mere fi fteen years
|
||
before Adolf Hitler’s rise to power. Indeed, ‘throughout most
|
||
of its history [Germany was] one of the most tolerant European
|
||
countries for Jews’.1 Other evidence against the character defect
|
||
argument is that the writings of some German philosophers, such
|
||
as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Wilhelm von Humboldt and
|
||
Friedrich Schiller, served as inspiration for ideas about the liberal
|
||
1 Thomas Sowell, The Economics and Politics of Race, William Morrow & Company,
|
||
New York, 1983, p. 86.
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom with t h e i n t e l l e c ua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
12
|
||
foreword
|
||
13
|
||
radio stations, on satellite and over the internet, reaching tens of
|
||
millions of people worldwide each week. Much to socialist dismay,
|
||
the most popular and successful talk radio shows are those hosted
|
||
by conservative/free market hosts. Then there are the bloggers
|
||
– the electronic equivalent of conservative/free market journalists
|
||
– who are constantly at the ready to challenge and reveal news
|
||
stories.
|
||
While there have been monumental changes in the ideas
|
||
marketplace, the last bastion of solidly entrenched socialism lies
|
||
on college and university campuses around the world. Hayek
|
||
argues that ‘It is perhaps the most characteristic feature of the
|
||
intellectual that he judges new ideas not by their specifi c merits
|
||
but by the readiness with which they fi t into his general conceptions,
|
||
into the picture of the world which he regards as modern or
|
||
advanced’.
|
||
Professor Thomas Sowell puts the argument in another way
|
||
that encompasses Hayek’s.3 Sowell says that there are essentially
|
||
two visions of how the world operates – the constrained vision
|
||
and the unconstrained. The constrained vision sees mankind with
|
||
its moral limitations, acquisitiveness and ego as inherent and
|
||
immutable. Under this vision, the fundamental challenge that
|
||
confronts mankind is to organise a system consisting of social
|
||
mores, customs and laws that make the best of the human condition
|
||
rather than waste resources trying to change human nature.
|
||
It is this constrained vision of mankind that underlies the thinking
|
||
and writings of Adam Smith, Edmund Burke and Alexander
|
||
Hamilton, among others.
|
||
3 Thomas Sowell, A Confl ict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, William
|
||
Morrow & Company, New York, 1987.
|
||
accept the vision they put forward. The intellectuals or secondhand
|
||
dealers in ideas to whom he refers are journalists, teachers,
|
||
ministers, radio commentators, cartoonists and artists, who
|
||
Hayek says ‘are masters of the technique of conveying ideas but
|
||
are usually amateurs so far as the substance of what they convey
|
||
is concerned’.
|
||
In 1949, when Hayek wrote The Intellectuals and Socialism,
|
||
the second-hand dealers in collectivist ideas were a dominant
|
||
force. He appeared to be pessimistic about the future of liberty
|
||
because those who were on the conservative/free market side of
|
||
the political spectrum were weak, isolated and had little voice. In
|
||
1947, Hayek, along with several other distinguished free market
|
||
scholars, addressed some of the isolation by founding the Mont
|
||
Pèlerin Society. The purpose of the Society was to hold meetings
|
||
and present papers and exchange ideas among like-minded
|
||
scholars with the hope of strengthening the principles of a free
|
||
society. The Mont Pèlerin Society now has over 500 members
|
||
worldwide, and can boast that eight of its members have won
|
||
Nobel Prizes in economics.
|
||
Since Hayek wrote The Intellectuals and Socialism there has
|
||
been nothing less than monumental change in the marketplace
|
||
of ideas. In 1949, there was only one free market organisation
|
||
– The Foundation for Economic Education, founded by Leonard
|
||
Read. Today there are over 350 free market organisations in 50
|
||
countries, including former communist countries. The major
|
||
media no longer has the monopoly on news and the dissemination
|
||
of ideas that it once had. Network television faces competition
|
||
from satellite and cable television. Talk radio has exploded.
|
||
The Rush Limbaugh Show, on which I have served as occasional
|
||
substitute host for over thirteen years, is carried on 625 different
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom with t h e i n t e l l e c ua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
14
|
||
foreword
|
||
15
|
||
the case, strongly defend polar opposite policies? I believe part of
|
||
the answer is that they make different initial premises of how the
|
||
world works. If one’s initial premise is that an employer needs so
|
||
many workers to perform a particular job, then enacting a higher
|
||
minimum wage means that all the workers will keep their jobs.
|
||
The only difference is that they will receive higher wages and the
|
||
employer will make less profi t. Thus, enacting a higher minimum
|
||
wage clearly benefi ts low-skilled workers. By contrast, if one’s
|
||
initial premise is that there are alternative means to produce a
|
||
product, and employers will seek the least-cost method of doing
|
||
so, then raising the minimum wage will cause employers to seek
|
||
substitutes such as automation or relocation overseas, thereby
|
||
reducing the amount of workers they hire. With the latter vision,
|
||
one can have the interests of low-skilled workers at heart and
|
||
oppose an increase in the minimum wage, because it reduces
|
||
opportunities for low-skilled workers. If Hayek is correct in his
|
||
assessment of socialists, it would appear that it is a simple task to
|
||
empirically show that there are alternative methods of production
|
||
and that employers are not insensitive to increases in the cost of
|
||
workers.
|
||
The second part of the strategy is to make better, unassailable
|
||
arguments for personal liberty. Any part of the socialist agenda
|
||
can be shown as immoral under the assumption that people own
|
||
themselves. The idea of self ownership makes certain forms of
|
||
behaviour unambiguously immoral. Murder, rape and theft are
|
||
immoral simply because they violate a person’s property rights to
|
||
himself. Government programmes such as subsidies to farmers,
|
||
bailouts for businesses, and welfare or medical care for the
|
||
indigent are also immoral for the same reason. Government has
|
||
no resources of its very own. The only way government can give
|
||
By contrast, the unconstrained vision sees mankind as capable
|
||
of perfection and capable of putting the interests of others fi rst.
|
||
Sowell says that no other eighteenth-century writer’s vision stands
|
||
in starker contrast to that of Adam Smith than William Godwin’s
|
||
in Enquiry Concerning Political Justice. Godwin viewed intention to
|
||
benefi t others as the essence of virtue that leads to human happiness.
|
||
Benefi ts to others that arise unintentionally are virtually
|
||
worthless. Sowell says, ‘Unlike Smith, who regarded human selfishness
|
||
as a given, Godwin regarded it as being promoted by the
|
||
very system of rewards used to cope with it’.4
|
||
In the last paragraph of The Intellectuals and Socialism, Hayek
|
||
says, ‘Unless we [true liberals] can make the philosophic foundation
|
||
of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, . . . . the
|
||
prospects of freedom are indeed dark’. If Hayek is correct that
|
||
neither selfi sh interests nor evil intentions motivate intellectuals
|
||
towards socialism, there are indeed grounds for optimism. Education
|
||
offers hope. We can educate them, or at least make others
|
||
immune, to the errors of their thinking.
|
||
I think the strategy has at least two principal components.
|
||
First, there is not a lot to be gained by challenging the internal logic
|
||
of many socialist arguments. Instead, it is the initial premises that
|
||
underlie their arguments that must be challenged. Take one small
|
||
example. One group of people articulates a concern for the lowskilled
|
||
worker and argues for an increase in the minimum wage
|
||
as a means to help them. Another group of people articulating the
|
||
identical concern might just as strongly oppose an increase in the
|
||
minimum wage, arguing that it will hurt low-skilled workers.
|
||
How can people who articulate identical ends, as is so often
|
||
4 Ibid., p. 24.
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom with t h e i n t e l l e c ua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
16
|
||
one person money is to fi rst take it from another person. Doing
|
||
so represents the forcible using of one person, through the tax
|
||
code, to serve the purposes of another. That is a form of immorality
|
||
akin to slavery. After all, a working defi nition of slavery is
|
||
precisely that: the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes
|
||
of another.
|
||
Well-intentioned socialists, if they are honest people as Hayek
|
||
contends, should be able to appreciate that reaching into one’s
|
||
own pockets to assist one’s fellow man is laudable and praiseworthy.
|
||
Reaching into another’s pocket to do so is theft and by
|
||
any standard of morality should be condemned.
|
||
Collectivists can neither ignore nor dismiss irrefutable
|
||
evidence that free markets produce unprecedented wealth.
|
||
Instead, they indict the free market system on moral grounds,
|
||
charging that it is a system that rewards greed and selfi shness and
|
||
creates an unequal distribution of income. Free markets must be
|
||
defended on moral grounds. We must convince our fellow man
|
||
there cannot be personal liberty in the absence of free markets,
|
||
respect for private property rights and rule of law. Even if free
|
||
markets were not superior wealth producers, the morality of the
|
||
market would make them the superior alternative.
|
||
wa lt e r e . w i l l i a m s
|
||
John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics
|
||
George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia
|
||
May 2005
|
||
The views expressed in Occasional Paper 136 are, as in all IEA
|
||
publications, those of the author and not those of the Institute
|
||
(which has no corporate view), its managing trustees, Academic
|
||
Advisory Council members or senior staff.
|
||
The Road to Serfdom
|
||
John Chamberlain characterised the period immediately
|
||
following World War II in his foreword to the fi rst edition of The
|
||
Road to Serfdom as ‘a time of hesitation’. Britain and the European
|
||
continent were faced with the daunting task of reconstruction
|
||
and reconstitution. The United States, spared from the physical
|
||
destruction that marked Western Europe, was nevertheless recovering
|
||
from the economic whiplash of a war-driven economic
|
||
recovery from the Great Depression. Everywhere there was a
|
||
desire for security and a return to stability.
|
||
The intellectual environment was no more steady. The rise
|
||
and subsequent defeat of fascism had provided an extremely wide
|
||
fl ank for intellectuals who were free to battle for any idea short
|
||
of ethnic cleansing and dictatorial political control. At the same
|
||
time, the mistaken but widely accepted notion that the unpredictability
|
||
of the free market had caused the depression, coupled
|
||
with four years of war-driven, centrally directed production, and
|
||
the fact that Russia had been a wartime ally of the United States
|
||
and England, increased the mainstream acceptance of peace-time
|
||
government planning of the economy.
|
||
At this hesitating, unstable moment appeared the slim volume
|
||
of which you now hold the condensed version in your hands,
|
||
F. A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom. Occupying his spare time
|
||
between September 1940 and March 1944, the writing of The Road
|
||
19
|
||
FOREWORD
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
with t h e i n t e l l e c ua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
20
|
||
foreword
|
||
21
|
||
destinely behind the emerging iron curtain. It is no exaggeration
|
||
to say that The Road to Serfdom simultaneously prevented the
|
||
emergence of full-blown socialism in Western Europe and the
|
||
United States and planted seeds of freedom in the Soviet Union
|
||
that would fi nally bear fruit nearly 45 years later. Socialist catchphrases
|
||
such as ‘collectivism’ were stricken from the mainstream
|
||
political debate and even academic socialists were forced to retreat
|
||
from their defence of overt social planning.
|
||
But the true value of The Road to Serfdom is to be found not in
|
||
the immediate blow it dealt to socialist activists and thinkers – as
|
||
important as that was – but in the lasting impression it has made
|
||
on political and economic thinkers of the past 55 years. By Hayek’s
|
||
own admission, ‘this book . . . has unexpectedly become for me
|
||
the starting point of more than 30 years’ work in a new fi eld’.3
|
||
e d w i n j . f e u l n e r j r
|
||
November 1999
|
||
3 Although these words were written in 1976 it is safe to say that the infl uence of
|
||
The Road to Serfdom guided Hayek’s work until his death in 1992.
|
||
to Serfdom was in his own words more ‘a duty which I must not
|
||
evade’1 than any calculated contribution to his curriculum vitae.
|
||
As Hayek saw it, he was merely pointing out ‘apprehensions which
|
||
current tendencies [in economic and political thought] must create
|
||
in the minds of many who cannot publicly express them . . . ’2 But
|
||
as is often the case, this duty-inspired task had tremendous consequences
|
||
unintended by the author.
|
||
Hayek employed economics to investigate the mind of man,
|
||
using the knowledge he had gained to unveil the totalitarian
|
||
nature of socialism and to explain how it inevitably leads to
|
||
‘serfdom’. His greatest contribution lay in the discovery of a
|
||
simple yet profound truth: man does not and cannot know everything,
|
||
and when he acts as if he does, disaster follows. He recognised
|
||
that socialism, the collectivist state, and planned economies
|
||
represent the ultimate form of hubris, for those who plan them
|
||
attempt – with insuffi cient knowledge – to redesign the nature of
|
||
man. In so doing, would-be planners arrogantly ignore traditions
|
||
that embody the wisdom of generations; impetuously disregard
|
||
customs whose purpose they do not understand; and blithely
|
||
confuse the law written on the hearts of men – which they cannot
|
||
change – with administrative rules that they can alter at whim.
|
||
For Hayek, such presumption was not only a ‘fatal conceit’, but
|
||
also ‘the road to serfdom’.
|
||
The impact of the simple ideas encapsulated in The Road to
|
||
Serfdom was immediate. The book went through six impressions
|
||
in the fi rst 16 months, was translated into numerous foreign
|
||
languages, and circulated both openly in the free world and clant
|
||
1 F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, Routledge, London, 1944, p. v.
|
||
2 Ibid., p. vii.
|
||
22
|
||
Treatise on Money)3 had been ripped apart by Hayek in a two-part
|
||
journal review. Keynes had shrugged off the attack with a smile,
|
||
saying as they passed one day in Clare Market: ‘Oh, never mind;
|
||
I no longer believe all that.’ Hayek was not about to repeat the
|
||
demolition job on The General Theory in case Keynes decided, at
|
||
some future point, that he no longer believed in ‘all that’ either – a
|
||
decision I heard Hayek regret often in the 1970s.
|
||
War came and the LSE was evacuated from central London
|
||
to Peterhouse College, Cambridge. Typically, Keynes arranged
|
||
rooms for his intellectual arch-rival Hayek at King’s College where
|
||
Keynes was Bursar and – also typically – Hayek volunteered for
|
||
fi re duty. That is, he offered to spend his nights sitting on the roof
|
||
of his college watching out for marauding German bombers.
|
||
It was while he sat out there at night that he began to wonder
|
||
about what would happen to his adopted country if and when
|
||
peace came. It was clear to Hayek that victory held the seeds of its
|
||
own destruction. The war was called ‘the People’s War’ because
|
||
– unlike most previous wars – the whole population had fought
|
||
in one way or another. Even pacifi sts contributed by working the
|
||
land to feed the troops. Hayek detected a growing sense of ‘As in
|
||
war, so in peace’ – namely that the government would own, plan
|
||
and control everything. The economic diffi culties created by the
|
||
war would be immense: people would turn to government for a
|
||
way out. And so, as Hayek penned his great classic, The Road to
|
||
Serfdom, he was moved not only by a love for his adopted country
|
||
but also by a great fear that national planning, that socialism, that
|
||
the growth of state power and control would, inevitably, lead the
|
||
UK and the US to fascism, or rather National Socialism.
|
||
i n t roduction
|
||
23
|
||
3 J. M. Keynes, A Treatise on Money, Macmillan, London, 1930.
|
||
My story begins with a young Englishman named Lionel
|
||
Robbins, later Lord Robbins of Clare Market. In 1929, at the age
|
||
of only 30, he had been appointed Professor of Economics at the
|
||
London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), a college
|
||
of the University of London. He was arguably the greatest English
|
||
economist of his generation, and he was fl uent in German. This
|
||
skill alerted him to the work of a young Austrian economist,
|
||
Friedrich Hayek, and he invited his equally young counterpart
|
||
to lecture at the LSE. Such was the success of these lectures that
|
||
Hayek was appointed Tooke Professor of Economic Science and
|
||
Statistics at the LSE in 1931, and became an English citizen long
|
||
before such status had become a ‘passport of convenience’.
|
||
In the 1930s John Maynard Keynes was in full fl ow. He was
|
||
the most famous economist in the world, and Hayek was his only
|
||
real rival. In 1936 Keynes published his infamous General Theory of
|
||
Employment, Interest and Money.2 Hayek was tempted to demolish
|
||
this nonsense but he held back, for a very simple and very human
|
||
reason. Two years earlier, a now forgotten Keynesian tract (A
|
||
INTRODUCTION
|
||
HAYEK, FISHER AND
|
||
THE ROAD TO SERFDOM1
|
||
1 This introduction is based on a speech given by the author on 26 April 1999
|
||
to the 33rd International Workshop ‘Books for a Free Society’ of the Atlas
|
||
Economic Research Foundation (Fairfax, VA) in Philadelphia, PA.
|
||
2 J. M. Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Macmillan,
|
||
London, 1936.
|
||
upon row of years – decades even – of copies of Reader’s Digest.
|
||
So how did our fi ghter pilot Fisher come across our academic
|
||
Hayek? What follows is the story I have pieced together. Not all
|
||
parts of it are accepted by all interested parties, but the pieces do
|
||
fi t. So this is my story and I’m sticking to it.
|
||
The marriage of true minds
|
||
The Road to Serfdom was published in March 1944 and, despite
|
||
wartime paper shortages, it went through fi ve reprints in the UK
|
||
in 15 months. In spite of this, owing to wartime paper rationing,
|
||
the publishers, Routledge, were unable to keep up with demand
|
||
and Hayek complained that The Road to Serfdom had acquired
|
||
a reputation for being ‘that unobtainable book’.4 It was such an
|
||
incredible hit that Hayek lost track of the reviews and critics were
|
||
moved to write whole books attacking him in both the UK and
|
||
the US. Dr Laurence Hayek, only son of F. A. Hayek, owns his late
|
||
father’s own fi rst edition copy of The Road to Serfdom as well as the
|
||
printers’ proof copy with Hayek’s corrections. On the inside back
|
||
cover of the former Hayek began listing the reviews as they came
|
||
out. The list reads as follows:
|
||
Tablet 11/3/44 (Douglas Woodruff)
|
||
Sunday Times 12/3 (Harold Hobson one
|
||
or two sentences)
|
||
9/4 (G. M. Young)
|
||
Birmingham Post 14/3 (TWH)
|
||
i n t roduction
|
||
25
|
||
4 Quoted in R. Cockett, Thinking the Unthinkable: Think Tanks and the Economic
|
||
Counter-Revolution, 1931–1983, Fontana, London, 1995, p. 85.
|
||
Antony Fisher, the man who did
|
||
So let me talk now about The Road to Serfdom and one man in
|
||
particular who was moved by its lessons to do something. That
|
||
man is the late Antony George Anson Fisher, or AGAF as we
|
||
referred to him, and still do.
|
||
Fisher came from a family of mine owners, members of parliament,
|
||
migrants and military men. He was born in 1915 and soon
|
||
followed by his brother and best friend Basil. His father was killed
|
||
by a Turkish sniper in 1917. Brought up in South East England by
|
||
his young widowed mother, an independent New Zealander from
|
||
Piraki, Akaroa, AGAF attended Eton and Cambridge, where he
|
||
and his brother both learnt to fl y in the University Air Squadron.
|
||
On graduating, Antony’s several initiatives included:
|
||
• a car rental fi rm – a success
|
||
• a plane rental fi rm – also a success; and
|
||
• the design and manufacture of a cheap sports car called the
|
||
Deroy – a failure because of a lack of power.
|
||
At the start of the war Antony and Basil volunteered for the
|
||
RAF and were soon fl ying Hurricanes in III Squadron in the Battle
|
||
of Britain. One day Basil’s plane was hit by German fi re. He bailed
|
||
out over Selsey Bill but his parachute was on fi re and both plane
|
||
and man plummeted to the ground, separately.
|
||
A totally devastated Antony was grounded for his own safety,
|
||
but used his time productively to develop a machine (the Fisher
|
||
Trainer) to teach trainee pilots to shoot better. He was also an avid
|
||
reader of Reader’s Digest. Every copy was devoured, read aloud to
|
||
his family, heavily underlined and kept in order in his study. His
|
||
fi rst child, Mark, recalls a wall of Antony’s study lined with row
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
24
|
||
i n t roduction
|
||
27
|
||
coincide with the US book publication. He arrived to fi nd himself
|
||
a celebrity:
|
||
. . . I was told all our plans were changed: I would be going
|
||
on a nationwide lecture tour beginning at NY Town Hall . . .
|
||
Imagine my surprise when they drove me there the next
|
||
day and there were 3,000 people in the hall, plus a few
|
||
score more in adjoining rooms with loudspeakers. There I
|
||
was, with this battery of microphones and a veritable sea of
|
||
expectant faces .6
|
||
Now I get to the detective work. That late spring/early summer
|
||
of 1945 saw both Hayek and Fisher on the move. Hayek had spent
|
||
the whole of the war at Cambridge but now it was safe for the
|
||
LSE to return to London. Fisher had spent the war stationed all
|
||
over the UK training pilots in gunnery and rising to the rank of
|
||
Squadron Leader. He too was on the move to the War Offi ce (now
|
||
the Ministry of Defence) in central London, just a ten-minute walk
|
||
from the LSE. Laurence Hayek and the LSE both confi rm the dates
|
||
of Hayek’s move, while Fisher’s RAF record, recently obtained
|
||
from the Ministry of Defence by his elder son Mark, clearly dates
|
||
his.
|
||
Forty years later both Hayek and Fisher were not overly
|
||
helpful about exactly what happened next. Hayek in particular
|
||
used to claim he had absolutely no recollection whatsoever of
|
||
Fisher ever coming to him for advice. Fisher on the other hand was
|
||
always very clear and very consistent about the dialogue – almost
|
||
verbatim – but not so helpful on exactly how it happened. Here is
|
||
how I believe it came about.
|
||
6 Interview with Hayek in The Times, 5 May 1985, quoted in Cockett, op. cit.,
|
||
pp. 100–101.
|
||
Yorkshire Post 29/3
|
||
Financial News 30/3
|
||
Listener 30/3
|
||
Daily Sketch 30/3 (Candidus)
|
||
Times Literary Supplement 1/4
|
||
Spectator 31/3 (M. Polanyi)
|
||
Irish Times 25/3
|
||
Observer 9/4 (George Orwell)
|
||
Manchester Guardian 19/4 (W)
|
||
But, as Hayek said to me in 1975, they started coming so fast he
|
||
lost track and stopped recording them.
|
||
In early 1945 the University of Chicago Press published the
|
||
US edition of The Road to Serfdom and, like Routledge in the UK,
|
||
found themselves unable to meet the demand for copies owing to
|
||
paper rationing. However, in April 1945 the book fi nally reached a
|
||
mass audience when the Reader’s Digest published their condensed
|
||
version.5 (Hayek thought it impossible to condense but always
|
||
commented on what a great job the Reader’s Digest editors did.)
|
||
Whereas the book publishers had been dealing in issues of four or
|
||
fi ve thousand copies, the Reader’s Digest had a print run which was
|
||
measured in hundreds of thousands. For the fi rst and still the only
|
||
time, they put the condensed book at the front of the magazine
|
||
where nobody could miss it – particularly a Digest junkie like
|
||
Fisher.
|
||
The Reader’s Digest appeared while Hayek was on board a ship
|
||
en route to the USA for a lecture tour which had been arranged to
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
26
|
||
5 John Blundell discusses the contents of that issue of the Reader’s Digest in detail
|
||
in ‘Looking back at the condensed version of The Road to Serfdom after 60 years’,
|
||
Economic Affairs, Vol. 24, No. 1.
|
||
Finally on this issue, let me quote Fisher’s own words of 3
|
||
July 1985 when he spoke at a party at the IEA to celebrate its 30th
|
||
birthday. (This would have been the 30th anniversary of the IEA’s
|
||
fi rst book in June 1955 rather than incorporation in November 1955
|
||
or the actual opening in 1957.) At that party in July 1985 Fisher said:
|
||
It was quite a day for me when Friedrich Hayek gave me
|
||
some advice which must be 40 years ago almost to the day and
|
||
which completely changed my life. Friedrich got me started
|
||
. . . and two of the things he said way back are the things
|
||
which have kept the IEA on course. One is to keep out of
|
||
politics and the other is to make an intellectual case . . . if
|
||
you can stick to these rules you keep out of a lot of trouble
|
||
and apparently do a lot of good.
|
||
As I said, 30 years later, on countless occasions, Hayek did not
|
||
dispute the event or disown the advice, he simply said he could not
|
||
remember. But it is of course very Hayekian advice and very much
|
||
in keeping with his classic essay ‘The Intellectuals and Socialism’,
|
||
which came out just a few years later and which has just been
|
||
republished by the IEA.8 This was hardly a blueprint for action
|
||
– ‘reach the intellectuals’ – and indeed the next decade saw little
|
||
direct fallout from that conversation, although three American
|
||
intellectual entrepreneurs who had also sought out Hayek did get
|
||
the ball rolling in the US.
|
||
The road to the IEA
|
||
Hayek taught at the LSE, got divorced in Arkansas, remarried,
|
||
moved to Chicago and wrote The Constitution of Liberty.
|
||
i n t roduction
|
||
29
|
||
8 F. A. Hayek, The Intellectuals and Socialism, Rediscovered Riches No. 4, IEA, London,
|
||
1998.
|
||
Fisher, the Digest junkie, is already politically active and is also
|
||
worried about the future for his country. The April 1945 edition
|
||
lands on his desk as he is moving to London and, after reading the
|
||
cover story, he notes on the front that the author is at the University
|
||
of London. A phone call establishes that the LSE is back in
|
||
place and, one lunchtime or late one afternoon, Fisher makes the
|
||
short walk from his offi ce to the LSE and knocks on Hayek’s door.
|
||
Fisher also recalled the physical setting of Hayek’s offi ce in minute
|
||
and accurate detail, including its proximity to that of the dreaded
|
||
Harold Laski. Fisher claimed that after small talk (which neither
|
||
excelled at) the conversation went like this:
|
||
Fisher I share all your worries and concerns as expressed in The
|
||
Road to Serfdom and I’m going to go into politics and put it
|
||
all right.
|
||
Hayek No you’re not! Society’s course will be changed only by a
|
||
change in ideas. First you must reach the intellectuals, the
|
||
teachers and writers, with reasoned argument. It will be
|
||
their infl uence on society which will prevail, and the politicians
|
||
will follow.
|
||
I have this quote framed above my desk alongside Keynes’s
|
||
famous line: ‘The ideas of economists and political philosophers,
|
||
both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more
|
||
powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled
|
||
by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite
|
||
exempt from any intellectual infl uences, are usually the slaves of
|
||
some defunct economist.’7
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
28
|
||
7 Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, op. cit., p. 383.
|
||
distinctive IEA approach of short monographs containing the very
|
||
best economics in good, jargon-free English, written by academics
|
||
(mostly) or quasi-academics, in language accessible to the layman
|
||
but still of use to the expert.
|
||
In the early days it was hard to fi nd authors, hard to raise
|
||
money and hard to get reviews and sales. At times everybody had
|
||
to down pens to raise money or quickly pick up pens to co-author
|
||
a paper. The fi rst clear success of this venture – inspired by The
|
||
Road to Serfdom, advised by Hayek, implemented by Fisher and
|
||
run by Harris and Seldon – was the repeal of Resale Price Maintenance
|
||
in 1964, a fantastic reform. It effectively outlawed the
|
||
prevailing practice by which manufacturers priced goods – they
|
||
literally stamped the price on the article – and discounting was
|
||
illegal. There was no such thing as shopping around. This change
|
||
alienated the small-business vote and put the Tories out for six
|
||
years, but it transformed the UK economy and allowed a nation
|
||
of shopkeepers to spread their wings. It was clearly heralded by
|
||
a 1960 IEA study, Resale Price Maintenance and Shoppers’ Choice
|
||
by Basil Yamey.11 Other successes followed and the IEA’s impetus
|
||
grew, but what was happening to Hayek and Fisher?
|
||
Hayek had moved from Chicago back to Europe, and in
|
||
December 1974 received the Nobel Prize. He was 75 and his health
|
||
had not been good. He was also depressed. However the prize
|
||
(and the big cheque) cheered him up no end.
|
||
Fisher had sold the chicken business for millions and had put a
|
||
large part of his minority share into an experimental turtle farm in
|
||
the Cayman Islands. Well, the experiment worked brilliantly but
|
||
i n t roduction
|
||
31
|
||
11 B. S. Yamey, Resale Price Maintenance and Shoppers’ Choice, Hobart Paper No. 1,
|
||
IEA, London, 1960.
|
||
Fisher tried stockbroking, became a farmer, wrote a very
|
||
prescient monograph, ‘The Case for Freedom’,9 imported the
|
||
idea of factory-farming of chickens, championed liberty in many
|
||
different campaigns, visited the US looking for institute models he
|
||
could copy, published The Free Convertibility of Sterling by George
|
||
Winder,10 incorporated the Institute of Economic Affairs, hired
|
||
Ralph Harris and, as he always did, having hired the talent let
|
||
it rip with a very hands-off approach to management. (When in
|
||
1987 he entrusted to me the future of the Atlas Economic Research
|
||
Foundation, the body dedicated to building new IEAs around the
|
||
world, he made it very clear that he was there if I wanted his help
|
||
but that he really did expect me to crack on on my own.)
|
||
To begin with, in the late 1950s, it was not at all clear what the
|
||
IEA would do. The exchange control book by Winder had been
|
||
short, easily understood and on a fairly narrow but important
|
||
topic. It had sold out its 2,000 print run very quickly because of
|
||
Henry Hazlitt’s review in Newsweek. Unfortunately the printer who
|
||
had also sold the book for Antony went bankrupt, and the 2,000
|
||
names and addresses of the purchasers were lost. But Fisher had
|
||
visited the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington- on-
|
||
Hudson, New York, had been exposed to its magazine, The Freeman,
|
||
and still adored Reader’s Digest. Harris had been a party political
|
||
man turned academic turned editorial writer, while Arthur
|
||
Seldon, the fi rst editorial director, had been a research assistant
|
||
to the famous LSE economist Arnold Plant before becoming chief
|
||
economist of a brewers’ association. Out of this mish-mash of
|
||
experiences – academic, business, political, journalistic – came the
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
30
|
||
9 A. Fisher, The Case for Freedom, Runnymede Press, London, undated.
|
||
10 G. Winder, The Free Convertibility of Sterling, The Batchworth Press for the Institute
|
||
of Economic Affairs, London, 1955.
|
||
Fisher incorporated the Atlas Economic Research Foundation to
|
||
be a focal point for institutes and to channel funds to start-ups. By
|
||
the time of his death in 1988 we listed 30-plus institutes in 20 or so
|
||
countries. By 1991 we were listing 80 and I now count about 100 in
|
||
76 countries.
|
||
All of this can be traced back to this young economist, his
|
||
book, the Reader’s Digest condensation, and a young RAF offi cer
|
||
. . . through the IEA . . . through CIS/PRI/ASI/Manhattan and
|
||
Fraser . . . to 100 institutes in 76 countries today, who together are
|
||
literally changing the world.
|
||
To illustrate our impact, let me fi nish with a story from Lord
|
||
Howell of Guildford, a minister in the 1980s. He came into my
|
||
offi ce recently and pointed at the big boardroom table where
|
||
I work every day and which was donated by Antony in the late
|
||
1960s. Howell said: ‘You know, John, it was at that table that we
|
||
fi rst got serious about privatisation in 1968. The idea fi zzled in the
|
||
1970s, took off in the 1980s and in the 1990s burns brightly around
|
||
the world.’ I replied: ‘Yes, it burns so brightly that last year worldwide
|
||
privatisation revenues topped $100 billion for the fi rst time.’
|
||
So it is quite a story we have to tell and it all begins here with
|
||
the condensed version of The Road to Serfdom and the cartoon
|
||
version drawn to my attention only recently by Laurence Hayek.
|
||
Read the condensed version, now published in our ‘Rediscovered
|
||
Riches’ series for the fi rst time since its original appearance in the
|
||
Reader’s Digest, and wonder on all the changes it led to: all the
|
||
misery avoided and all the prosperity created.
|
||
j o h n b l u n d e l l
|
||
November 1999
|
||
i n t roduction
|
||
33
|
||
the environmentalists closed down his largest market – the US.12
|
||
He refused to hide behind limited liability and used the balance of
|
||
his fortune to pay off all debts.
|
||
1974 – now 30 years after The Road to Serfdom – was a big year
|
||
for Fisher too, because, free from business concerns, he was able to
|
||
respond to businessmen and others around the world who noted
|
||
the IEA’s growing infl uence and came to him for advice.
|
||
Sowing the seed
|
||
So the entrepreneur turned fi ghter pilot turned gunnery trainer
|
||
turned stockbroker turned dairy farmer turned chicken pioneer
|
||
turned turtle saviour became the Johnny Appleseed of the freemarket
|
||
movement, going all over the world and setting up new
|
||
IEA-type operations.
|
||
First he joined the very young Fraser Institute in Vancouver,
|
||
BC; quickly moved on to help Greg Lindsay and the Centre for
|
||
Independent Studies in Australia; hired David Theroux, recently
|
||
departed from the Cato Institute, to set up the Pacifi c Research
|
||
Institute in San Francisco; gave support to the Butler brothers
|
||
and Madsen Pirie as they founded the Adam Smith Institute in
|
||
London; and incorporated with William Casey the Manhattan
|
||
Institute where, as they did so, they sat on movers’ boxes in an
|
||
otherwise empty offi ce.
|
||
It took ten years to give birth to Institute No. 1 – the IEA. For
|
||
all but twenty years it was the only one in the family; in just six
|
||
years fi ve more were born, and then the fun really started. In 1981
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
32
|
||
12 For a full account see P. and S. Fosdick, Last Chance Lost: Can and Should Farming
|
||
Save the Green Sea Turtle?, Irvin S. Naylor, York, PA, 1994.
|
||
• 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?
|
||
• 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 confi ne 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 diffi cult 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 necessity 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.
|
||
35
|
||
SUMMARY
|
||
(Jacket notes written by Hayek for the first edition)
|
||
‘In The Road to Serfdom’, writes Henry Hazlitt in the New York
|
||
Times, ‘Friedrich A. Hayek has written one of the most important
|
||
books of our generation. It restates for our time the issue between
|
||
liberty and authority. It is an arresting call to all well-intentioned
|
||
planners and socialists, to all those who are sincere democrats and
|
||
liberals at heart, to stop, look and listen.’
|
||
The author is an internationally known economist. An Austrian
|
||
by birth, he was director of the Austrian Institute for Economic
|
||
Research and lecturer in economics at the University of Vienna
|
||
during the years of the rise of fascism in Central Europe. He has
|
||
lived in England since 1931 when he became Professor of Economic
|
||
Science at the University of London, and is now a British citizen.
|
||
Professor Hayek, with great power and rigour of reasoning,
|
||
sounds a grim warning to Americans and Britons who look to the
|
||
government to provide the way out of all our economic diffi culties.
|
||
He demonstrates that fascism and what the Germans correctly
|
||
call National Socialism are the inevitable results of the increasing
|
||
growth of state control and state power, of national ‘planning’ and
|
||
of socialism.
|
||
In a foreword to The Road to Serfdom John Chamberlain, book
|
||
editor of Harper’s, writes: ‘This book is a warning cry in a time of
|
||
hesitation. It says to us: Stop, look and listen. Its logic is incontestable,
|
||
and it should have the widest possible audience.’
|
||
34
|
||
PREFACE TO THE READER’S DIGEST
|
||
CONDENSED VERSION OF
|
||
THE ROAD TO SERFDOM
|
||
The Reader’s Digest condensed version of
|
||
The Road to Serfdom
|
||
• What our generation has forgotten 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 fi t for small
|
||
states to live in.
|
||
• The fi rst need is to free ourselves of that worst form of
|
||
contemporary obscurantism which tries to persuade 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.
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
36
|
||
The author has spent about half his adult life in his native
|
||
Austria, in close touch with German thought, and the other half in
|
||
the United States and England. In the latter period he has become
|
||
increasingly convinced that some of the forces which destroyed
|
||
freedom in Germany are also at work here.
|
||
The very magnitude of the outrages committed by the National
|
||
Socialists has strengthened the assurance that a totalitarian
|
||
system cannot happen here. But let us remember that 15 years ago
|
||
the possibility of such a thing happening in Germany would have
|
||
appeared just as fantastic not only to nine-tenths of the Germans
|
||
themselves, but also to the most hostile foreign observer.
|
||
There are many features which were then regarded as ‘typically
|
||
German’ which are now equally familiar in America and England,
|
||
and many symptoms that point to a further development in the
|
||
same direction: the increasing veneration for the state, the fatalistic
|
||
acceptance of ‘inevitable trends’, the enthusiasm for ‘organization’
|
||
of everything (we now call it ‘planning’).
|
||
The character of the danger is, if possible, even less understood
|
||
here than it was in Germany. The supreme tragedy is still not seen
|
||
that in Germany it was largely people of good will who, by their
|
||
socialist policies, prepared the way for the forces which stand
|
||
for everything they detest. Few recognize that the rise of fascism
|
||
and Marxism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the
|
||
39
|
||
THE ROAD TO SERFDOM
|
||
(condensed version, published in the Reader’s Digest,
|
||
April 1945 edition)
|
||
of some single body power formerly exercised independently by
|
||
many, an amount of power is created infi nitely greater than any
|
||
that existed before, so much more far-reaching as almost to be
|
||
different in kind.
|
||
It is entirely fallacious to argue that the great power exercised
|
||
by a central planning board would be ‘no greater than the power
|
||
collectively exercised by private boards of directors’. There is, in
|
||
a competitive society, nobody who can exercise even a fraction
|
||
of the power which a socialist planning board would possess. To
|
||
decentralize power is to reduce the absolute amount of power, and
|
||
the competitive system is the only system designed to minimize
|
||
the power exercised by man over man. Who can seriously doubt
|
||
that the power which a millionaire, who may be my employer, has
|
||
over me is very much less than that which the smallest bureaucrat
|
||
possesses who wields the coercive power of the state and on whose
|
||
discretion it depends how I am allowed to live and work?
|
||
In every real sense a badly paid unskilled workman in this
|
||
country has more freedom to shape his life than many an employer
|
||
in Germany or a much better paid engineer or manager in Russia.
|
||
If he wants to change his job or the place where he lives, if he
|
||
wants to profess certain views or spend his leisure in a particular
|
||
way, he faces no absolute impediments. There are no dangers to
|
||
bodily security and freedom that confi ne him by brute force to the
|
||
task and environment to which a superior has assigned him.
|
||
Our generation has forgotten that the system of private
|
||
property is the most important guarantee of freedom. It is only
|
||
because the control of the means of production is divided among
|
||
many people acting independently that we as individuals can
|
||
decide what to do with ourselves. When all the means of production
|
||
are vested in a single hand, whether it be nominally that of
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
41
|
||
preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies. Yet it
|
||
is signifi cant that many of the leaders of these movements, from
|
||
Mussolini down (and including Laval and Quisling) began as
|
||
socialists and ended as fascists or Nazis.
|
||
In the democracies at present, many who sincerely hate all of
|
||
Nazism’s manifestations are working for ideals whose realization
|
||
would lead straight to the abhorred tyranny. Most of the people
|
||
whose views infl uence developments are in some measure socialists.
|
||
They believe that our economic life should be ‘consciously
|
||
directed’, that we should substitute ‘economic planning’ for the
|
||
competitive system. Yet 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?
|
||
Planning and power
|
||
In order to achieve their ends the planners must create power
|
||
– power over men wielded by other men – of a magnitude never
|
||
before known. Their success will depend on the extent to which
|
||
they achieve such power. Democracy is an obstacle to this suppression
|
||
of freedom which the centralized direction of economic
|
||
activity requires. Hence arises the clash between planning and
|
||
democracy.
|
||
Many socialists have the tragic illusion that by depriving
|
||
private individuals of the power they possess in an individualist
|
||
system, and transferring this power to society, they thereby extinguish
|
||
power. What they overlook is that by concentrating power
|
||
so that it can be used in the service of a single plan, it is not merely
|
||
transformed, but infi nitely heightened. By uniting in the hands
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
40
|
||
independence which 100 years before had hardly seemed possible.
|
||
The effect of this success was to create among men a new sense
|
||
of power over their own fate, the belief in the unbounded possibilities
|
||
of improving their own lot. What had been achieved came
|
||
to be regarded as a secure and imperishable possession, acquired
|
||
once and for all; and the rate of progress began to seem too slow.
|
||
Moreover the principles which had made this progress possible
|
||
came to be regarded as obstacles to speedier progress, impatiently
|
||
to be brushed away. It might be said that the very success of liberalism
|
||
became the cause of its decline.
|
||
No sensible person should have doubted that the economic
|
||
principles of the nineteenth century were only a beginning – that
|
||
there were immense possibilities of advancement on the lines on
|
||
which we had moved. But according to the views now dominant,
|
||
the question is no longer how we can make the best use of the
|
||
spontaneous forces found in a free society. We have in effect
|
||
undertaken to dispense with these forces and to replace them by
|
||
collective and ‘conscious’ direction.
|
||
It is signifi cant that this abandonment of liberalism, whether
|
||
expressed as socialism in its more radical form or merely as
|
||
‘organization’ or ‘planning’, was perfected in Germany. During
|
||
the last quarter of the nineteenth century and the fi rst quarter of
|
||
the twentieth, Germany moved far ahead in both the theory and
|
||
the practice of socialism, so that even today Russian discussion
|
||
largely carries on where the Germans left off. The Germans, long
|
||
before the Nazis, were attacking liberalism and democracy, capitalism,
|
||
and individualism.
|
||
Long before the Nazis, too, the German and Italian socialists
|
||
were using techniques of which the Nazis and fascists later
|
||
made effective use. The idea of a political party which embraces
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
43
|
||
‘society’ as a whole or that of a dictator, whoever exercises this
|
||
control has complete power over us. 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 distinguishable
|
||
from slavery. It has been well said that, in a country where the sole
|
||
employer is the state, opposition means death by slow starvation.
|
||
Background to danger
|
||
Individualism, in contrast to socialism and all other forms of
|
||
totalitarianism, 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. This philosophy,
|
||
fi rst fully developed during the Renaissance, grew and
|
||
spread into what we know as Western civilization. The general
|
||
direction of social development was one of freeing the individual
|
||
from the ties which bound him in feudal society.
|
||
Perhaps the greatest result of this unchaining of individual
|
||
energies was the marvellous growth of science. Only since industrial
|
||
freedom opened the path to the free use of new knowledge,
|
||
only since everything could be tried – if somebody could be found
|
||
to back it at his own risk – has science made the great strides which
|
||
in the last 150 years have changed the face of the world. The result
|
||
of this growth surpassed all expectations. Wherever the barriers to
|
||
the free exercise of human ingenuity were removed, man became
|
||
rapidly able to satisfy ever-widening ranges of desire. By the beginning
|
||
of the twentieth century the working man in the Western world
|
||
had reached a degree of material comfort, security and personal
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
42
|
||
The liberal way of planning
|
||
‘Planning’ owes its popularity largely to the fact that everybody
|
||
desires, of course, that we should handle our common problems
|
||
with as much foresight as possible. The dispute between the
|
||
modern planners and the liberals is not on whether we ought to
|
||
employ systematic thinking in planning our affairs. It is a dispute
|
||
about what is the best way of so doing. The question 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 according to a ‘blueprint’, that is, ‘consciously
|
||
direct the resources of society to conform to the planners’ particular
|
||
views of who should have what’.
|
||
It is important not to confuse opposition against the latter
|
||
kind of planning with a dogmatic laissez faire attitude. The liberal
|
||
argument does not advocate leaving things just as they are; it
|
||
favours making the best possible use of the forces of competition
|
||
as a means of coordinating human efforts. It is based on the
|
||
conviction that, where effective competition can be created, it is a
|
||
better way of guiding individual efforts than any other. It emphasizes
|
||
that in order to make competition work benefi cially a carefully
|
||
thought-out legal framework is required, and that neither the
|
||
past nor the existing legal rules are free from grave defects.
|
||
Liberalism is opposed, however, to supplanting competition
|
||
by inferior methods of guiding economic activity. And it regards
|
||
competition as superior not only because in most circumstances
|
||
it is the most effi cient method known but because it is the only
|
||
method which does not require the coercive or arbitrary intervention of
|
||
authority. It dispenses with the need for ‘conscious social control’
|
||
and gives individuals a chance to decide whether the prospects of
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
45
|
||
all activities of the individual from the cradle to the grave, which
|
||
claims to guide his views on everything, was fi rst put into practice
|
||
by the socialists. It was not the fascists but the socialists who began
|
||
to collect children at the tenderest age into political organizations
|
||
to direct their thinking. It was not the fascists but the socialists
|
||
who fi rst thought of organizing sports and games, football and
|
||
hiking, in party clubs where the members would not be infected
|
||
by other views. It was the socialists who fi rst insisted that the
|
||
party member should distinguish himself from others by the
|
||
modes of greeting and the forms of address. It was they who, by
|
||
their organization of ‘cells’ and devices for the permanent supervision
|
||
of private life, created the prototype of the totalitarian party.
|
||
By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in
|
||
Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it.
|
||
To many who have watched the transition from socialism to
|
||
fascism at close quarters the connection between the two systems
|
||
has become increasingly obvious, but in the democracies the
|
||
majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can
|
||
be combined. They do not realize that democratic socialism, the
|
||
great 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. As has been aptly said: ‘What
|
||
has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that
|
||
man has tried to make it his heaven.’
|
||
It is disquieting to see in England and the United States today
|
||
the same drawing together of forces and nearly the same contempt
|
||
of all that is liberal in the old sense. ‘Conservative socialism’ was
|
||
the slogan under which a large number of writers prepared the
|
||
atmosphere in which National Socialism succeeded. It is ‘conservative
|
||
socialism’ which is the dominant trend among us now.
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
44
|
||
The great utopia
|
||
There can be no doubt that most of those in the democracies who
|
||
demand a central direction of all economic activity still believe
|
||
that socialism and individual freedom can be combined. Yet
|
||
socialism was early recognized by many thinkers as the gravest
|
||
threat to freedom.
|
||
It is rarely remembered now that socialism in its beginnings
|
||
was frankly authoritarian. It began quite openly as a reaction
|
||
against the liberalism of the French Revolution. The French writers
|
||
who laid its foundation had no doubt that their ideas could be put
|
||
into practice only by a strong dictatorial government. The fi rst of
|
||
modern planners, Saint-Simon, predicted that those who did not
|
||
obey his proposed planning boards would be ‘treated as cattle’.
|
||
Nobody saw more clearly than the great political thinker de
|
||
Tocqueville that democracy stands in an irreconcilable confl ict
|
||
with socialism: ‘Democracy extends the sphere of individual
|
||
freedom,’ he 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.’
|
||
To allay these suspicions and to harness to its cart the strongest
|
||
of all political motives – the craving for freedom – socialists began
|
||
increasingly to make use of the promise of a ‘new freedom’.
|
||
Socialism was to bring ‘economic freedom’ without which political
|
||
freedom was ‘not worth having’.
|
||
To make this argument sound plausible, the word ‘freedom’
|
||
was subjected to a subtle change in meaning. The word had
|
||
formerly meant freedom from coercion, from the arbitrary power
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
47
|
||
a particular occupation are suffi cient to compensate for the disadvantages
|
||
connected with it.
|
||
The successful use of competition does not preclude some types
|
||
of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours,
|
||
to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive
|
||
system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation
|
||
of competition. There are, too, certain fi elds where the system of
|
||
competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of
|
||
deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confi ned to the
|
||
owner of the property in question. But the fact that we have to resort
|
||
to direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper
|
||
working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we
|
||
should suppress competition where it can be made to function.
|
||
To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as
|
||
possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies
|
||
– these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned fi eld for state activity.
|
||
This does not mean that it is possible to fi nd some ‘middle
|
||
way’ between competition and central direction, though nothing
|
||
seems at fi rst more plausible, or is more likely to appeal to reasonable
|
||
people. Mere common sense proves a treacherous guide in
|
||
this fi eld. Although competition can bear some mixture of regulation,
|
||
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 ineffi -
|
||
cient 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. The
|
||
planning against which all our criticism is directed is solely the
|
||
planning against competition.
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
46
|
||
reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. Their practice
|
||
showed how closely they are related. To both, the real enemy, the
|
||
man with whom they had nothing in common, was the liberal of
|
||
the old type. While to the Nazi the communist and to the communist
|
||
the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits
|
||
made of the right timber, they both know that there can be no
|
||
com promise between them and those who really believe in individual
|
||
freedom.
|
||
What is promised to us as the Road to Freedom is in fact the
|
||
Highroad to Servitude. For it is not diffi cult to see what must be
|
||
the consequences when democracy embarks upon a course of
|
||
planning. The goal of the planning will be described by some such
|
||
vague term as ‘the general welfare’. There will be no real agreement
|
||
as to the ends to be attained, and the effect of the people’s
|
||
agreeing that there must be central planning, without agreeing
|
||
on the ends, will be rather as if a group of people were to commit
|
||
themselves to take a journey together without agreeing where
|
||
they want to go: with the result that they may all have to make a
|
||
journey which most of them do not want at all.
|
||
Democratic assemblies cannot function as planning agencies.
|
||
They cannot produce agreement on everything – the whole direction
|
||
of the resources of the nation – for the number of possible
|
||
courses of action will be legion. Even if a congress could, by
|
||
proceeding step by step and compromising at each point, agree on
|
||
some scheme, it would certainly in the end satisfy nobody.
|
||
To draw up an economic plan in this fashion is even less
|
||
possible than, for instance, successfully to plan a military
|
||
campaign by democratic procedure. As in strategy, it would
|
||
become inevitable to delegate the task to experts. And even if,
|
||
by this expedient, a democracy should succeed in planning every
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
49
|
||
of other men. Now it was made to mean freedom from necessity,
|
||
release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably
|
||
limit the range of choice of all of us. Freedom in 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 a redistribution of wealth.
|
||
The claim that a planned economy would produce a substantially
|
||
larger output than the competitive system is being progressively
|
||
abandoned by most students of the problem. Yet it is this
|
||
false hope as much as anything which drives us along the road to
|
||
planning.
|
||
Although our modern socialists’ promise of greater freedom
|
||
is genuine and sincere, in recent years observer after observer has
|
||
been impressed by the unforeseen consequences of socialism, the
|
||
extraordinary similarity in many respects of the conditions under
|
||
‘communism’ and ‘fascism’. As the writer Peter Drucker expressed
|
||
it in 1939, ‘the complete collapse of the belief in the attainability
|
||
of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to
|
||
travel the same road toward a totalitarian society of unfreedom
|
||
and inequality which Germany has been following. Not that
|
||
communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the
|
||
stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has
|
||
proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany.’
|
||
No less signifi cant is the intellectual outlook of the rank and
|
||
fi le in the communist and fascist movements in Germany before
|
||
1933. The relative ease with which a young communist could be
|
||
converted into a Nazi or vice versa was well known, best of all to
|
||
the propagandists of the two parties. The communists and Nazis
|
||
clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties
|
||
simply because they competed for the same type of mind and
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
48
|
||
sacrifi ce freedom in order to make it more secure in the future,
|
||
but it is quite a different thing to sacrifi ce liberty permanently in
|
||
the interests of a planned economy.
|
||
To those who have watched the transition from socialism to
|
||
fascism at close quarters, the connection between the two systems
|
||
is obvious. The realization of the socialist programme means the
|
||
destruction of freedom. Democratic socialism, the great utopia of
|
||
the last few generations, is simply not achievable.
|
||
Why the worst get on top
|
||
No doubt an American or English ‘fascist’ system would greatly
|
||
differ from the Italian or German models; no doubt, if the transition
|
||
were effected without violence, we might expect to get a
|
||
better type of leader. Yet this does not mean that our fascist
|
||
system would in the end prove very different or much less intolerable
|
||
than its prototypes. There are strong reasons for believing
|
||
that the worst features of the totalitarian systems are phenomena
|
||
which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce.
|
||
Just as the democratic statesman who sets out to plan
|
||
economic life will soon be confronted with the alternative of either
|
||
assuming dictatorial powers or abandoning his plans, so the
|
||
totalitarian leader would soon have to choose between disregard
|
||
of ordinary morals and failure. It is for this reason that the unscrupulous
|
||
are likely to be more successful in a society tending toward
|
||
totalitarianism. Who does not see this has not yet grasped the full
|
||
width of the gulf which separates totalitarianism from the essentially
|
||
individualist Western civilization.
|
||
The totalitarian leader must collect around him a group which
|
||
is prepared voluntarily to submit to that discipline they are to
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
51
|
||
sector of economic activity, it would still have to face the problem
|
||
of integrating these separate plans into a unitary whole. There
|
||
will be a stronger and stronger demand that some board or some
|
||
single individual should be given powers to act on their own
|
||
responsibility. The cry for an economic dictator is a characteristic
|
||
stage in the movement toward planning.
|
||
Thus the legislative body will be reduced to choosing the
|
||
persons who are to have practically absolute power. The whole
|
||
system will tend toward that kind of dictatorship in which the
|
||
head of government is from time to time confi rmed in his position
|
||
by popular vote, but where he has all the power at his command to
|
||
make certain that the vote will go in the direction that he desires.
|
||
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. There is no justifi cation
|
||
for the widespread belief that, so long as power is conferred by
|
||
democratic procedure, it cannot be arbitrary; it is not the source of
|
||
power which prevents it from being arbitrary; to be free from dictatorial
|
||
qualities, the power must also be limited. A true ‘dictatorship
|
||
of the proletariat’, even if democratic in form, if it undertook
|
||
centrally to direct the economic system, would probably destroy
|
||
personal freedom as completely as any autocracy has ever done.
|
||
Individual freedom cannot be reconciled with the supremacy
|
||
of one single purpose to which the whole of society is permanently
|
||
subordinated. To a limited extent we ourselves experience this
|
||
fact in wartime, when subordination of almost everything to the
|
||
immediate and pressing need is the price at which we preserve our
|
||
freedom in the long run. The fashionable phrases about doing for
|
||
the purposes of peace what we have learned to do for the purposes
|
||
of war are completely misleading, for it is sensible temporarily to
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
50
|
||
gain the support of the docile and gullible, who have no strong
|
||
convictions of their own but are ready to accept a ready-made
|
||
system of values if it is only drummed into their ears suffi ciently
|
||
loudly and frequently. It will be those whose vague and imperfectly
|
||
formed ideas are easily swayed and whose passions and
|
||
emotions are readily aroused who will thus swell the ranks of the
|
||
totalitarian party.
|
||
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.
|
||
The contrast between the ‘we’ and the ‘they’ is consequently
|
||
always employed by those who seek the allegiance of huge masses.
|
||
The enemy may be internal, like the ‘Jew’ in Germany or the
|
||
‘kulak’ in Russia, or he may be external. In any case, this technique
|
||
has the great advantage of leaving the leader greater freedom of
|
||
action than would almost any positive programme.
|
||
Advancement within a totalitarian group or party depends
|
||
largely on a willingness to do immoral things. The principle
|
||
that the end justifi es the means, which in individualist ethics is
|
||
regarded 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.
|
||
Once you admit that the individual is merely a means to
|
||
serve the ends of the higher entity called society or the nation,
|
||
most of those features of totalitarianism which horrify us follow
|
||
of necessity. From the collectivist standpoint intolerance and
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
53
|
||
impose by force upon the rest of the people. That socialism can
|
||
be put into practice only by methods of which most socialists
|
||
dis approve is, of course, a lesson learned by many social reformers
|
||
in the past. The old socialist parties were inhibited by their
|
||
democratic ideals; they did not possess the ruthlessness required
|
||
for the performance of their chosen task. It is characteristic that
|
||
both in Germany and in Italy the success of fascism was preceded
|
||
by the refusal of the socialist parties to take over the respon sibilities
|
||
of government. They were unwilling whole heartedly to
|
||
employ the methods to which they had pointed the way. They
|
||
still hoped for the miracle of a majority’s agreeing on a particular
|
||
plan for the organization of the whole of society. Others had
|
||
already learned the lesson that in a planned society the question
|
||
can no longer be on what do a majority of the people agree but
|
||
what the largest single group is whose members agree suffi ciently
|
||
to make unifi ed direction of all affairs possible.
|
||
There are three main reasons why such a numerous group,
|
||
with fairly similar views, is not likely to be formed by the best but
|
||
rather by the worst elements of any society.
|
||
First, the higher the education and intelligence of individuals
|
||
become, the more their tastes and views are differentiated. If we
|
||
wish to fi nd a high degree of uniformity in outlook, we have to
|
||
descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards
|
||
where the more primitive instincts prevail. This does not mean
|
||
that the majority of people have low moral standards; it merely
|
||
means that the largest group of people whose values are very
|
||
similar are the people with low standards.
|
||
Second, since this group is not large enough to give suffi cient
|
||
weight to the leader’s endeavours, he will have to increase their
|
||
numbers by converting more to the same simple creed. He must
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
52
|
||
The most effective way of making people accept the validity
|
||
of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are
|
||
really the same as those they have always held, but which were
|
||
not properly understood or recognized before. And the most effi -
|
||
cient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their
|
||
meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time
|
||
so confusing to the superfi cial observer and yet so characteristic
|
||
of the whole intellectual climate as this complete perversion of
|
||
language.
|
||
The worst sufferer in this respect is the word ‘liberty’. It is a
|
||
word used as freely in totalitarian states as elsewhere. Indeed,
|
||
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. Even among us we have planners
|
||
who promise us a ‘collective freedom’, which is as misleading as
|
||
anything said by totalitarian politicians. ‘Collective freedom’ is not
|
||
the freedom of the members of society, but the unlimited freedom
|
||
of the planner to do with society that which he pleases. This is the
|
||
confusion of freedom with power carried to the extreme.
|
||
It is not diffi cult to deprive the great majority of independent
|
||
thought. But the minority who will retain an inclination to criticize
|
||
must also be silenced. Public criticism or even expressions of
|
||
doubt must be suppressed because they tend to weaken support
|
||
of the regime. As Sidney and Beatrice Webb report of the position
|
||
in every Russian enterprise: ‘Whilst the work is in progress, any
|
||
public expression of doubt that the plan will be successful is an act
|
||
of disloyalty and even of treachery because of its possible effect on
|
||
the will and efforts of the rest of the staff.’
|
||
Control extends even to subjects which seem to have no political
|
||
signifi cance. The theory of relativity, for instance, has been
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
55
|
||
brutal suppression of dissent, deception and spying, the complete
|
||
disregard of the life and happiness of the individual are essential
|
||
and unavoidable. Acts which revolt all our feelings, such as the
|
||
shooting of hostages or the killing of the old or sick, are treated
|
||
as mere matters of expediency; the compulsory uprooting and
|
||
transportation of hundreds of thousands becomes an instrument
|
||
of policy approved by almost everybody except the victims.
|
||
To be a useful assistant in the running of a totalitarian state,
|
||
therefore, a man must be prepared to break every moral rule he
|
||
has ever known if this seems necessary to achieve the end set for
|
||
him. In the totalitarian machine there will be special opportunities
|
||
for the ruthless and unscrupulous. Neither the Gestapo nor
|
||
the administration of a concentration camp, neither the Ministry
|
||
of Propaganda nor the SA or SS (or their Russian counterparts)
|
||
are suitable places for the exercise of humanitarian feelings. Yet it
|
||
is through such positions that the road to the highest positions in
|
||
the totalitarian state leads.
|
||
A distinguished American economist, Professor Frank H.
|
||
Knight, correctly notes that the authorities of a collectivist state
|
||
‘would have to do these things whether they wanted to or not:
|
||
and the probability of the people in power being individuals who
|
||
would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level
|
||
with the probability that an extremely tender-hearted person
|
||
would get the job of whipping master in a slave plantation’.
|
||
A further point should be made here: collectivism means the
|
||
end of truth. To make a totalitarian system function effi ciently it is
|
||
not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the ends
|
||
selected by those in control; it is essential that the people should
|
||
come to regard these ends as their own. This is brought about by
|
||
propaganda and by complete control of all sources of information.
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
54
|
||
and America are those which the progress of collectivism and its
|
||
centralistic tendencies are progressively destroying.
|
||
Planning vs. the Rule of Law
|
||
Nothing distinguishes more clearly a free country from a country
|
||
under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of
|
||
the great principles known as the Rule of Law. Stripped of technicalities
|
||
this means that government in all its actions is bound
|
||
by rules fi xed and announced beforehand – rules that make it
|
||
possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use
|
||
its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one’s
|
||
individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge. Thus, within
|
||
the known rules of the game, the individual is free to pursue his
|
||
personal ends, certain that the powers of government will not be
|
||
used deliberately to frustrate his efforts.
|
||
Socialist economic planning necessarily involves the very
|
||
opposite of this. 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 operate, 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 interests of various persons and groups.
|
||
In the end somebody’s views will have to decide whose interests
|
||
are more important, and these views must become part of
|
||
the law of the land. Hence the familiar fact that the more the state
|
||
‘plans’, the more diffi cult planning becomes for the individual.
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
57
|
||
opposed as a ‘Semitic attack on the foundation of Christian and
|
||
Nordic physics’ and because it is ‘in confl ict with dialectical materialism
|
||
and Marxist dogma’. Every activity must derive its justifi cation
|
||
from conscious social purpose. There must be no spontaneous,
|
||
unguided activity, because it might produce results which cannot
|
||
be foreseen and for which the plan does not provide.
|
||
The principle extends even to games and amusements. I leave
|
||
it to the reader to guess where it was that chess players were
|
||
offi cially exhorted that ‘we must fi nish once and for all with the
|
||
neutrality of chess. We must condemn once and for all the formula
|
||
chess for the sake of chess.’
|
||
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.
|
||
There is one aspect of the change in moral values brought
|
||
about by the advance of collectivism which provides special food
|
||
for thought. It is that the virtues which are held less and less in
|
||
esteem in Britain and America are precisely those on which Anglo-
|
||
Saxons justly prided themselves and in which they were generally
|
||
recognized to excel. These virtues were independence and
|
||
self-reliance, individual initiative and local responsibility, the
|
||
successful reliance on voluntary activity, non-interference with
|
||
one’s neighbour and tolerance of the different, and a healthy
|
||
suspicion of power and authority.
|
||
Almost all the traditions and institutions which have moulded
|
||
the national character and the whole moral climate of England
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
56
|
||
Is planning ‘inevitable’?
|
||
It is revealing that few planners today are content to say that
|
||
central planning is desirable. Most of them affi rm that we now are
|
||
compelled to it by circumstances beyond our control.
|
||
One argument frequently heard is that the complexity of
|
||
modern civilization creates new problems with which we cannot
|
||
hope to deal effectively except by central planning. This argument
|
||
is based upon a complete misapprehension of the working of
|
||
competition. The very complexity of modern conditions makes
|
||
competition the only method by which a coordination of affairs
|
||
can be adequately achieved.
|
||
There would be no diffi culty about effi cient control or
|
||
planning were conditions so simple that a single person or board
|
||
could effectively survey all the facts. But as the factors which have
|
||
to be taken into account become numerous and complex, no one
|
||
centre can keep track of them. The constantly changing conditions
|
||
of demand and supply of different commodities can never be fully
|
||
known or quickly enough disseminated by any one centre.
|
||
Under competition – and under no other economic order –
|
||
the price system automatically records all the relevant data. Entrepreneurs,
|
||
by watching the movement of comparatively few prices,
|
||
as an engineer watches a few dials, can adjust their activities to
|
||
those of their fellows.
|
||
Compared with this method of solving the economic problem
|
||
– by decentralization plus automatic coordination through
|
||
the price system – the method of central direction is incredibly
|
||
clumsy, primitive, and limited in scope. It is no exaggeration to say
|
||
that if we had had to rely on central planning for the growth of our
|
||
industrial system, it would never have reached the degree of differentiation
|
||
and fl exibility it has attained. Modern civilization has
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
59
|
||
The difference between the two kinds of rule is important. It
|
||
is the same as that between providing signposts and commanding
|
||
people which road to take.
|
||
Moreover, under central planning the government cannot be
|
||
impartial. The state ceases to be a piece of utilitarian machinery
|
||
intended to help individuals in the fullest development of their individual
|
||
personality and becomes an institution which deliberately
|
||
discriminates between particular needs of different people, and
|
||
allows one man to do what another must be prevented from doing.
|
||
It must lay down by a legal rule how well off particular people shall
|
||
be and what different people are to be allowed to have.
|
||
The Rule of Law, the absence of legal privileges of particular
|
||
people designated by authority, is what safeguards that equality
|
||
before the law which is the opposite of arbitrary government. It
|
||
is signifi cant that socialists (and Nazis) have always protested
|
||
against ‘merely’ formal justice, that they have objected to law
|
||
which had no views on how well off particular people ought to be,
|
||
that they have demanded a ‘socialization of the law’ and attacked
|
||
the independence of judges.
|
||
In a planned society the law must legalize what to all intents
|
||
and purposes remains arbitrary action. If the law says that such
|
||
a board or authority may do what it pleases, anything that board
|
||
or authority does is legal – but its actions are certainly not subject
|
||
to the Rule of Law. By giving the government unlimited powers
|
||
the most arbitrary rule can be made legal; and in this way a democracy
|
||
may set up the most complete despotism imaginable.
|
||
The Rule of Law was consciously evolved only during the
|
||
liberal age and is one of its greatest achievements. It is the legal
|
||
embodiment of freedom. As Immanuel Kant put it, ‘Man is free if
|
||
he needs obey no person but solely the laws.’
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
58
|
||
opment. In the United States a highly protectionist policy aided
|
||
the growth of monopolies. In Germany the growth of cartels has
|
||
since 1878 been systematically fostered by deliberate policy. It was
|
||
here that, with the help of the state, the fi rst great experiment in
|
||
‘scientifi c planning’ and ‘conscious organization of industry’ led
|
||
to the creation of giant monopolies. The suppression of competition
|
||
was a matter of deliberate policy in Germany, undertaken in
|
||
the service of an ideal which we now call planning.
|
||
Great danger lies in the policies of two powerful groups, organized
|
||
capital and organized labour, which support the monopolistic
|
||
organization of industry. The recent growth of monopoly is
|
||
largely the result of a deliberate collaboration of organized capital
|
||
and organized labour where the privileged groups of labour
|
||
share in the monopoly profi ts at the expense of the community
|
||
and particularly at the expense of those employed in the less well
|
||
organized industries. However, there is no reason to believe that
|
||
this movement is inevitable.
|
||
The movement toward planning is the result of deliberate
|
||
action. No external necessities force us to it.
|
||
Can planning free us from care?
|
||
Most planners who have seriously considered the practical aspects
|
||
of their task have little doubt that a directed economy must be run
|
||
on dictatorial lines, that the complex system of interrelated activities
|
||
must be directed by staffs of experts, with ultimate power in
|
||
the hands of a commander-in-chief whose actions must not be
|
||
fettered by democratic procedure. The consolation our planners
|
||
offer us is that this authoritarian direction will apply ‘only’ to
|
||
economic matters. This assurance is usually accompanied by the
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
61
|
||
been possible precisely because it did not have to be consciously
|
||
created. The division of labour has gone far beyond what could
|
||
have been planned. Any further growth in economic complexity,
|
||
far from making central direction more necessary, makes it more
|
||
important than ever that we should use the technique of competition
|
||
and not depend on conscious control.
|
||
It is also argued that technological changes have made competition
|
||
impossible in a constantly increasing number of fi elds and
|
||
that our only choice is between control of production by private
|
||
monopolies and direction by the government. The growth of
|
||
monopoly, however, seems not so much a necessary consequence
|
||
of the advance of technology as the result of the policies pursued
|
||
in most countries.
|
||
The most comprehensive study of this situation is that by
|
||
the Temporary National Economic Committee, which certainly
|
||
cannot be accused of an unduly liberal bias. The committee
|
||
concludes:
|
||
The superior effi ciency of large establishments has not
|
||
been demonstrated; the advantages that are supposed to
|
||
destroy competition have failed to manifest themselves in
|
||
many fi elds . . . the conclusion that the advantage of largescale
|
||
production must lead inevitably to the abolition of
|
||
competition cannot be accepted . . . It should be noted,
|
||
moreover, that monopoly is frequently attained through
|
||
collusive agreement and promoted by public policies.
|
||
When these agreements are invalidated and these policies
|
||
reversed, competitive conditions can be restored.
|
||
Anyone who has observed how aspiring monopolists regularly
|
||
seek the assistance of the state to make their control effective can
|
||
have little doubt that there is nothing inevitable about this develt
|
||
h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
60
|
||
allowed to choose, and that whoever fi xed the reward would determine
|
||
not only its size but the way in which it should be enjoyed.
|
||
The so-called economic freedom which the planners promise us
|
||
means precisely that we are to be relieved of the necessity of solving
|
||
our own economic problems and that the bitter choices which this
|
||
often involves are to be made for us. Since under modern conditions
|
||
we are for almost everything dependent on means which our
|
||
fellow men provide, economic planning would involve direction of
|
||
almost the whole of our life. There is hardly an aspect of it, from
|
||
our primary needs to our relations with our family and friends,
|
||
from the nature of our work to the use of our leisure, over which
|
||
the planner would not exercise his ‘conscious control’.
|
||
The power of the planner over our private lives would be
|
||
hardly less effective if the consumer were nominally free to spend
|
||
his income as he pleased, for the authority would control production.
|
||
Our freedom of choice in a competitive society rests on the
|
||
fact that, if one person refuses to satisfy our wishes, we can turn to
|
||
another. But if we face a monopolist we are at his mercy. And an
|
||
authority directing the whole economic system would be the most
|
||
powerful monopolist imaginable.
|
||
It would have complete power to decide what we are to be given
|
||
and on what terms. It would not only decide what commodities
|
||
and services are to be available and in what quantities; it would be
|
||
able to direct their distribution between districts and groups and
|
||
could, if it wished, discriminate between persons to any degree
|
||
it liked. Not our own view, but somebody else’s view of what we
|
||
ought to like or dislike, would determine what we should get.
|
||
The will of the authority would shape and ‘guide’ our daily
|
||
lives even more in our position as producers. For most of us the
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
63
|
||
suggestion that, by giving up freedom in the less important aspects
|
||
of our lives, we shall obtain freedom in the pursuit of higher values.
|
||
On this ground people who abhor the idea of a political dictatorship
|
||
often clamour for a dictator in the economic fi eld.
|
||
The arguments used appeal to our best instincts. If planning
|
||
really did free us from less important cares and so made it easier
|
||
to render our existence one of plain living and high thinking, who
|
||
would wish to belittle such an ideal?
|
||
Unfortunately, purely economic ends cannot be separated
|
||
from the other ends of life. What is misleadingly called the
|
||
‘economic motive’ means merely the desire for general opportunity.
|
||
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.
|
||
Because it is through the limitation of our money incomes that
|
||
we feel the restrictions which our relative poverty still imposes
|
||
on us, many have come to hate money as the symbol of these
|
||
restrictions. Actually, money is one of the greatest instruments
|
||
of freedom ever invented by man. It is money which in existing
|
||
society opens an astounding range of choice to the poor man – a
|
||
range greater than that which not many generations ago was open
|
||
to the wealthy.
|
||
We shall better understand the signifi cance of the service of
|
||
money if we consider what it would really mean if, as so many
|
||
socialists characteristically propose, the ‘pecuniary motive’ were
|
||
largely displaced by ‘non-economic incentives’. If all rewards,
|
||
instead of being offered in money, were offered in the form of
|
||
public distinctions, or privileges, positions of power over other
|
||
men, better housing or food, opportunities for travel or education,
|
||
this would merely mean that the recipient would no longer be
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
62
|
||
others. People just wish that the choice should not be necessary
|
||
at all. And they are only too ready to believe that the choice is
|
||
not really necessary, that it is imposed upon them merely by the
|
||
particular economic system under which we live. What they resent
|
||
is, in truth, that there is an economic problem.
|
||
The wishful delusion that there is really no longer an economic
|
||
problem has been furthered by the claim that a planned economy
|
||
would produce a substantially larger output than the competitive
|
||
system. This claim, however, is being progressively abandoned by
|
||
most students of the problem. Even a good many economists with
|
||
socialist views are now content to hope that a planned society
|
||
will equal the effi ciency of a competitive system. They advocate
|
||
planning because it will enable us to secure a more equitable
|
||
distribution of wealth. And it is indisputable that, if we want
|
||
consciously to decide who is to have what, we must plan the whole
|
||
economic system.
|
||
But the question remains whether the price we should have to
|
||
pay for the realization of somebody’s ideal of justice is not bound
|
||
to be more discontent and more oppression than was ever caused
|
||
by the much abused free play of economic forces.
|
||
For when a government undertakes to distribute the wealth,
|
||
by what principles will it or ought it to be guided? Is there a
|
||
defi nite answer to the innumerable questions of relative merits
|
||
that will arise?
|
||
Only one general principle, one simple rule, would provide
|
||
such an answer: absolute equality of all individuals. If this were
|
||
the goal, it would at least give the vague idea of distributive justice
|
||
clear meaning. But people in general do not regard mechanical
|
||
equality of this kind as desirable, and socialism promises not
|
||
complete equality but ‘greater equality’.
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
65
|
||
time we spend at our work is a large part of our whole lives, and
|
||
our job usually determines the place where and the people among
|
||
whom we live. Hence some freedom in choosing our work is
|
||
probably even more important for our happiness than freedom to
|
||
spend our income during our hours of leisure.
|
||
Even in the best of worlds this freedom will be limited. Few
|
||
people ever have an abundance of choice of occupation. But what
|
||
matters is that we have some choice, that we are not absolutely
|
||
tied to a job which has been chosen for us, and that if one position
|
||
becomes intolerable, or if we set our heart on another, there is
|
||
always a way for the able, at some sacrifi ce, to achieve his goal.
|
||
Nothing makes conditions more unbearable than the knowledge
|
||
that no effort of ours can change them. It may be bad to be just a
|
||
cog in a machine but it is infi nitely 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.
|
||
In our present world there is much that could be done to
|
||
improve our opportunities of choice. But ‘planning’ would surely
|
||
go in the opposite direction. Planning must control the entry
|
||
into the different trades and occupations, or the terms of remuneration,
|
||
or both. In almost all known instances of planning, the
|
||
establishment of such controls and restrictions was among the
|
||
fi rst measures taken.
|
||
In a competitive society most things can be had at a price. It
|
||
is often a cruelly high price. We must sacrifi ce one thing to attain
|
||
another. The alternative, however, is not freedom of choice, but
|
||
orders and prohibitions which must be obeyed.
|
||
That people should wish to be relieved of the bitter choice
|
||
which hard facts often impose on them is not surprising. But few
|
||
want to be relieved through having the choice made for them by
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
64
|
||
general level of wealth ours has, the fi rst kind of security should
|
||
not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom;
|
||
that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, suffi cient 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.
|
||
It is planning for security of the second kind which has such
|
||
an insidious effect on liberty. It is planning designed to protect
|
||
individuals or groups against diminutions of their incomes.
|
||
If, as has become increasingly true, the members of each trade
|
||
in which conditions improve are allowed to exclude others in
|
||
order to secure to themselves the full gain in the form of higher
|
||
wages or profi ts, those in the trades where demand has fallen off
|
||
have nowhere to go, and every change results in large unemployment.
|
||
There can be little doubt that it is largely a consequence of
|
||
the striving for security by these means in the last decades that
|
||
unemployment and thus insecurity have so much increased.
|
||
The utter hopelessness of the position of those who, in a
|
||
society which has thus grown rigid, are left outside the range of
|
||
sheltered occupation can be appreciated only by those who have
|
||
experienced it. There has never been a more cruel exploitation of
|
||
one class by another than that of the less fortunate members of a
|
||
group of producers by the well-established. This has been made
|
||
possible by the ‘regulation’ of competition. Few catchwords have
|
||
done so much harm as the ideal of a ‘stabilization’ of particular
|
||
prices or wages, which, while securing the income of some, makes
|
||
the position of the rest more and more precarious.
|
||
In England and America special privileges, especially in the
|
||
form of the ‘regulation’ of competition, the ‘stabilization’ of
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
67
|
||
This formula answers practically no questions. It does not
|
||
free us from the necessity of deciding in every particular instance
|
||
between the merits of particular individuals or groups, and it gives
|
||
no help in that decision. All it tells us in effect is to take from the
|
||
rich as much as we can. When it comes to the distribution of the
|
||
spoils the problem is the same as if the formula of ‘greater equality’
|
||
had never been conceived.
|
||
It is often said that political freedom is meaningless without
|
||
economic freedom. This is true enough, but in a sense almost
|
||
opposite from that in which the phrase is used by our planners.
|
||
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
|
||
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
|
||
Like the spurious ‘economic freedom’, and with more justice,
|
||
economic security is often represented as an indispensable condition
|
||
of real liberty. In a sense this is both true and important. Independence
|
||
of mind or strength of character is rarely found among
|
||
those who cannot be confi dent that they will make their way by
|
||
their own effort.
|
||
But there are two kinds of security: the certainty of a given
|
||
minimum of sustenance for all and the security of a given standard
|
||
of life, of the relative position which one person or group enjoys
|
||
compared with others.
|
||
There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
66
|
||
satisfy the new demands, we shall not unwittingly destroy values
|
||
which we still rate higher.
|
||
The confl ict with which we have to deal is a fundamental one
|
||
between two irreconcilable types of social organization, which
|
||
have often been described as the commercial and the military.
|
||
In either both choice and risk rest with the individual or he is
|
||
relieved of both. In the army, work and worker alike are allotted
|
||
by authority, and this is the only system in which the individual
|
||
can be conceded full economic security. This security is, however,
|
||
inseparable from the restrictions on liberty and the hierarchical
|
||
order of military life – it is the security of the barracks.
|
||
In a society used to freedom it is unlikely that many people
|
||
would be ready deliberately to purchase security at this price.
|
||
But the policies which are followed now are nevertheless rapidly
|
||
creating conditions in which the striving for security tends to
|
||
become stronger than the love of freedom.
|
||
If we are not to destroy individual freedom, competition must
|
||
be left to function unobstructed. Let a uniform minimum be
|
||
secured to everybody by all means; but let us admit at the same
|
||
time that all claims for a privileged security of particular classes
|
||
must lapse, that all excuses disappear for allowing particular
|
||
groups to exclude newcomers from sharing their relative prosperity
|
||
in order to maintain a special standard of their own.
|
||
There can be no question that adequate security against
|
||
severe privation will have to be one of our main goals of policy.
|
||
But nothing is more fatal than the present fashion of intellectual
|
||
leaders of extolling security at the expense of freedom. It is essential
|
||
that we should re-learn frankly to face the fact that freedom
|
||
can be had only at a price and that as individuals we must be
|
||
prepared to make severe material sacrifi ces to preserve it.
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
69
|
||
particular prices and wages, have assumed increasing importance.
|
||
With every grant of such security to one group the insecurity of
|
||
the rest necessarily increases. If you guarantee to some a fi xed part
|
||
of a variable cake, the share left to the rest is bound to fl uctuate
|
||
proportionally more than the size of the whole. And the essential
|
||
element of security which the competitive system offers, the great
|
||
variety of opportunities, is more and more reduced.
|
||
The general endeavour to achieve security by restrictive
|
||
measures, supported by the state, has in the course of time
|
||
produced a progressive transformation of society – a transformation
|
||
in which, as in so many other ways, Germany has led and the
|
||
other countries have followed. This development has been hastened
|
||
by another effect of socialist teaching, the deliberate disparagement
|
||
of all activities involving economic risk and the moral opprobrium
|
||
cast on the gains which make risks worth taking but which only few
|
||
can win.
|
||
We cannot blame our young men when they prefer the safe,
|
||
salaried position to the risk of enterprise after they have heard
|
||
from their earliest youth the former described as the superior,
|
||
more unselfi sh and disinterested occupation. The younger generation
|
||
of today has grown up in a world in which, in school and
|
||
press, the spirit of commercial enterprise has been represented
|
||
as disreputable and the making of profi t as immoral, where to
|
||
employ 100 people is represented as exploitation but to command
|
||
the same number as honourable.
|
||
Older people may regard this as exaggeration, but the daily
|
||
experience of the university teacher leaves little doubt that, as a
|
||
result of anti-capitalist propaganda, values have already altered
|
||
far in advance of the change in institutions which has so far taken
|
||
place. The question is whether, by changing our institutions to
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
68
|
||
Originally published in Look magazine
|
||
Reproduced from a booklet published by
|
||
General Motors, Detroit, in the ‘Thought Starter’ series (no. 118)
|
||
We must regain the conviction on which liberty in the Anglo-
|
||
Saxon countries has been based and which Benjamin Franklin
|
||
expressed in a phrase applicable to us as individuals no less than
|
||
as nations: ‘Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase
|
||
a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.’
|
||
Toward a better world
|
||
To build a better world, we must have the courage to make a new
|
||
start. We must clear away the obstacles with which human folly
|
||
has recently encumbered our path and release the creative energy
|
||
of individuals. We must create conditions favourable to progress
|
||
rather than ‘planning progress’.
|
||
It is not those who cry for more ‘planning’ who show the
|
||
necessary courage, nor those who preach a ‘New Order’, which
|
||
is no more than a continuation of the tendencies of the past 40
|
||
years, and who can think of nothing better than to imitate Hitler.
|
||
It is, indeed, those who cry loudest for a planned economy who are
|
||
most completely under the sway of the ideas which have created
|
||
this war and most of the evils from which we suffer.
|
||
The guiding principle in any attempt to create a world of free
|
||
men must be this: a policy of freedom for the individual is the only
|
||
truly progressive policy.
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
70
|
||
t h e roa d to s e r f d o m i n c a rtoons
|
||
73
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
72
|
||
t h e roa d to s e r f d o m i n c a rtoons
|
||
75
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
74
|
||
t h e roa d to s e r f d o m i n c a rtoons
|
||
77
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
76
|
||
t h e roa d to s e r f d o m i n c a rtoons
|
||
79
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
78
|
||
t h e roa d to s e r f d o m i n c a rtoons
|
||
81
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
80
|
||
t h e roa d to s e r f d o m i n c a rtoons
|
||
83
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
82
|
||
t h e roa d to s e r f d o m i n c a rtoons
|
||
85
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
84
|
||
t h e roa d to s e r f d o m i n c a rtoons
|
||
87
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
86
|
||
t h e roa d to s e r f d o m i n c a rtoons
|
||
89
|
||
t h e roa d to serfdom
|
||
88
|
||
The Intellectuals and Socialism
|
||
A note on the text
|
||
‘The Intellectuals and Socialism’ was fi rst published in the
|
||
University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 3, Spring 1949. It
|
||
was reprinted in F. A. Hayek, Studies in Philosophy, Politics and
|
||
Economics, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1967. It was
|
||
published as a booklet in the Studies in Social Theory Series by
|
||
the Institute of Humane Studies, California, 1971. The text of this
|
||
edition is taken from Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics.
|
||
The copyright of ‘The Intellectuals and Socialism’ remains with
|
||
the University of Chicago Law Review, and the essay is republished
|
||
here by kind permission. This essay was also previously
|
||
published by the IEA in the Rediscovered Riches series.
|
||
93
|
||
In the late Professor F. A. Hayek’s 1949 essay, ‘The Intellectuals
|
||
and Socialism’, the author’s fi nal paragraph warns: ‘Unless we can
|
||
make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a
|
||
living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges
|
||
the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the
|
||
prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that
|
||
belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its
|
||
best, the battle is not lost. The intellectual revival of liberalism is
|
||
already under way in many parts of the world. Will it be in time?’
|
||
Fortunately, Professor Hayek’s warning was heeded, just in
|
||
time. His colleagues in the Mont Pèlerin Society, his students, and
|
||
his admirers from around the world took his message to heart,
|
||
and they have spent the decades since the publication of this essay
|
||
honing their arguments for liberty, and transmitting these ideas
|
||
through institutions, publications and conferences with a success
|
||
undreamt of in 1949.
|
||
For many of us, Hayek’s brief essay was a call to action. In it, he
|
||
explained the process by which ideas are developed and become
|
||
widely accepted, and he noted why our own classical liberal ideas
|
||
may not be as widely held, or as fashionable, as they deserve to be.
|
||
For too long we had underestimated the power of the ‘intellectual
|
||
class’ – the ‘professional second-hand dealers in ideas’, as Hayek
|
||
refers to them – to shape the climate of public opinion. As Hayek
|
||
FOREWORD
|
||
the intellecua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
94
|
||
foreword
|
||
95
|
||
pointed out, the parties of the Left directed most of their energies,
|
||
either by design or circumstance, toward gaining the support
|
||
of this intellectual elite – the journalists, teachers, ministers,
|
||
lecturers, publicists, writers, and artists who were masters of the
|
||
technique of conveying ideas. At the time of this essay Hayek said
|
||
that most of us learn little about events or ideas except through
|
||
this class (and with the growth of television, it’s probably even
|
||
less). The intellectuals have become gatekeepers for the information,
|
||
views, and opinions that ultimately do reach us. Conservatives,
|
||
by contrast, had concentrated on reaching and persuading
|
||
individual voters.
|
||
For many of us, this essay was a challenge to build up our
|
||
own class of intellectuals made up of those who loved liberty.
|
||
We trained, hired, networked, and supported academics, policy
|
||
analysts, journalists, radio talk show hosts, and even political
|
||
leaders who would shape public opinion and infl uence the
|
||
politics of tomorrow. And in many areas we have succeeded in
|
||
changing the climate of public opinion and changing the world.
|
||
Commun ism has failed, the Berlin Wall has been torn down, and
|
||
even left-of-centre politicians like [former] President Clinton
|
||
and Prime Minister Blair are embracing the rhetoric of our classical
|
||
liberal solutions when talking of some of our modern social
|
||
problems. I believe the irony would not be lost on Professor
|
||
Hayek!
|
||
Clearly much remains to be done before we can enjoy a truly
|
||
free society. And for guidance we should once again turn to
|
||
Hayek. As he points out, much of the success socialism gained
|
||
up until 1949 was not by engaging in a battle of confl icting
|
||
ideals, but by contrasting the existing state of affairs with that
|
||
one ideal of a possible future society which the socialists alone
|
||
held up before the public. ‘Very few of the other programmes
|
||
which offered themselves provided genuine alternatives.’ (p. 123.)
|
||
Compromises were thus made somewhere between the socialist
|
||
ideal and the existing state of affairs. The only questions for
|
||
socialists were how fast and how far to proceed. Conservatives
|
||
have learned this lesson: it is not enough to stop bad policies, we
|
||
have to offer genuine alternatives.
|
||
Since the original publication of ‘The Intellectuals and
|
||
Socialism’ we have developed the philosophical foundations of a
|
||
free society, thanks to Hayek, our friends at the IEA, and others.
|
||
And we have built a class of intellectuals to translate these philosophical
|
||
ideas to the public. However, we have not held up before
|
||
the public our own vision of a future society built on liberty. And
|
||
this is the task facing us as we approach the new millennium. As
|
||
Hayek said, the task of constructing a free society can be exciting
|
||
and fascinating. If we are to succeed, we must make the building
|
||
of a free society once more an intellectual adventure and a deed of
|
||
courage.
|
||
As an alumnus of the Institute of Economic Affairs, I particularly
|
||
thank our good friends at the IEA for republishing this very
|
||
special essay, and most importantly for the many courageous
|
||
intellectual adventures they have undertaken.
|
||
e d w i n j . f e u l n e r j r
|
||
96 97
|
||
i n t roduction
|
||
In April 1945 Reader’s Digest published the condensed version
|
||
of Friedrich Hayek’s classic work The Road to Serfdom. For the fi rst
|
||
and still the only time in the history of the Digest, the condensed
|
||
book was carried at the front of the magazine rather than the back.
|
||
Among the many who read the condensed book was Antony
|
||
Fisher. In his very early thirties, this former Battle of Britain
|
||
pilot turned stockbroker turned farmer went to see Hayek at
|
||
the London School of Economics to discuss his concern over the
|
||
advance of socialism and collectivism in Britain. Fisher feared that
|
||
the country for whom so many, including his father and brother,
|
||
had died in two world wars in order that it should remain free was,
|
||
in fact, becoming less and less free. He saw liberty threatened by
|
||
the ever-growing power and scope of the state. The purpose of his
|
||
visit to Hayek, the great architect of the revival of classical liberal
|
||
ideas, was to ask what could be done about it.
|
||
My central question was what, if anything, could he advise
|
||
me to do to help get discussion and policy on the right lines
|
||
. . . Hayek fi rst warned me against wasting time – as I was
|
||
then tempted – by taking up a political career. He explained
|
||
his view that the decisive infl uence in the battle of ideas and
|
||
policy was wielded by intellectuals whom he characterised
|
||
as the ‘second-hand dealers in ideas’. It was the dominant
|
||
intellectuals from the Fabians onwards who had tilted
|
||
the political debate in favour of growing government
|
||
INTRODUCTION
|
||
Hayek and the Second-hand Dealers in Ideas
|
||
intervention with all that followed. If I shared the view that
|
||
better ideas were not getting a fair hearing, his counsel was
|
||
that I should join with others in forming a scholarly research
|
||
organisation to supply intellectuals in universities, schools,
|
||
journalism and broadcasting with authoritative studies
|
||
of the economic theory of markets and its application to
|
||
practical affairs.1
|
||
Fisher went on to make his fortune by introducing factory
|
||
farming of chickens on the American model to Britain. His
|
||
company, Buxted Chickens, changed the diet of his fellow countrymen,
|
||
and made him rich enough to carry out Hayek’s advice.
|
||
He set up the Institute of Economic Affairs in 1955 with the view
|
||
that:
|
||
[T]hose carrying on intellectual work must have a
|
||
considerable impact through newspapers, radio, television
|
||
and so on, on the thinking of the average individual.
|
||
Socialism was spread in this way and it is time we started to
|
||
reverse the process.2
|
||
He thus set himself exactly the task which Hayek had recommended
|
||
to him in 1945.
|
||
Soon after that meeting with Fisher, Hayek expanded on his theory
|
||
of the infl uence of intellectuals in an essay entitled ‘The Intellectuals
|
||
and Socialism’, fi rst published in the Chicago Law Review in
|
||
1949 and now republished by the Institute of Economic Affairs.
|
||
1 A. Fisher, Must History Repeat Itself?, Churchill Press, 1974, p. 103, quoted in R.
|
||
Cockett, Thinking the Unthinkable, HarperCollins, London, 1995, pp. 123–4.
|
||
2 Letter from Antony Fisher to Oliver Smedley, 22 May 1956, quoted in R. Cockett,
|
||
op. cit., p. 131. Emphasis in original.
|
||
the intellecua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
98 99
|
||
i n t roduction
|
||
According to Hayek, the intellectual is neither an original thinker
|
||
nor an expert. Indeed he need not even be intelligent. What he
|
||
does possess is:
|
||
a) the ability to speak/write on a wide range of subjects; and
|
||
b) a way of becoming familiar with new ideas earlier than his
|
||
audience.
|
||
Let me attempt to summarise Hayek’s insights:
|
||
1. Pro-market ideas had failed to remain relevant and inspiring,
|
||
thus opening the door to anti-market forces.
|
||
2. People’s knowledge of history plays a much greater role in the
|
||
development of their political philosophy than we normally
|
||
think.3
|
||
3. Practical men and women concerned with the minutiae of
|
||
today’s events tend to lose sight of long-term considerations.
|
||
4. Be alert to special interests, especially those that, while
|
||
claiming to be pro-free enterprise in general, always want to
|
||
make exceptions in their own areas of expertise.
|
||
5. The outcome of today’s politics is already set, so look for
|
||
leverage for tomorrow as a scholar or intellectual.
|
||
6. The intellectual is the gatekeeper of ideas.
|
||
7. The best pro-market people become businessmen, engineers,
|
||
doctors and so on; the best anti-market people become
|
||
intellectuals and scholars.
|
||
8. Be Utopian and believe in the power of ideas.
|
||
Hayek’s primary example is the period 1850 to 1950, during
|
||
which socialism was nowhere, at fi rst, a working-class movement.
|
||
There was always a long-term effort by the intellectuals before
|
||
the working classes accepted socialism. Indeed all countries that
|
||
have turned to socialism experienced an earlier phase in which for
|
||
many years socialist ideas governed the thinking of more active
|
||
intellectuals. Once you reach this phase, experience suggests, it
|
||
is just a matter of time before the views of today’s intellectuals
|
||
become tomorrow’s politics.
|
||
‘The Intellectuals and Socialism’ was published in 1949, but,
|
||
apart from one reference in one sentence, there is nothing to say it
|
||
could not have been written forty years later, just before Hayek’s
|
||
death. It might have been written forty years earlier but for the
|
||
fact that, as a young man, he felt the over-generous instincts of
|
||
socialism. When Hayek penned his thoughts, socialism seemed
|
||
triumphant across the world. Anybody of enlightened sensibility
|
||
regarded themselves as of ‘The Left’. To be of ‘The Right’ was to be
|
||
morally deformed, foolish, or both.
|
||
In Alan Bennett’s 1968 play Forty Years On the headmaster of
|
||
Albion House, a minor public school which represents Britain,
|
||
asks: ‘Why is it always the intelligent people who are socialists?’4
|
||
Hayek’s answer, which he expressed in his last major work, The
|
||
Fatal Conceit, was that ‘intelligent people will tend to overvalue
|
||
intelligence’. They think that everything worth knowing can be
|
||
discovered by processes of intellectual examination and ‘fi nd it
|
||
hard to believe that there can exist any useful knowledge that did
|
||
not originate in deliberate experimentation’. They consequently
|
||
3 As Leonard P. Liggio, executive vice president of the Atlas Economic Research
|
||
Foundation, often says, more people learn their economics from history than
|
||
from economics.
|
||
4 A. Bennett, Forty Years On, fi rst performance 31 October 1968; Faber and Faber,
|
||
London, 1969, p. 58.
|
||
the intellecua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
100 101
|
||
i n t roduction
|
||
neglect the ‘traditional rules’, the ‘second endowment’ of ‘cultural
|
||
evolution’ which, for Hayek, included morals, especially ‘our institutions
|
||
of property, freedom and justice’. They think that any
|
||
imperfection can be corrected by ‘rational coordination’ and this
|
||
leads them ‘to be favourably disposed to the central economic
|
||
planning and control that lie at the heart of socialism’. Thus,
|
||
whether or not they call themselves socialists, ‘the higher we
|
||
climb up the ladder of intelligence . . . the more likely we are to
|
||
encounter socialist convictions’.5
|
||
Only when you start to list all the different groups of intellectuals
|
||
do you realise how many there are, how their role has grown in
|
||
modern times, and how dependent we have become on them. The
|
||
more obvious ones are those who are professionals at conveying
|
||
a message but are amateurs when it comes to substance. They
|
||
include the ‘journalists, teachers, ministers, lecturers, publicists,
|
||
radio commentators, writers of fi ction, cartoonists, and artists’.
|
||
However we should also note the role of ‘professional men and
|
||
technicians’ (p. 107) who are listened to by others with respect on
|
||
topics outside their competence because of their standing. The
|
||
intellectuals decide what we hear, in what form we are to hear it
|
||
and from what angle it is to be presented. They decide who will be
|
||
heard and who will not be heard. The supremacy and pervasiveness
|
||
of television as the controlling medium of modern culture
|
||
makes that even more true of our own day than it was in the
|
||
1940s.
|
||
There is an alarming sentence in this essay: ‘[I]n most parts
|
||
of the Western World even the most determined opponents of
|
||
socialism derive from socialist sources their knowledge on most
|
||
subjects on which they have no fi rst-hand information’ (p. 112).
|
||
Division of knowledge is a part of the division of labour. Knowledge,
|
||
and its manipulation, are the bulk of much labour now. A
|
||
majority earns its living in services of myriad sorts rather than in
|
||
manufacturing or agriculture.
|
||
A liberal, or as Hayek would always say, a Whig, cannot
|
||
disagree with a socialist analysis in a fi eld in which he has no
|
||
knowledge. The disquieting theme of Hayek’s argument is how the
|
||
fragmentation of knowledge is a tactical boon to socialists. Experts
|
||
in particular fi elds often gain ‘rents’ from state intervention and,
|
||
while overtly free-market in their outlook elsewhere, are always
|
||
quick to explain why the market does not work in their area.
|
||
This was one of the reasons for establishing the IEA and its
|
||
100-plus sister bodies around the world. Hayek also regarded the
|
||
creation of the Mont Pèlerin Society, which fi rst met in 1947, as an
|
||
opportunity for minds engaged in the fi ght against socialism to
|
||
exchange ideas – meaning, by socialism, all those ideas devoted to
|
||
empowering the state. The threat posed by the forces of coercion
|
||
to those of voluntary association or spontaneous action is what
|
||
concerned him.
|
||
The struggle has become more diffi cult as policy makers have
|
||
become less and less willing to identify themselves explicitly as
|
||
socialists. A review of a book on socialism which appeared in 1885
|
||
began:
|
||
Socialism is the hobby of the day. Platform and study
|
||
resound with the word, and street and debating society
|
||
inscribe it on their banners.6
|
||
5 F. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, in W. W. Bartley (ed.), The Collected
|
||
Works of Friedrich August Hayek, Routledge, London, Vol. 1, 1988, pp. 52–4.
|
||
6 Review of Contemporary Socialism by John Rae, Charity Organisation Review, Charity
|
||
Organisation Society, London, October 1885.
|
||
the intellecua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
102 103
|
||
i n t roduction
|
||
How unlike the home life of our own New Labour! Socialism
|
||
has become the ‘s’ word, and was not mentioned in the Labour
|
||
Party’s 1997 election manifesto.7
|
||
Socialism survives, however, by transmuting itself into new
|
||
forms. State-run enterprises are now frowned upon, but the everexpanding
|
||
volume of regulation – fi nancial, environmental, health
|
||
and safety – serves to empower the state by other means.
|
||
Part of Hayek’s charm is the pull of his sheer geniality. He is
|
||
generous and mannerly in acknowledging that most socialists
|
||
have benign intentions. They are blind to the real fl aws of their
|
||
recipes. Typically, Hayek ends with a point in their favour: ‘[I]t
|
||
was their courage to be Utopian which gained them the support
|
||
of the intellectuals and therefore an infl uence on public opinion’
|
||
(p. 129). Those who concern themselves exclusively with what
|
||
seems practicable are marginalised by the greater infl uence of
|
||
prevailing opinion.
|
||
I commend to you Hayek’s urge not to seek compromises. We
|
||
can leave that to the politicians. ‘Free trade and freedom of opportunity
|
||
are ideals which still may arouse the imaginations of large
|
||
numbers, but a mere “reasonable freedom of trade” or a mere
|
||
“relaxation of controls” is neither intellectually respectable nor
|
||
likely to inspire any enthusiasm’ (p. 129).
|
||
Most of the readers of this paper will be Hayek’s ‘second-hand
|
||
dealers in ideas’. Conceit makes us all prone to believe we are
|
||
original thinkers, but Hayek explains that we are mostly transmitters
|
||
of ideas borrowed from earlier minds (hence second-hand, in
|
||
a non-pejorative sense). Those scholars who really are the founts of
|
||
new ideas are far more rare than we all suppose. However, Hayek
|
||
argues that we, and the world, are governed by ideas and that we
|
||
can only expand our political and policy horizons by deploying
|
||
them.
|
||
He was supported in this view – and it was probably the only
|
||
view they shared – by John Maynard Keynes. In 1936 Keynes had
|
||
concluded his most famous book, The General Theory of Employment,
|
||
Interest and Money, with these ringing words:
|
||
. . . the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both
|
||
when they are right and when they are wrong, are more
|
||
powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is
|
||
ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to
|
||
be quite exempt from any intellectual infl uences, are usually
|
||
the slaves of some defunct economist . . . Soon or late, it is
|
||
ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or
|
||
evil.8
|
||
Of course, this was true of no one more than of Keynes himself,
|
||
whose followers were wreaking havoc with the world’s economies
|
||
long after he had become defunct. But it was also true of Hayek.
|
||
It was Hayek’s great good fortune to live long enough to see his
|
||
own ideas enter the mainstream of public policy debate. They
|
||
were not always attributed to him: they were described as Thatcherism,
|
||
or Adam-Smith liberalism, or neo-conservatism, but he
|
||
was responsible for their re-emergence, whether credited or not.
|
||
We received a striking demonstration of this at the IEA in 1996
|
||
when we invited Donald Brash, the Governor of the Reserve Bank
|
||
7 New Labour: Because Britain Deserves Better, The Labour Party, London, 1997. On
|
||
the contrary, the manifesto complained that: ‘Our system of government is centralised,
|
||
ineffi cient and bureaucratic.’
|
||
8 J. M. Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Macmillan,
|
||
London, p. 383.
|
||
the intellecua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
104 105
|
||
of New Zealand, to give the prestigious Annual Hayek Memorial
|
||
Lecture on the subject of ‘New Zealand’s Remarkable Reforms’.
|
||
He admitted that, although ‘the New Zealand reforms have a
|
||
distinctly Hayekian fl avour’, the architects of them were scarcely
|
||
aware of Hayek at all, and Brash himself had never read a word of
|
||
Hayek before being asked to give the lecture.9
|
||
The IEA can claim some victories in the increasing awareness
|
||
of classical liberal ideas and ideals. It is hard to measure our infl uence,
|
||
yet, if we awaken some young scholar to the possibility that
|
||
the paradigms or conventions of a discipline may be fl awed, we
|
||
can change the life of that mind for ever. If we convince a young
|
||
journalist he can do more good, and have more fun, by criticising
|
||
the remnants of our socialist inheritance, we can change that
|
||
life. If we persuade a young politician he can harass the forces
|
||
of inertia by tackling privilege and bureaucracy, we change the
|
||
course of that life too. The IEA continues in its mission to move
|
||
around the furniture in the minds of intellectuals. That includes
|
||
you, probably.
|
||
j o h n b l u n d e l l
|
||
9 D. T. Brash, New Zealand’s Remarkable Reforms, Occasional Paper 100, Institute of
|
||
Economic Affairs, London, 1996, p. 17.
|
||
I
|
||
In all democratic countries, in the United States even more than
|
||
elsewhere, a strong belief prevails that the infl uence of the intellectuals
|
||
on politics is negligible. This is no doubt true of the power of
|
||
intellectuals to make their peculiar opinions of the moment infl uence
|
||
decisions, of the extent to which they can sway the popular
|
||
vote on questions on which they differ from the current views of
|
||
the masses. Yet over somewhat longer periods they have probably
|
||
never exercised so great an infl uence as they do today in those
|
||
countries. This power they wield by shaping public opinion.
|
||
In the light of recent history it is somewhat curious that this
|
||
decisive power of the professional second-hand dealers in ideas
|
||
should not yet be more generally recognised. The political development
|
||
of the Western world during the last hundred years
|
||
furnishes the clearest demonstration. Socialism has never and
|
||
nowhere been at fi rst a working-class movement. It is by no means
|
||
an obvious remedy for the obvious evil which the interests of that
|
||
class will necessarily demand. It is a construction of theorists,
|
||
deriving from certain tendencies of abstract thought with which
|
||
for a long time only the intellectuals were familiar; and it required
|
||
long efforts by the intellectuals before the working classes could
|
||
be persuaded to adopt it as their programme.
|
||
THE INTELLECTUALS AND SOCIALISM
|
||
the intellecua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
106 107
|
||
t h e i n t e l l e c t ua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
In every country that has moved toward socialism, the phase of
|
||
the development in which socialism becomes a determining infl uence
|
||
on politics has been preceded for many years by a period during
|
||
which socialist ideals governed the thinking of the more active intellectuals.
|
||
In Germany this stage had been reached towards the end
|
||
of the last century; in England and France, about the time of World
|
||
War I. To the casual observer it would seem as if the United States
|
||
had reached this phase after World War II and that the attraction
|
||
of a planned and directed economic system is now as strong among
|
||
the American intellectuals as it ever was among their German or
|
||
English fellows. Experience suggests that, once this phase has been
|
||
reached, it is merely a question of time until the views now held by
|
||
the intellectuals become the governing force of politics.
|
||
The character of the process by which the views of the intellectuals
|
||
infl uence the politics of tomorrow is therefore of much
|
||
more than academic interest. Whether we merely wish to foresee
|
||
or attempt to infl uence the course of events, it is a factor of much
|
||
greater importance than is generally understood. What to the
|
||
contemporary observer appears as the battle of confl icting interests
|
||
has indeed often been decided long before in a clash of ideas
|
||
confi ned to narrow circles. Paradoxically enough, however, in
|
||
general the parties of the Left have done most to spread the belief
|
||
that it was the numerical strength of the opposing material interests
|
||
which decided political issues, whereas in practice these same
|
||
parties have regularly and successfully acted as if they understood
|
||
the key position of the intellectuals. Whether by design or driven
|
||
by the force of circumstances, they have always directed their
|
||
main effort towards gaining the support of this ‘elite’, while the
|
||
more conservative groups have acted, as regularly but unsuccessfully,
|
||
on a more naïve view of mass democracy and have usually
|
||
vainly tried directly to reach and to persuade the individual voter.
|
||
II
|
||
The term ‘intellectuals’, however, does not at once convey a true
|
||
picture of the large class to which we refer, and the fact that we
|
||
have no better name by which to describe what we have called the
|
||
second-hand dealers in ideas is not the least of the reasons why
|
||
their power is not better understood. Even persons who use the
|
||
word ‘intellectual’ mainly as a term of abuse are still inclined to
|
||
withhold it from many who undoubtedly perform that characteristic
|
||
function. This is neither that of the original thinker nor that
|
||
of the scholar or expert in a particular fi eld of thought. The typical
|
||
intellectual need be neither: he need not possess special knowledge
|
||
of anything in particular, nor need he even be particularly
|
||
intelligent, to perform his role as intermediary in the spreading of
|
||
ideas. What qualifi es him for his job is the wide range of subjects
|
||
on which he can readily talk and write, and a position or habits
|
||
through which he becomes acquainted with new ideas sooner
|
||
than those to whom he addresses himself.
|
||
Until one begins to list all the professions and activities which
|
||
belong to this class, it is diffi cult to realise how numerous it is,
|
||
how the scope for its activities constantly increases in modern
|
||
society, and how dependent on it we all have become. The class
|
||
does not consist only of journalists, teachers, ministers, lecturers,
|
||
publicists, radio commentators, writers of fi ction, cartoonists, and
|
||
artists – all of whom may be masters of the technique of conveying
|
||
ideas but are usually amateurs so far as the substance of what they
|
||
convey is concerned. The class also includes many professional
|
||
men and technicians, such as scientists and doctors, who through
|
||
the intellecua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
108 109
|
||
t h e i n t e l l e c t ua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
their habitual intercourse with the printed word become carriers of
|
||
new ideas outside their own fi elds and who, because of their expert
|
||
knowledge of their own subjects, are listened to with respect on
|
||
most others. There is little that the ordinary man of today learns
|
||
about events or ideas except through the medium of this class; and
|
||
outside our special fi elds of work we are in this respect almost all
|
||
ordinary men, dependent for our information and instruction on
|
||
those who make it their job to keep abreast of opinion. It is the
|
||
intellectuals in this sense who decide what views and opinions
|
||
are to reach us, which facts are important enough to be told to us,
|
||
and in what form and from what angle they are to be presented.
|
||
Whether we shall ever learn of the results of the work of the expert
|
||
and the original thinker depends mainly on their decision.
|
||
The layman, perhaps, is not fully aware to what extent even
|
||
the popular reputations of scientists and scholars are made by
|
||
that class and are inevitably affected by its views on subjects which
|
||
have little to do with the merits of the real achievements. And
|
||
it is specially signifi cant for our problem that every scholar can
|
||
probably name several instances from his fi eld of men who have
|
||
undeservedly achieved a popular reputation as great scientists
|
||
solely because they hold what the intellectuals regard as ‘progressive’
|
||
political views; but I have yet to come across a single instance
|
||
where such a scientifi c pseudo-reputation has been bestowed
|
||
for political reason on a scholar of more conservative leanings.
|
||
This creation of reputations by the intellectuals is particularly
|
||
import ant in the fi elds where the results of expert studies are not
|
||
used by other specialists but depend on the political decision of
|
||
the public at large. There is indeed scarcely a better illustration of
|
||
this than the attitude which professional economists have taken to
|
||
the growth of such doctrines as socialism or protectionism. There
|
||
was probably at no time a majority of economists, who were recognised
|
||
as such by their peers, favourable to socialism (or, for that
|
||
matter, to protection). In all probability it is even true to say that
|
||
no other similar group of students contains so high a proportion
|
||
of its members decidedly opposed to socialism (or protection).
|
||
This is the more signifi cant as in recent times it is as likely as not
|
||
that it was an early interest in socialist schemes for reform which
|
||
led a man to choose economics for his profession. Yet it is not the
|
||
predominant views of the experts but the views of a minority,
|
||
mostly of rather doubtful standing in their profession, which are
|
||
taken up and spread by the intellectuals.
|
||
The all-pervasive infl uence of the intellectuals in contempor ary
|
||
society is still further strengthened by the growing importance of
|
||
‘organisation’. It is a common but probably mistaken belief that
|
||
the increase of organisation increases the infl uence of the expert
|
||
or specialist. This may be true of the expert administrator and
|
||
organiser, if there are such people, but hardly of the expert in any
|
||
particular fi eld of knowledge. It is rather the person whose general
|
||
knowledge is supposed to qualify him to appreciate expert testimony,
|
||
and to judge between the experts from different fi elds,
|
||
whose power is enhanced. The point which is important for us,
|
||
however, is that the scholar who becomes a university president,
|
||
the scientist who takes charge of an institute or foundation, the
|
||
scholar who becomes an editor or the active promoter of an
|
||
organisation serving a particular cause, all rapidly cease to be
|
||
scholars or experts and become intellectuals in our sense, people
|
||
who judge all issues not by their specifi c merits but, in the characteristic
|
||
manner of intellectuals, solely in the light of certain
|
||
fashionable general ideas. The number of such institutions which
|
||
breed intellectuals and increase their number and powers grows
|
||
the intellecua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
110 111
|
||
t h e i n t e l l e c t ua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
every day. Almost all the ‘experts’ in the mere technique of getting
|
||
knowledge over are, with respect to the subject matter which they
|
||
handle, intellectuals and not experts.
|
||
In the sense in which we are using the term, the intellectuals
|
||
are in fact a fairly new phenomenon of history. Though nobody
|
||
will regret that education has ceased to be a privilege of the propertied
|
||
classes, the fact that the propertied classes are no longer the
|
||
best educated and the fact that the large number of people who
|
||
owe their position solely to their general education do not possess
|
||
that experience of the working of the economic system which
|
||
the administration of property gives, are important for understanding
|
||
the role of the intellectual. Professor Schumpeter, who
|
||
has devoted an illuminating chapter of his Capitalism, Socialism,
|
||
and Demo cracy to some aspects of our problem, has not unfairly
|
||
stressed that it is the absence of direct responsibility for practical
|
||
affairs and the consequent absence of fi rst-hand knowledge
|
||
of them which distinguishes the typical intellectual from other
|
||
people who also wield the power of the spoken and written word.
|
||
It would lead too far, however, to examine here further the development
|
||
of this class and the curious claim which has recently been
|
||
advanced by one of its theorists that it was the only one whose
|
||
views were not decidedly infl uenced by its own economic interests.
|
||
One of the important points that would have to be examined
|
||
in such a discussion would be how far the growth of this class has
|
||
been artifi cially stimulated by the law of copyright.1
|
||
III
|
||
It is not surprising that the real scholar or expert and the practical
|
||
man of affairs often feel contemptuous about the intellectual,
|
||
are disinclined to recognise his power, and are resentful
|
||
when they discover it. Individually they fi nd the intellectuals
|
||
mostly to be people who understand nothing in particular especially
|
||
well and whose judgement on matters they themselves
|
||
understand shows little sign of special wisdom. But it would be
|
||
a fatal mistake to underestimate their power for this reason. Even
|
||
though their knowledge may be often superfi cial and their intelligence
|
||
limited, this does not alter the fact that it is their judgement
|
||
which mainly determines the views on which society will act in the
|
||
not too distant future. It is no exaggeration to say that, once the
|
||
more active part of the intellectuals has been converted to a set
|
||
of beliefs, the process by which these become generally accepted
|
||
is almost automatic and irresistible. These intellectuals are the
|
||
organs which modern society has developed for spreading knowledge
|
||
and ideas, and it is their convictions and opinions which
|
||
operate as the sieve through which all new conceptions must pass
|
||
before they can reach the masses.
|
||
It is of the nature of the intellectual’s job that he must use his
|
||
own knowledge and convictions in performing his daily task. He
|
||
occupies his position because he possesses, or has had to deal from
|
||
day to day with, knowledge which his employer in general does
|
||
not possess, and his activities can therefore be directed by others
|
||
only to a limited extent. And just because the intellectuals are
|
||
mostly intellectually honest, it is inevitable that they should follow
|
||
their own convictions whenever they have discretion and that
|
||
they should give a corresponding slant to everything that passes
|
||
through their hands. Even where the direction of policy is in the
|
||
1 It would be interesting to discover how far a seriously critical view of the benefi ts
|
||
to society of the law of copyright, or the expression of doubts about the public interest
|
||
in the existence of a class which makes its living from the writing of books,
|
||
would have a chance of being publicly stated in a society in which the channels of
|
||
expression are so largely controlled by people who have a vested interest in the
|
||
existing situation.
|
||
the intellecua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
112 113
|
||
t h e i n t e l l e c t ua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
hands of men of affairs of different views, the execution of policy
|
||
will in general be in the hands of intellectuals, and it is frequently
|
||
the decision on the detail which determines the net effect. We
|
||
fi nd this illustrated in almost all fi elds of contemporary society.
|
||
Newspapers in ‘capitalist’ ownership, universities presided over
|
||
by ‘reactionary’ governing bodies, broadcasting systems owned
|
||
by conservative governments, have all been known to infl uence
|
||
public opinion in the direction of socialism, because this was the
|
||
conviction of the personnel. This has often happened not only in
|
||
spite of, but perhaps even because of, the attempts of those at the
|
||
top to control opinion and to impose principles of orthodoxy.
|
||
The effect of this fi ltering of ideas through the convictions of
|
||
a class which is constitutionally disposed to certain views is by no
|
||
means confi ned to the masses. Outside his special fi eld the expert
|
||
is generally no less dependent on this class and scarcely less infl uenced
|
||
by their selection. The result of this is that today in most
|
||
parts of the Western world even the most determined opponents
|
||
of socialism derive from socialist sources their knowledge on most
|
||
subjects on which they have no fi rst-hand information. With
|
||
many of the more general preconceptions of socialist thought, the
|
||
connection of their more practical proposals is by no means at
|
||
once obvious; in consequence, many men who believe themselves
|
||
to be determined opponents of that system of thought become in
|
||
fact effective spreaders of its ideas. Who does not know the practical
|
||
man who in his own fi eld denounces socialism as ‘pernicious
|
||
rot’ but, when he steps outside his subject, spouts socialism like
|
||
any Left journalist?
|
||
In no other fi eld has the predominant infl uence of the socialist
|
||
intellectuals been felt more strongly during the last hundred years
|
||
than in the contacts between different national civilisations. It
|
||
would go far beyond the limits of this article to trace the causes
|
||
and signifi cance of the highly important fact that in the modern
|
||
world the intellectuals provide almost the only approach to an
|
||
international community. It is this which mainly accounts for
|
||
the extraordinary spectacle that for generations the supposedly
|
||
‘capitalist’ West has been lending its moral and material support
|
||
almost exclusively to those ideological movements in the countries
|
||
farther east which aimed at undermining Western civilisation
|
||
and that, at the same time, the information which the Western
|
||
public has obtained about events in Central and Eastern Europe
|
||
has almost inevitably been coloured by a socialist bias. Many of
|
||
the ‘educational’ activities of the American forces of occupation
|
||
in Germany have furnished clear and recent examples of this
|
||
tendency.
|
||
IV
|
||
A proper understanding of the reasons which tend to incline
|
||
so many of the intellectuals towards socialism is thus most
|
||
import ant. The fi rst point here which those who do not share this
|
||
bias ought to face frankly is that it is neither selfi sh interests nor
|
||
evil intentions but mostly honest convictions and good intentions
|
||
which determine the intellectuals’ views. In fact, it is necessary to
|
||
recognise that on the whole the typical intellectual is today more
|
||
likely to be a socialist the more he is guided by good will and intelligence,
|
||
and that on the plane of purely intellectual argument he
|
||
will generally be able to make out a better case than the majority
|
||
of his opponents within his class. If we still think him wrong, we
|
||
must recognise that it may be genuine error which leads the wellmeaning
|
||
and intelligent people who occupy those key positions
|
||
the intellecua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
114 115
|
||
t h e i n t e l l e c t ua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
in our society to spread views which to us appear a threat to our
|
||
civilisation.2 Nothing could be more important than to try to
|
||
understand the sources of this error in order that we should be
|
||
able to counter it. Yet those who are generally regarded as the
|
||
representatives of the existing order and who believe that they
|
||
comprehend the dangers of socialism are usually very far from
|
||
such understanding. They tend to regard the socialist intellectuals
|
||
as nothing more than a pernicious bunch of highbrow radicals
|
||
without appreciating their infl uence and, by their whole attitude
|
||
to them, tend to drive them even further into opposition to the
|
||
existing order.
|
||
If we are to understand this peculiar bias of a large section of
|
||
the intellectuals, we must be clear about two points. The fi rst is
|
||
that they generally judge all particular issues exclusively in the
|
||
light of certain general ideas; the second, that the characteristic
|
||
errors of any age are frequently derived from some genuine new
|
||
truths it has discovered, and they are erroneous applications of
|
||
new generalisations which have proved their value in other fi elds.
|
||
The conclusion to which we shall be led by a full consideration of
|
||
these facts will be that the effective refutation of such errors will
|
||
frequently require further intellectual advance, and often advance
|
||
on points which are very abstract and may seem very remote from
|
||
the practical issues.
|
||
It is perhaps the most characteristic feature of the intellectual
|
||
that he judges new ideas not by their specifi c merits but by the
|
||
readiness with which they fi t into his general conceptions, into the
|
||
picture of the world which he regards as modern or advanced. It
|
||
is through their infl uence on him and on his choice of opinions on
|
||
particular issues that the power of ideas for good and evil grows in
|
||
proportion to their generality, abstractness, and even vagueness.
|
||
As he knows little about the particular issues, his criterion must
|
||
be consistency with his other views and suitability for combining
|
||
into a coherent picture of the world. Yet this selection from the
|
||
multitude of new ideas presenting themselves at every moment
|
||
creates the characteristic climate of opinion, the dominant Weltanschauung
|
||
of a period, which will be favourable to the reception of
|
||
some opinions and unfavourable to others and which will make
|
||
the intellectual readily accept one conclusion and reject another
|
||
without a real understanding of the issues.
|
||
In some respects the intellectual is indeed closer to the philosopher
|
||
than to any specialist, and the philosopher is in more than
|
||
one sense a sort of prince among the intellectuals. Although his
|
||
infl uence is farther removed from practical affairs and correspondingly
|
||
slower and more diffi cult to trace than that of the ordinary
|
||
intellectual, it is of the same kind and in the long run even more
|
||
powerful than that of the latter. It is the same endeavour towards
|
||
a synthesis, pursued more methodically, the same judgement
|
||
of particular views in so far as they fi t into a general system of
|
||
thought rather than by their specifi c merits, the same striving
|
||
after a consistent world view, which for both forms the main basis
|
||
for accepting or rejecting ideas. For this reason the philo sopher
|
||
has probably a greater infl uence over the intellectuals than any
|
||
other scholar or scientist and, more than anyone else, determines
|
||
the manner in which the intellectuals exercise their censorship
|
||
function. The popular infl uence of the scientifi c specialist begins to
|
||
rival that of the philosopher only when he ceases to be a specialist
|
||
2 It was therefore not (as has been suggested by one reviewer of The Road to Serfdom,
|
||
Professor J. Schumpeter) ‘politeness to a fault’ but profound conviction of
|
||
the importance of this which made me, in Professor Schumpeter’s words, ‘hardly
|
||
ever attribute to opponents anything beyond intellectual error’.
|
||
the intellecua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
116 117
|
||
t h e i n t e l l e c t ua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
and commences to philosophise about the progress of his subject
|
||
– and usually only after he has been taken up by the intellectuals
|
||
for reasons which have little to do with his scientifi c eminence.
|
||
The ‘climate of opinion’ of any period is thus essentially a set
|
||
of very general preconceptions by which the intellectual judges
|
||
the importance of new facts and opinions. These preconceptions
|
||
are mainly applications to what seem to him the most signifi cant
|
||
aspects of scientifi c achievements, a transfer to other fi elds of
|
||
what has particularly impressed him in the work of the specialists.
|
||
One could give a long list of such intellectual fashions and catchwords
|
||
which in the course of two or three generations have in
|
||
turn dominated the thinking of the intellectuals. Whether it was
|
||
the ‘historical approach’ or the theory of evolution, nineteenthcentury
|
||
determinism and the belief in the predominant infl uence
|
||
of environment as against heredity, the theory of relativity or the
|
||
belief in the power of the unconscious – every one of these general
|
||
conceptions has been made the touchstone by which innovations
|
||
in different fi elds have been tested. It seems as if the less specifi c
|
||
or precise (or the less understood) these ideas are, the wider may
|
||
be their infl uence. Sometimes it is no more than a vague impression
|
||
rarely put into words which thus wields a profound infl uence.
|
||
Such beliefs as that deliberate control or conscious organisation is
|
||
also in social affairs always superior to the results of spontaneous
|
||
processes which are not directed by a human mind, or that any
|
||
order based on a plan laid down beforehand must be better than
|
||
one formed by the balancing of opposing forces, have in this way
|
||
profoundly affected political development.
|
||
Only apparently different is the role of the intellectuals where
|
||
the development of more properly social ideas is concerned. Here
|
||
their peculiar propensities manifest themselves in making shibboleths
|
||
of abstractions, in rationalising and carrying to extremes
|
||
certain ambitions which spring from the normal intercourse of
|
||
men. Since democracy is a good thing, the further the democratic
|
||
principle can be carried, the better it appears to them. The most
|
||
powerful of these general ideas which have shaped political development
|
||
in recent times is of course the ideal of material equality.
|
||
It is, characteristically, not one of the spontaneously grown moral
|
||
convictions, fi rst applied in the relations between particular individuals,
|
||
but an intellectual construction originally conceived in
|
||
the abstract and of doubtful meaning or application in particular
|
||
instances. Nevertheless, it has operated strongly as a principle of
|
||
selection among the alternative courses of social policy, exercising
|
||
a persistent pressure towards an arrangement of social affairs
|
||
which nobody clearly conceives. That a particular measure tends
|
||
to bring about greater equality has come to be regarded as so
|
||
strong a recommendation that little else will be considered. Since
|
||
on each particular issue it is this one aspect on which those who
|
||
guide opinion have a defi nite conviction, equality has determined
|
||
social change even more strongly than its advocates intended.
|
||
Not only moral ideals act in this manner, however. Sometimes
|
||
the attitudes of the intellectuals towards the problems of social
|
||
order may be the consequence of advances in purely scientifi c
|
||
knowledge, and it is in these instances that their erroneous views
|
||
on particular issues may for a time seem to have all the prestige of
|
||
the latest scientifi c achievements behind them. It is not in itself
|
||
surprising that a genuine advance of knowledge should in this
|
||
manner become on occasion a source of new error. If no false
|
||
conclusions followed from new generalisations, they would be
|
||
fi nal truths which would never need revision. Although as a rule
|
||
such a new generalisation will merely share the false consequences
|
||
the intellecua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
118 119
|
||
t h e i n t e l l e c t ua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
which can be drawn from it with the views which were held
|
||
before, and thus not lead to new error, it is quite likely that a new
|
||
theory, just as its value is shown by the valid new conclusions to
|
||
which it leads, will produce other new conclusions which further
|
||
advance will show to have been erroneous. But in such an instance
|
||
a false belief will appear with all the prestige of the latest scientifi
|
||
c knowledge supporting it. Although in the particular fi eld to
|
||
which this belief applies all the scientifi c evidence may be against
|
||
it, it will nevertheless, before the tribunal of the intellectuals and
|
||
in the light of the ideas which govern their thinking, be selected
|
||
as the view which is best in accord with the spirit of the time. The
|
||
specialists who will thus achieve public fame and wide infl uence
|
||
will thus not be those who have gained recognition by their peers
|
||
but will often be men whom the other experts regard as cranks,
|
||
amateurs, or even frauds, but who in the eyes of the general public
|
||
nevertheless become the best known exponents of their subject.
|
||
In particular, there can be little doubt that the manner in
|
||
which during the last hundred years man has learned to organise
|
||
the forces of nature has contributed a great deal towards the
|
||
creation of the belief that a similar control of the forces of society
|
||
would bring comparable improvements in human conditions.
|
||
That, with the application of engineering techniques, the direction
|
||
of all forms of human activity according to a single coherent
|
||
plan should prove to be as successful in society as it has been in
|
||
innumerable engineering tasks, is too plausible a conclusion not
|
||
to seduce most of those who are elated by the achievement of the
|
||
natural sciences. It must indeed be admitted both that it would
|
||
require powerful arguments to counter the strong presumption
|
||
in favour of such a conclusion and that these arguments have not
|
||
yet been adequately stated. It is not suffi cient to point out the
|
||
defects of particular proposals based on this kind of reasoning.
|
||
The argument will not lose its force until it has been conclusively
|
||
shown why what has proved so eminently successful in producing
|
||
advances in so many fi elds should have limits to its usefulness and
|
||
become positively harmful if extended beyond these limits. This is
|
||
a task which has not yet been satisfactorily performed and which
|
||
will have to be achieved before this particular impulse towards
|
||
socialism can be removed.
|
||
This, of course, is only one of many instances where further
|
||
intellectual advance is needed if the harmful ideas at present
|
||
current are to be refuted and where the course which we shall
|
||
travel will ultimately be decided by the discussion of very abstract
|
||
issues. It is not enough for the man of affairs to be sure, from
|
||
his intimate knowledge of a particular fi eld, that the theories of
|
||
socialism which are derived from more general ideas will prove
|
||
impracticable. He may be perfectly right, and yet his resistance
|
||
will be overwhelmed and all the sorry consequences which he
|
||
foresees will follow if he is not supported by an effective refutation
|
||
of the idées mères. So long as the intellectual gets the better of the
|
||
general argument, the most valid objections to the specifi c issue
|
||
will be brushed aside.
|
||
V
|
||
This is not the whole story, however. The forces which infl uence
|
||
recruitment to the ranks of the intellectuals operate in the
|
||
same direction and help to explain why so many of the most
|
||
able among them lean towards socialism. There are of course
|
||
as many differences of opinion among intellectuals as among
|
||
other groups of people; but it seems to be true that it is on the
|
||
the intellecua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
120 121
|
||
t h e i n t e l l e c t ua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
whole the more active, intelligent, and original men among the
|
||
intellectuals who most frequently incline towards socialism,
|
||
while its opponents are often of an inferior calibre. This is true
|
||
particularly during the early stages of the infi ltration of socialist
|
||
ideas; later, although outside intellectual circles it may still be
|
||
an act of courage to profess socialist convictions, the pressure of
|
||
opinion among intellectuals will often be so strongly in favour of
|
||
socialism that it requires more strength and independence for a
|
||
man to resist it than to join in what his fellows regard as modern
|
||
views. Nobody, for instance, who is familiar with large numbers
|
||
of university faculties (and from this point of view the majority
|
||
of university teachers probably have to be classed as intellectuals
|
||
rather than as experts) can remain oblivious to the fact that the
|
||
most brilliant and successful teachers are today more likely than
|
||
not to be socialists, while those who hold more conservative
|
||
political views are as frequently mediocrities. This is of course
|
||
by itself an important factor leading the younger generation into
|
||
the socialist camp.
|
||
The socialist will, of course, see in this merely a proof that
|
||
the more intelligent person is today bound to become a socialist.
|
||
But this is far from being the necessary or even the most likely
|
||
explana tion. The main reason for this state of affairs is probably
|
||
that, for the exceptionally able man who accepts the present order
|
||
of society, a multitude of other avenues to infl uence and power
|
||
are open, while to the disaffected and dissatisfi ed an intellectual
|
||
career is the most promising path to both infl uence and the power
|
||
to contribute to the achievement of his ideals. Even more than
|
||
that: the more conservatively inclined man of fi rst class ability will
|
||
in general choose intellectual work (and the sacrifi ce in material
|
||
reward which this choice usually entails) only if he enjoys it for its
|
||
own sake. He is in consequence more likely to become an expert
|
||
scholar rather than an intellectual in the specifi c sense of the word;
|
||
while to the more radically minded the intellectual pursuit is more
|
||
often than not a means rather than an end, a path to exactly that
|
||
kind of wide infl uence which the professional intellectual exercises.
|
||
It is therefore probably the fact, not that the more intelligent
|
||
people are generally socialists, but that a much higher proportion
|
||
of socialists among the best minds devote themselves to those
|
||
intellectual pursuits which in modern society give them a decisive
|
||
infl uence on public opinion.3
|
||
The selection of the personnel of the intellectuals is also closely
|
||
connected with the predominant interest which they show in
|
||
general and abstract ideas. Speculations about the possible entire
|
||
reconstruction of society give the intellectual a fare much more to
|
||
his taste than the more practical and short-run considerations of
|
||
those who aim at a piecemeal improvement of the existing order.
|
||
In particular, socialist thought owes its appeal to the young largely
|
||
to its visionary character; the very courage to indulge in Utopian
|
||
thought is in this respect a source of strength to the socialists
|
||
which traditional liberalism sadly lacks. This difference operates
|
||
in favour of socialism, not only because speculation about general
|
||
principles provides an opportunity for the play of the imagination
|
||
3 Related to this is another familiar phenomenon: there is little reason to believe
|
||
that really fi rst-class intellectual ability for original work is any rarer among
|
||
Gentiles than among Jews. Yet there can be little doubt that men of Jewish stock
|
||
almost everywhere constitute a disproportionately large number of the intellectuals
|
||
in our sense, that is of the ranks of the professional interpreters of ideas.
|
||
This may be their special gift and certainly is their main opportunity in countries
|
||
where prejudice puts obstacles in their way in other fi elds. It is probably more because
|
||
they constitute so large a proportion of the intellectuals than for any other
|
||
reason that they seem to be so much more receptive to socialist ideas than people
|
||
of different stocks.
|
||
the intellecua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
122 123
|
||
t h e i n t e l l e c t ua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
of those who are unencumbered by much knowledge of the facts
|
||
of present-day life, but also because it satisfi es a legitimate desire
|
||
for the understanding of the rational basis of any social order and
|
||
gives scope for the exercise of that constructive urge for which
|
||
liberalism, after it had won its great victories, left few outlets. The
|
||
intellectual, by his whole disposition, is uninterested in technical
|
||
details or practical diffi culties. What appeal to him are the broad
|
||
visions, the specious comprehension of the social order as a whole
|
||
which a planned system promises.
|
||
This fact that the tastes of the intellectual were better satisfi
|
||
ed by the speculations of the socialists proved fatal to the infl uence
|
||
of the liberal tradition. Once the basic demands of the liberal
|
||
programmes seemed satisfi ed, the liberal thinkers turned to
|
||
problems of detail and tended to neglect the development of the
|
||
general philosophy of liberalism, which in consequence ceased
|
||
to be a live issue offering scope for general speculation. Thus for
|
||
something over half a century it has been only the socialists who
|
||
have offered anything like an explicit programme of social development,
|
||
a picture of the future society at which they were aiming,
|
||
and a set of general principles to guide decisions on particular
|
||
issues. Even though, if I am right, their ideals suffer from inherent
|
||
contradictions, and any attempt to put them into practice must
|
||
produce something utterly different from what they expect, this
|
||
does not alter the fact that their programme for change is the only
|
||
one which has actually infl uenced the development of social institutions.
|
||
It is because theirs has become the only explicit general
|
||
philosophy of social policy held by a large group, the only system
|
||
or theory which raises new problems and opens new horizons,
|
||
that they have succeeded in inspiring the imagination of the intellectuals.
|
||
The actual developments of society during this period were
|
||
determined not by a battle of confl icting ideals, but by the
|
||
contrast between an existing state of affairs and that one ideal of
|
||
a possible future society which the socialists alone held up before
|
||
the public. Very few of the other programmes which offered themselves
|
||
provided genuine alternatives. Most of them were mere
|
||
compromises or half-way houses between the more extreme types
|
||
of socialism and the existing order. All that was needed to make
|
||
almost any socialist proposal appear reasonable to these ‘judicious’
|
||
minds who were constitutionally convinced that the truth must
|
||
always lie in the middle between the extremes, was for someone
|
||
to advocate a suffi ciently more extreme proposal. There seemed
|
||
to exist only one direction in which we could move, and the only
|
||
question seemed to be how fast and how far the movement should
|
||
proceed.
|
||
VI
|
||
The signifi cance of the special appeal to the intellectuals which
|
||
socialism derives from its speculative character will become
|
||
clearer if we further contrast the position of the socialist theorist
|
||
with that of his counterpart who is a liberal in the old sense of the
|
||
word. This comparison will also lead us to whatever lesson we
|
||
can draw from an adequate appreciation of the intellectual forces
|
||
which are undermining the foundations of a free society.
|
||
Paradoxically enough, one of the main handicaps which
|
||
deprives the liberal thinker of popular infl uence is closely
|
||
connected with the fact that, until socialism has actually arrived,
|
||
he has more opportunity of directly infl uencing decisions on
|
||
current policy and that in consequence he is not only not tempted
|
||
the intellecua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
124 125
|
||
t h e i n t e l l e c t ua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
into that long-run speculation which is the strength of the socialists,
|
||
but is actually discouraged from it because any effort of this
|
||
kind is likely to reduce the immediate good he can do. Whatever
|
||
power he has to infl uence practical decisions he owes to his
|
||
standing with the representatives of the existing order, and this
|
||
standing he would endanger if he devoted himself to the kind of
|
||
speculation which would appeal to the intellectuals and which
|
||
through them could infl uence developments over longer periods.
|
||
In order to carry weight with the powers that be, he has to be
|
||
‘practical’, ‘sensible’, and ‘realistic’. So long as he concerns himself
|
||
with immediate issues, he is rewarded with infl uence, material
|
||
success, and popularity with those who up to a point share his
|
||
general outlook. But these men have little respect for those speculations
|
||
on general principles which shape the intellectual climate.
|
||
Indeed, if he seriously indulges in such long-run speculation, he
|
||
is apt to acquire the reputation of being ‘unsound’ or even half a
|
||
socialist, because he is unwilling to identify the existing order with
|
||
the free system at which he aims.4
|
||
If, in spite of this, his efforts continue in the direction of
|
||
general speculation, he soon discovers that it is unsafe to associate
|
||
too closely with those who seem to share most of his convictions,
|
||
and he is soon driven into isolation. Indeed there can be few more
|
||
thankless tasks at present than the essential one of developing the
|
||
philosophical foundation on which the further development of a
|
||
free society must be based. Since the man who undertakes it must
|
||
accept much of the framework of the existing order, he will appear
|
||
to many of the more speculatively minded intellectuals merely as
|
||
a timid apologist of things as they are; at the same time he will
|
||
be dismissed by the men of affairs as an impractical theorist. He
|
||
is not radical enough for those who know only the world where
|
||
‘with ease together dwell the thoughts’ and much too radical for
|
||
those who see only how ‘hard in space together clash the things’.
|
||
If he takes advantage of such support as he can get from the men
|
||
of affairs, he will almost certainly discredit himself with those
|
||
on whom he depends for the spreading of his ideas. At the same
|
||
time he will need most carefully to avoid anything resembling
|
||
extravagance or overstatement. While no socialist theorist has
|
||
ever been known to discredit himself with his fellows even by the
|
||
silliest of proposals, the old-fashioned liberal will damn himself
|
||
by an impracticable suggestion. Yet for the intellectuals he will
|
||
still not be speculative or adventurous enough, and the changes
|
||
and improvements in the social structure he will have to offer will
|
||
seem limited in comparison with what their less restrained imagination
|
||
conceives.
|
||
At least in a society in which the main requisites of freedom
|
||
have already been won and further improvements must concern
|
||
points of comparative detail, the liberal programme can have
|
||
none of the glamour of a new invention. The appreciation of
|
||
the improvements it has to offer requires more knowledge of
|
||
the working of the existing society than the average intellectual
|
||
possesses. The discussion of these improvements must proceed
|
||
on a more practical level than that of the more revolutionary
|
||
4 The most glaring recent example of such condemnation of a somewhat unorthodox
|
||
liberal work as ‘socialist’ has been provided by some comments on the late
|
||
Henry Simons’s Economic Policy for a Free Society (1948). One need not agree with
|
||
the whole of this work and one may even regard some of the suggestions made in
|
||
it as incompatible with a free society, and yet recognise it as one of the most important
|
||
contributions made in recent times to our problem and as just the kind of
|
||
work which is required to get discussion started on the fundamental issues. Even
|
||
those who violently disagree with some of its suggestions should welcome it as a
|
||
contribution which clearly and courageously raises the central problems of our
|
||
time.
|
||
the intellecua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
126 127
|
||
t h e i n t e l l e c t ua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
programmes, thus giving a complexion which has little appeal
|
||
for the intellectual and tending to bring in elements to whom
|
||
he feels directly antagonistic. Those who are most familiar with
|
||
the working of the present society are also usually interested in
|
||
the preservation of particular features of that society which may
|
||
not be defensible on general principles. Unlike the person who
|
||
looks for an entirely new future order and who naturally turns for
|
||
guidance to the theorist, the men who believe in the existing order
|
||
also usually think that they understand it much better than any
|
||
theorist and in consequence are likely to reject whatever is unfamiliar
|
||
and theoretical.
|
||
The diffi culty of fi nding genuine and disinterested support for
|
||
a systematic policy for freedom is not new. In a passage of which
|
||
the reception of a recent book of mine has often reminded me,
|
||
Lord Acton long ago described how:
|
||
at all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its
|
||
triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed
|
||
by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects
|
||
differed from their own; and this association, which is
|
||
always dangerous, has been sometimes disastrous, by giving
|
||
to opponents just grounds of opposition. . . 5
|
||
More recently, one of the most distinguished living American
|
||
economists has complained in a similar vein that the main task of
|
||
those who believe in the basic principles of the capitalist system
|
||
must frequently be to defend this system against the capitalists
|
||
– indeed the great liberal economists, from Adam Smith to the
|
||
present, have always known this.
|
||
The most serious obstacle which separates the practical men
|
||
who have the cause of freedom genuinely at heart from those forces
|
||
which in the realm of ideas decide the course of development is
|
||
their deep distrust of theoretical speculation and their tendency
|
||
to orthodoxy; this, more than anything else, creates an almost
|
||
impassable barrier between them and those intellectuals who
|
||
are devoted to the same cause and whose assistance is indispensable
|
||
if the cause is to prevail. Although this tendency is perhaps
|
||
natural among men who defend a system because it has justifi ed
|
||
itself in practice, and to whom its intellectual justifi cation seems
|
||
immaterial, it is fatal to its survival because it deprives it of the
|
||
support it most needs. Orthodoxy of any kind, any pretence that
|
||
a system of ideas is fi nal and must be unquestioningly accepted as
|
||
a whole, is the one view which of necessity antagonises all intellectuals,
|
||
whatever their views on particular issues. Any system which
|
||
judges men by the completeness of their conformity to a fi xed set
|
||
of opinions, by their ‘soundness’ or the extent to which they can
|
||
be relied upon to hold approved views on all points, deprives itself
|
||
of a support without which no set of ideas can maintain its infl uence
|
||
in modern society. The ability to criticise accepted views,
|
||
to explore new vistas and to experiment with new conceptions,
|
||
provides the atmosphere without which the intellectual cannot
|
||
breathe. A cause which offers no scope for these traits can have
|
||
no support from him and is thereby doomed in any society which,
|
||
like ours, rests on his services.
|
||
VII
|
||
It may be that a free society as we have known it carries in itself the
|
||
forces of its own destruction, that once freedom has been achieved
|
||
5 Acton, The History of Freedom, London, 1922. it is taken for granted and ceases to be valued, and that the free
|
||
the intellecua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
128 129
|
||
t h e i n t e l l e c t ua l s a n d s o c i a l i s m
|
||
growth of ideas which is the essence of a free society will bring
|
||
about the destruction of the foundations on which it depends.
|
||
There can be little doubt that in countries like the United States
|
||
the ideal of freedom has today less real appeal for the young than
|
||
it has in countries where they have learned what its loss means.
|
||
On the other hand, there is every sign that in Germany and elsewhere,
|
||
to the young men who have never known a free society, the
|
||
task of constructing one can become as exciting and fascinating as
|
||
any socialist scheme which has appeared during the last hundred
|
||
years. It is an extraordinary fact, though one which many visitors
|
||
have experienced, that in speaking to German students about the
|
||
principles of a liberal society one fi nds a more responsive and
|
||
even enthusiastic audience than one can hope to fi nd in any of the
|
||
Western democracies. In Britain also there is already appearing
|
||
among the young a new interest in the principles of true liberalism
|
||
which certainly did not exist a few years ago.
|
||
Does this mean that freedom is valued only when it is lost,
|
||
that the world must everywhere go through a dark phase of
|
||
socialist totalitarianism before the forces of freedom can gather
|
||
strength anew? It may be so, but I hope it need not be. Yet, so long
|
||
as the people who over longer periods determine public opinion
|
||
continue to be attracted by the ideals of socialism, the trend will
|
||
continue. If we are to avoid such a development, we must be able
|
||
to offer a new liberal programme which appeals to the imagination.
|
||
We must make the building of a free society once more an
|
||
intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a liberal
|
||
Utopia, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of
|
||
things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal
|
||
radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty
|
||
(including the trade unions), which is not too severely practical,
|
||
and which does not confi ne itself to what appears today as politically
|
||
possible. We need intellectual leaders who are prepared to
|
||
resist the blandishments of power and infl uence and who are
|
||
willing to work for an ideal, however small may be the prospects
|
||
of its early realisation. They must be men who are willing to stick
|
||
to principles and to fi ght for their full realisation, however remote.
|
||
The practical compromises they must leave to the politicians.
|
||
Free trade and freedom of opportunity are ideals which still may
|
||
arouse the imaginations of large numbers, but a mere ‘reasonable
|
||
freedom of trade’ or a mere ‘relaxation of controls’ is neither intellectually
|
||
respectable nor likely to inspire any enthusiasm.
|
||
The main lesson which the true liberal must learn from the
|
||
success of the socialists is that it was their courage to be Utopian
|
||
which gained them the support of the intellectuals and therefore
|
||
an infl uence on public opinion which is daily making possible
|
||
what only recently seemed utterly remote. Those who have
|
||
concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in
|
||
the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this
|
||
has rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes
|
||
in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide. Unless
|
||
we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once
|
||
more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task
|
||
which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest
|
||
minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can
|
||
regain that belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of
|
||
liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost. The intellectual revival
|
||
of liberalism is already under way in many parts of the world. Will
|
||
it be in time?
|
||
Director General John Blundell
|
||
Editorial Director Professor Philip Booth
|
||
Managing Trustees
|
||
Chairman: Professor D R Myddelton
|
||
Kevin Bell Professor Patrick Minford
|
||
Robert Boyd Professor Martin Ricketts
|
||
Michael Fisher Sir Peter Walters
|
||
Malcolm McAlpine Linda Whetstone
|
||
Academic Advisory Council
|
||
Chairman: Professor Martin Ricketts
|
||
Graham Bannock Professor Stephen C Littlechild
|
||
Professor Norman Barry Dr Eileen Marshall
|
||
Dr Roger Bate Professor Antonio Martino
|
||
Professor Donald J Boudreaux Julian Morris
|
||
Professor John Burton Paul Ormerod
|
||
Professor Forrest Capie Professor David Parker
|
||
Professor Steven N S Cheung Dr Mark Pennington
|
||
Professor Tim Congdon Professor Victoria Curzon Price
|
||
Professor N F R Crafts Professor Colin Robinson
|
||
Professor David de Meza Professor Charles K Rowley
|
||
Professor Kevin Dowd Professor Pascal Salin
|
||
Professor Richard A Epstein Dr Razeen Sally
|
||
Nigel Essex Professor Pedro Schwartz
|
||
Professor David Greenaway Professor J R Shackleton
|
||
Dr Ingrid A Gregg Jane S Shaw
|
||
Walter E Grinder Professor W Stanley Siebert
|
||
Professor Steve H Hanke Dr Elaine Sternberg
|
||
Professor Keith Hartley Professor James Tooley
|
||
Professor David Henderson Professor Nicola Tynan
|
||
Professor Peter M Jackson Professor Roland Vaubel
|
||
Dr Jerry Jordan Professor Lawrence H White
|
||
Dr Lynne Kiesling Professor Walter E Williams
|
||
Professor Daniel B Klein Professor Geoffrey E Wood
|
||
Dr Anja Kluever
|
||
Honorary Fellows
|
||
Professor Armen A Alchian Professor Chiaki Nishiyama
|
||
Professor Michael Beenstock Professor Sir Alan Peacock
|
||
Sir Samuel Brittan Professor Ben Roberts
|
||
Professor James M Buchanan Professor Anna J Schwartz
|
||
Professor Ronald H Coase Professor Vernon L Smith
|
||
Dr R M Hartwell Professor Gordon Tullock
|
||
Professor Terence W Hutchison Professor Sir Alan Walters
|
||
Professor David Laidler Professor Basil S Yamey
|
||
Professor Dennis S Lees
|
||
The Institute of Economic Affairs
|
||
2 Lord North Street, Westminster, London SW1P 3LB
|
||
Tel: 020 7799 8900
|
||
Fax: 020 7799 2137
|
||
Email: iea@iea.org.uk
|
||
Internet: iea.org.uk
|
||
131
|
||
The Institute is a research and educational charity (No. CC 235 351), limited
|
||
by guarantee. Its mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental
|
||
institutions of a free society with particular reference to the role of markets in
|
||
solving economic and social problems.
|
||
The IEA achieves its mission by:
|
||
• a high-quality publishing programme
|
||
• conferences, seminars, lectures and other events
|
||
• outreach to school and college students
|
||
• brokering media introductions and appearances
|
||
The IEA, which was established in 1955 by the late Sir Antony Fisher, is
|
||
an educational charity, not a political organisation. It is independent of any
|
||
political party or group and does not carry on activities intended to affect
|
||
support for any political party or candidate in any election or referendum, or
|
||
at any other time. It is fi nanced by sales of publications, conference fees and
|
||
voluntary donations.
|
||
In addition to its main series of publications the IEA also publishes a
|
||
quarterly journal, Economic Affairs.
|
||
The IEA is aided in its work by a distinguished international Academic
|
||
Advisory Council and an eminent panel of Honorary Fellows. Together with
|
||
other academics, they review prospective IEA publications, their comments
|
||
being passed on anonymously to authors. All IEA papers are therefore subject to
|
||
the same rigorous independent refereeing process as used by leading academic
|
||
journals.
|
||
IEA publications enjoy widespread classroom use and course adoptions
|
||
in schools and universities. They are also sold throughout the world and often
|
||
translated/reprinted.
|
||
Since 1974 the IEA has helped to create a world-wide network of 100
|
||
similar institutions in over 70 countries. They are all independent but share the
|
||
IEA’s mission.
|
||
Views expressed in the IEA’s publications are those of the authors, not
|
||
those of the Institute (which has no corporate view), its Managing Trustees,
|
||
Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff.
|
||
Members of the Institute’s Academic Advisory Council, Honorary Fellows,
|
||
Trustees and Staff are listed on the following page.
|
||
The Institute gratefully acknowledges fi nancial support for its publications
|
||
programme and other work from a generous benefaction by the late Alec and
|
||
Beryl Warren.
|
||
ABOUT THE IEA
|
||
130
|
||
Other papers recently published by the IEA include:
|
||
WHO, What and Why?
|
||
Transnational Government, Legitimacy and the World Health Organization
|
||
Roger Scruton
|
||
Occasional Paper 113; ISBN 0 255 36487 3
|
||
£8.00
|
||
The World Turned Rightside Up
|
||
A New Trading Agenda for the Age of Globalisation
|
||
John C. Hulsman
|
||
Occasional Paper 114; ISBN 0 255 36495 4
|
||
£8.00
|
||
The Representation of Business in English Literature
|
||
Introduced and edited by Arthur Pollard
|
||
Readings 53; ISBN 0 255 36491 1
|
||
£12.00
|
||
Anti-Liberalism 2000
|
||
The Rise of New Millennium Collectivism
|
||
David Henderson
|
||
Occasional Paper 115; ISBN 0 255 36497 0
|
||
£7.50
|
||
Capitalism, Morality and Markets
|
||
Brian Griffi ths, Robert A. Sirico, Norman Barry & Frank Field
|
||
Readings 54; ISBN 0 255 36496 2
|
||
£7.50
|
||
A Conversation with Harris and Seldon
|
||
Ralph Harris & Arthur Seldon
|
||
Occasional Paper 116; ISBN 0 255 36498 9
|
||
£7.50
|
||
Malaria and the DDT Story
|
||
Richard Tren & Roger Bate
|
||
Occasional Paper 117; ISBN 0 255 36499 7
|
||
£10.00
|
||
A Plea to Economists Who Favour Liberty:
|
||
Assist the Everyman
|
||
Daniel B. Klein
|
||
Occasional Paper 118; ISBN 0 255 36501 2
|
||
£10.00
|
||
The Changing Fortunes of Economic Liberalism
|
||
Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
|
||
David Henderson
|
||
Occasional Paper 105 (new edition); ISBN 0 255 36520 9
|
||
£12.50
|
||
The Global Education Industry
|
||
Lessons from Private Education in Developing Countries
|
||
James Tooley
|
||
Hobart Paper 141 (new edition); ISBN 0 255 36503 9
|
||
£12.50
|
||
Saving Our Streams
|
||
The Role of the Anglers’ Conservation Association in
|
||
Protecting English and Welsh Rivers
|
||
Roger Bate
|
||
Research Monograph 53; ISBN 0 255 36494 6
|
||
£10.00
|
||
Better Off Out?
|
||
The Benefi ts or Costs of EU Membership
|
||
Brian Hindley & Martin Howe
|
||
Occasional Paper 99 (new edition); ISBN 0 255 36502 0
|
||
£10.00
|
||
Buckingham at 25
|
||
Freeing the Universities from State Control
|
||
Edited by James Tooley
|
||
Readings 55; ISBN 0 255 36512 8
|
||
£15.00
|
||
Lectures on Regulatory and Competition Policy
|
||
Irwin M. Stelzer
|
||
Occasional Paper 120; ISBN 0 255 36511 X
|
||
£12.50
|
||
Misguided Virtue
|
||
False Notions of Corporate Social Responsibility
|
||
David Henderson
|
||
Hobart Paper 142; ISBN 0 255 36510 1
|
||
£12.50
|
||
HIV and Aids in Schools
|
||
The Political Economy of Pressure Groups and Miseducation
|
||
Barrie Craven, Pauline Dixon, Gordon Stewart & James Tooley
|
||
Occasional Paper 121; ISBN 0 255 36522 5
|
||
£10.00
|
||
The Road to Serfdom
|
||
The Reader’s Digest condensed version
|
||
Friedrich A. Hayek
|
||
Occasional Paper 122; ISBN 0 255 36530 6
|
||
£7.50
|
||
Bastiat’s The Law
|
||
Introduction by Norman Barry
|
||
Occasional Paper 123; ISBN 0 255 36509 8
|
||
£7.50
|
||
A Globalist Manifesto for Public Policy
|
||
Charles Calomiris
|
||
Occasional Paper 124; ISBN 0 255 36525 X
|
||
£7.50
|
||
Euthanasia for Death Duties
|
||
Putting Inheritance Tax Out of Its Misery
|
||
Barry Bracewell-Milnes
|
||
Research Monograph 54; ISBN 0 255 36513 6
|
||
£10.00
|
||
Liberating the Land
|
||
The Case for Private Land-use Planning
|
||
Mark Pennington
|
||
Hobart Paper 143; ISBN 0 255 36508 x
|
||
£10.00
|
||
IEA Yearbook of Government Performance
|
||
2002/2003
|
||
Edited by Peter Warburton
|
||
Yearbook 1; ISBN 0 255 36532 2
|
||
£15.00
|
||
Britain’s Relative Economic Performance, 1870–
|
||
1999
|
||
Nicholas Crafts
|
||
Research Monograph 55; ISBN 0 255 36524 1
|
||
£10.00
|
||
Should We Have Faith in Central Banks?
|
||
Otmar Issing
|
||
Occasional Paper 125; ISBN 0 255 36528 4
|
||
£7.50
|
||
The Dilemma of Democracy
|
||
Arthur Seldon
|
||
Hobart Paper 136 (reissue); ISBN 0 255 36536 5
|
||
£10.00
|
||
Capital Controls: a ‘Cure’ Worse Than the Problem?
|
||
Forrest Capie
|
||
Research Monograph 56; ISBN 0 255 36506 3
|
||
£10.00
|
||
The Poverty of ‘Development Economics’
|
||
Deepak Lal
|
||
Hobart Paper 144 (reissue); ISBN 0 255 36519 5
|
||
£15.00
|
||
Should Britain Join the Euro?
|
||
The Chancellor’s Five Tests Examined
|
||
Patrick Minford
|
||
Occasional Paper 126; ISBN 0 255 36527 6
|
||
£7.50
|
||
Post-Communist Transition: Some Lessons
|
||
Leszek Balcerowicz
|
||
Occasional Paper 127; ISBN 0 255 36533 0
|
||
£7.50
|
||
A Tribute to Peter Bauer
|
||
John Blundell et al.
|
||
Occasional Paper 128; ISBN 0 255 36531 4
|
||
£10.00
|
||
Employment Tribunals
|
||
Their Growth and the Case for Radical Reform
|
||
J. R. Shackleton
|
||
Hobart Paper 145; ISBN 0 255 36515 2
|
||
£10.00
|
||
Fifty Economic Fallacies Exposed
|
||
Geoffrey E. Wood
|
||
Occasional Paper 129; ISBN 0 255 36518 7
|
||
£12.50
|
||
A Market in Airport Slots
|
||
Keith Boyfi eld (editor), David Starkie, Tom Bass & Barry Humphreys
|
||
Readings 56; ISBN 0 255 36505 5
|
||
£10.00
|
||
Money, Infl ation and the Constitutional Position of
|
||
the Central Bank
|
||
Milton Friedman & Charles A. E. Goodhart
|
||
Readings 57; ISBN 0 255 36538 1
|
||
£10.00
|
||
railway.com
|
||
Parallels between the Early British Railways and the ICT Revolution
|
||
Robert C. B. Miller
|
||
Research Monograph 57; ISBN 0 255 36534 9
|
||
£12.50
|
||
The Regulation of Financial Markets
|
||
Edited by Philip Booth & David Currie
|
||
Readings 58; ISBN 0 255 36551 9
|
||
£12.50
|
||
Climate Alarmism Reconsidered
|
||
Robert L. Bradley Jr
|
||
Hobart Paper 146; ISBN 0 255 36541 1
|
||
£12.50
|
||
Government Failure: E. G. West on Education
|
||
Edited by James Tooley & James Stanfi eld
|
||
Occasional Paper 130; ISBN 0 255 36552 7
|
||
£12.50
|
||
Waging the War of Ideas
|
||
John Blundell
|
||
Second edition
|
||
Occasional Paper 131; ISBN 0 255 36547 0
|
||
£12.50
|
||
Corporate Governance: Accountability in
|
||
the Marketplace
|
||
Elaine Sternberg
|
||
Second edition
|
||
Hobart Paper 147; ISBN 0 255 36542 X
|
||
£12.50
|
||
The Land Use Planning System
|
||
Evaluating Options for Reform
|
||
John Corkindale
|
||
Hobart Paper 148; ISBN 0 255 36550 0
|
||
£10.00
|
||
Economy and Virtue
|
||
Essays on the Theme of Markets and Morality
|
||
Edited by Dennis O’Keeffe
|
||
Readings 59; ISBN 0 255 36504 7
|
||
£12.50
|
||
Free Markets Under Siege
|
||
Cartels, Politics and Social Welfare
|
||
Richard A. Epstein
|
||
Occasional Paper 132; ISBN 0 255 36553 5
|
||
£10.00
|
||
Unshackling Accountants
|
||
D. R. Myddelton
|
||
Hobart Paper 149; ISBN 0 255 36559 4
|
||
£12.50
|
||
The Euro as Politics
|
||
Pedro Schwartz
|
||
Research Monograph 58; ISBN 0 255 36535 7
|
||
£12.50
|
||
Pricing Our Roads
|
||
Vision and Reality
|
||
Stephen Glaister & Daniel J. Graham
|
||
Research Monograph 59; ISBN 0 255 36562 4
|
||
£10.00
|
||
The Role of Business in the Modern World
|
||
Progress, Pressures, and Prospects for the Market Economy
|
||
David Henderson
|
||
Hobart Paper 150; ISBN 0 255 36548 9
|
||
£12.50
|
||
Public Service Broadcasting Without the BBC?
|
||
Alan Peacock
|
||
Occasional Paper 133; ISBN 0 255 36565 9
|
||
£10.00
|
||
The ECB and the Euro: the First Five Years
|
||
Otmar Issing
|
||
Occasional Paper 134; ISBN 0 255 36555 1
|
||
£10.00
|
||
Towards a Liberal Utopia?
|
||
Edited by Philip Booth
|
||
Hobart Paperback 32; ISBN 0 255 36563 2
|
||
£15.00
|
||
The Way Out of the Pensions Quagmire
|
||
Philip Booth & Deborah Cooper
|
||
Research Monograph 60; ISBN 0 255 36517 9
|
||
£12.50
|
||
Black Wednesday
|
||
A Re-examination of Britain’s Experience in the Exchange Rate Mechanism
|
||
Alan Budd
|
||
Occasional Paper 135; ISBN 0 255 36566 7
|
||
£7.50
|
||
Crime: Economic Incentives and Social Networks
|
||
Paul Ormerod
|
||
Hobart Paper 151; ISBN 0 255 36554 3
|
||
£10.00
|
||
To order copies of currently available IEA papers, or to enquire about
|
||
availability, please contact:
|
||
Lavis Marketing
|
||
IEA orders
|
||
FREEPOST lon21280
|
||
Oxford OX3 7BR
|
||
Tel: 01865 767575
|
||
Fax: 01865 750079
|
||
Email: orders@lavismarketing.co.uk
|
||
The IEA also offers a subscription service to its publications. For a single
|
||
annual payment, currently £40.00 in the UK, you will receive every
|
||
title the IEA publishes during the course of a year, invitations to events,
|
||
and discounts on our extensive back catalogue. For more information,
|
||
please contact:
|
||
Adam Myers
|
||
Subscriptions
|
||
The Institute of Economic Affairs
|
||
2 Lord North Street
|
||
London SW1P 3LB
|
||
Tel: 020 7799 8920
|
||
Fax: 020 7799 2137
|
||
Website: www.iea.org.uk |