Talk:The Road to Serfdom/Archive 1

"Originally published..."
This article claimed it was originally published in September 1944 by Chicago but looking at this page from the IEA suggests otherwise:

"The Road to Serfdom was published in March 1944 and, despite wartime paper shortages, it went through five 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..."

www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf

Johnbull 16:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

RFC
Should a comment by a notable economist, Jeffrey Sachs, who says he is criticizing Hayek's opinion that high taxes are a road to serfdom, be deleted from the criticism section on the grounds that they are not a valid critique of the content of the book?

The deleted comment was a reference to 16:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very leery of deletion of material from a criticism section, when the criticism is well-sourced and from a reasonably notable economist, on the grounds that the criticism is invalid. I understand completely that the editor who removed it says it is invalid, not because it is wrong, but because it is not directed at the book. However, since the critic refers to the book, I believe the critic is criticizing the book. I therefore do not believe the item should be deleted without first getting clear editorial consensus that the Jeffrey Sachs does not intend his criticism to be interpreted as criticism of The Road to Serfdom. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I do not disagree here with Sachs comment. This could be done elsewhere and I provide no basis to disagree with him here, and it should not be done. But I have read all Hayek's books and this quote absolutely refers to all of them and to the whole concept of liberalism, and certainly not at The Road to Serfdom in any specific way. Sachs refers to the general concept of "road to serfdom", not at the book itself, which are two different things. As I said, I think that all the other critics on the article are valid here. This one should be proposed on Hayek's page. If we provide Sachs' support for Northern social democracies here, there is an obvious case for providing counter-evidence as well, and this is way behond this book's page scope in my opinion. --Childhood&#39;s End 18:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For somebody as important as Friedrich Hayek, we should not mention the critics of a "small fry" like Sachs. There should be some sort of more or less equal level in notability between the critics and the criticized. This is like mentioning a critical view of Einstein by a school teacher of physics! It is fine to criticize famous people, but it should be by comparably notable people. Alain10 19:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * By this logic, the only criticism we should allow on Wikipedia of heads of state should be comments made by other heads of state. Sachs is an extremely important economist in his own right; he's been a top advisor to most of the world's leading economic organizations (see article) and has taken a direct role in forming economic policy for several countries. Even if he's not as important historically as Hayek (and Sachs is still fairly young for an academic) it's absurd to call him a "small fry" and say that one of the most influential economists alive shouldn't get his say in. Andrew Levine 22:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm late here, but this is still listed on the RFC page. I note that the line deleted from the current online versions of Sachs' article (eg ), "...Hayek suggested in the 1940's that..." (still seen here ) is noted as a misattribution of the date of of Hayek's suggestion. Is there any correspondence on this correction? Unless Scientific American is confused about the date of publication, or the text changed after 1949, it seems that they don't believe that the subject of Sachs is the book. Dpbsmith, please clarify why you believe "the critic refers to the book", if you still do? Looks to me like Sach's comment belongs in the Hayek article. Andyvphil 07:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is correspondance here: . This is a letter written by Sachs in response to William Easterley's review of Sachs' book. In it, Sachs specifically names The Road to Serfdom as a target of his criticism and clarifies that a Hayek-penned 1976 preface to Serfdom specifically said that welfare states will suffer the same problems as planned economies. Andrew Levine 22:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont see your point... in your quoted correspondance, Sachs says : "my detailed paper on the Nordic economies makes explicit that Hayek's critique of the modern welfare state came in the 1970s, in the Reprint Edition". How could his quoted criticism here be directed at The Road to Serfdom, which was published in 1942?
 * Just to clarify things, here is what Hayek says in his 1976 preface : "At the time I wrote, socialism meant unambiguously the nationalization of the means of production and the central economic planning which this made possible and necessary. In this sense Sweden, for instance, is today very much less socialistically organized than Great Britain or Austria, though Sweden is commonly regarded as much more socialistic. This is due to the fact that socialism has come to mean chiefly the extenisve redistribution of incomes through taxation and the institutions of the welfare state. In the latter kind of socialism the effects I discuss in this book are brought about more slowly, indirectly and imperfectly. I believe that the ultimate outcome tends to be very much the same, although the process by which it is brought about is not quite the same as that described in this book."


 * It seems to me that this discussion was mostly about the evolution of the meaning of the word "socialism" between 1942 and 1976. Also, Hayek clearly says that his book "The Road to Serfdom" was not addressed at the kind of socialism established by Sweden and the likes, although he does say in this preface that he believes both kinds of socialism shall tend to lead to the same results, one going to it faster than the other. Thus, I dont think criticism to a preface written 34 years after the book is within the scope of this article.
 * As a sidenote, I think that Sachs underestimates what Hayek meant when he said "brought about more slowly...". History is proving Hayek right as years go by.  France is falling. Sweden and its neighbours are still somewhat prosperous thanks to the anglo-saxon aspects of their economy, not thanks to their welfare institutions (reading Assar Lindbeck is interesting about Sweden). --Childhood&#39;s End 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How could his quoted criticism here be directed at The Road to Serfdom'-- You just quoted a passage where he says it. Sachs specifically cites the 1976 edition of TRTS, which includes a clarification by Hayek in which he makes it plain that what he says in the book also holds true for welfare states.


 * Also, there's a lot of trumped-up talk going in the anglosphere (especially by The Economist and the Financial Times) that "France is falling" economically; but most of it is based on looking at inaccurate economic indicators. (For example, unemployment rates are unuseful to compare from country-to-country due to different ways of counting them, but France has the same employment rate for workers aged 25-54 as the U.S.; its GDP is rising at 3.5 times its population growth, same as the U.S.; and as a % of GDP, France's budget deficit is about half that of the U.S. Is the U.S. failing too?) And the statement about "Sweden is doing better because their economy has more liberal aspects" is just cherry-picking, because some aspects of the French economy are more Anglo-Saxon than, say, Sweden's (for example, Sweden has a considerably higher VAT and higher taxes overall; Sweden has fully state-provided single-payer healthcare while most French citizens purchase private insurance to supplement what the state gives; etc.) Andrew Levine 20:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between the book itself and a preface written decades later. Such a preface is not even part of the book, it's a little candy given by the author some time after the initial publication. Sachs only refers to what Hayek said in the 1976 preface (see Sach's explanation that I just quoted).  As for the debate about the welfare states working or not, I cant convince you here and I'll leave it to time showing who's right or wrong... (by the way, yes, the US are slowly falling... their plundge has started much later than other Western countries thanks to a good Constitution whose true sense has now been forgotten). The 21st century will be that of the new surging free market economies, China, Hong-Kong, Singapore, and the likes. --Childhood&#39;s End 14:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Nazism
I have changed "Naziism" to "Nazism" - can someone check and revert if I'm wrong, also add a comment "sic". Rich Farmbrough, 15:49 15 August 2007 (GMT).

They are both the same thing. There are popular references to both spellings and dictionaries often equate the two Archie888 (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead
I think this article is biased by its mention of "Reaganomics and Thatcherism" in the first couple of sentences. Even if this book was an inspiration for those two things, Hayek just wasn't involved in either of them. I believe they should be mentioned further down in the article, and that the book itself, and its points alone, should be the focus of the first paragraph. 81.152.6.167 (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A good point, which I've implemented. Note that new discussion should be at the bottom of the page. JQ (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * VT has restored these to the lead, without anything in the body of the article. This is unsatisfactory. If the claims can be supported, they should be spelt out. Note that Ronald Reagan contains no mention of either Hayek or Road to Serfdom and Reagonomics only a brief mention of Hayek, in a list of free-market economists. The claim regarding Thatcher is supported in Thatcherism and seems more plausible, but again, needs to be in the body of the article.JQ (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I restored them with proper references. If you want to further elaborate book's influence on Thatcher and Reagan in the article's body, please do. -- Vision Thing -- 20:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:LEAD. JQ (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Lead serves to establish the importance of the subject. -- Vision Thing -- 18:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Restored Cowen and Posner
I've restored criticism by Tyler Cowen and Richard Posner, both notable critics sympathetic to libertarianism, who make the point that Hayek predicted, falsely, that the policies of the British Labour Party would lead to totalitarian serfdom. This is the central theme of the book, and debate over its accuracy should not be deleted on the basis of VTs unique rules of citation, under which the source of any inconvenient point is not notable, peripheral to the topic, too old, too new, too un-Austrian and so forth.JQ (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sources your are using are blogs. Per WP:SPS, blogs are acceptable to use only in some circumstances, with limitation. As far as I know, neither Cowen or Posner are considered an established experts on the topic of this article. Also, both of them are talking about The Road to Serfdom only in passing and "Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments." -- Vision Thing -- 10:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Vision Thing's observations. The criticism of Hayek are only in passing and are not worthy of an encyclopaedia to include. Plus Hayek could not criticise the policies of the British Labour Party since they did not form a government until after the book was published: Hayek was criticising the general trend in all parties to favour a fully state planned economy. But they should not be included anyway since they are from blogs.--Johnbull (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hayek argues central planning must of necessity be tightly-coupled
User:Johnbull wanted me to provide some examples to back up my introductory sentence that "Hayek argues in The Road to Serfdom that central planning must of necessity be tightly-coupled..." Here are some relevant quotes from The Road to Serfdom (page numbers from University of Chicago 1976 paperback edition, my underline emphasis):


 * (pg. 64) "An economic plan, to deserve the name, must have a unitary conception. Even if a parliament could, proceeding step by step, agree on some scheme, it would certainly in the end satisfy nobody.  A complex whole in which all the parts must  be most carefully adjusted to each other cannot be achieved through a compromise between conflicting views."


 * (pg. 67) "The delegation of particular powers to separate agencies creates a new obstacle to the achievement of a single co-ordinated plan.  Even if, by this expedient, a democracy should succeed in planning every sector of economic activity, it would still have to face the problem of integrating these separate plans into a unitary whole.  Many separate plans do not make a planned whole---in fact, as the planners ought to be the first to admit, they may be worse than no plan.

137.82.82.133 22:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (pg. 155) "We have seen that agreement on that complete ethical code, that all-comprehensive system of values which is implicit in an economic plan, does not exist in a free society but would have to be created."


 * Johnbull, you either have a tin ear for language or you are being remarkably disingenuous. The "... need not be so"  is supported by the whole rest of the paragraph and sourced therein -- Sweezy, Stafford Beer, and Simon and Ando.  Beer and Simon and Ando don't reference Hayek explicitly (as far as I remember), but their TECHNICAL  work speaks to the "tightly-coupled" issue.  Please show some courtesy and stop MUCKING ABOUT with someone else's contribution.  BTW the adjective is "marxist", not "marxian"  which does not augur well for your command of english.--137.82.82.133 23:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The "need not be so" is stating as fact someone's opinion, which you can't/won't except but is nevertheless the case; I am merely correcting your mistake. Paul Sweezy's Wikipedia article claims he is a Marxian economist and the Wikipedia article for that kind of economics explains the differences between the labels "Marxist" and "Marxian", which you are evidently ignorant of. Perhaps that does not "augur well for your command of english [sic]".--Johnbull 23:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Touche on "Marxian" -- I just went to the dictionary to check whether it was valid usage, but was not quick enough to delete or otherwise apologise for my mistake. (Yes, arrogant sarcasm is always a weapon that can cut both ways.) My criticism of your focussing on a single phrase in the introductory sentence of my paragraph remains, however. The "need not be so", I regard as a highly reasonable usage justified by the rest of the paragraph, interpreted as "there are other possibilities or considerations"   I didn't write "Hayek argues ... but this is definitely false."  The key word is " need not."  It is a fact (a la Simon and Ando) that hierarchial nearly-decomposable systems in economics refute Hayek that central planning (or control) must be tightly-coupled.--137.82.82.133 00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think your most recent edit is fine.--Johnbull 00:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good! -- agreement after dispute. Best Wishes, 137.82.82.133 00:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Disagreement about the practical implementation of any economic plan would invariably necessitate coercion in order for anything to be achieved." Should be expanded to mention the point Hayek made that socialism inherently leads to pluralism, as almost no large majority consensus can be reached on economic issues, as every individual has a different view of what a utopia would look like. Any majority consensus under socialism is simply an agreement between powerful pluralistic interests, and not a true majority consensus that can placate society. Basically, socialism turns democracy into merely plurality, and plurality simply leads to elitism, which then manifests itself as some sort of oligarchical dictatorship. Hayek is arguing much more than "socialism necessitates coercion." He is arguing that socialism inherently is plagued by disagreement that undermines the entire philosophy of democracy. Socialist democracy is simply pluralism in this view.

Also, there is no mention of Hayek's discussion of the difference between formal and informal law, which would counter his critics claim that he is inconsistent and even hypocritical. (Hayek outright says that Democracy isn't so important, as long as the spirit of formal law is included.) TRTS was meant to be a utilitarian discussion of the nature of government. The only cases where Hayek advocates government influence in economics involve formal law and rule of law, two concepts completely missing from this wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.131.175 (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV: Recent edits
I re-wrote the thesis section. It mentioned neither the "bureacracy versus democracy" nor the "worst get on top" parts of The Road to Serfdom, and these are the key arguments of this book. Instead, it referred to the knowledge problem. The knowledge problem is an economic issue in the calculation debate, and relates to the political-serfdom issue only in ways that are too subtle and complex for a wikipedia article.

The Hoppe argument about the property problem has nothing to do with the main arguments of The Road to Serfdom. The property problem is an issue of economic calculation, it does not pertain to the political "serfdom" problem. As such, I deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.218.170 (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The most important concept is to note that, because disagreements among people are bound to exist, a unified purpose must be coerced. Associated features of totalitarianism follow from this. That, is why socialism leads to totalitarianism.

My own input, Socialism / communism only work "well", with perhaps a shadow of their idealized utopian form, in small, homogenous groups, much like true democracy. It's only good if everybody already agrees. Tyranny of the majority. And indeed Hayek mentions these support groups (lol) as needed by the Fuhrer to seize power and maintain control. Heaven&#39;s knight (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For an intellectual book the quality of writing in the article is atrocious. The phrasing of some of the old versions is indeed comical. "These criticisms worked", LMFAO! Go back to grade school please. Heaven&#39;s knight (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is heavily biased, to the point of being comical.The section titled 'positive reaction' includes, among others, the reaction of Keynes, Orwell and Attlee.Hmmm....some people never give up do they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Baptiste Danzig (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The recent changes to this page have dramatically changed it from a set of statement of facts to an argument against Hayek's views. For instance:
 * "The Road to Serfdom is a highly controversial book" - certainly it was controversial when it was first published. Nowadays, I'd like to see a source for this.
 * Not controversial today? Are you implying socialism no longer exists today? Because any socialist, by the nature of his views, automatically disputes Hayek's claims.
 * That's a heck of a standard to overcome. By this reasoning, we need to edit the entry on Darwin's Origin of Species as a "highly controversial book." Just because a few blinkered fools cling to an outdated, discredited (try buying meat in Venezuela today) ideology hardly makes the opposiing arguments "controversial," especially when that opposition is based on observed evidence and sound theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KartoumHero (talk • contribs) 12:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC).


 * "This would be disputable enough in itself" - an encyclopedia article should aim to present views, not say if they're "disputable" or not.
 * Well, a disputed view is a disputable view...


 * The whole thing with Soviet Russia, while it might be a valid argument, is nonetheless an original argument. Someone else must have made it at one point, can we actually get a source for it?
 * I'll try to look for one, because it certainly seems a rather glaring error on Hayek's part. But, at any rate, it seems reasonable that we should at least mention this fact even without a reference.

- RedWordSmith 19:34, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Regarding Nazi Germany, Hayek specifically backs up his argument by pointing to German government figures prior to WWII that shows government spending as a large proportion of the economy. Thus, "the majority of Nazi Germany's economy was in private capitalist hands" just isn't true. It's also an original argument, as above.
 * The majority of Nazi Germany's economy was in private capitalist hands. Merely having a lot of government spending is not enough to make a country socialist (and government spending is not a "socialist" thing in and of itself - governments had a lot of spending thousands of years before socialism was ever invented). By Hayek's standards, all countries in the world prior to (and following) WW2 were "socialist". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * As Ludwig von Mises first realized, economy of Nazi Germany was a case of de facto socialism even while means of production were nominally in private hands. Private ownership means nothing if the owners are denied their inalienable rights to use their property as they see fit, i.e. sell it, hire/fire workers, reinvest rents/profits etc. Nazi Germany did just this when they applied price controls, severely reprimanded owners for petty mistakes made in accounting, and made four-year plans. George Reisman elaborates on these points in his Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics. jni 07:16, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, the US has some price controls (in agriculture for example) and severely reprimands owners for petty mistakes in accounting. Would you call the US a 'socialist' country today? Most of the points above that you make about private ownership were allowed in Nazi Germany. Also the 'four-year plans' were much more similar to the New Deal than to Stalin's Five Year Plans. Yet was the US 'socialist' in the 1930's? Certainly not, as again, the definitions of private ownership were not violated. The Nazis did not nationalize most German companies. Fascism, after all, is a 'sham revolt,' in which a nation's true socio-economic elites are not displaced but a totalitarian system is set-up to cement their socio-economic status. Anyway, I started the 'criticism' section of the "The Road to Serfdom" entry in an attempt to make people aware that not everyone agrees with Hayek, as the article had seemed before, with only Churchill's and Keynes's comments supporting the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.72.214 (talk • contribs) 16:57, July 12, 2006

I see your concerns, and, on hindsight, I certainly agree that I have to rephrase most of my edit. But I also believe Hayek's more dubious historical claims (regarding the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany) should be mentioned as such. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is my definite impression that Serfdom is not nearly as controversial today as it was when it was first published; certainly socialism is still a strong political philosophy in the world today, however, to that extent, Hayek is no more controversial than any other critic of socialism (and there are lots of them). Simply stating that Hayek criticizes socialism should be enough to imply that socialists don't like this book. The Russian thing should stay once we find a good source for it, because, again, it's an obvious counterargument &mdash; but because it's such an obvious argument, someone must have made it before, and Hayek's critics should be named if their opinion is going to be in the article. I'm afraid I don't see how you can simultanously agree that majority of pre-Nazi Germany's economy was under government control and still say that the economy was run by capitalists. It's true that "government spending is not enough to make a country socialist" &mdash; but remember that Hayek was arguing against central planning more generally as well, and high government spending is (one) indicator that the government is directing a lot of economic activity; also, it's a bit hard to have a socialist economy without a certain level of government spending. At any rate, I think that improvements to the language of this article could change things quite a bit, so I look forward to seeing what you do with it. - RedWordSmith 21:32, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Should the end reference to J. Sachs be modified? Just mentioning "vibrant democracies" is perhaps not enough. What he meant more specifically seems to be Scandinavian countries. Then, these are democracies clearly, but whether there are "vibrant" or just slowly going down social uniformity and control is still a matter of debate. There is nowhere in Scandinavia the strong and diverse political debate to be observed in the US, rather a middle-of-road, make-no-wave attitude. The Scandinavian experiment in the welfare state is not concluded yet, it is still unfolding before our eyes. So, to conclude, should we suspend our judgement and say " more specifically Scandinavian countries, a conclusion which is still very much open to debate". As a European, I should pray Hayek was wrong, but I am not sure he was ... Oberlage 17:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Hayek would consider the US today to be socialistic. He would consider the Republicans to be socialists. This is definitely true. However, that doesn't mean that totalitarianism is just around the corner, just that the apparatus is being built. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.131.175 (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Sachs comment
I'm restoring the Jeffrey Sachs comment in the "criticism" section, for these reasons:

a) It is certainly criticism of the point of view Hayek presents in The Road to Serfdom.

b) There is a proper citation to a verifiable source that meets reliable source standards, so there's no doubt that Sachs actually said this.

c) Jeffrey Sachs is a prominent economist whose views are of some importance.

Now, it may well be that the criticism is invalid, or lame, or stale rhetoric. Certainly those who agree with Hayek will view it in this way. But a criticism section is intended to present views of people who disagree with Hayek, and whose views are reasonably representative of those held by a reasonable number of people.

This is a "criticism" section, not a "truth" section. That is we are saying that these criticisms have been made, not that Wikipedia certifies that they are objectively true. Verifiability, not truth.

It may be that this point of view can be characterized as typical of "anyone on the left of the political spectrum." If so, this merely underlines the point that it is held by a non-negligible number of people. This is exactly the sort of view whose inclusion is required by the neutrality principle. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagreements of a general nature about Hayek belong to Hayek's page. This is a page about one of his books, The Road to Serfdom, which essentially argues that central planning inevitably leads to totalitarianism, and which discusses the tactics usually employed by socialist economies to gain public support. This quote criticizes in no intelligent way The Road to Serfdom.


 * Also, if this quote is to be included, as general and rhetorical as it is, then anyone with a degree who has ever disagreed with liberalism or who has ever supported socialism could be quoted here. I will remove this quote unless I am showed wrong on these two points. ---Childhood&#39;s End 02:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The title of the section is Criticism, not Criticism which Wikipedia certifies to be valid. The issue is not whether you think Sachs' comment addresses the content of the book. Sachs directs it at the book. You think he's wrong and displaying an ignorance of the book's content. Fine. But the fact that you think his comment does not address the book is not an argument for removing it, any more than perceived flaws in other critical comments is a reason for removing them.


 * The previous item merely stated Sachs' conclusion, which, in isolation, could be considered empty leftist rhetoric. The context of the article, however, is an economic analysis of how "the high-tax, high-income... Nordic social democracies" have actually fared, compared to the "Anglo-Saxon" states.


 * Let's get some consensus here before removing a properly cited, well-sourced remark, that specifically references Hayek's book, from the criticism section. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First, where did I say that I think that Sachs was wrong? Please explain. Second, there is absolutely no reference about the "Nordic social democracies" in The Road to Serfdom, which proves that Sach's article is directed at liberalism, which he personifies in Hayek's thinking, and absolutely not at his book The Road to Serfdom. Please suggest to add this quote on Hayek's page, or on liberalism page. All the other critics that appear here are relevant to the book. Not this one.


 * Perhaps you strongly agree with Sachs and really want to show his comments on a page concerning a book that you do not agree with, but there has to be a relevance criteria. Otherwise, articles and data showing that the Nordic social democracies actually do not work as well as socialists would like us to think would belong here. --Childhood&#39;s End 15:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

--Childhood&#39;s End 15:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not add the Sachs quote, which seems to have been in the article since November. I noticed that something had been removed from the "criticism" section on the grounds that it was invalid criticism. That raises a red flag with me, so I checked it out, and determined that it appears to be a) criticism from b) a notable economist who c) says it is directed at the book. You continue to give, as your reason for removal, that Sachs is mistaken in thinking his critique has bearing on the book. Fine, but that is your opinion. It still amounts to removing criticism because you disagree with the critic.


 * Please get some other editors in on this discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Sach's comment misses the point. Yes, some nordic countries have higher rates of taxation, but they also have freedom in many areas of trade that other countries don't have. Also, some countries can probably reach an agreement on economic issues that most other countries couldn't, which is why their socialistic societies haven't had any problems with totalitarianism YET. Every culture has a point at which too much socialism turns democracy into plurality, but that turning point is probably different in every culture. Plus nordic countries have smaller populations, making true cultural consensus much simpler, thus allowing for a higher level of economic planning without a break down into totalitarianism. It is only at the point when real consensus breaks down into coalition government that totalitarianism becomes a real threat. I say that we include Sach's comment under the title, "Sach's stupid comment." Am I the only person who actually read TRTS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.131.175 (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sweden & Britain
I have recently come to learn that it appears Sweden and Britain are indeed moving in the direction of totalitarian states. It will be interesting to see the critics' reactions if and when those countries erupt into full blown totalitarianism.Heaven&#39;s knight (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced that according to the mainstream of Wikipedians they already have. There's no way this assortment of ultracapitalist cult followers could adequately compile the sum of human knowledge.--87.162.1.32 (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian Critics
Some of the people included under "libertarian critics" are not libertarian. Notably Skidelsky, who is an avid supported of Keynes (albeit in a more "post-keynesian" sense). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.158.184 (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Increase in demand since election of Obama
 Since the November 2008 election of Barack Obama, the University of Chicago Press has seen a massive increase in demand for this book.

There's no citation, and it seems more like useless trivia, unless there's been some study or report done on any causation between the two. Should it be removed?69.40.252.81 (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Here: "First off, the November 2008 sales spike date certainly suggests that Obama's election and the passing of control of both houses of Congress to the Democrats may have been an initial factor. The Republicans had been walloped, and some sought principled arguments that could be used to combat the policies of the party in power." Ink Falls   17:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV minor edit
I altered the initial sentence which read "The Road to Serfdom is a book written by Friedrich von Hayek (recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974) which transformed the landscape of political thought in the 20th century, shifting the terms of debate for millions of people across the political spectrum." to read "The Road to Serfdom is a book written by Friedrich von Hayek (recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974) which dramatically altered the landscape of political thought in the middle of the 20th century, shifting the terms of debate for millions of people across the political spectrum."

Asserting that some book "transformed the landscape of political thought in the 20th century" is too broad a praise for anything. Are there ANY good candidates for books which transformed the landscape of thought of a particular discipline throughout the whole of the 20th century? Einstein's papers on the photoelectric effect and special relativity in 1905 could arguably be said to have transformed the landscape of thought of physics in the early 20th century but his work was overshadowed by the developments of quantum theory in the following decades. Chomsky's criticism of B.F. Skinner and his Syntactic Structures could fairly be said to have transformed the landscape of linguistics for several decades in the second half of the 20th century, and Freud clearly transformed the landscape of psychology and psychotherapy during the first half of the 20th century, but there have been many influential economists whose views were not consonant with those of von Hayek including perhaps the most famous being John Maynard Keynes. Richard Nixon famously asserted We are all Keynesians now, well after The Road to Serfdom presumably transformed political thought.

The more I think about it, I think my edit was too modest. It should probably read "had a dramatic effect on the thought of many political thinkers when it was published in 1944" or something like that. The phrase "landscape of political thought" is at best vague and at worst obsequious. T.BadonskyTBadonsky (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I just came here to comment on the same sentence. To someone new to the article, it seems like WP:PUFFERY. I  would like to amend it to something like "which has been extremely influential in twentieth century economic and political discourse, and is frequently cited today by politicians and commentators including (insert list here)." I will wait a day or two to see if anyone disagrees.


 * I don't think "shifting the terms of debate for millions of people" actually means anything, but if what is meant has "changed the lives of millions of people" I don't think that is a verifiable statement. The book is not even read cover to cover by most of the people referring to it. Very few books can truthfully be said to have changed the lives of millions. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Added new section, article needs more
I just added a new section quoting Hayek's endorsements in "Road to Serfdom" of a limited role for government. In doing so, it hit me that what is missing from this article is an actual summary of the arguments of the book (other than a few words in the lede). The article launches almost immediately into the pro and con commentary, without telling us what the book actually says. My best guess is that "Road to Serfdom" is more often cited by pundits than actually read. I will be back from time to time to add more description of the book's theses and arguments. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done--I added a summary of the entire book. Still amused how a book gets used as a political icon by people who haven't read it. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing Criticism section altogether
Does the criticism add anything to this article at all? Does it tell us anything new about what Hayek wrote or about the book? I am always skeptical of criticism sections. Stating that a book is 'controversial' actually adds zero information. All books are controversial. Saying that Marxists and Keynesians find the book controversial identifies the nature of the opposition, but it fails the first criteria in telling us exactly what Hayek said. Let's stick to factual statements. What did Hayek actually say in 'Road to Serfdom'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.118.90 (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted your mass deletion of pertinent material. We are in fact supposed to establish the notability and reception of a work by examining what relaible secondary sources have said about it--mere descriptions of content without context are not favored here. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Cartoon version
There is a cartoon version made, which is linked in the external links. Shouldn’t it too be in the article? Caspian Rehbinder (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The External links section has links to a printed an an animated version, but it probably deserves mention in the article body. It is mentioned in the Introduction of at least one edition of the book, and is described elsewhere.,, etc. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Central planning and tightness of coupling
This edit removed the assertion, "Hayek argues in The Road to Serfdom that central planning must of necessity be (or become) tightly coupled, but others dispute this premise.", saying, "rm incomplete thought (tightly coupled to what?)". I'm a bit out of my depth with this article, but perhaps the following from pertains: ""[ In economic planning of the collectivist kind, ] [t]he planning authority cannot confine itself to providing opportunities for unknown people to make whatever use of them they like. It cannot tie itself down in advance to general and formal rules which prevent arbitrariness. It must provide for the actual needs of people as they arise and then choose deliberately between them. It must constantly decide questions which cannot be answered by formal principles only, and, in making these decisions, it must set up distinctions of merit between the needs of different people. When the government has to decide how many pigs are to be raised or how many busses are to be run, which coal mines are to operate, or at what prices shoes are to be sold, these decisions cannot be deduced from formal principles or settled for long periods in advance.They depend inevitably on the circumstances of the moment, and, in making such distinctions, it will always be necessary to balance one against the other the interests of various persons or groups. In the end, somebody's views will have to decide whose interests are more important; and those views must become part of the law of the land, a new distinction of rank which the coercive apparatus of government imposes upon the people.""

If I've got the right part of the book there, perhaps someone can paraphrase that more completely than the removed thought but in fewer words than Hayek used. "... tightly coupled to circumstances of the moment", perhaps? "to immediate concerns"? "to short-term pressures"? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

is this book a reliable source?
I was shocked to be told i could not include a passage from the book on the Nazism article because it is a political opinion book. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're apparently referring to discussion at Talk:Nazism. Interesting. Re the opposing point argued there that "[the book is] of no more RS 'merit' than something written by Glenn Beck or Michael Moore", that ignores Hayek's status as an academician and as a Nobel Prize awardee in Economic Sciences. In my own copy of the book (perhaps paginated differently than the issue you used), I identify the point to which you refer as Hayek's assertion in a quoted letter dated 1933, when Hayek was on the faculty of the London School of Economics, that "... National Socialism is a genuine socialist movement [...] which led the majority of the German Intelligentsia first to 'socialism of the chair' [(see -- I had to look that up)] and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist forms." He goes on about that there at some length. In that talk page discussion, another user complained that you were using sources predating Nazi Germany for "historically specific uses of the word 'socialist' that no longer apply." I don't know about inapplicability, but Hayek's 1933 letter did predate Nazi Germany. I'm no topic expert, but I think that I would present Hayek's view there as a significant viewpoint held by an acknowledged expert economist, and as being subject to WP:DUE considerations re presentation of other viewpoints. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks! i am still confused by the other editor who requires sources on national socialism not predate national socialism.  Darkstar1st (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * However, following on discussion at WT:NPOV where I failed to get support for removing editorial authority to judge assertions with which editors disagree as untrue and therefore unreliable (and to thereby judge them ineligible for WP:DUE consideration), AFAICT, the book, or any individual assertion in it, could be editorially judged for purposes of the Nazism article to be untrue &mdash; therefore unreliable &mdash; therefore ineligible for due weight consideration. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Glenn Beck a reliable source?
I'll leave it to Politifact to make the argument: No, Glenn Beck is not a reliable source in general nor is he authoritative on the subject of The Road To Serfdom. As such, he shouldn't be used here. Olsonist (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism: Revisited
Just another NPOV problem. Just like so many wikipedia articles with Criticism sections that are disproportionally large with respect to the size and significance of the whole article.24.42.144.87 (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * support, submit a sandbox version of a reduced version, wait a few days, then without objection, make the edit. compared to the tiny critic section of Keynes own book, it is even more obvious npov violation as the same editors appear to be active in both Darkstar1st (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Here are specific examples of where we can pare this criticism stuff down: (1) Is Tullock talking about TRTS in particular? We only have an abstract from the Fraser Institute as the RS and it does not mention the book. Also, Tullock uses Sweden as a counter-example, which Sachs (2) has already done (twice) in the section preceding. We have a 28-page range in the reference for Skidelsky's two quotations (3) – where exactly did he say this and was he referring to TRTS in particular? Sweezy is listed as having done a review (4), perhaps of TRTS, but the reference is vague. And are Simon & Ando specifically commenting on TRTS (5)? – S. Rich (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Freedom/Serfdom
Is the title of the book The Road To Serfdom a responsive play on the title of another book that advocated socialism/totalitarianism called The Road To Freedom?

72.82.179.237 05:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC) That's very interesting! Joepnl 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Hayek's book is that serfs are private property

The human being is the ultimate owner of themselves. This is inherent in Hayek's philosophy. Indentured servants are private property but retain a sense of individual self-ownerhsip (as it is a contractual relationship), whereas serfs are an underclass of almost permanent slaves. Serfs are subjects, not so much property. Property implies a system of contractual and legal ownership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.131.175 (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Problem also: "serfdom" here is a metaphor. A good historian like Hayek had to know that the genuine serdom of the Middle Ages thru early Industrial Age faded because of progress: newer agricultural techniques, re-parceling of farmland for certain crops, end of the "truck system" (payment to tillers of soil in commodity v. currency). Serfdom ended because of big, centralized government; Hayek knew it could not return under the same conditions. BubbleDine (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)