Traditional Culture Encyclopedia - Traditional culture - How to evaluate Hayek's The Road to Slavery?

How to evaluate Hayek's The Road to Slavery?

Hayek's "The Road to Slavery" and "Fatal Conceit" are books that my son bought and read, and I also read them repeatedly by the way. For me, my mind has been filled with some contents of Marxist-Leninist classics for decades. Although I've been rethinking some ideas before. But these two books made me compare and reflect on a wide range of views. Now those two books, as well as the classic Marxist works I bought before, are in front of me for me to compare, discuss and think constantly.

The source of Marxist political economy is the classical political economy represented by Adam Smith and david ricardo. Hayek's political economy also comes from the classical political economy represented by Adam Smith and david ricardo. In contrast, the political economy of classical liberalism seems to have more elements. The practice in many countries has proved this point.

Today, the opposition between Marxism and classical liberalism is not a theoretical argument as it was at that time, but a question of accepting or not recognizing the facts. If you don't admit the facts and seek truth from facts, there is no need to argue about right and wrong. Because some people have ulterior motives, arguing is like playing the lute to a donkey, which is meaningless. My position is that both Marxism and classical liberalism are treated with the attitude of' taking the essence and discarding the dross'. Not mentioning classical liberalism will be labeled as worshipping foreign things and obsessing foreign things. Marxism is also pure Marxism from the West. If you worship Marxism, you don't worship foreign things. Then worshipping classical liberalism can't be called worshipping foreign things and flattering foreign countries.

I generally don't worship any doctrine, thought, theory or doctrine now. I used to be a Marxist believer, but now I only believe in scientific truth that truly reflects the objective evolution law of all things in nature.

It's really gratifying that so many people answered this question. I thought this book was a small reading in China, but I didn't expect its audience to be so common and its views were relatively accurate.

Slave Road is a summary of modern democratic thoughts and an enlightenment. People who have seen it are no longer confused about all social occasions. For those who study hard, briefly introduce some ideas in the book for your reference:

1. Market economy is the best means to allocate social resources. Once administrative power is involved in the allocation of social resources, even if your original intention is pure, it will certainly cause waste and confusion. This in turn leads to poverty. Power intervention in economy is the road to slavery;

Second, private property is the premise of freedom. The idea of eliminating private ownership, no matter how glamorous, will lead to the deprivation of freedom by depriving property and recognizing private property and personal value, thus narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor and ensuring social stability to the greatest extent;

Third, the rule of law, and only the rule of law, is the cornerstone of freedom. On the one hand, the role of the rule of law is to provide people with freedom and security, on the other hand, it limits the power of the government and allows people to foresee and restrain government behavior;

Fourth, democracy is only a means to achieve stability and prosperity, not a noble purpose. Don't take democracy as a god. If it cannot bring human security and wealth, it is an invalid democracy.

Share a classic saying: If a person does not have to obey anyone except the law, then he is free.

The great Hayek, his thought will be a lighthouse, which will let people who fly at night see a glimmer of hope.

The Road to Slavery is a great work, which reveals that the result of public ownership and planned economy will inevitably lead to slavery and the establishment and disintegration of the Soviet Union, which has been proved by the practice all over the world for more than 100 years and continues to prove to be a dead end. Monopoly everything, is there a way out?

The Road to Slavery occupies an extremely important position in Hayek's academic career, which has won him extensive attention and established his worldwide reputation. From its publication to today, this book has been controversial in academic circles.

Among them, an important reason lies in the inherent paradox of the book itself, so why on earth has this book and its author been controversial?

It can be understood from the following aspects.

The Road to Slavery is a masterpiece of friedrich hayek, the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics from 65438 to 0974, which has influenced the political, academic and ordinary scholars for half a century.

The Road to Slavery is a warning to the state's excessive control over the means of production. Hayek believes that centralization gives the government too much economic control and will not lead to utopia. On the contrary, there will only be German Nazis and Italian fascists. The key words discussed in the book are: utopia, planning, democracy, rule of law, economic control, totalitarianism, freedom, collectivism, material conditions and so on.

1) Life: Born in Austria, he joined the Austro-Hungarian army in World War I, moved to Britain in World War II and then moved to the United States. His whole life's anti-war, anti-absolute command and execution, anti-Nazi, and his life experience are all related to the establishment of anti-control theory.

2) Being an enemy and friend of Keynes. A story of mutual appreciation and mutual enemies.

3) The present era has created Keynes, and the future era has created Hayek. From a far-sighted point of view, Hayek is more capable than Keynes.

Compared with other Nobel laureates in economics, Hayek and his theory are unique in the following three aspects:

A. directly analyze the real economic system with theory;

B. Make theoretical analysis before institutional change;

C. The theory was finally confirmed by the change of the real system.

Hayek suggested that extreme economic intervention would lead people to slavery.

Hayek's point of view is:

1) Individualism and collectivism:

Hayek discussed the determination of the boundary and the influence of the system. In socialism, he advocates that the collective transcends the individual, and the importance of the individual will be gradually eliminated.

2) Economic control and totalitarianism:

Unregulated power inevitably leads to corruption and totalitarianism. Hayek believes that the destruction of economic freedom will inevitably lead to the destruction of personal and political freedom.

3) Guarantee and freedom:

The exercise of public power should be based on respect for private rights. Hayek put forward that the meaning of "security" is gradually expanding, which is no longer limited to security from infringement, but also includes security from poverty and unemployment.

4) Material conditions and ideal goals:

Hayek found that collectivism forced everyone to set an ideal goal in life, and after economic freedom was destroyed, personal career was completely involuntary. Therefore, the ultimate goal orientation is the most important, and the means should not be decided on the grounds of goal appeal.

The attempt and revision of post-war planned economy development proved Hayek's theory and also revised the return of western economics research to neoclassical category. Free market theory has occupied the mainstream of the market and continues to this day. But the game between market and plan will be the ultimate game of economic theory.

Hayek's theory judged the extreme, but it also led him to the extreme. This should also be avoided.

From its publication to today, this book has been controversial in academic circles. Among them, an important reason lies in the inherent paradox of the book itself.

As we know, Hayek's views in this book come from thinking about the "spontaneous order" characteristics of the market and other non-subjective design systems. This thought made Hayek encounter some difficult problems, which made him inevitably fall into the debate of social evolution and group selection.

The relationship between his exposition of the characteristics of the selection mechanism and liberalism is not always clear. The irrational features of these arguments are in sharp contrast with their highly rational and utopian neo-liberal thoughts. This defect in The Road to Slavery was later realized by the author himself. In his later "Freedom Charter" and "Law, Legislation and Freedom" trilogy, he touched on this difficult problem in many places, trying to combine classical liberalism with the theme of "evolution". Whether this attempt was successful or not remains to be commented, but Hayek and his works undoubtedly had an important influence on the academic circles and played a great role in the revival of classical liberalism in the field of political thought.

Readers should know Hayek and The Road to Slavery. Hayek's economic, political, legal and social theories, thinking methods and policy propositions have influenced the ideological and social progress of mankind in the 20th century, which has both theoretical and practical significance for us.

Hayek's book was once a "forbidden area" in China. Even if Hayek had to be mentioned in the book Introduction to Western Economic Thought written by China people, it was just a few standardized refutations. In fact, although Hayek took a completely negative attitude towards socialism, which is undoubtedly wrong, his analysis of the planned economy model has certain rationality. Under the planned economy, he proposed that resources were wasted seriously and consumer sovereignty was ignored, which led to a long-term shortage of consumer goods; Ignoring the material interests of workers and lacking the necessary material incentive mechanism; Problems such as insufficient motivation of enterprise managers and low efficiency of enterprises have been confirmed by the planned economy of the Soviet Union and China. It should be said that the disadvantages of Soviet-style socialist planned economy were pointed out by Hayek as early as the early 1940s, which really made people admire Hayek's foresight.

Reading Hayek's book will surprise you: "If a person does not have to obey anyone but only the law, he is free." And "a world where the rich are in power is better than a world where only those who are already in power can get wealth." Furthermore, "the poor can only get rich under the competitive system, and they can get rich by their own efforts rather than by the favor of the authorities, so that no one can hinder their personal efforts to get rich."

Obviously, reading Hayek helps us to understand the general laws and trends of human social development.

The bible of junior liberals. I think I was recommended to read this book by my teacher when I was in college, and I was convinced at that time. "A society in which the rich are in power is better than a society in which the strong are in power" has made me praise him for a long time. But as I get older, I read more and more books, and I have more and more doubts about this book. By the way, this book was written by Hayek in his early years. In his later years, his thoughts changed greatly, and he was no longer such a fundamentalist liberal.

Mr. Hayek's book The Road to Slavery has been proved by European Christian civilization and culture. Stalinists' destruction of Europe and Asia also proves this point. This book is a beacon of human civilization! Monument to human civilization!

If the author reads through Selected Works of Mao Zedong, he is not only an expert in market economy, but also a master in stock market. Market economy is also a fist escort. This is the case in the United States. They sell planes and tanks, and we sell refrigerators and washing machines. The profit gap is obvious. The invention and use of the atomic nucleus first exploded in Japan, and later came to civilian use. Without the support of cutting-edge technology, it is nonsense to talk about market liberalization, and market economy is liberalization. A group of scientists, such as Mr. Qian Xuesen and other old gentlemen, made atomic bombs and avoided nuclear attacks. Mr. Yuan Longping has fed us enough, and we have never been praised by scholars. Without a strong national defense, the market economy would have been finished long ago, and people who recommended books would have hid and laughed long ago.

Hayek's The Road to Slavery was a controversial book in 1950s. He saw the relationship between democracy, freedom, rule of law and privatization from the Soviet model. Tell people that when all resources are controlled by the state, people are also controlled, just like slaves.

So if you read Hayek's The Road to Slavery, you will know what society is like now. After reading Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, you will know what the future world will look like.

If you still have a little energy to care about society, you must read these two books. Otherwise, you know neither the present society nor the future world.

Hayek, no, I heard it from a group of fans of universal values. Hayek is an economist. He is a representative of liberal economics that has been highly praised by the west in recent years. There are two economic viewpoints in the west, one is Keynesianism and the other is liberalism.

Why is an economist so sought after? Has everyone become an economist, not everyone knows economics, and who are Hayek's fans of universal values? Let's have a look.

Hayek's Criticism of "Democracy"

Text/North Tour

0 1

Hayek's warning

Many people in this world have unrealistic illusions about "democracy".

Even if Zimbabwe, South Africa, Venezuela, Haiti and other countries get into trouble or even collapse after transplanting similar democratic systems in western countries, they still firmly believe that fantasy democracy can solve those problems they expect to solve.

This kind of self-deception is really puzzling.

In fact, from ancient times to the present, there are a group of the greatest thinkers on our planet who have profound insights into political philosophy, including Aristotle, Tocqueville, Lord acton, edmund burke and Hayek. , made a full, wise and insightful argument that the democratic system may infringe on political order and individual freedom.

Among them, Hayek's exposition is particularly wonderful.

In the third volume of Law, Legislation and Freedom published by 1979, Hayek clearly pointed out that all attempts by non-western countries to transplant western democratic systems may fail.

He said:

"These emerging countries do not even have a tradition slightly similar to the ideal of rule of law that European countries have long believed in.

On this basis, we can say that these emerging countries actually only transplanted democratic systems from European countries, but they did not have the preset beliefs and ideas as their solid support. In a successful democracy, it is these traditions and beliefs that have long limited the abuse of most power. "

What are Hayek's beliefs and traditions? Freedom!

02

Western tradition is freedom, and democracy is "different"

In the long history of western civilization, freedom is the core concept throughout, and democracy has never been a central concept with a high value ranking.

In Hayek's words, "democracy" and the rationalism thought it contains are just "one-sided exaggeration of European thought at a certain stage", which is the product of modern Europe and has never been the true tradition of western civilization.

However, this does not prevent "democracy" from magically becoming the main label of western countries in modern times.

People in non-Western countries, including most people in China, will naturally put the hat of democracy on their heads when they mention western countries, whether they praise or criticize them. This consternation is really ironic.

Let me emphasize once again: democracy is a "heterogeneous" in the development of western civilization and has never been the mainstream. Freedom is the core and tradition.

Hayek believes that it is precisely because western countries have free beliefs and traditions that Europeans and Americans will consciously follow these traditions and principles in the form of "tacit understanding", even if there is no specific legal provision (Britain has no written constitution), which is precisely the basic premise to resist the majority tyranny tendency brought about by democracy.

The reason why Europeans and Americans rarely take freedom out alone in modern times is that freedom has become a part of their cultural genes and has not been particularly emphasized.

But in non-western countries, the situation is completely different.

Since modern times, most non-western countries have gone into a misunderstanding in the process of actively or passively learning and absorbing western civilization.

Hayek's principle of free order said:

"Those who come from underdeveloped countries and undertake the mission of spreading ideas to their own people, in the process of receiving western training, what they have learned is not the earlier way of civilization construction in the West, but mainly the dream of various alternatives triggered by the success of the West. This development trend is very unfortunate. ......

Not all the achievements of western historical development can or should be transplanted on the basis of other cultures. "

Hayek clearly pointed out in this passage that modern non-western countries mistakenly regard democracy as an alternative way of western tradition and accept everything in order, which is a wrong beginning.

1964, Hayek in a speech in Japan, bluntly warned Japanese thinkers:

"When Japanese thinkers began to study the different trends of thought in the development of European thought, they were particularly attracted by those rationalist schools that seemed to represent the most extreme and clear, while ignoring the relatively low-key and simple western traditions. ......

This tradition has made greater contributions to the foundation of European civilization, especially to the construction of liberal political order. "

In Hayek's unfortunate words, Japanese ideological circles went astray in the process of absorbing western thoughts and civilizations in modern times, and regarded democracy rather than freedom as a western tradition, which may be a common phenomenon in non-western countries since modern times.

03

A free character is a prerequisite for engaging in politics.

So, what is the embodiment of western liberal tradition in specific political affairs?

We must first understand the true meaning of the concept of freedom in the western cultural context.

I have repeatedly stressed that freedom in the west does not mean that you can do whatever you want.

Freedom in the west means that people are rational, have the ability to choose not to do bad things, and can do nothing if they don't want to, thus surpassing animals and showing their nobility and uniqueness.

Therefore, in the ancient Greek city-states, the reason why "free men" had higher political status than slaves was because they had a considerable degree of rational consciousness, and they could get rid of the shackles of animals, do noble and correct things, and assume political responsibilities.

Slaves can't do it. They often have uncontrolled barbarism, just like animals, so they are not "free men" and cannot bear political obligations and responsibilities.

This is why Aristotle said that man is a political animal.

He said:

"Anyone who leaves the polis is either a beast or a god."

"Slavery is a good thing for slaves, because without a master, slaves don't know how to live their own lives."

In other words, in the early western civilization, freedom was a concept associated with responsibility and obligation.

Those who are self-disciplined and able to manage themselves are called "free men", and not just any cat or dog can be called free men.

No matter how we view this view right or wrong today, the existence of these historical facts irrefutably shows that in western tradition, freedom is the basic premise for a person to engage in political activities.

This is the true tradition of freedom in the west, which is unique in the world and can't be found in any other type of civilization.

In this sense, we not only know that the real tradition in the west is freedom, but also explain why the tradition of freedom is extremely important and indispensable in a country's political order.

04

Why can democracy fail without freedom?

Imagine what would happen if the people of a country generally did not have a free tradition of self-discipline and self-management, and if they rashly transplanted a democratic system?

I have written about what happened in Zimbabwe before.

Black people, by virtue of their absolute superiority in number, constantly eroded the rights and interests of white people by using the democratic system, and even deprived them of their farms and private property by legislation, which eventually led to the total collapse of economy and order.

South Africa is following in its footsteps.

Let's take a look at Venezuela, which was once rich.

It is recognized by academic circles that the nationalization and high welfare policies of Chavez and Maduro are the main reasons for Venezuela's economic collapse. Chavez and Maduro were both democratically elected by the Venezuelan people.

Venezuela's century collapse and people's plight are hardly related to the Venezuelan people's general short-sightedness and unrestrained desire for high welfare and the laissez-faire of the idea of getting something for nothing.

According to the concept of freedom I explained before, it can be clearly seen that people in these countries generally lack the character and concept of freedom, which leads to the violence of people in these countries against the majority.

There is no resistance to politics.

Even in France, the first western country to abandon the liberal tradition in modern times, there have been long-term political instability and riots.

Sufficient facts have proved that most attempts to transplant democracy will fail if non-western countries or western countries themselves lack free beliefs and principles.

05

abstract

Many people may take Japan and South Korea as examples to prove that democracy can also succeed in non-western countries. I want to ask these people to carefully study what happened in Japan and South Korea in modern times before refuting it.

In fact, it was under the authoritarian rule that Japan and South Korea had a good adaptability to the democratic system after their citizens were forcibly grafted with the beliefs and principles of freedom by foreign rule, not the other way around.

In essence, freedom is a value, and democracy is just a tool, and its purpose is to realize everyone's freedom. In this sense, democracy is good.

However, when democracy is promoted to a higher level than freedom by modern people, alienation becomes an unquestionable value and becomes "democracy", then the loss of freedom is the result of no suspense.

As Hayek warned the Japanese in 1964:

"Before we learn to understand the proper limits of reasonable arrangement of social affairs, there will always be such a great danger that when we try to impose what we think is reasonable on society, we will stifle freedom as the main condition for gradual improvement."