The Road To Serfdom

Nazi-Socialism

This short 1933 essay by Hayek argues against the notion that Nazism is merely reactionary. Instead, “National Socialism is a genuine socialist movement” that fulfills the anti-liberal movements of previous decades (245). It coordinated with corporate forces partly because business leaders themselves fell for the bromides of collectivism. Nazis then quickly commandeered much of industry.

Nazis objected only to socialism’s liberal and internationalist sympathies; otherwise, they accepted the program. In Nazi propaganda, “the dominant feature is a fierce hatred of anything capitalistic” (246).

The anti-rational trend in Nazism came from the Marxian idea that bourgeois thought was conditioned by the social system and therefore invalid. Anti-rationalism makes simpler the idea that force, instead of tolerance, is the valid path.

Nazism allows for some private ownership, but this is largely due to the party’s dependence on middle-class shop owners and artisans, who soon enough find their lives heavily regulated.

In short, “the real meaning of the German revolution is that the long dreaded expansion of communism into the heart of Europe has taken place but is not recognized” due to differences in the Nazis’ political style (247). Hayek warns that other nations are toying with similar forms of collectivism and fail to discern the dangers.

This is a critical review of The Road to Serfdom, sent to the University of Chicago Press, which was considering publishing the book. The review summarizes concisely the book’s purpose: “first, that any such policy as socialism, or planned economy, will inevitably lead to totalitarianism and dictatorship; and second that such a social order will inevitably fall under the control of ‘the worst’ individuals” (248).

Knight notes that Hayek writes for a British audience and the book may not appeal as much to Americans. He also asserts that the book is political, rather than economic, and that it doesn’t adequately address alternatives to socialism that might better correct deficiencies in capitalism. The book overstates the effect of socialism in the Nazi system and underestimates the militarism and non-democratic traditions long entrenched in German society: “In sum, the book is an able piece of work, but limited in scope and somewhat one-sided in treatment” (250). He doubts it will have much influence in America.

Marschak is generally positive about the book: “It is written with the passion and the burning clarity of a great doctrinaire” (251). He agrees with Hayek that the book is “critical” rather than “constructive” (251) in nature, and it should open American eyes to the extent of socialist sympathies in Britain. Hayek spends little time on alternatives to socialism, and doesn’t thoroughly address the differences between good and bad planning; Marschak finds the non-economic chapters superior. Overall, “This book cannot be by-passed” (252).

Chamberlain sets out the book’s basic premise—that planning destroys freedom—and suggests why: “market factors obeyed at least relatively objective laws, while governments are subject to a good deal of whim” (253). Chamberlain writes that “Hayek is no devotee of laissez faire,” but instead believes in the Rule of Law obeyed by a government that, even if it requires social insurance and health standards, doesn’t improvise arbitrary regulations for the marketplace (253).

The letter first describes how The Road to Serfdom was vetted by the University of Chicago faculty committee that recommends books for publication. Two reviewers, one on each side of the political spectrum, gave their opinions. (These reviews are included in the Appendix as “Reader’s Report by Frank Knight” and “Reader’s Report by Jacob Marschak”; see summaries above.)

Hayek agreed to revise his manuscript by shifting the focus somewhat away from the British audience and toward Americans. As the book neared publication, word of its success in Britain reached the publishers. At first, they had trouble interesting bookstores, but favorable reviews and requests for translations improved the book’s sales, a third printing was ordered, and some venders ran short of copies. Reader’s Digest condensed the book, an author’s tour was arranged, and before long, 50,000 copies had sold along with 600,000 Digest condensations.

Professor Friedman asked ex-collectivists what caused them to give up those beliefs, and usually they would answer that they had read The Road to Serfdom. German readers who had experienced Nazism told Friedman that the book was “a revelation” (259).

Friedman calls the book “closely reasoned yet lucid and clear,” and “no less needed today than it was when it first appeared” (259). He notes that the wartime socialist concerns quoted by Hayek have more recently been replaced by different issues, such as urban, environmental, and consumer crises. The businessman as villain, however, remains the same.

Collectivism’s appeal, especially the idea that we know how to control a society, “is simple if false; it is an immediate emotional argument. The argument for individualism is subtle and sophisticated; it is an indirect rational argument” (260).

Collectivist trends did not advance much further in the West after the war; Friedman attributes this to the public’s impatience with government restrictions and inefficiencies. He cites East vs. West Germany, Israel vs. Egypt, and others as “a controlled scientific experiment” (261) that demonstrates how poorly the planned societies compare to free ones. Yet the desire for public planning retains its allure: “we preach individualism and competitive capitalism, and practice socialism” (263).

The Road to Serfdom was turned down by three American publishers before it found a home at the University of Chicago Press. By 1994, it had sold a quarter-million copies, and been translated into nearly twenty foreign languages; unauthorized versions circulated in Communist Eastern Europe. Thus, a book that warns against the erosion of freedom may have helped to liberate countries straining under collectivism.

Publisher Bruce Caldwell thanks a number of people who helped prepare the “definitive edition” of the book. He dedicates it to Hayek’s son, Laurence, who died in 2004.