BY FRIEDRICH A. HAYEK
I have pulled together bits and pieces of this work, but I would encourage you to read either the condensed version which appeared in Readers Digest here, or better yet, buy the whole book here.
He wrote this over 60 years ago about the rise of the National Socialists (Nazis) in Germany and Fascists in Italy. He’s in black, I’m in blue…
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 profit as immoral. - Hillary Clinton (who doesn’t know the difference between a profit and a profit margin) on Corporate Profits – “I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence.”
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 ’society’ as a whole or that of a dictator, whoever exercises this control has complete power over us. - Look up Kelo vs. City of New London.
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. -Can you say “progressive tax rates, welfare, food stamps?” – all brought to you by “well-meaning” liberals
The idea of a political party which embraces all activities of the individual from the cradle to the grave, which claims to guide his views on everything, was first 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 organization to direct their thinking. Can you say “government schools?” – also brought to you by socialists - Google Horace Mann and the Prussian Education System.
But in 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. - Socialism is the opposite of liberty, because socialist programs, such as welfare – of necessity – require the involuntary taking of one person’s property (taxes) in order to provide benefit for another. Once you take something from one person against their will, whatever the reason, you no longer have liberty – you have serfdom.
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. And I would add that while democracy seeks equality in opportunity, socialism seeks equality of outcome. Equality may indeed be a right (depends on your definition), but no law on earth will ever make it a fact.
What is promised to us as the Road to Freedom is in fact the Highroad to Servitude. For it is not difficult 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’
“We can do something about 35 million Americans who live in poverty every day. And here’s why we shouldn’t just talk about, but do something about it: because it is wrong. And we have a moral responsibility to lift those families up.” – John Edwards – Acceptance speech to the Democratic National Convention July 28, 2004.
“A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.” — G. Gordon Liddy
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. It is for this reason that the unscrupulous are likely to be more successful in a society tending toward totalitarianism.
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 sufficiently to make unified 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 find 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.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” – Alternately attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, Alexander Tytler, Alexander Tyler, Arnold Toynbee, Lord Thomas Macaulay, et al…Doesn’t matter who said it, its true and you know it.
Second, since this group is not large enough to give sufficient weight to the leader ’s endeavours, he will have to increase their numbers by converting more to the same simple creed. He must 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 sufficiently loudly and frequently. - Think Obama and “Change/Hope/Yes We Can!”
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 program – 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.
“In an environment of scarcity, where the cost of living is rising, folks begin to get angry and bitter and look for scapegoats. Historically, instead of looking at the top 5% of this country that controls all the wealth, we turn towards each other, and the Republicans have added to the fire.” Barack Obama – Hyde Park Citizen, Dec. 28, 1995
Few recognize that the rise of fascism and Marxism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.
Hayek wrote this piece to explain how the Nazis could come to power in what was considered one of the most liberal countries in the world at the time. His conclusion was that Socialism arises not despite of liberalism, but as a direct result of it. He wrote this 3 generations ago about Germany, but as I have so cleverly pointed out, he could have written it yesterday about the U.S. and our current crop of candidates. Holy Crap Batman!
