This excerpt from Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom, Hayek offers some of the pros and cons of a rule of law type of government and also of its negative effects when the rule of law intervenes into everyday life. His subsequent chapter titled, "Economic Control and Totalitarianism," elucidates many of the points he made and the regimes he alluded to (particularly Hitler's Germany). His concerns about economic planning and the issue of "whether it shall be we who decide what is more, and what is less, important to us, or whether this shall be decided by the planner," allude to the ideas of who runs the state (91). In a democracy or republic the theory is that the people rule. Unlike the Marxist predecessors especially Adorno and Horkheimer and Debord, there is concern of whether a democratic society or totalitarian society will be able to withstand the control of a designated few and their demoralizing and despicable technological devices--most likely of bourgeois origins. I find his quote about money very interesting and melds with his earlier comments about the moral and economic motivations and formal and substantive rules (73-75). To Hayek, "money is one of the greatest instruments of freedom ever invented by man," (89). it sounds counter-intuitive to his initial comments about the disastrous outcomes of economically based initiatives--economics can easily become totalitarian. That is one of the defining features of a totalitarian regime, when the state starts to take hold and nationalize all economic ventures in the region (i.e. Stalin's Russia, Nazi Germany). then the state has an excuse to come into more personal ventures and allow certain rights such as free speech and right to assemble to be ignored or decreased substantially in the name of economic plans and the safety and prosperity of the state. I have read of similar claims when people discuss the U.S tax code and the amount of information the government asks in order for it to figure out what its citizenry owes the state. I do not think that the tax code is a testament of a possibly totalitarian regime (though the forms are tedious), nor do I Hayek would have the same conclusions. He notes the importance of the bill of rights or any form of "rule of law" that can provide for a just and reasonable society or government. To a large extent, Hayek is also contesting many Marxist assertions about how whomever controls the means of production must be changed to create a more just world. Reverting to a socialist means of economic planning would not alleviate the material inequalities in society nor ensure that civil liberties would be protected under a new socialist government (that learned from the mistakes of its predecessors). Overall, Hayek has been engaging and interesting especially for a political science major like myself...I look forward to reading what Pool has to say!
I think you're right...a socialist government in theory sounds like a great idea, but from history we see that it never works out for the benefit of the general public. To me, it's obvious that when a government is given power over all aspects of society in order to equally portion out resources, they in essence are just given complete power. What they choose to do with the power is then what creates the stereotype of a socialist turned totalitarian regime (like Stalin's). However, I agree with Hayek that "money is one of the greatest instruments of freedom ever invented by man," because it opens so many doors. I'd almost go so far as to say it's centered around the American dream...without money, all a person has is ambition, which can get you places, but not as fast as money in your pocket can. Hope I didn't ramble too much...
ReplyDeleteI can see what Hayek meant when he said that money was a great instrument of freedom. To me, the statement strongly resembles other authors we have read who said that the mass media could be a great instrument of freedom, but could also be used to manipulate and control the public.
ReplyDeleteMoney is freedom in that the choice to spend it is left up to the individual. They can spend it on food, or travel, or an enormous television. Furthermore, it allows the people who make the food, or facilitate travel, or sell the giant TVs the same freedom. Money can be used toward anyone's desires, so it's something that everyone wants. If you want a giant TV, but the TV salesman wants a bearskin rug, and you don't have a bearskin run, you're out of luck. But money allows you to have the TV and the salesman to have the rug. That probably didn't make any sense...
Anyway, just as money opens up a world of opportunity to the individual, it can also be controlled by the government, or a 'planner' in a way that limits individual freedom. I think Hayek hopes we can 'liberate' the economy in the same way the Marxists hoped we could 'liberate' the media.