Pick your route..., 22 Dec 2008
This is an important book. But there is a tendency to place it on some kind of pedestal, as some kind of timeless classic and I think that is not correct. It really should be placed in it's historical context.

It was published in 1944. Orwell's 'Animal Farm' was first published in 1945, and '1984' published in 1949. Huxley's 'Brave New World' was published in 1932.

So, Hayek was writing in the middle of the Second World War, a war between Stalinism, Nazism and Western liberal democracy . 'The Road to Serfdom' is one of many contributions to a debate that was taking place in Britain at the time about the usefulness of state economic planning - and the feeling that if the State can be so effectively organised during war time, surely such effective planning could be developed towards peacetime ends.

Hayek shows pretty convincingly, to my mind, that the roots of totalitarian or collectivist societies are all the same - Socialism is, ultimately, as bad as Nazism in that it places the rights of the State ahead of the rights of the Individual. However chaotic a free association of individuals may be, it can never be as oppressive as any form of collectivism.

The key to control is, of course, economic. State control of the economy will stifle free enterprise. A free enterprise based system will always be more creative, more dynamic and more capable of progress in any form than a collectivist system.

After the Second World War, Hayek's theories did not immediately hold sway and we saw a period of relatively stable and equitable economic development. However, when there was a return to more extreme laissez-faire ideals (1980s), we again see the gap between rich and poor opening up - not only between nations but within nations as well.

Laissez-faire economics (I am not an economist - this is purely from what I see around me) will always favour the rich (i.e. those with capital).

Internationally, the rich countries claim that 'laissez-faire' is the only acceptable form of economic development and force poorer countries to remove trade barriers. The rich countries then come in, undercut local initiatives, take whatever they want and then leave (see, for example, 'Globalization and Its Discontents', 'The Shock Doctrine', 'The New Rulers of the World' etc).

Nationally, the gap between rich and poor in America (for example) is now as huge as it was before the Great Depression (see 'The Wrecking Crew' by Thomas Frank). The middle classes, the most entrepreneurial class, is being increasingly squeezed as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

It seems, at times, that we are seeing the Road to Serfdom by a different route - a return to some kind of feudalism, where most of us will, indeed, be serfs.

Hayek is still really important in exposing the roots of totalitarian states and the inevitable consequences of collectivist control of the economy and the danger to the individual. However, Hayek is by no means unique in this (see Orwell - who described himself as a 'Democratic Socialist' - amongst many).

But besides the dangers inherent in a collectivist totalitarianism, there are clearly also huge dangers when laissez-faire liberalism is taken to an extreme degree. It will ultimately favour a very small number of individuals at the expense of the many. You simply end up with a different form of totalitarianism.

We don't need an even more powerful American plutocracy to see that, as Thomas Frank points out ('The Wrecking Crew'), extreme laissez-faire is ultimately toxic to democracy.

It seems to me that Hayek's analysis of totalitarianism may be right, but his predictions and his alternatives are not. It is still a really important book.

As for the Russian oligarchs mooring their yachts off Corfu...

(P.S. For an interesting extreme laissez-faire dystopian novel, see 'The Space Merchants' by Frederick Pohl and C M Kornbluth).

A cobbler should stick to his last, 28 Dec 2007
This book usually comes highly recommended. A 'classic' by a Nobel prize winner. Hayek was in fact an economist, but for the purposes of this book he assumed a political commentator's stance. His thesis is that Socialism is slavery, that the fascist Right and the fascist Left are two sides of the same coin, and that where there is dirty work to be done, dirty men will come forward to do it. Now you might say that's a no-brainer and wonder how it merits the 'classic' tag. Well you won't find the answer in the book. Overblown and in places pompous, you could be forgiven for thinking the author was being paid by the line. What is it with academics that one word won't do when four or five can be squeezed out instead? Perhaps they think verbosity succours the thesis. First published in 1944 and still going strong, The Road to Serfdom suffers primarily from being blinded by the times it was written in, and the way the world has changed since. Socialism is indeed slavery, but if Hayek had stuck to being an economist he might have foreseen the last gasp of the gold standard, the rise of globalism, fiat money, and fractional reserve banking. For debt is also slavery with the neat twist that the debtor usually can't wait to sign himself into bondage. The first step on the road to serfdom was simply the abolition of hard-asset backed currencies - after that, it was downhill all the way.

An interesting read, at least from a historical perpsective, 05 Dec 2007
I read this in conjunction with a number of "pro-socialism" books. While I disagreed with much of what Hayek had to say here it was nevertheless an interesting read, and an insight into right-wing economic thinking.

The basic premise of the book is to assert a necessary relationship between socialism and totalitarianism. Obviously the necessity of this link has subsequently been disproven by cases such as Sweden. And his case against the use of propaganda within socialist society can now be equally clearly drawn against capitalist states. The basis of his case was German National Socialism (Nazism). He emphasised the socialist aspect of that regime but I felt that the nationalist aspect of it was underplayed as he tried to make his case against socialism.

He also seriously underplayed the claimed rationale for socialism and made no serious attempt to explore socialist doctrine, although his discussion about collectivism and central planning was interesting (even though such planning may not be essential to a socialist system). He made some small noise about welfare systems and such but frankly these were all but lost in the noise.

Other writers in that period such as Popper and Russell managed to reach some similar results without the overt hostility, and they on the whole were considerably more prepared to discuss hybrid systems and search for compromisal solutions to the problems raised both by pure socialism and pure unfettered capitalism. I'd recommend reading these and other authors for a more balanced thesis.

The book is at least well thought out and cohesive - much more so perhaps than the typical Macarthyist thinking that borrows its conclusion without its reasoning.

That this book was written at the tail of WW2 should not be forgotten. This book, while seriously flawed, is very much a product of a world in chaos and in a state of rapid change. It is that, moreso than its message that makes this a compelling read.


A terrible book espousing a vile philosophy, 16 Nov 2007
It is my belief that this text is one of the most abhorrent in the history of political philosophy and that despite the very best intentions (a defense of liberal democracy) by Friedrich Von Hayek, is fundamentally flawed in its arguement and damaging in its impact.

The attack on totalitarian form of governments is logical and articulate, but it is when he turns to socialism that it all falls apart, to an extent I initially thought he was being satirical till the horrible truth dawned. Hayek's uncompromising libertarian views make a huge leap of logic in linking basic socialist reform, such as the establishment of the welfare state, to totalitarianism, even likening Stafford Cripps, a decent hardworking Chancellor whose sole goal was to see the realisation of the Beveridge Report, with Joseph Stalin. Of course this makes perfect sense, likening a man who slaved away to try and stamp out inequality and poverty in Britain and provide a safety net for those on the edges of society with a murdering tyrant responsible for millions of deaths.

He does not even consider the essential nature of the welfare state as a protection from those in society that are less fortunate, and that cutting back on it just to lower taxes would only benefit the rich while leaving the average hard-working man with no social security, no free healthcare and no private pension.

Then theres the chapter that he likens socialism with Nazism. True, Hitler's party was named the National Socialists, but it wasn't so, merely claimed to be to stir up working class support. Though both do promote economic planning, that is the only similarity. The ideology is completely different. Hitler was a fiersome anti-socialist who rounded up and socialists and sent them to concentration camps! He identifies Bolshevik socialism as the opposite of Nazism (talk about straight from the horses mouth). Fascism is a corporatist philosophy that views property completely differently, it assumes racial superiority and promotes imperialist empire building. Hayek's link between the two is as tenuous as you can possibly get, a clear example of Godwin's law ie the groundless comparison between Nazism and the object of your criticism to discredit it.

Of course the most evil thing about this text apart from the selfish, heartless, morally disgusting philosophy it spouts is the way it influenced the neo-liberalism of Margaret Thatcher. That's right, the tyrant whose reign was characterised by doubled unemployment, civil unrest, TWO recessions attributable to monetarism, unelected Quangos, regressive taxation, a massive widening in the rich-poor gap, the start of the credit card culture, the poll tax riots, degradations of social occupations, the destruction of british industry, the slashing of workers rights, the selling of state companies for a rediculously low price, botched privatisation of the infastructure, doubled crime and the creation of a broken, selfish society was operating following the gospel according to Hayek!

Yes, as you may have guessed, I am a socialist, but I am also a passionate defender of democracy. To me, Hayek creates a bogeyman picture of the best vehicle for equality and opportunity the world has: democratic socialism. As a result people fear this model and are driven to a selfish and damaging alternative. Hayek thinks that he is standing up for freedom and benefitting the people but he couldn't be more wrong. What use is a small state if people are unemployed and starving? what use are cheap taxes if vital institutions are controlled by greedy profiteering corporations who care less about the people than their prophet margins?

Hayek is not a Karl Popper, mouting an intelligent attack on Marxism, he is a ranting right winger who thinks he is making a blueprint for a libertarian heaven when instead he is pointing towards the hell of a broken society. Do not be fooled by his arguements, what he is promoting is a "survival of the richest and strongest" philosophy that cares not for the needy, the unemployed, the sick, the empoverished or the disadvantaged but merely for those on the top of society. Read it by all means, but do not as many do blindly accept the arguements made. It is a truly vile book.

Ultimately disappoints, 27 Jul 2007
This is one of the greatest simple anti-state capitalist manifestos you will find, its punchy, its pacey, lots of utopian eulogising of what Hayek thought were much malinged and misunderstood market forces.

However for any sensible and clear sighted reader this book is bound to disappoint, Hayek treats very different ideological and political forces as essentially similar, it has the combination of promise and threat that most market populism has (market forces will deliver/market forces will strike back) and just doesnt seem to take issues like unemployment or other consequences of unmitigated market forces that seriously or treats them with a kind of unreality.

It is a book, I suspect, which will ultimately prove most pleasing to anyone searching for a pretty plain and simple world view with clear cut heroes and villains, much like its mirror opposites in some socialist and conservative literature.

However that said it is well written and deserves to receive a wide readership, in fact I would say the very socialist or (welfare) liberal circles who Hayek protrays as either villains or the fatally conceited "useful idiots" of villains could benefit from reading it, while, like myself, they are unlikely to agree.

Pick your route..., 22 Dec 2008
This is an important book. But there is a tendency to place it on some kind of pedestal, as some kind of timeless classic and I think that is not correct. It really should be placed in it's historical context.

It was published in 1944. Orwell's 'Animal Farm' was first published in 1945, and '1984' published in 1949. Huxley's 'Brave New World' was published in 1932.

So, Hayek was writing in the middle of the Second World War, a war between Stalinism, Nazism and Western liberal democracy . 'The Road to Serfdom' is one of many contributions to a debate that was taking place in Britain at the time about the usefulness of state economic planning - and the feeling that if the State can be so effectively organised during war time, surely such effective planning could be developed towards peacetime ends.

Hayek shows pretty convincingly, to my mind, that the roots of totalitarian or collectivist societies are all the same - Socialism is, ultimately, as bad as Nazism in that it places the rights of the State ahead of the rights of the Individual. However chaotic a free association of individuals may be, it can never be as oppressive as any form of collectivism.

The key to control is, of course, economic. State control of the economy will stifle free enterprise. A free enterprise based system will always be more creative, more dynamic and more capable of progress in any form than a collectivist system.

After the Second World War, Hayek's theories did not immediately hold sway and we saw a period of relatively stable and equitable economic development. However, when there was a return to more extreme laissez-faire ideals (1980s), we again see the gap between rich and poor opening up - not only between nations but within nations as well.

Laissez-faire economics (I am not an economist - this is purely from what I see around me) will always favour the rich (i.e. those with capital).

Internationally, the rich countries claim that 'laissez-faire' is the only acceptable form of economic development and force poorer countries to remove trade barriers. The rich countries then come in, undercut local initiatives, take whatever they want and then leave (see, for example, 'Globalization and Its Discontents', 'The Shock Doctrine', 'The New Rulers of the World' etc).

Nationally, the gap between rich and poor in America (for example) is now as huge as it was before the Great Depression (see 'The Wrecking Crew' by Thomas Frank). The middle classes, the most entrepreneurial class, is being increasingly squeezed as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

It seems, at times, that we are seeing the Road to Serfdom by a different route - a return to some kind of feudalism, where most of us will, indeed, be serfs.

Hayek is still really important in exposing the roots of totalitarian states and the inevitable consequences of collectivist control of the economy and the danger to the individual. However, Hayek is by no means unique in this (see Orwell - who described himself as a 'Democratic Socialist' - amongst many).

But besides the dangers inherent in a collectivist totalitarianism, there are clearly also huge dangers when laissez-faire liberalism is taken to an extreme degree. It will ultimately favour a very small number of individuals at the expense of the many. You simply end up with a different form of totalitarianism.

We don't need an even more powerful American plutocracy to see that, as Thomas Frank points out ('The Wrecking Crew'), extreme laissez-faire is ultimately toxic to democracy.

It seems to me that Hayek's analysis of totalitarianism may be right, but his predictions and his alternatives are not. It is still a really important book.

As for the Russian oligarchs mooring their yachts off Corfu...

(P.S. For an interesting extreme laissez-faire dystopian novel, see 'The Space Merchants' by Frederick Pohl and C M Kornbluth).

A cobbler should stick to his last, 28 Dec 2007
This book usually comes highly recommended. A 'classic' by a Nobel prize winner. Hayek was in fact an economist, but for the purposes of this book he assumed a political commentator's stance. His thesis is that Socialism is slavery, that the fascist Right and the fascist Left are two sides of the same coin, and that where there is dirty work to be done, dirty men will come forward to do it. Now you might say that's a no-brainer and wonder how it merits the 'classic' tag. Well you won't find the answer in the book. Overblown and in places pompous, you could be forgiven for thinking the author was being paid by the line. What is it with academics that one word won't do when four or five can be squeezed out instead? Perhaps they think verbosity succours the thesis. First published in 1944 and still going strong, The Road to Serfdom suffers primarily from being blinded by the times it was written in, and the way the world has changed since. Socialism is indeed slavery, but if Hayek had stuck to being an economist he might have foreseen the last gasp of the gold standard, the rise of globalism, fiat money, and fractional reserve banking. For debt is also slavery with the neat twist that the debtor usually can't wait to sign himself into bondage. The first step on the road to serfdom was simply the abolition of hard-asset backed currencies - after that, it was downhill all the way.

An interesting read, at least from a historical perpsective, 05 Dec 2007
I read this in conjunction with a number of "pro-socialism" books. While I disagreed with much of what Hayek had to say here it was nevertheless an interesting read, and an insight into right-wing economic thinking.

The basic premise of the book is to assert a necessary relationship between socialism and totalitarianism. Obviously the necessity of this link has subsequently been disproven by cases such as Sweden. And his case against the use of propaganda within socialist society can now be equally clearly drawn against capitalist states. The basis of his case was German National Socialism (Nazism). He emphasised the socialist aspect of that regime but I felt that the nationalist aspect of it was underplayed as he tried to make his case against socialism.

He also seriously underplayed the claimed rationale for socialism and made no serious attempt to explore socialist doctrine, although his discussion about collectivism and central planning was interesting (even though such planning may not be essential to a socialist system). He made some small noise about welfare systems and such but frankly these were all but lost in the noise.

Other writers in that period such as Popper and Russell managed to reach some similar results without the overt hostility, and they on the whole were considerably more prepared to discuss hybrid systems and search for compromisal solutions to the problems raised both by pure socialism and pure unfettered capitalism. I'd recommend reading these and other authors for a more balanced thesis.

The book is at least well thought out and cohesive - much more so perhaps than the typical Macarthyist thinking that borrows its conclusion without its reasoning.

That this book was written at the tail of WW2 should not be forgotten. This book, while seriously flawed, is very much a product of a world in chaos and in a state of rapid change. It is that, moreso than its message that makes this a compelling read.


A terrible book espousing a vile philosophy, 16 Nov 2007
It is my belief that this text is one of the most abhorrent in the history of political philosophy and that despite the very best intentions (a defense of liberal democracy) by Friedrich Von Hayek, is fundamentally flawed in its arguement and damaging in its impact.

The attack on totalitarian form of governments is logical and articulate, but it is when he turns to socialism that it all falls apart, to an extent I initially thought he was being satirical till the horrible truth dawned. Hayek's uncompromising libertarian views make a huge leap of logic in linking basic socialist reform, such as the establishment of the welfare state, to totalitarianism, even likening Stafford Cripps, a decent hardworking Chancellor whose sole goal was to see the realisation of the Beveridge Report, with Joseph Stalin. Of course this makes perfect sense, likening a man who slaved away to try and stamp out inequality and poverty in Britain and provide a safety net for those on the edges of society with a murdering tyrant responsible for millions of deaths.

He does not even consider the essential nature of the welfare state as a protection from those in society that are less fortunate, and that cutting back on it just to lower taxes would only benefit the rich while leaving the average hard-working man with no social security, no free healthcare and no private pension.

Then theres the chapter that he likens socialism with Nazism. True, Hitler's party was named the National Socialists, but it wasn't so, merely claimed to be to stir up working class support. Though both do promote economic planning, that is the only similarity. The ideology is completely different. Hitler was a fiersome anti-socialist who rounded up and socialists and sent them to concentration camps! He identifies Bolshevik socialism as the opposite of Nazism (talk about straight from the horses mouth). Fascism is a corporatist philosophy that views property completely differently, it assumes racial superiority and promotes imperialist empire building. Hayek's link between the two is as tenuous as you can possibly get, a clear example of Godwin's law ie the groundless comparison between Nazism and the object of your criticism to discredit it.

Of course the most evil thing about this text apart from the selfish, heartless, morally disgusting philosophy it spouts is the way it influenced the neo-liberalism of Margaret Thatcher. That's right, the tyrant whose reign was characterised by doubled unemployment, civil unrest, TWO recessions attributable to monetarism, unelected Quangos, regressive taxation, a massive widening in the rich-poor gap, the start of the credit card culture, the poll tax riots, degradations of social occupations, the destruction of british industry, the slashing of workers rights, the selling of state companies for a rediculously low price, botched privatisation of the infastructure, doubled crime and the creation of a broken, selfish society was operating following the gospel according to Hayek!

Yes, as you may have guessed, I am a socialist, but I am also a passionate defender of democracy. To me, Hayek creates a bogeyman picture of the best vehicle for equality and opportunity the world has: democratic socialism. As a result people fear this model and are driven to a selfish and damaging alternative. Hayek thinks that he is standing up for freedom and benefitting the people but he couldn't be more wrong. What use is a small state if people are unemployed and starving? what use are cheap taxes if vital institutions are controlled by greedy profiteering corporations who care less about the people than their prophet margins?

Hayek is not a Karl Popper, mouting an intelligent attack on Marxism, he is a ranting right winger who thinks he is making a blueprint for a libertarian heaven when instead he is pointing towards the hell of a broken society. Do not be fooled by his arguements, what he is promoting is a "survival of the richest and strongest" philosophy that cares not for the needy, the unemployed, the sick, the empoverished or the disadvantaged but merely for those on the top of society. Read it by all means, but do not as many do blindly accept the arguements made. It is a truly vile book.

Ultimately disappoints, 27 Jul 2007
This is one of the greatest simple anti-state capitalist manifestos you will find, its punchy, its pacey, lots of utopian eulogising of what Hayek thought were much malinged and misunderstood market forces.

However for any sensible and clear sighted reader this book is bound to disappoint, Hayek treats very different ideological and political forces as essentially similar, it has the combination of promise and threat that most market populism has (market forces will deliver/market forces will strike back) and just doesnt seem to take issues like unemployment or other consequences of unmitigated market forces that seriously or treats them with a kind of unreality.

It is a book, I suspect, which will ultimately prove most pleasing to anyone searching for a pretty plain and simple world view with clear cut heroes and villains, much like its mirror opposites in some socialist and conservative literature.

However that said it is well written and deserves to receive a wide readership, in fact I would say the very socialist or (welfare) liberal circles who Hayek protrays as either villains or the fatally conceited "useful idiots" of villains could benefit from reading it, while, like myself, they are unlikely to agree.

Good overview, 15 Nov 2008
This is good basic introduction to the works of Karl Marx.

Marx's ideas range across the disciplines of economics, history, philosophy and sociology and a book of this nature can only give a basic introduction to some of the main ideas. Even scholars on the subject are uncertain of his exact postion on many topics as his ideas developed over the years and some of his writings (like those of Hegel and other German thinkers) are very obscure.

I must admit that I am no fan of Marx and tend to regard his ideas as completely wrong both intellectually and morally.

Excellent if you are a beginner, 02 Feb 2006
If you don't know anything, or know very little about Marx and his ideas and you need to brush up but don't have the time to sit for hours in a library, then get this book. I am a complete beginner with Marx, I had heard of him but knew nothing about his ideas. I had to acquire this knowledge in a very short space of time for an essay that I was writing for my Masters. This book was perfect, just enough information to give me the basics without getting to indepth AND in an easy to read format.

It covers events in his life as well as his main achievements and ideas.

This book makes no assumptions that you know anythign about Marxism so it is very easy to follow whilst avoiding being patronising or school bookish. In fact the Very Short Introduction series are actually written by very eminent scholars in the field so it by no means superficial or textbook material.

This is an excellent introduction to Marxism, it will give you the basics and will help you identify areas of further reading or study if you are so inclined. If you need an indepth, detailed look at his ideas/theories/life, then this isn't the book for you.

A short intro, 06 Nov 2003
This book is a very short introduction to Marx's ideologies. It does briefly explore the influences on Marx such as Hegelian philosophy and Engel's contribution. The main text deals with the formation of Marxist theories, their change through time in Marx's writings and the main thrust of their opinion. This book is particularly useful for those who find KAPITAL hard going at first - it acts as a nice intro to some of the heavier economic stuff in Marx's own writings.

Pick your route..., 22 Dec 2008
This is an important book. But there is a tendency to place it on some kind of pedestal, as some kind of timeless classic and I think that is not correct. It really should be placed in it's historical context.

It was published in 1944. Orwell's 'Animal Farm' was first published in 1945, and '1984' published in 1949. Huxley's 'Brave New World' was published in 1932.

So, Hayek was writing in the middle of the Second World War, a war between Stalinism, Nazism and Western liberal democracy . 'The Road to Serfdom' is one of many contributions to a debate that was taking place in Britain at the time about the usefulness of state economic planning - and the feeling that if the State can be so effectively organised during war time, surely such effective planning could be developed towards peacetime ends.

Hayek shows pretty convincingly, to my mind, that the roots of totalitarian or collectivist societies are all the same - Socialism is, ultimately, as bad as Nazism in that it places the rights of the State ahead of the rights of the Individual. However chaotic a free association of individuals may be, it can never be as oppressive as any form of collectivism.

The key to control is, of course, economic. State control of the economy will stifle free enterprise. A free enterprise based system will always be more creative, more dynamic and more capable of progress in any form than a collectivist system.

After the Second World War, Hayek's theories did not immediately hold sway and we saw a period of relatively stable and equitable economic development. However, when there was a return to more extreme laissez-faire ideals (1980s), we again see the gap between rich and poor opening up - not only between nations but within nations as well.

Laissez-faire economics (I am not an economist - this is purely from what I see around me) will always favour the rich (i.e. those with capital).

Internationally, the rich countries claim that 'laissez-faire' is the only acceptable form of economic development and force poorer countries to remove trade barriers. The rich countries then come in, undercut local initiatives, take whatever they want and then leave (see, for example, 'Globalization and Its Discontents', 'The Shock Doctrine', 'The New Rulers of the World' etc).

Nationally, the gap between rich and poor in America (for example) is now as huge as it was before the Great Depression (see 'The Wrecking Crew' by Thomas Frank). The middle classes, the most entrepreneurial class, is being increasingly squeezed as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

It seems, at times, that we are seeing the Road to Serfdom by a different route - a return to some kind of feudalism, where most of us will, indeed, be serfs.

Hayek is still really important in exposing the roots of totalitarian states and the inevitable consequences of collectivist control of the economy and the danger to the individual. However, Hayek is by no means unique in this (see Orwell - who described himself as a 'Democratic Socialist' - amongst many).

But besides the dangers inherent in a collectivist totalitarianism, there are clearly also huge dangers when laissez-faire liberalism is taken to an extreme degree. It will ultimately favour a very small number of individuals at the expense of the many. You simply end up with a different form of totalitarianism.

We don't need an even more powerful American plutocracy to see that, as Thomas Frank points out ('The Wrecking Crew'), extreme laissez-faire is ultimately toxic to democracy.

It seems to me that Hayek's analysis of totalitarianism may be right, but his predictions and his alternatives are not. It is still a really important book.

As for the Russian oligarchs mooring their yachts off Corfu...

(P.S. For an interesting extreme laissez-faire dystopian novel, see 'The Space Merchants' by Frederick Pohl and C M Kornbluth).

A cobbler should stick to his last, 28 Dec 2007
This book usually comes highly recommended. A 'classic' by a Nobel prize winner. Hayek was in fact an economist, but for the purposes of this book he assumed a political commentator's stance. His thesis is that Socialism is slavery, that the fascist Right and the fascist Left are two sides of the same coin, and that where there is dirty work to be done, dirty men will come forward to do it. Now you might say that's a no-brainer and wonder how it merits the 'classic' tag. Well you won't find the answer in the book. Overblown and in places pompous, you could be forgiven for thinking the author was being paid by the line. What is it with academics that one word won't do when four or five can be squeezed out instead? Perhaps they think verbosity succours the thesis. First published in 1944 and still going strong, The Road to Serfdom suffers primarily from being blinded by the times it was written in, and the way the world has changed since. Socialism is indeed slavery, but if Hayek had stuck to being an economist he might have foreseen the last gasp of the gold standard, the rise of globalism, fiat money, and fractional reserve banking. For debt is also slavery with the neat twist that the debtor usually can't wait to sign himself into bondage. The first step on the road to serfdom was simply the abolition of hard-asset backed currencies - after that, it was downhill all the way.

An interesting read, at least from a historical perpsective, 05 Dec 2007
I read this in conjunction with a number of "pro-socialism" books. While I disagreed with much of what Hayek had to say here it was nevertheless an interesting read, and an insight into right-wing economic thinking.

The basic premise of the book is to assert a necessary relationship between socialism and totalitarianism. Obviously the necessity of this link has subsequently been disproven by cases such as Sweden. And his case against the use of propaganda within socialist society can now be equally clearly drawn against capitalist states. The basis of his case was German National Socialism (Nazism). He emphasised the socialist aspect of that regime but I felt that the nationalist aspect of it was underplayed as he tried to make his case against socialism.

He also seriously underplayed the claimed rationale for socialism and made no serious attempt to explore socialist doctrine, although his discussion about collectivism and central planning was interesting (even though such planning may not be essential to a socialist system). He made some small noise about welfare systems and such but frankly these were all but lost in the noise.

Other writers in that period such as Popper and Russell managed to reach some similar results without the overt hostility, and they on the whole were considerably more prepared to discuss hybrid systems and search for compromisal solutions to the problems raised both by pure socialism and pure unfettered capitalism. I'd recommend reading these and other authors for a more balanced thesis.

The book is at least well thought out and cohesive - much more so perhaps than the typical Macarthyist thinking that borrows its conclusion without its reasoning.

That this book was written at the tail of WW2 should not be forgotten. This book, while seriously flawed, is very much a product of a world in chaos and in a state of rapid change. It is that, moreso than its message that makes this a compelling read.


A terrible book espousing a vile philosophy, 16 Nov 2007
It is my belief that this text is one of the most abhorrent in the history of political philosophy and that despite the very best intentions (a defense of liberal democracy) by Friedrich Von Hayek, is fundamentally flawed in its arguement and damaging in its impact.

The attack on totalitarian form of governments is logical and articulate, but it is when he turns to socialism that it all falls apart, to an extent I initially thought he was being satirical till the horrible truth dawned. Hayek's uncompromising libertarian views make a huge leap of logic in linking basic socialist reform, such as the establishment of the welfare state, to totalitarianism, even likening Stafford Cripps, a decent hardworking Chancellor whose sole goal was to see the realisation of the Beveridge Report, with Joseph Stalin. Of course this makes perfect sense, likening a man who slaved away to try and stamp out inequality and poverty in Britain and provide a safety net for those on the edges of society with a murdering tyrant responsible for millions of deaths.

He does not even consider the essential nature of the welfare state as a protection from those in society that are less fortunate, and that cutting back on it just to lower taxes would only benefit the rich while leaving the average hard-working man with no social security, no free healthcare and no private pension.

Then theres the chapter that he likens socialism with Nazism. True, Hitler's party was named the National Socialists, but it wasn't so, merely claimed to be to stir up working class support. Though both do promote economic planning, that is the only similarity. The ideology is completely different. Hitler was a fiersome anti-socialist who rounded up and socialists and sent them to concentration camps! He identifies Bolshevik socialism as the opposite of Nazism (talk about straight from the horses mouth). Fascism is a corporatist philosophy that views property completely differently, it assumes racial superiority and promotes imperialist empire building. Hayek's link between the two is as tenuous as you can possibly get, a clear example of Godwin's law ie the groundless comparison between Nazism and the object of your criticism to discredit it.

Of course the most evil thing about this text apart from the selfish, heartless, morally disgusting philosophy it spouts is the way it influenced the neo-liberalism of Margaret Thatcher. That's right, the tyrant whose reign was characterised by doubled unemployment, civil unrest, TWO recessions attributable to monetarism, unelected Quangos, regressive taxation, a massive widening in the rich-poor gap, the start of the credit card culture, the poll tax riots, degradations of social occupations, the destruction of british industry, the slashing of workers rights, the selling of state companies for a rediculously low price, botched privatisation of the infastructure, doubled crime and the creation of a broken, selfish society was operating following the gospel according to Hayek!

Yes, as you may have guessed, I am a socialist, but I am also a passionate defender of democracy. To me, Hayek creates a bogeyman picture of the best vehicle for equality and opportunity the world has: democratic socialism. As a result people fear this model and are driven to a selfish and damaging alternative. Hayek thinks that he is standing up for freedom and benefitting the people but he couldn't be more wrong. What use is a small state if people are unemployed and starving? what use are cheap taxes if vital institutions are controlled by greedy profiteering corporations who care less about the people than their prophet margins?

Hayek is not a Karl Popper, mouting an intelligent attack on Marxism, he is a ranting right winger who thinks he is making a blueprint for a libertarian heaven when instead he is pointing towards the hell of a broken society. Do not be fooled by his arguements, what he is promoting is a "survival of the richest and strongest" philosophy that cares not for the needy, the unemployed, the sick, the empoverished or the disadvantaged but merely for those on the top of society. Read it by all means, but do not as many do blindly accept the arguements made. It is a truly vile book.

Ultimately disappoints, 27 Jul 2007
This is one of the greatest simple anti-state capitalist manifestos you will find, its punchy, its pacey, lots of utopian eulogising of what Hayek thought were much malinged and misunderstood market forces.

However for any sensible and clear sighted reader this book is bound to disappoint, Hayek treats very different ideological and political forces as essentially similar, it has the combination of promise and threat that most market populism has (market forces will deliver/market forces will strike back) and just doesnt seem to take issues like unemployment or other consequences of unmitigated market forces that seriously or treats them with a kind of unreality.

It is a book, I suspect, which will ultimately prove most pleasing to anyone searching for a pretty plain and simple world view with clear cut heroes and villains, much like its mirror opposites in some socialist and conservative literature.

However that said it is well written and deserves to receive a wide readership, in fact I would say the very socialist or (welfare) liberal circles who Hayek protrays as either villains or the fatally conceited "useful idiots" of villains could benefit from reading it, while, like myself, they are unlikely to agree.

Good overview, 15 Nov 2008
This is good basic introduction to the works of Karl Marx.

Marx's ideas range across the disciplines of economics, history, philosophy and sociology and a book of this nature can only give a basic introduction to some of the main ideas. Even scholars on the subject are uncertain of his exact postion on many topics as his ideas developed over the years and some of his writings (like those of Hegel and other German thinkers) are very obscure.

I must admit that I am no fan of Marx and tend to regard his ideas as completely wrong both intellectually and morally.

Excellent if you are a beginner, 02 Feb 2006
If you don't know anything, or know very little about Marx and his ideas and you need to brush up but don't have the time to sit for hours in a library, then get this book. I am a complete beginner with Marx, I had heard of him but knew nothing about his ideas. I had to acquire this knowledge in a very short space of time for an essay that I was writing for my Masters. This book was perfect, just enough information to give me the basics without getting to indepth AND in an easy to read format.

It covers events in his life as well as his main achievements and ideas.

This book makes no assumptions that you know anythign about Marxism so it is very easy to follow whilst avoiding being patronising or school bookish. In fact the Very Short Introduction series are actually written by very eminent scholars in the field so it by no means superficial or textbook material.

This is an excellent introduction to Marxism, it will give you the basics and will help you identify areas of further reading or study if you are so inclined. If you need an indepth, detailed look at his ideas/theories/life, then this isn't the book for you.

A short intro, 06 Nov 2003
This book is a very short introduction to Marx's ideologies. It does briefly explore the influences on Marx such as Hegelian philosophy and Engel's contribution. The main text deals with the formation of Marxist theories, their change through time in Marx's writings and the main thrust of their opinion. This book is particularly useful for those who find KAPITAL hard going at first - it acts as a nice intro to some of the heavier economic stuff in Marx's own writings.

Doors of Perception, 23 Jan 2007
If :
- Your mum has taught you lots of valuable things (eat your vegetables, be nice to old people and little dogs, don't be late to school, keep a clean nose) but she was never really able to explain why you had to WORK for a living - instead of, you know, just living;
- Your teachers packed your head full with all kinds of useful knowledge (about prepositions and adverbs, mineralogy and astrophysics, the reproductive organs of plants, x+2-y=0) but they never told you how exactly PROFITS are made - and why anybody would want to make them anyway;
- Your friends and lovers can spend hours yakking about various interesting topics (the latest music machine, videogames, designer shoes, imitation leather sofas, blockbuster movies, pink underwear and cherry flavoured bubble-gum) but they call you a bore and a nitpick whenever you wonder why you're all surrounded by so many COMMODITIES and publicity ads promising you bigger, better and faster useless things.
- You often have the impression that some greater truth is lacking in your life (and you've tried all the legal/illegal drugs, exciting TV shows, gurus and psychoanalysts, help-yourself books and bestsellers about kid sorcerers)...

...Then the time may have come to have a long talk with good old Uncle Karl - the black sheep of the social sciences, the guy nobody likes to mention at social occasions (except in the form of a joke: "have you heard the one about Karl Marx in Las Vegas?"), the most misquoted and misinterpreted modern thinker.
In "Capital", he kindly invites you to break on through to the other side (that's how countercultural he was) and check out what's really happening behind the glitzy appearances of everyday life. You don't even have to be a genius to understand him (it will be enough if you can count to ten without choking). And you might be surprised about how obvious some things will seem after he explains to you about the cage you're sitting in.

Of course, mum will probably be broken-hearted and fear that you'll join the next anarcho-pinko-terrorist organization down the block. Your teachers might refer to a vast list of successful anti-Marx books and charity organizations. And your friends and lovers will find you an even greater bore than before.


Surplus value, 17 Nov 2006
The most important issue in economics today is an evaluation of Marx's theory of surplus value. If corporations were getting smaller, if labor's lot overall was improving, if peace was breaking out all over, we might well conclude Marx was wrong. Marx must be dealt with. It is incredible that most economics PhD's have never read Capital.

why you should read marx, 12 Jan 2000
In Marx' economic works and above all in "capital" we find the deepening of the classical economists' theory of value, an understanding of the origins of crises as the text develops throughout 3 volumes, a superior method in the way of treating economic problems, and an historical background to the theory generally. All the criticisms of Marx are well-known by now and have been effectively discussed by other marxist writers such as David Harvey in "The Limits to Capital" and Guglielmo Carchedi in "New Frontiers in Political Economy". If one looks throughout history violence is almost always committed when poltical/economic systems change. To blame Marx for a 100 million deaths is complete idiocy as one could likewise blame Nietzsche for WW2 or George Washington for the death of all the original inhabitants of the US plus all the deaths attributable to US meddling around the world. As someone with substantial knowledge of world history Marx was aware of the necessity of violence when society was split between irreconcilable forces and didn't shrink from pointing this out. Those who still advocate neo-liberalism and free markets are those in power who have benefited from their pre-existing superior strength and have little concern for the deteriorating environment and the awful labour conditions in most of the world. Marx is still relevant in these times (the neo-liberals still invoke Adam Smith, an 18 century political economist), so if all we have to look forward to is the "mutual ruination of the contending classes" I'll see you all on the barricades!

The Influence Of Good on Evil, 07 Jan 2000
Criticisms of Marx arise mainly from reading this volume of "Capital", yet it is his whole body of thought that needs to be considered when assessing such a thinker, especially before one makes bold, unqualified statements. In that "Capital" is probably the most important and relevant economic text now, a century after he completed it, does it solely deserve to be read. Fellow reviewers have brought to attention the violence this book has caused - this has arisen from ignoring the whole body of Marx' work. I would recommend this, therefore, to only students of Marxian thought or economics - where, of course, its influence lies. It is certainly true that the historical part of the text is a little dry - but this is only to be expected of Marx's materialist approach. A work of genius from a genius, then, but for anyone wishing to see the main thrust of Marx's body of thought is better off starting with part one of "The German Ideology" or the weightier "Grundrisse", where he states his conditions for revolutionary violence - conditions which still haven't been reached today.

Overreach of a genius, 21 Nov 1998
Marx was an extraordinary analyst of economics. He was a serviceable philosopher, but the problem is that he tried to play prophet. Capital is worth reading for its insight into the workings of early, unrestrained capitalism and its recognition of the importance of the trade cycle. On the other hand, the prophecies that Marx made were farreaching and illogical. It is only in the ambitiousness of his project that Marx fails to reach the heights of a Hume or a Smith. Personally, I could not agree less with the tenets of violence and collectivism laid down by Marx, but even I cannot ignore the huge contribution that Marx has made to today's world.

Pick your route..., 22 Dec 2008
This is an important book. But there is a tendency to place it on some kind of pedestal, as some kind of timeless classic and I think that is not correct. It really should be placed in it's historical context.

It was published in 1944. Orwell's 'Animal Farm' was first published in 1945, and '1984' published in 1949. Huxley's 'Brave New World' was published in 1932.

So, Hayek was writing in the middle of the Second World War, a war between Stalinism, Nazism and Western liberal democracy . 'The Road to Serfdom' is one of many contributions to a debate that was taking place in Britain at the time about the usefulness of state economic planning - and the feeling that if the State can be so effectively organised during war time, surely such effective planning could be developed towards peacetime ends.

Hayek shows pretty convincingly, to my mind, that the roots of totalitarian or collectivist societies are all the same - Socialism is, ultimately, as bad as Nazism in that it places the rights of the State ahead of the rights of the Individual. However chaotic a free association of individuals may be, it can never be as oppressive as any form of collectivism.

The key to control is, of course, economic. State control of the economy will stifle free enterprise. A free enterprise based system will always be more creative, more dynamic and more capable of progress in any form than a collectivist system.

After the Second World War, Hayek's theories did not immediately hold sway and we saw a period of relatively stable and equitable economic development. However, when there was a return to more extreme laissez-faire ideals (1980s), we again see the gap between rich and poor opening up - not only between nations but within nations as well.

Laissez-faire economics (I am not an economist - this is purely from what I see around me) will always favour the rich (i.e. those with capital).

Internationally, the rich countries claim that 'laissez-faire' is the only acceptable form of economic development and force poorer countries to remove trade barriers. The rich countries then come in, undercut local initiatives, take whatever they want and then leave (see, for example, 'Globalization and Its Discontents', 'The Shock Doctrine', 'The New Rulers of the World' etc).

Nationally, the gap between rich and poor in America (for example) is now as huge as it was before the Great Depression (see 'The Wrecking Crew' by Thomas Frank). The middle classes, the most entrepreneurial class, is being increasingly squeezed as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

It seems, at times, that we are seeing the Road to Serfdom by a different route - a return to some kind of feudalism, where most of us will, indeed, be serfs.

Hayek is still really important in exposing the roots of totalitarian states and the inevitable consequences of collectivist control of the economy and the danger to the individual. However, Hayek is by no means unique in this (see Orwell - who described himself as a 'Democratic Socialist' - amongst many).

But besides the dangers inherent in a collectivist totalitarianism, there are clearly also huge dangers when laissez-faire liberalism is taken to an extreme degree. It will ultimately favour a very small number of individuals at the expense of the many. You simply end up with a different form of totalitarianism.

We don't need an even more powerful American plutocracy to see that, as Thomas Frank points out ('The Wrecking Crew'), extreme laissez-faire is ultimately toxic to democracy.

It seems to me that Hayek's analysis of totalitarianism may be right, but his predictions and his alternatives are not. It is still a really important book.

As for the Russian oligarchs mooring their yachts off Corfu...

(P.S. For an interesting extreme laissez-faire dystopian novel, see 'The Space Merchants' by Frederick Pohl and C M Kornbluth).

A cobbler should stick to his last, 28 Dec 2007
This book usually comes highly recommended. A 'classic' by a Nobel prize winner. Hayek was in fact an economist, but for the purposes of this book he assumed a political commentator's stance. His thesis is that Socialism is slavery, that the fascist Right and the fascist Left are two sides of the same coin, and that where there is dirty work to be done, dirty men will come forward to do it. Now you might say that's a no-brainer and wonder how it merits the 'classic' tag. Well you won't find the answer in the book. Overblown and in places pompous, you could be forgiven for thinking the author was being paid by the line. What is it with academics that one word won't do when four or five can be squeezed out instead? Perhaps they think verbosity succours the thesis. First published in 1944 and still going strong, The Road to Serfdom suffers primarily from being blinded by the times it was written in, and the way the world has changed since. Socialism is indeed slavery, but if Hayek had stuck to being an economist he might have foreseen the last gasp of the gold standard, the rise of globalism, fiat money, and fractional reserve banking. For debt is also slavery with the neat twist that the debtor usually can't wait to sign himself into bondage. The first step on the road to serfdom was simply the abolition of hard-asset backed currencies - after that, it was downhill all the way.

An interesting read, at least from a historical perpsective, 05 Dec 2007
I read this in conjunction with a number of "pro-socialism" books. While I disagreed with much of what Hayek had to say here it was nevertheless an interesting read, and an insight into right-wing economic thinking.

The basic premise of the book is to assert a necessary relationship between socialism and totalitarianism. Obviously the necessity of this link has subsequently been disproven by cases such as Sweden. And his case against the use of propaganda within socialist society can now be equally clearly drawn against capitalist states. The basis of his case was German National Socialism (Nazism). He emphasised the socialist aspect of that regime but I felt that the nationalist aspect of it was underplayed as he tried to make his case against socialism.

He also seriously underplayed the claimed rationale for socialism and made no serious attempt to explore socialist doctrine, although his discussion about collectivism and central planning was interesting (even though such planning may not be essential to a socialist system). He made some small noise about welfare systems and such but frankly these were all but lost in the noise.

Other writers in that period such as Popper and Russell managed to reach some similar results without the overt hostility, and they on the whole were considerably more prepared to discuss hybrid systems and search for compromisal solutions to the problems raised both by pure socialism and pure unfettered capitalism. I'd recommend reading these and other authors for a more balanced thesis.

The book is at least well thought out and cohesive - much more so perhaps than the typical Macarthyist thinking that borrows its conclusion without its reasoning.

That this book was written at the tail of WW2 should not be forgotten. This book, while seriously flawed, is very much a product of a world in chaos and in a state of rapid change. It is that, moreso than its message that makes this a compelling read.


A terrible book espousing a vile philosophy, 16 Nov 2007
It is my belief that this text is one of the most abhorrent in the history of political philosophy and that despite the very best intentions (a defense of liberal democracy) by Friedrich Von Hayek, is fundamentally flawed in its arguement and damaging in its impact.

The attack on totalitarian form of governments is logical and articulate, but it is when he turns to socialism that it all falls apart, to an extent I initially thought he was being satirical till the horrible truth dawned. Hayek's uncompromising libertarian views make a huge leap of logic in linking basic socialist reform, such as the establishment of the welfare state, to totalitarianism, even likening Stafford Cripps, a decent hardworking Chancellor whose sole goal was to see the realisation of the Beveridge Report, with Joseph Stalin. Of course this makes perfect sense, likening a man who slaved away to try and stamp out inequality and poverty in Britain and provide a safety net for those on the edges of society with a murdering tyrant responsible for millions of deaths.

He does not even consider the essential nature of the welfare state as a protection from those in society that are less fortunate, and that cutting back on it just to lower taxes would only benefit the rich while leaving the average hard-working man with no social security, no free healthcare and no private pension.

Then theres the chapter that he likens socialism with Nazism. True, Hitler's party was named the National Socialists, but it wasn't so, merely claimed to be to stir up working class support. Though both do promote economic planning, that is the only similarity. The ideology is completely different. Hitler was a fiersome anti-socialist who rounded up and socialists and sent them to concentration camps! He identifies Bolshevik socialism as the opposite of Nazism (talk about straight from the horses mouth). Fascism is a corporatist philosophy that views property completely differently, it assumes racial superiority and promotes imperialist empire building. Hayek's link between the two is as tenuous as you can possibly get, a clear example of Godwin's law ie the groundless comparison between Nazism and the object of your criticism to discredit it.

Of course the most evil thing about this text apart from the selfish, heartless, morally disgusting philosophy it spouts is the way it influenced the neo-liberalism of Margaret Thatcher. That's right, the tyrant whose reign was characterised by doubled unemployment, civil unrest, TWO recessions attributable to monetarism, unelected Quangos, regressive taxation, a massive widening in the rich-poor gap, the start of the credit card culture, the poll tax riots, degradations of social occupations, the destruction of british industry, the slashing of workers rights, the selling of state companies for a rediculously low price, botched privatisation of the infastructure, doubled crime and the creation of a broken, selfish society was operating following the gospel according to Hayek!

Yes, as you may have guessed, I am a socialist, but I am also a passionate defender of democracy. To me, Hayek creates a bogeyman picture of the best vehicle for equality and opportunity the world has: democratic socialism. As a result people fear this model and are driven to a selfish and damaging alternative. Hayek thinks that he is standing up for freedom and benefitting the people but he couldn't be more wrong. What use is a small state if people are unemployed and starving? what use are cheap taxes if vital institutions are controlled by greedy profiteering corporations who care less about the people than their prophet margins?

Hayek is not a Karl Popper, mouting an intelligent attack on Marxism, he is a ranting right winger who thinks he is making a blueprint for a libertarian heaven when instead he is pointing towards the hell of a broken society. Do not be fooled by his arguements, what he is promoting is a "survival of the richest and strongest" philosophy that cares not for the needy, the unemployed, the sick, the empoverished or the disadvantaged but merely for those on the top of society. Read it by all means, but do not as many do blindly accept the arguements made. It is a truly vile book.

Ultimately disappoints, 27 Jul 2007
This is one of the greatest simple anti-state capitalist manifestos you will find, its punchy, its pacey, lots of utopian eulogising of what Hayek thought were much malinged and misunderstood market forces.

However for any sensible and clear sighted reader this book is bound to disappoint, Hayek treats very different ideological and political forces as essentially similar, it has the combination of promise and threat that most market populism has (market forces will deliver/market forces will strike back) and just doesnt seem to take issues like unemployment or other consequences of unmitigated market forces that seriously or treats them with a kind of unreality.

It is a book, I suspect, which will ultimately prove most pleasing to anyone searching for a pretty plain and simple world view with clear cut heroes and villains, much like its mirror opposites in some socialist and conservative literature.

However that said it is well written and deserves to receive a wide readership, in fact I would say the very socialist or (welfare) liberal circles who Hayek protrays as either villains or the fatally conceited "useful idiots" of villains could benefit from reading it, while, like myself, they are unlikely to agree.

Good overview, 15 Nov 2008
This is good basic introduction to the works of Karl Marx.

Marx's ideas range across the disciplines of economics, history, philosophy and sociology and a book of this nature can only give a basic introduction to some of the main ideas. Even scholars on the subject are uncertain of his exact postion on many topics as his ideas developed over the years and some of his writings (like those of Hegel and other German thinkers) are very obscure.

I must admit that I am no fan of Marx and tend to regard his ideas as completely wrong both intellectually and morally.

Excellent if you are a beginner, 02 Feb 2006
If you don't know anything, or know very little about Marx and his ideas and you need to brush up but don't have the time to sit for hours in a library, then get this book. I am a complete beginner with Marx, I had heard of him but knew nothing about his ideas. I had to acquire this knowledge in a very short space of time for an essay that I was writing for my Masters. This book was perfect, just enough information to give me the basics without getting to indepth AND in an easy to read format.

It covers events in his life as well as his main achievements and ideas.

This book makes no assumptions that you know anythign about Marxism so it is very easy to follow whilst avoiding being patronising or school bookish. In fact the Very Short Introduction series are actually written by very eminent scholars in the field so it by no means superficial or textbook material.

This is an excellent introduction to Marxism, it will give you the basics and will help you identify areas of further reading or study if you are so inclined. If you need an indepth, detailed look at his ideas/theories/life, then this isn't the book for you.

A short intro, 06 Nov 2003
This book is a very short introduction to Marx's ideologies. It does briefly explore the influences on Marx such as Hegelian philosophy and Engel's contribution. The main text deals with the formation of Marxist theories, their change through time in Marx's writings and the main thrust of their opinion. This book is particularly useful for those who find KAPITAL hard going at first - it acts as a nice intro to some of the heavier economic stuff in Marx's own writings.

Doors of Perception, 23 Jan 2007
If :
- Your mum has taught you lots of valuable things (eat your vegetables, be nice to old people and little dogs, don't be late to school, keep a clean nose) but she was never really able to explain why you had to WORK for a living - instead of, you know, just living;
- Your teachers packed your head full with all kinds of useful knowledge (about prepositions and adverbs, mineralogy and astrophysics, the reproductive organs of plants, x+2-y=0) but they never told you how exactly PROFITS are made - and why anybody would want to make them anyway;
- Your friends and lovers can spend hours yakking about various interesting topics (the latest music machine, videogames, designer shoes, imitation leather sofas, blockbuster movies, pink underwear and cherry flavoured bubble-gum) but they call you a bore and a nitpick whenever you wonder why you're all surrounded by so many COMMODITIES and publicity ads promising you bigger, better and faster useless things.
- You often have the impression that some greater truth is lacking in your life (and you've tried all the legal/illegal drugs, exciting TV shows, gurus and psychoanalysts, help-yourself books and bestsellers about kid sorcerers)...

...Then the time may have come to have a long talk with good old Uncle Karl - the black sheep of the social sciences, the guy nobody likes to mention at social occasions (except in the form of a joke: "have you heard the one about Karl Marx in Las Vegas?"), the most misquoted and misinterpreted modern thinker.
In "Capital", he kindly invites you to break on through to the other side (that's how countercultural he was) and check out what's really happening behind the glitzy appearances of everyday life. You don't even have to be a genius to understand him (it will be enough if you can count to ten without choking). And you might be surprised about how obvious some things will seem after he explains to you about the cage you're sitting in.

Of course, mum will probably be broken-hearted and fear that you'll join the next anarcho-pinko-terrorist organization down the block. Your teachers might refer to a vast list of successful anti-Marx books and charity organizations. And your friends and lovers will find you an even greater bore than before.


Surplus value, 17 Nov 2006
The most important issue in economics today is an evaluation of Marx's theory of surplus value. If corporations were getting smaller, if labor's lot overall was improving, if peace was breaking out all over, we might well conclude Marx was wrong. Marx must be dealt with. It is incredible that most economics PhD's have never read Capital.

why you should read marx, 12 Jan 2000
In Marx' economic works and above all in "capital" we find the deepening of the classical economists' theory of value, an understanding of the origins of crises as the text develops throughout 3 volumes, a superior method in the way of treating economic problems, and an historical background to the theory generally. All the criticisms of Marx are well-known by now and have been effectively discussed by other marxist writers such as David Harvey in "The Limits to Capital" and Guglielmo Carchedi in "New Frontiers in Political Economy". If one looks throughout history violence is almost always committed when poltical/economic systems change. To blame Marx for a 100 million deaths is complete idiocy as one could likewise blame Nietzsche for WW2 or George Washington for the death of all the original inhabitants of the US plus all the deaths attributable to US meddling around the world. As someone with substantial knowledge of world history Marx was aware of the necessity of violence when society was split between irreconcilable forces and didn't shrink from pointing this out. Those who still advocate neo-liberalism and free markets are those in power who have benefited from their pre-existing superior strength and have little concern for the deteriorating environment and the awful labour conditions in most of the world. Marx is still relevant in these times (the neo-liberals still invoke Adam Smith, an 18 century political economist), so if all we have to look forward to is the "mutual ruination of the contending classes" I'll see you all on the barricades!

The Influence Of Good on Evil, 07 Jan 2000
Criticisms of Marx arise mainly from reading this volume of "Capital", yet it is his whole body of thought that needs to be considered when assessing such a thinker, especially before one makes bold, unqualified statements. In that "Capital" is probably the most important and relevant economic text now, a century after he completed it, does it solely deserve to be read. Fellow reviewers have brought to attention the violence this book has caused - this has arisen from ignoring the whole body of Marx' work. I would recommend this, therefore, to only students of Marxian thought or economics - where, of course, its influence lies. It is certainly true that the historical part of the text is a little dry - but this is only to be expected of Marx's materialist approach. A work of genius from a genius, then, but for anyone wishing to see the main thrust of Marx's body of thought is better off starting with part one of "The German Ideology" or the weightier "Grundrisse", where he states his conditions for revolutionary violence - conditions which still haven't been reached today.

Overreach of a genius, 21 Nov 1998
Marx was an extraordinary analyst of economics. He was a serviceable philosopher, but the problem is that he tried to play prophet. Capital is worth reading for its insight into the workings of early, unrestrained capitalism and its recognition of the importance of the trade cycle. On the other hand, the prophecies that Marx made were farreaching and illogical. It is only in the ambitiousness of his project that Marx fails to reach the heights of a Hume or a Smith. Personally, I could not agree less with the tenets of violence and collectivism laid down by Marx, but even I cannot ignore the huge contribution that Marx has made to today's world.

Informative!, 20 Jul 2007
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. It gives a good insight into Tony Blair the man as well as the New Labour party. Great value.

A chronicle of unfullfilled promise, 24 Aug 2006
Seldon has developed an interesting and fresh approach for this biography of Blair - and much comment has been passed about his approach of alternating between the twenty most important events of his life and the twenty figures to have had the greatest impact. This allows the reader to determine where Blair drew his influences from - indeed he appears to be uniquely ungrounded for a politician and has drawn much strength and many ideas from people around him.

Seldon's main argument is that Blair has achieved little domestically in the UK because he failed to develop a detailed agenda for a number of reasons - not wanting to be hostage to fortune whilst in Opposition, a lack of time for preparation whilst in office, and perhaps most importantly road-blocking by Gordon Brown. Blair, and his colleagues it has to be said, have remarkably little experience of running any large organisation. At first glance this does not appear to bode well for Cameron, should he be elected at the next election.

The book is effective in dispelling a number of myths that have grown up around Blair. The most prominent is that he stole Brown's rightful crown - it is easy to forget that Blair carried much more popularity in the country. It is also easy to forget how much of a modernizing role Brown has played within the recent history of the Labour Party. The second is that he has no real political philosophy. Whilst it is true that he has done much to accommodate Thatcherism, he has always had a fundamental belief in community, even if he has failed to successfully translate that into policy.

The third, and the aspect of the book that I found to be most interesting was that on his relationship with Bill Clinton. Bush is often accused of having had a poor effect on UK foreign policy, but Clinton was similarly disinterested in payback for support from the UK. The question regarding UK-US relations therefore ought not to be "why did Blair fail to extract anything in return from Bush" but "why has Blair failed to extract anything from the Americans." Whilst a Gore Presidency would have been more sympathetic to the goals of the Blair Government, especially on the issue of Kyoto, they might not necessarily have been more open to Blair on other issues - the actions of Clinton on the Northern Ireland Peace Process is a case in point.

Seldon write clearly and if his conclusions appear rather vague, that is only a reflection of the difficulty in finding a concrete legacy for Blair after nine years in office. Blair is definitely worth a read for anyone interested in British politics.


Interesting strucuture for an interesting subject, 03 Feb 2005
This book is not like a regular biography. Seldon divides the book into 20 chapters for key events in Tony Blair's life and 20 chapters for key people who have influenced the Prime Minister's life. God, Margaret Thatcher, Cherie Blair and Gordon Brown are the most important in this respect. Seldon tries to tackle the question of why the dominant Blair of 1994-2002 had ended up in political danger by 2003-2004. The book exposes Blair's struggles to form a solid policy platform which led to indecision after he became Prime Minister. Seldon also goes to the heart of Blair's controversial decision to go to Iraq in 2003 as well as the help and the hinderance provided by Gordon Brown. The book is the portrait of a paradoxical man who has led a relatively successful government, transformed a political party and who used his charm and self-confidence to win remarkable triumphs with Clause IV, Northern Ireland, Iraq in 1998, Kosovo and Afghanistan, yet who struggled when it came to the relative banalities of domestic policy. Anyone who is interested in discovering the character of the man through the windows of key influences and key turning points could do worse than buy this book.

Blair Bared, 30 Jul 2004
As Anthony Seldon Himself admits, this is not a conventional biography. It's certainly not a womb-to-tomb chronological record, nor is it one of those ubiquitous hagiographies written by a friendly journalist or party hack. Rather it is a critical and analytical study in political communication, although Seldon himself seems scarcely aware of this.

He has presented us with 700 pages of text organised into 40 chapters. They deal with twenty episodes and 20 people who are important in Blair's life. If you think it odd for a text to run to exactly 700 pages, then you may think it odder that all the episode chapters are assigned odd numbers and are presented chronologically. Those chapters ending in seven present Blair at his boldest. Clearly the number seven is important to Seldon and so are multiples of ten, for he presents the political backbone of his book in Chapters 10, 20, 30 and 40.

The reader will quickly forget this obsessive-compulsive concern with numbers because within a few pages he will be completely involved in an extraordinarily dense but very clear poltical narrative fleshed out with incisive analysis. We watch a bright boy acquire an Oxford education, become a barrister, marry another barrister and, comparatively late in life, become interested in politics.

It is at this point that an interesting "life" becomes an absorbing account of how politics is communicated in a complex democratic society. As we are introduced to such influentials in Blair's life as Neil Kinnock, Philip Gould, Peter Mandelson, Derry Irvine, Roy Jenkins and Alastair Campbell, we are treated to impressively detailed accounts of their interaction with Blair, the political system and with each other. In the episode chapters we are treated to an even greater density of detail as we get the inside stories of such issues as Clause IV, the death of Diana, the Euro decision and Kosovo. In all cases we get detached, detailed and balanced accounts of the roles of the political actors and their interaction with the institutions of British democracy.

How is it possible to be so detailed, so knowing, in accounts of events that are so recent, many of them events shaped in secret interactions, indeed in the interactions of a small group of politicians who gathered privately in the prime minister's office (his "den-ocracy")? The answer should warm the heart of any journalist: 90 per cent of the material was gathered in 600 interviews conducted in all political "camps" and in many countries. Many of the interviewees have obviously "spilled their guts" to Seldon and his three researchers. He himself has woven the material together for the most part seamlessly, although more raggedly in his chapter on recent events.

The unconventional structure mostly works well, except for one major misjudgment. As you read the early chapters you slowly become aware that the key figure in Blair's political life is Gordon Brown. His economic acumen sustains Blair but his jealousy and rivalry both undermines and constrains the prime minister. The portrait of Brown, however, is banished to the last chapter. About one-third of the way through the text I realised I had to know much more about him than had been revealed, so I turned to Chapter 40 and read the Brown profile. Much of the narrative then fell into place or took on new meaning. In the next edition Brown must be relocated to around about Chapter 10.

Anthony Seldon clearly sees his role as being to reveal the many aspects of a multi-faceted personality: Who are the people who have most influenced Blair? What have been the main turning points in the prime minister's life? What are his motivations? How has power changed him? And so on.

But in doing so Seldon produces a superb study in the processes of political communication, even though he seems scarcely aware of the conceptual bases of those processes. There is certainly no political science theory underpinning his account, although there is plenty of incisive commonsense critical analysis of both people and events.

The one major omission from what is the conventional political commnunication framework is the influence of pressure groups on Blair and his government. The unions and one or two other groups get a mention but surely in such a complex and sophisticated political system as Britain's the prime minister must be the focus daily of a wide variety of pressure groups. Certainly most of his key influentials would be.

I found this book utterly absorbing - once I started reading it I couldn't keep away from it. Rarely do we get such a balanced, detailed account of the processes of a government while the government is still in power. There will be more to come, of course, as the insiders' diaries and personal accounts are published, but meanwhile we have far more than we could reasonably expect. Why is it so difficult to find reviews of such an outstanding book?

balanced, and thoroughly researched, 13 Jul 2004
This is a comprehensively researched book by an experienced political historian. For those who want to know, he gives a revealing portrait of Blair's family and his psychological and political development. It thoroughly goes into the evolution of the Labour party from Blair's arrival in Parliament in 1983 under Kinnock, Smith and Blair himself. The influence of Brown, Mandelson and many other figures in this process is detailed.

Then we get a fascinating picture of Blair's philosophy, political agenda - Seldon makes a convincing case that it was consciously Thatcherite - style, and organising ability in power. A clear picture is given of how the Labour party changed and how Blair altered structures of government, lately apparently more and more in a frantic effort to correct what he thought was going wrong. There is also a detailed analysis of Blair's relationships with Brown, Campbell, Mandelson and many others not to mention the press and the civil service.

Finally of course we get what seems like a balanced view of Blair's agenda over Iraq which to me ends up being whatever else it was an expression of his choirboy personality. For anyone who has been really puzzled as to why Blair committed himself to the war I think this book will help them understand.

Pick your route..., 22 Dec 2008
This is an important book. But there is a tendency to place it on some kind of pedestal, as some kind of timeless classic and I think that is not correct. It really should be placed in it's historical context.

It was published in 1944. Orwell's 'Animal Farm' was first published in 1945, and '1984' published in 1949. Huxley's 'Brave New World' was published in 1932.

So, Hayek was writing in the middle of the Second World War, a war between Stalinism, Nazism and Western liberal democracy . 'The Road to Serfdom' is one of many contributions to a debate that was taking place in Britain at the time about the usefulness of state economic planning - and the feeling that if the State can be so effectively organised during war time, surely such effective planning could be developed towards peacetime ends.

Hayek shows pretty convincingly, to my mind, that the roots of totalitarian or collectivist societies are all the same - Socialism is, ultimately, as bad as Nazism in that it places the rights of the State ahead of the rights of the Individual. However chaotic a free association of individuals may be, it can never be as oppressive as any form of collectivism.

The key to control is, of course, economic. State control of the economy will stifle free enterprise. A free enterprise based system will always be more creative, more dynamic and more capable of progress in any form than a collectivist system.

After the Second World War, Hayek's theories did not immediately hold sway and we saw a period of relatively stable and equitable economic development. However, when there was a return to more extreme laissez-faire ideals (1980s), we again see the gap between rich and poor opening up - not only between nations but within nations as well.

Laissez-faire economics (I am not an economist - this is purely from what I see around me) will always favour the rich (i.e. those with capital).

Internationally, the rich countries claim that 'laissez-faire' is the only acceptable form of economic development and force poorer countries to remove trade barriers. The rich countries then come in, undercut local initiatives, take whatever they want and then leave (see, for example, 'Globalization and Its Discontents', 'The Shock Doctrine', 'The New Rulers of the World' etc).

Nationally, the gap between rich and poor in America (for example) is now as huge as it was before the Great Depression (see 'The Wrecking Crew' by Thomas Frank). The middle classes, the most entrepreneurial class, is being increasingly squeezed as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

It seems, at times, that we are seeing the Road to Serfdom by a different route - a return to some kind of feudalism, where most of us will, indeed, be serfs.

Hayek is still really important in exposing the roots of totalitarian states and the inevitable consequences of collectivist control of the economy and the danger to the individual. However, Hayek is by no means unique in this (see Orwell - who described himself as a 'Democratic Socialist' - amongst many).

But besides the dangers inherent in a collectivist totalitarianism, there are clearly also huge dangers when laissez-faire liberalism is taken to an extreme degree. It will ultimately favour a very small number of individuals at the expense of the many. You simply end up with a different form of totalitarianism.

We don't need an even more powerful American plutocracy to see that, as Thomas Frank points out ('The Wrecking Crew'), extreme laissez-faire is ultimately toxic to democracy.

It seems to me that Hayek's analysis of totalitarianism may be right, but his predictions and his alternatives are not. It is still a really important book.

As for the Russian oligarchs mooring their yachts off Corfu...

(P.S. For an interesting extreme laissez-faire dystopian novel, see 'The Space Merchants' by Frederick Pohl and C M Kornbluth).

A cobbler should stick to his last, 28 Dec 2007
This book usually comes highly recommended. A 'classic' by a Nobel prize winner. Hayek was in fact an economist, but for the purposes of this book he assumed a political commentator's stance. His thesis is that Socialism is slavery, that the fascist Right and the fascist Left are two sides of the same coin, and that where there is dirty work to be done, dirty men will come forward to do it. Now you might say that's a no-brainer and wonder how it merits the 'classic' tag. Well you won't find the answer in the book. Overblown and in places pompous, you could be forgiven for thinking the author was being paid by the line. What is it with academics that one word won't do when four or five can be squeezed out instead? Perhaps they think verbosity succours the thesis. First published in 1944 and still going strong, The Road to Serfdom suffers primarily from being blinded by the times it was written in, and the way the world has changed since. Socialism is indeed slavery, but if Hayek had stuck to being an economist he might have foreseen the last gasp of the gold standard, the rise of globalism, fiat money, and fractional reserve banking. For debt is also slavery with the neat twist that the debtor usually can't wait to sign himself into bondage. The first step on the road to serfdom was simply the abolition of hard-asset backed currencies - after that, it was downhill all the way.

An interesting read, at least from a historical perpsective, 05 Dec 2007
I read this in conjunction with a number of "pro-socialism" books. While I disagreed with much of what Hayek had to say here it was nevertheless an interesting read, and an insight into right-wing economic thinking.

The basic premise of the book is to assert a necessary relationship between socialism and totalitarianism. Obviously the necessity of this link has subsequently been disproven by cases such as Sweden. And his case against the use of propaganda within socialist society can now be equally clearly drawn against capitalist states. The basis of his case was German National Socialism (Nazism). He emphasised the socialist aspect of that regime but I felt that the nationalist aspect of it was underplayed as he tried to make his case against socialism.

He also seriously underplayed the claimed rationale for socialism and made no serious attempt to explore socialist doctrine, although his discussion about collectivism and central planning was interesting (even though such planning may not be essential to a socialist system). He made some small noise about welfare systems and such but frankly these were all but lost in the noise.

Other writers in that period such as Popper and Russell managed to reach some similar results without the overt hostility, and they on the whole were considerably more prepared to discuss hybrid systems and search for compromisal solutions to the problems raised both by pure socialism and pure unfettered capitalism. I'd recommend reading these and other authors for a more balanced thesis.

The book is at least well thought out and cohesive - much more so perhaps than the typical Macarthyist thinking that borrows its conclusion without its reasoning.

That this book was written at the tail of WW2 should not be forgotten. This book, while seriously flawed, is very much a product of a world in chaos and in a state of rapid change. It is that, moreso than its message that makes this a compelling read.


A terrible book espousing a vile philosophy, 16 Nov 2007
It is my belief that this text is one of the most abhorrent in the history of political philosophy and that despite the very best intentions (a defense of liberal democracy) by Friedrich Von Hayek, is fundamentally flawed in its arguement and damaging in its impact.

The attack on totalitarian form of governments is logical and articulate, but it is when he turns to socialism that it all falls apart, to an extent I initially thought he was being satirical till the horrible truth dawned. Hayek's uncompromising libertarian views make a huge leap of logic in linking basic socialist reform, such as the establishment of the welfare state, to totalitarianism, even likening Stafford Cripps, a decent hardworking Chancellor whose sole goal was to see the realisation of the Beveridge Report, with Joseph Stalin. Of course this makes perfect sense, likening a man who slaved away to try and stamp out inequality and poverty in Britain and provide a safety net for those on the edges of society with a murdering tyrant responsible for millions of deaths.

He does not even consider the essential nature of the welfare state as a protection from those in society that are less fortunate, and that cutting back on it just to lower taxes would only benefit the rich while leaving the average hard-working man with no social security, no free healthcare and no private pension.

Then theres the chapter that he likens socialism with Nazism. True, Hitler's party was named the National Socialists, but it wasn't so, merely claimed to be to stir up working class support. Though both do promote economic planning, that is the only similarity. The ideology is completely different. Hitler was a fiersome anti-socialist who rounded up and socialists and sent them to concentration camps! He identifies Bolshevik socialism as the opposite of Nazism (talk about straight from the horses mouth). Fascism is a corporatist philosophy that views property completely differently, it assumes racial superiority and promotes imperialist empire building. Hayek's link between the two is as tenuous as you can possibly get, a clear example of Godwin's law ie the groundless comparison between Nazism and the object of your criticism to discredit it.

Of course the most evil thing about this text apart from the selfish, heartless, morally disgusting philosophy it spouts is the way it influenced the neo-liberalism of Margaret Thatcher. That's right, the tyrant whose reign was characterised by doubled unemployment, civil unrest, TWO recessions attributable to monetarism, unelected Quangos, regressive taxation, a massive widening in the rich-poor gap, the start of the credit card culture, the poll tax riots, degradations of social occupations, the destruction of british industry, the slashing of workers rights, the selling of state companies for a rediculously low price, botched privatisation of the infastructure, doubled crime and the creation of a broken, selfish society was operating following the gospel according to Hayek!

Yes, as you may have guessed, I am a socialist, but I am also a passionate defender of democracy. To me, Hayek creates a bogeyman picture of the best vehicle for equality and opportunity the world has: democratic socialism. As a result people fear this model and are driven to a selfish and damaging alternative. Hayek thinks that he is standing up for freedom and benefitting the people but he couldn't be more wrong. What use is a small state if people are unemployed and starving? what use are cheap taxes if vital institutions are controlled by greedy profiteering corporations who care less about the people than their prophet margins?

Hayek is not a Karl Popper, mouting an intelligent attack on Marxism, he is a ranting right winger who thinks he is making a blueprint for a libertarian heaven when instead he is pointing towards the hell of a broken society. Do not be fooled by his arguements, what he is promoting is a "survival of the richest and strongest" philosophy that cares not for the needy, the unemployed, the sick, the empoverished or the disadvantaged but merely for those on the top of society. Read it by all means, but do not as many do blindly accept the arguements made. It is a truly vile book.

Ultimately disappoints, 27 Jul 2007
This is one of the greatest simple anti-state capitalist manifestos you will find, its punchy, its pacey, lots of utopian eulogising of what Hayek thought were much malinged and misunderstood market forces.

However for any sensible and clear sighted reader this book is bound to disappoint, Hayek treats very different ideological and political forces as essentially similar, it has the combination of promise and threat that most market populism has (market forces will deliver/market forces will strike back) and just doesnt seem to take issues like unemployment or other consequences of unmitigated market forces that seriously or treats them with a kind of unreality.

It is a book, I suspect, which will ultimately prove most pleasing to anyone searching for a pretty plain and simple world view with clear cut heroes and villains, much like its mirror opposites in some socialist and conservative literature.

However that said it is well written and deserves to receive a wide readership, in fact I would say the very socialist or (welfare) liberal circles who Hayek protrays as either villains or the fatally conceited "useful idiots" of villains could benefit from reading it, while, like myself, they are unlikely to agree.

Good overview, 15 Nov 2008
This is good basic introduction to the works of Karl Marx.

Marx's ideas range across the disciplines of economics, history, philosophy and sociology and a book of this nature can only give a basic introduction to some of the main ideas. Even scholars on the subject are uncertain of his exact postion on many topics as his ideas developed over the years and some of his writings (like those of Hegel and other German thinkers) are very obscure.

I must admit that I am no fan of Marx and tend to regard his ideas as completely wrong both intellectually and morally.

Excellent if you are a beginner, 02 Feb 2006
If you don't know anything, or know very little about Marx and his ideas and you need to brush up but don't have the time to sit for hours in a library, then get this book. I am a complete beginner with Marx, I had heard of him but knew nothing about his ideas. I had to acquire this knowledge in a very short space of time for an essay that I was writing for my Masters. This book was perfect, just enough information to give me the basics without getting to indepth AND in an easy to read format.

It covers events in his life as well as his main achievements and ideas.

This book makes no assumptions that you know anythign about Marxism so it is very easy to follow whilst avoiding being patronising or school bookish. In fact the Very Short Introduction series are actually written by very eminent scholars in the field so it by no means superficial or textbook material.

This is an excellent introduction to Marxism, it will give you the basics and will help you identify areas of further reading or study if you are so inclined. If you need an indepth, detailed look at his ideas/theories/life, then this isn't the book for you.

A short intro, 06 Nov 2003
This book is a very short introduction to Marx's ideologies. It does briefly explore the influences on Marx such as Hegelian philosophy and Engel's contribution. The main text deals with the formation of Marxist theories, their change through time in Marx's writings and the main thrust of their opinion. This book is particularly useful for those who find KAPITAL hard going at first - it acts as a nice intro to some of the heavier economic stuff in Marx's own writings.

Doors of Perception, 23 Jan 2007
If :
- Your mum has taught you lots of valuable things (eat your vegetables, be nice to old people and little dogs, don't be late to school, keep a clean nose) but she was never really able to explain why you had to WORK for a living - instead of, you know, just living;
- Your teachers packed your head full with all kinds of useful knowledge (about prepositions and adverbs, mineralogy and astrophysics, the reproductive organs of plants, x+2-y=0) but they never told you how exactly PROFITS are made - and why anybody would want to make them anyway;
- Your friends and lovers can spend hours yakking about various interesting topics (the latest music machine, videogames, designer shoes, imitation leather sofas, blockbuster movies, pink underwear and cherry flavoured bubble-gum) but they call you a bore and a nitpick whenever you wonder why you're all surrounded by so many COMMODITIES and publicity ads promising you bigger, better and faster useless things.
- You often have the impression that some greater truth is lacking in your life (and you've tried all the legal/illegal drugs, exciting TV shows, gurus and psychoanalysts, help-yourself books and bestsellers about kid sorcerers)...

...Then the time may have come to have a long talk with good old Uncle Karl - the black sheep of the social sciences, the guy nobody likes to mention at social occasions (except in the form of a joke: "have you heard the one about Karl Marx in Las Vegas?"), the most misquoted and misinterpreted modern thinker.
In "Capital", he kindly invites you to break on through to the other side (that's how countercultural he was) and check out what's really happening behind the glitzy appearances of everyday life. You don't even have to be a genius to understand him (it will be enough if you can count to ten without choking). And you might be surprised about how obvious some things will seem after he explains to you about the cage you're sitting in.

Of course, mum will probably be broken-hearted and fear that you'll join the next anarcho-pinko-terrorist organization down the block. Your teachers might refer to a vast list of successful anti-Marx books and charity organizations. And your friends and lovers will find you an even greater bore than before.


Surplus value, 17 Nov 2006
The most important issue in economics today is an evaluation of Marx's theory of surplus value. If corporations were getting smaller, if labor's lot overall was improving, if peace was breaking out all over, we might well conclude Marx was wrong. Marx must be dealt with. It is incredible that most economics PhD's have never read Capital.

why you should read marx, 12 Jan 2000
In Marx' economic works and above all in "capital" we find the deepening of the classical economists' theory of value, an understanding of the origins of crises as the text develops throughout 3 volumes, a superior method in the way of treating economic problems, and an historical background to the theory generally. All the criticisms of Marx are well-known by now and have been effectively discussed by other marxist writers such as David Harvey in "The Limits to Capital" and Guglielmo Carchedi in "New Frontiers in Political Economy". If one looks throughout history violence is almost always committed when poltical/economic systems change. To blame Marx for a 100 million deaths is complete idiocy as one could likewise blame Nietzsche for WW2 or George Washington for the death of all the original inhabitants of the US plus all the deaths attributable t