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 defence of liberal democracy from the dark 1940s, 05 Jul 2007
First published in 1944, Hayek's polemical work is a defence of classical liberalism in the face of totalitarianisms of both right- and left-wing hues. The author deplores all sorts of `collectivism', that is departures from such aspects of liberalism as the free market, individualism and the minimal state. Thus, conservatives such as Bismarck (responsible for business cartels) share the dock with communists such as Lenin. In a chapter entitled `The Socialist Roots of National Socialism', Hayek argues that collectivist achievements such as the welfare state and the war economy paved the way for the collectivism of the Nazis: `Few are ready to recognize that the rise of Fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period, but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.' (p. 4). This is a mirror image of the classic Marxist argument that Fascism, far from being a reaction against the upheaval in the capitalist economy in the 1930s, was in fact the logical culmination of capitalism, the last redoubt of the bourgeoisie.
Intriguing an argument as it is, I think Hayek over emphasizes the socialist element of National Socialism: as far as I know Hitler was quite happy to allow German capitalists to make large profits as long as they agreed to economic planning. Also, the German Workers' Party adopted `National Socialist' and `Workers' in the title only to attract working class votes, and not out of any enthusiasm for Marxism. Hayek would probably object that planning is planning regardless of whether capitalists are allowed to make profits or not.
This, of course, is the central conceit of the book and its Achilles heel: that all planning is bad and precipitates the onset of totalitarianism: `There is no other possibility than either the order governed by the impersonal discipline of the market or that directed by the will of a few individuals...' (p. 205). This argument is disingenuous. While Hayek recognizes that there are degrees of classical liberalism - he eschews what he calls the `dogmatic laissez-faire attitude' (p. 37) - he fails to concede that there are likewise degrees of collectivism. As a work of prediction, 'Serfdom' proved very wide of the mark, for although various postwar European governments instituted what Hayek would refer to as `collectivism' and `planning', they operated within the framework of liberal democracy, private property, and individual political liberty.
In spite of such objections, given all I had read about it, I was expecting Serfdom to be worse than it was. Given the atmosphere it was written in, the book's thesis is actually quite progressive. Maybe that's why such progressives as John Maynard Keynes, Bertrand Russell and George Orwell either gave it favorable reviews or were sympathetic to its argument. As a defence of liberal democracy, Hayek's polemic is indispensable.

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 defence of liberal democracy from the dark 1940s, 05 Jul 2007
First published in 1944, Hayek's polemical work is a defence of classical liberalism in the face of totalitarianisms of both right- and left-wing hues. The author deplores all sorts of `collectivism', that is departures from such aspects of liberalism as the free market, individualism and the minimal state. Thus, conservatives such as Bismarck (responsible for business cartels) share the dock with communists such as Lenin. In a chapter entitled `The Socialist Roots of National Socialism', Hayek argues that collectivist achievements such as the welfare state and the war economy paved the way for the collectivism of the Nazis: `Few are ready to recognize that the rise of Fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period, but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.' (p. 4). This is a mirror image of the classic Marxist argument that Fascism, far from being a reaction against the upheaval in the capitalist economy in the 1930s, was in fact the logical culmination of capitalism, the last redoubt of the bourgeoisie.
Intriguing an argument as it is, I think Hayek over emphasizes the socialist element of National Socialism: as far as I know Hitler was quite happy to allow German capitalists to make large profits as long as they agreed to economic planning. Also, the German Workers' Party adopted `National Socialist' and `Workers' in the title only to attract working class votes, and not out of any enthusiasm for Marxism. Hayek would probably object that planning is planning regardless of whether capitalists are allowed to make profits or not.
This, of course, is the central conceit of the book and its Achilles heel: that all planning is bad and precipitates the onset of totalitarianism: `There is no other possibility than either the order governed by the impersonal discipline of the market or that directed by the will of a few individuals...' (p. 205). This argument is disingenuous. While Hayek recognizes that there are degrees of classical liberalism - he eschews what he calls the `dogmatic laissez-faire attitude' (p. 37) - he fails to concede that there are likewise degrees of collectivism. As a work of prediction, 'Serfdom' proved very wide of the mark, for although various postwar European governments instituted what Hayek would refer to as `collectivism' and `planning', they operated within the framework of liberal democracy, private property, and individual political liberty.
In spite of such objections, given all I had read about it, I was expecting Serfdom to be worse than it was. Given the atmosphere it was written in, the book's thesis is actually quite progressive. Maybe that's why such progressives as John Maynard Keynes, Bertrand Russell and George Orwell either gave it favorable reviews or were sympathetic to its argument. As a defence of liberal democracy, Hayek's polemic is indispensable.


Brilliant, 18 Aug 2008
Bad Samaritans is a more personal and more polemical book than Ha-Joon Chang's earlier Kicking Away the Ladder, but it is still very restrained compared to most "anti-globalisation" books, and far more effective. Chang is not properly opposed to trade and markets as such, but merely argues that the current economic policies supported by the IMF and wealthy countries are hindering development and creating poverty. He bases this view not only on his very rigorous research into comparative development over his years as an economics professor, but also on his direct experience of his native South Korea's development.

Chang's brilliant riposte to Thomas L. Friedman, in the chapter "The Lexus and the Olive Tree Revisited" is worth more than the very modest cost of the book on its own. While the economics is spot-on, and very well informed, the style is easy to read, and just right for the general reader.

Another excellent economics book by Chang, 07 Jul 2008
Bad Samaritans is a more personal and more polemical book than Ha-Joon Chang's earlier Kicking Away the Ladder, but it is still very restrained compared to most "anti-globalisation" books, and far more effective. Chang is not properly opposed to trade and markets as such, but merely argues that the current economic policies supported by the IMF and wealthy countries are hindering development and creating poverty. He bases this view not only on his very rigorous research into comparative development over his years as an economics professor, but also on his direct experience of his native South Korea's development.

Chang's brilliant riposte to Thomas L. Friedman, in the chapter "The Lexus and the Olive Tree Revisited" is worth more than the very modest cost of the book on its own. While the economics is spot-on, and very well informed, the style is easy to read, and just right for the general reader.

Bad Samaritans, 09 May 2008
This is one economics text that should be read by everyone. Ha-Joon Chang the author(Prof. at Cambridge), puts Free Trade and unfettered Capitalism within a historical and even political perspective. Along with an earlier book, "Kicking Away the Ladder" he gives sufficient and tangible real world examples of how developing nations and infant & growing industries need tariffs & import substitution to both thrive and survive. An alternative title might be; Genuine & Honest Free Trade Maybe BUT Only Between Economic Equals.

[Amazon UK: See my review at www.Amazon.com]

a very misleading book, 03 Mar 2008
This book is highly polemic in opposing "neo-liberal" economics. But the author often puts ideology above history like many "neo-liberal" opponents.

Chang argues that developing countries were actually in a much better shape in 1960s and 1970s when they embraced "statist" strategy than they are now after they embraced "neo-liberal" recipes. Now the interesting question is: If they were having such a good time with "statist approach", why would they want to change? Because the evil IMF, WB and WTO intend to ruin the beautiful gardens of socialism? Was it not true that Bolivia/Argentia etc were forced to control budget because they were having 2000% inflation? Was it not true that socialism failed to lift Africa out of poverty so socialism was at least as much a failure as "neo-liberalism" in Africa? Was it not true that people in East Europe and the Soviet Union had to stand in line for two hours for a piece of meat? Was it not true that the radical socialism in China's Great Leap Forward had caused deaths of about 30 millions?

The fundamental problem of Chang's argument is he didn't see or didn't want to see that the embracement of the "neo-liberal" recipe was much more driven by the prevalent and INTERNAL economic crises that "state socialism" has inflicted on many developing countries than by some outside lunatics whose agenda was to promote an ideology at the cost of people's welfare being.

The reason of this cognitive problem is Chang fails to admit (like many others who advocate "statist" approach to development) that "statist approach" might be able to create a fast jump-start for development because state has a strong ability of mobilizing resources, BUT such an approach is never successful in creating SUSTAINABLE development, which is why almost all countries that experimented socialism encountered crises after late 1970s. When these developing countries turn to "neo-liberal" approach, some succeeded like China and India, and some failed like Argentina and Bolivia, but if they didn't turn to "neo-liberal" approach, ALL would fail (as they were already failing).

Regarding why the neo-liberalism succeeds in some countries and fails in others, it's too large a topic to elaborate here.

Chang might argue that what's happening in China, India, UK, US is not neo-liberalism because these countries still keep some protectionism, subsidies, SOEs... BUT, aren't Deng Xiaping, Reagon, Thatcher... seen representatives of "neo-liberals"? If they are NOT, who are those PURE neo-liberal who are allegedly advocating zero-tariff, zero-SOEs, zero-regulation and zero-public spending? Are these PURE neo-liberals just monsters created by Chang's imagination so that the argument against them is so easy to make that it doesn't take intelligence? Sadly, when Chang's right, he is arguing against an imagined enemy; and when he is arguing against the neo-liberals in reality, he is wrong.

must read!!, 15 Jan 2008
This book is epic! Shows the true history of globalisation and how the now developed countries used government protectionism, tariffs and subsidies to get rich.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable. Poor nations are now told by the IMF, World Bank and WTO that neo-liberal policies should be promoted and it's the only way thay will modernise.

Ofcourse as an economist, Chang doesnt realise that development does not always have to be economic development. Society can change for the better by means of social, cultural, and econimic equality. Is the society we live in all that perfect? Do we want poorer countries to "westernise", become increasingly materialistic and serve their their time in representative democracies? These questions need to be raised, debate concerning moving towards a participatory democracy where people have a say in how their lives are run, not just voting every few years.

For what he set out to achieve though, he did it with excellent efficiency.

If both George Monbiot's Captive State and Naomi Klein's No Logo are the two Zeitgeist books of the beginning of the 21st century, then it is good old-fashioned late-20th century capitalism that has put them there. While Klein investigates how the counter-culture has been bought out by big business, Monbiot takes a close look at how this green and pleasant isle has been delivered into unaccountable corporate control with disastrous results for local communities and for democracy itself. The project of investigating this process is vast and strewn with problems, not least that a great deal of the material Monbiot needed was not in the public domain. Thus, the book itself is the result of "stargazing on a cloudy night": an impassioned attempt to understand what stellar corporate influence is brought to bear on which governmental constellation before the clouds close over again. Depressingly, he demonstrates how New Labour has smoothly transitioned from anti-corporate opposition to big business bedfellow. Like Klein, Monbiot celebrates grassroots action, but his local heroes are more likely to be drawing up battle lines in Skye, rather than Seattle. In his evocative dealings with those at the rump end of corporate mismanagement and greed, the sense of betrayal is palpable, and Captive State can be seen as a warning shot across New Labour's bows. The devil, though, is in the details. Anonymous brown paper parcels arrive full of classified documents and Monbiot is to be applauded for bringing together a wealth of material and rendering it intelligible and intelligent, if sometimes he doesn't shy away from big theatrical deliveries, especially at the end of chapters. Ironically, it seems from reading Captive State that one of the victims of the corporate infiltration of the government is choice as well as voice. Whereas some resistance has come from consumer power--for, as Monbiot reminds us, the things that join us together are the things we are sold, he goes on to make the pertinent point that consumer power is diluted when choice is restricted to a local superstore or one hospital on the edge of town. Monbiot asks the right questions, but his answers remain elusive and caught up in a foggy democratic rhetoric that is less effective and inspiring than the tales of local activists clogging up the system that was supposed to work for them in the first place. Captive State is the first big ideas book of this decade. Let's hope it goes out of date before the next. --Fiona Buckland

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 defence of liberal democracy from the dark 1940s, 05 Jul 2007
First published in 1944, Hayek's polemical work is a defence of classical liberalism in the face of totalitarianisms of both right- and left-wing hues. The author deplores all sorts of `collectivism', that is departures from such aspects of liberalism as the free market, individualism and the minimal state. Thus, conservatives such as Bismarck (responsible for business cartels) share the dock with communists such as Lenin. In a chapter entitled `The Socialist Roots of National Socialism', Hayek argues that collectivist achievements such as the welfare state and the war economy paved the way for the collectivism of the Nazis: `Few are ready to recognize that the rise of Fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period, but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.' (p. 4). This is a mirror image of the classic Marxist argument that Fascism, far from being a reaction against the upheaval in the capitalist economy in the 1930s, was in fact the logical culmination of capitalism, the last redoubt of the bourgeoisie.
Intriguing an argument as it is, I think Hayek over emphasizes the socialist element of National Socialism: as far as I know Hitler was quite happy to allow German capitalists to make large profits as long as they agreed to economic planning. Also, the German Workers' Party adopted `National Socialist' and `Workers' in the title only to attract working class votes, and not out of any enthusiasm for Marxism. Hayek would probably object that planning is planning regardless of whether capitalists are allowed to make profits or not.
This, of course, is the central conceit of the book and its Achilles heel: that all planning is bad and precipitates the onset of totalitarianism: `There is no other possibility than either the order governed by the impersonal discipline of the market or that directed by the will of a few individuals...' (p. 205). This argument is disingenuous. While Hayek recognizes that there are degrees of classical liberalism - he eschews what he calls the `dogmatic laissez-faire attitude' (p. 37) - he fails to concede that there are likewise degrees of collectivism. As a work of prediction, 'Serfdom' proved very wide of the mark, for although various postwar European governments instituted what Hayek would refer to as `collectivism' and `planning', they operated within the framework of liberal democracy, private property, and individual political liberty.
In spite of such objections, given all I had read about it, I was expecting Serfdom to be worse than it was. Given the atmosphere it was written in, the book's thesis is actually quite progressive. Maybe that's why such progressives as John Maynard Keynes, Bertrand Russell and George Orwell either gave it favorable reviews or were sympathetic to its argument. As a defence of liberal democracy, Hayek's polemic is indispensable.


Brilliant, 18 Aug 2008
Bad Samaritans is a more personal and more polemical book than Ha-Joon Chang's earlier Kicking Away the Ladder, but it is still very restrained compared to most "anti-globalisation" books, and far more effective. Chang is not properly opposed to trade and markets as such, but merely argues that the current economic policies supported by the IMF and wealthy countries are hindering development and creating poverty. He bases this view not only on his very rigorous research into comparative development over his years as an economics professor, but also on his direct experience of his native South Korea's development.

Chang's brilliant riposte to Thomas L. Friedman, in the chapter "The Lexus and the Olive Tree Revisited" is worth more than the very modest cost of the book on its own. While the economics is spot-on, and very well informed, the style is easy to read, and just right for the general reader.

Another excellent economics book by Chang, 07 Jul 2008
Bad Samaritans is a more personal and more polemical book than Ha-Joon Chang's earlier Kicking Away the Ladder, but it is still very restrained compared to most "anti-globalisation" books, and far more effective. Chang is not properly opposed to trade and markets as such, but merely argues that the current economic policies supported by the IMF and wealthy countries are hindering development and creating poverty. He bases this view not only on his very rigorous research into comparative development over his years as an economics professor, but also on his direct experience of his native South Korea's development.

Chang's brilliant riposte to Thomas L. Friedman, in the chapter "The Lexus and the Olive Tree Revisited" is worth more than the very modest cost of the book on its own. While the economics is spot-on, and very well informed, the style is easy to read, and just right for the general reader.

Bad Samaritans, 09 May 2008
This is one economics text that should be read by everyone. Ha-Joon Chang the author(Prof. at Cambridge), puts Free Trade and unfettered Capitalism within a historical and even political perspective. Along with an earlier book, "Kicking Away the Ladder" he gives sufficient and tangible real world examples of how developing nations and infant & growing industries need tariffs & import substitution to both thrive and survive. An alternative title might be; Genuine & Honest Free Trade Maybe BUT Only Between Economic Equals.

[Amazon UK: See my review at www.Amazon.com]

a very misleading book, 03 Mar 2008
This book is highly polemic in opposing "neo-liberal" economics. But the author often puts ideology above history like many "neo-liberal" opponents.

Chang argues that developing countries were actually in a much better shape in 1960s and 1970s when they embraced "statist" strategy than they are now after they embraced "neo-liberal" recipes. Now the interesting question is: If they were having such a good time with "statist approach", why would they want to change? Because the evil IMF, WB and WTO intend to ruin the beautiful gardens of socialism? Was it not true that Bolivia/Argentia etc were forced to control budget because they were having 2000% inflation? Was it not true that socialism failed to lift Africa out of poverty so socialism was at least as much a failure as "neo-liberalism" in Africa? Was it not true that people in East Europe and the Soviet Union had to stand in line for two hours for a piece of meat? Was it not true that the radical socialism in China's Great Leap Forward had caused deaths of about 30 millions?

The fundamental problem of Chang's argument is he didn't see or didn't want to see that the embracement of the "neo-liberal" recipe was much more driven by the prevalent and INTERNAL economic crises that "state socialism" has inflicted on many developing countries than by some outside lunatics whose agenda was to promote an ideology at the cost of people's welfare being.

The reason of this cognitive problem is Chang fails to admit (like many others who advocate "statist" approach to development) that "statist approach" might be able to create a fast jump-start for development because state has a strong ability of mobilizing resources, BUT such an approach is never successful in creating SUSTAINABLE development, which is why almost all countries that experimented socialism encountered crises after late 1970s. When these developing countries turn to "neo-liberal" approach, some succeeded like China and India, and some failed like Argentina and Bolivia, but if they didn't turn to "neo-liberal" approach, ALL would fail (as they were already failing).

Regarding why the neo-liberalism succeeds in some countries and fails in others, it's too large a topic to elaborate here.

Chang might argue that what's happening in China, India, UK, US is not neo-liberalism because these countries still keep some protectionism, subsidies, SOEs... BUT, aren't Deng Xiaping, Reagon, Thatcher... seen representatives of "neo-liberals"? If they are NOT, who are those PURE neo-liberal who are allegedly advocating zero-tariff, zero-SOEs, zero-regulation and zero-public spending? Are these PURE neo-liberals just monsters created by Chang's imagination so that the argument against them is so easy to make that it doesn't take intelligence? Sadly, when Chang's right, he is arguing against an imagined enemy; and when he is arguing against the neo-liberals in reality, he is wrong.

must read!!, 15 Jan 2008
This book is epic! Shows the true history of globalisation and how the now developed countries used government protectionism, tariffs and subsidies to get rich.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable. Poor nations are now told by the IMF, World Bank and WTO that neo-liberal policies should be promoted and it's the only way thay will modernise.

Ofcourse as an economist, Chang doesnt realise that development does not always have to be economic development. Society can change for the better by means of social, cultural, and econimic equality. Is the society we live in all that perfect? Do we want poorer countries to "westernise", become increasingly materialistic and serve their their time in representative democracies? These questions need to be raised, debate concerning moving towards a participatory democracy where people have a say in how their lives are run, not just voting every few years.

For what he set out to achieve though, he did it with excellent efficiency.

They did it in broad daylight!, 08 Mar 2006
The Dome, the lottery, the Scottish Parliament, the Manchester tram scam, the destruction of the railways and London Underground: these are all scandals we know about and which make us think the lunatics are running the asylum. We feel bewildered disempowered, ripped off and plain scared for the future of our country and the world.

None of these episodes is covered in this book. Yet through its coverage of the Skye Bridge, the Coventry hospitals, the “regeneration” of Southampton, genetic engineering in agriculture and medicine, the takeover of our universities - and much, much more it explains everything about the decline in quality of life, accelerating gap between rich and poor, and the total destruction of anything remotely resembling “democracy” which is going on all around us while we sit there swigging Special Brew and watching reality tv.

If Monbiot never wrote another thing he would have entirely justified his existence with this book which is quite simply THE most important book on politics in Britain this century. In reading it you realise that you are not mad after all and neither are “they”!

Quick! We have only a few months to save the world. The single most useful thing each of us can do is to buy TWO COPIES of this book right now. Send one to your local MP with a note saying you are waiting for her/his response before casting another vote.

A Wealth of Facts, But ..., 15 Feb 2006
The main areas addressed by this book are : the PFI issues surrounding the contract to build Skye Bridge, corporate involvement in new-hospital builds, how businesses and Southampton City Council co-operated to exclude local people from a major redevelopment decision, how property developers and major corporations influence local council planning decisions, how the big supermarket chains dominate the UK's entire food supply chain and how this impacts smaller suppliers and shopkeepers, a directory of business leaders subsequently appointed to influential government or public sector posts, the corporate lobbying power of biotech companies (e.g. Monsanto) and how gene-patenting distorts the market for genetically-engineered products, how corporate sponsorship of university research departments and corporate representatives on government research-advisory councils reduces the quality and availability of independent scientific research, and how big business vigorously campaigns for multinational trade deals struck by the EU and at the WTO and how such deals undermine meaningful democratic government.

The final chapter is a call-to-action in support of, amongst other things: a reduction in the legal rights of big business (e.g. the abolition of their right to sue for libel); new government powers to limit the size of, and break-up, businesses; local community planning events with statutory weight in planning decisions; binding UN-derived international rules in the areas of employee protection, consumer rights and the environment; global human rights laws enforceable at international tribunals; global harmonised corporation taxes and democratic world political institutions.

This book is packed with both real-world details on how big business and government actually operate and is illustrated with earthy little anecdotes that reveal how the macro affects the micro. This combination means it is positively bursting with accessible little insights on things-economic and political. For these reasons, it is definitely worth reading.

However, the title, premise and tone of the book - that corporations, and not politicians, are the ones orchestrating all of today's monumental political changes - are, for me, and on the evidence of this very book, patently false. The author's proposed solution too - global democratic government, no less - is, for many, a most unwelcome prospect, not least because such an arrangement may well prove to be a contradiction in terms.

The British thinking-person's Michael Moore, 15 Jul 2004
"Captive State" is an eye-opener for anyone who still believes New Labour has anything to do with socialism. Monbiot presents a rigorously-researched, rational and hugely convincing portrait of the extent to which corporations are changing the way society functions and exploiting weak government for monetary gain. The approach is refreshingly non-subjective - he showcases the human side of private-finance blunders such as the Skye Bridge fiasco without becoming overly sentimental, and acknowledges that universal trade treaties like the controversial Multilateral Agreement on Investment could be beneficial if properly policed. However he makes no secret that the failures of governments to stop the virtual blackmail of food suppliers by large superstores, and the behaviour of pharmaceutical companies in the use of harmful chemicals and genetic modification, are truly unforgiveable.

In whole it is a reminder that corporations are merely a tool to be used by the human race, and must not be allowed to affect our civil liberties. While the tone is journalistic and generally non-biased, the content is enough to stir the blood and inspire action at a personal level - this reader for one is already making efforts to avoid shopping at supermarkets. And reading it 3 years after its publication is still worthwhile - particularly as it now seems the power of corporate lobbying has reached the point where it can even co-erce governments into going to war.

The only thing that may put some readers off is that Monbiot is a researcher first, populist agitator second, and the academic-style prose with long lists of facts make certain sections a bit of a grind to read. For this reason a film by Monbiot would probably be a lot less successful than one by Michael Moore. But it would be a lot harder to pick holes in his arguments.

Interesting, but over-rated and under-sourced..., 28 Dec 2003
This is undoubtedly a very important book, highlighting many of the 'innovative' ways in which British servies have become run in recent years. Local democracy, already strangled under the Thatcher years, has pretty much disappeared under Blairism in the midst of big business money and central control-freakery.
with the banks. PFI's come in for criticism - it is also good to see the Skye Bridge mentioned here, with interviews with Robbie the Pict. However, Monbiot's 'Guardian' columns and his website hint at the self-important tone which permeates this book - and the constant references to 'we' are especially annoying, as I feel little empathy with middle class bleeding hearts like this author. The importance of the subject matter, however, far outweighs any problems I might have with the writing style, and this deserves to be widely read.

Good grief . . ., 08 Aug 2003
I read this book in one sitting, completely transfixed - not so much at the greed of the businesses and corporations concerned (which one takes as a given) as the complicity of government officials in nuturing it. Having read it as I did a day after going through Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation" I found myself slowly losing the will to live...

"Captive State," throroughly researched, well-written, and engaging, leads me to conclude that we are not far off the sort of lifestyle grimly portrayed by the likes of Orwell - only it won't be the State whose control we're under, but rather the multinationals. Everything needs to make a profit - our taxes, it seems, are not intended to enhance our quality of life but to assist in "driving commerce forward", "expanding into new markets" and other supercilious corporate-speak. For shame!

I held back one star because I was expecting a bit more from Monbiot as to how we, the Great Unwashed, can turn this horrible juggernaut around. There seems little point in voting for a change in government (he points out that New Labour has actually lowered the corporate tax rate - Maggie Thatcher would no doubt approve), and changing our habits as consumers means in most cases merely shifting our credit card bills from one set of greedy ogres to another.

Corporations certainly have an important role to play in a modern society, and are a necessary evil of any free enterprise system; it would seem governments have taken advantage of voter apathy and couch-potato behaviour to let them ride roughshod over the world.

I hope Mr. Monbiot will continue to enlighten us with further relevations in future books.

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 defence of liberal democracy from the dark 1940s, 05 Jul 2007
First published in 1944, Hayek's polemical work is a defence of classical liberalism in the face of totalitarianisms of both right- and left-wing hues. The author deplores all sorts of `collectivism', that is departures from such aspects of liberalism as the free market, individualism and the minimal state. Thus, conservatives such as Bismarck (responsible for business cartels) share the dock with communists such as Lenin. In a chapter entitled `The Socialist Roots of National Socialism', Hayek argues that collectivist achievements such as the welfare state and the war economy paved the way for the collectivism of the Nazis: `Few are ready to recognize that the rise of Fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period, but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.' (p. 4). This is a mirror image of the classic Marxist argument that Fascism, far from being a reaction against the upheaval in the capitalist economy in the 1930s, was in fact the logical culmination of capitalism, the last redoubt of the bourgeoisie.
Intriguing an argument as it is, I think Hayek over emphasizes the socialist element of National Socialism: as far as I know Hitler was quite happy to allow German capitalists to make large profits as long as they agreed to economic planning. Also, the German Workers' Party adopted `National Socialist' and `Workers' in the title only to attract working class votes, and not out of any enthusiasm for Marxism. Hayek would probably object that planning is planning regardless of whether capitalists are allowed to make profits or not.
This, of course, is the central conceit of the book and its Achilles heel: that all planning is bad and precipitates the onset of totalitarianism: `There is no other possibility than either the order governed by the impersonal discipline of the market or that directed by the will of a few individuals...' (p. 205). This argument is disingenuous. While Hayek recognizes that there are degrees of classical liberalism - he eschews what he calls the `dogmatic laissez-faire attitude' (p. 37) - he fails to concede that there are likewise degrees of collectivism. As a work of prediction, 'Serfdom' proved very wide of the mark, for although various postwar European governments instituted what Hayek would refer to as `collectivism' and `planning', they operated within the framework of liberal democracy, private property, and individual political liberty.
In spite of such objections, given all I had read about it, I was expecting Serfdom to be worse than it was. Given the atmosphere it was written in, the book's thesis is actually quite progressive. Maybe that's why such progressives as John Maynard Keynes, Bertrand Russell and George Orwell either gave it favorable reviews or were sympathetic to its argument. As a defence of liberal democracy, Hayek's polemic is indispensable.


Brilliant, 18 Aug 2008
Bad Samaritans is a more personal and more polemical book than Ha-Joon Chang's earlier Kicking Away the Ladder, but it is still very restrained compared to most "anti-globalisation" books, and far more effective. Chang is not properly opposed to trade and markets as such, but merely argues that the current economic policies supported by the IMF and wealthy countries are hindering development and creating poverty. He bases this view not only on his very rigorous research into comparative development over his years as an economics professor, but also on his direct experience of his native South Korea's development.

Chang's brilliant riposte to Thomas L. Friedman, in the chapter "The Lexus and the Olive Tree Revisited" is worth more than the very modest cost of the book on its own. While the economics is spot-on, and very well informed, the style is easy to read, and just right for the general reader.

Another excellent economics book by Chang, 07 Jul 2008
Bad Samaritans is a more personal and more polemical book than Ha-Joon Chang's earlier Kicking Away the Ladder, but it is still very restrained compared to most "anti-globalisation" books, and far more effective. Chang is not properly opposed to trade and markets as such, but merely argues that the current economic policies supported by the IMF and wealthy countries are hindering development and creating poverty. He bases this view not only on his very rigorous research into comparative development over his years as an economics professor, but also on his direct experience of his native South Korea's development.

Chang's brilliant riposte to Thomas L. Friedman, in the chapter "The Lexus and the Olive Tree Revisited" is worth more than the very modest cost of the book on its own. While the economics is spot-on, and very well informed, the style is easy to read, and just right for the general reader.

Bad Samaritans, 09 May 2008
This is one economics text that should be read by everyone. Ha-Joon Chang the author(Prof. at Cambridge), puts Free Trade and unfettered Capitalism within a historical and even political perspective. Along with an earlier book, "Kicking Away the Ladder" he gives sufficient and tangible real world examples of how developing nations and infant & growing industries need tariffs & import substitution to both thrive and survive. An alternative title might be; Genuine & Honest Free Trade Maybe BUT Only Between Economic Equals.

[Amazon UK: See my review at www.Amazon.com]

a very misleading book, 03 Mar 2008
This book is highly polemic in opposing "neo-liberal" economics. But the author often puts ideology above history like many "neo-liberal" opponents.

Chang argues that developing countries were actually in a much better shape in 1960s and 1970s when they embraced "statist" strategy than they are now after they embraced "neo-liberal" recipes. Now the interesting question is: If they were having such a good time with "statist approach", why would they want to change? Because the evil IMF, WB and WTO intend to ruin the beautiful gardens of socialism? Was it not true that Bolivia/Argentia etc were forced to control budget because they were having 2000% inflation? Was it not true that socialism failed to lift Africa out of poverty so socialism was at least as much a failure as "neo-liberalism" in Africa? Was it not true that people in East Europe and the Soviet Union had to stand in line for two hours for a piece of meat? Was it not true that the radical socialism in China's Great Leap Forward had caused deaths of about 30 millions?

The fundamental problem of Chang's argument is he didn't see or didn't want to see that the embracement of the "neo-liberal" recipe was much more driven by the prevalent and INTERNAL economic crises that "state socialism" has inflicted on many developing countries than by some outside lunatics whose agenda was to promote an ideology at the cost of people's welfare being.

The reason of this cognitive problem is Chang fails to admit (like many others who advocate "statist" approach to development) that "statist approach" might be able to create a fast jump-start for development because state has a strong ability of mobilizing resources, BUT such an approach is never successful in creating SUSTAINABLE development, which is why almost all countries that experimented socialism encountered crises after late 1970s. When these developing countries turn to "neo-liberal" approach, some succeeded like China and India, and some failed like Argentina and Bolivia, but if they didn't turn to "neo-liberal" approach, ALL would fail (as they were already failing).

Regarding why the neo-liberalism succeeds in some countries and fails in others, it's too large a topic to elaborate here.

Chang might argue that what's happening in China, India, UK, US is not neo-liberalism because these countries still keep some protectionism, subsidies, SOEs... BUT, aren't Deng Xiaping, Reagon, Thatcher... seen representatives of "neo-liberals"? If they are NOT, who are those PURE neo-liberal who are allegedly advocating zero-tariff, zero-SOEs, zero-regulation and zero-public spending? Are these PURE neo-liberals just monsters created by Chang's imagination so that the argument against them is so easy to make that it doesn't take intelligence? Sadly, when Chang's right, he is arguing against an imagined enemy; and when he is arguing against the neo-liberals in reality, he is wrong.

must read!!, 15 Jan 2008
This book is epic! Shows the true history of globalisation and how the now developed countries used government protectionism, tariffs and subsidies to get rich.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable. Poor nations are now told by the IMF, World Bank and WTO that neo-liberal policies should be promoted and it's the only way thay will modernise.

Ofcourse as an economist, Chang doesnt realise that development does not always have to be economic development. Society can change for the better by means of social, cultural, and econimic equality. Is the society we live in all that perfect? Do we want poorer countries to "westernise", become increasingly materialistic and serve their their time in representative democracies? These questions need to be raised, debate concerning moving towards a participatory democracy where people have a say in how their lives are run, not just voting every few years.

For what he set out to achieve though, he did it with excellent efficiency.

They did it in broad daylight!, 08 Mar 2006
The Dome, the lottery, the Scottish Parliament, the Manchester tram scam, the destruction of the railways and London Underground: these are all scandals we know about and which make us think the lunatics are running the asylum. We feel bewildered disempowered, ripped off and plain scared for the future of our country and the world.

None of these episodes is covered in this book. Yet through its coverage of the Skye Bridge, the Coventry hospitals, the “regeneration” of Southampton, genetic engineering in agriculture and medicine, the takeover of our universities - and much, much more it explains everything about the decline in quality of life, accelerating gap between rich and poor, and the total destruction of anything remotely resembling “democracy” which is going on all around us while we sit there swigging Special Brew and watching reality tv.

If Monbiot never wrote another thing he would have entirely justified his existence with this book which is quite simply THE most important book on politics in Britain this century. In reading it you realise that you are not mad after all and neither are “they”!

Quick! We have only a few months to save the world. The single most useful thing each of us can do is to buy TWO COPIES of this book right now. Send one to your local MP with a note saying you are waiting for her/his response before casting another vote.

A Wealth of Facts, But ..., 15 Feb 2006
The main areas addressed by this book are : the PFI issues surrounding the contract to build Skye Bridge, corporate involvement in new-hospital builds, how businesses and Southampton City Council co-operated to exclude local people from a major redevelopment decision, how property developers and major corporations influence local council planning decisions, how the big supermarket chains dominate the UK's entire food supply chain and how this impacts smaller suppliers and shopkeepers, a directory of business leaders subsequently appointed to influential government or public sector posts, the corporate lobbying power of biotech companies (e.g. Monsanto) and how gene-patenting distorts the market for genetically-engineered products, how corporate sponsorship of university research departments and corporate representatives on government research-advisory councils reduces the quality and availability of independent scientific research, and how big business vigorously campaigns for multinational trade deals struck by the EU and at the WTO and how such deals undermine meaningful democratic government.

The final chapter is a call-to-action in support of, amongst other things: a reduction in the legal rights of big business (e.g. the abolition of their right to sue for libel); new government powers to limit the size of, and break-up, businesses; local community planning events with statutory weight in planning decisions; binding UN-derived international rules in the areas of employee protection, consumer rights and the environment; global human rights laws enforceable at international tribunals; global harmonised corporation taxes and democratic world political institutions.

This book is packed with both real-world details on how big business and government actually operate and is illustrated with earthy little anecdotes that reveal how the macro affects the micro. This combination means it is positively bursting with accessible little insights on things-economic and political. For these reasons, it is definitely worth reading.

However, the title, premise and tone of the book - that corporations, and not politicians, are the ones orchestrating all of today's monumental political changes - are, for me, and on the evidence of this very book, patently false. The author's proposed solution too - global democratic government, no less - is, for many, a most unwelcome prospect, not least because such an arrangement may well prove to be a contradiction in terms.

The British thinking-person's Michael Moore, 15 Jul 2004
"Captive State" is an eye-opener for anyone who still believes New Labour has anything to do with socialism. Monbiot presents a rigorously-researched, rational and hugely convincing portrait of the extent to which corporations are changing the way society functions and exploiting weak government for monetary gain. The approach is refreshingly non-subjective - he showcases the human side of private-finance blunders such as the Skye Bridge fiasco without becoming overly sentimental, and acknowledges that universal trade treaties like the controversial Multilateral Agreement on Investment could be beneficial if properly policed. However he makes no secret that the failures of governments to stop the virtual blackmail of food suppliers by large superstores, and the behaviour of pharmaceutical companies in the use of harmful chemicals and genetic modification, are truly unforgiveable.

In whole it is a reminder that corporations are merely a tool to be used by the human race, and must not be allowed to affect our civil liberties. While the tone is journalistic and generally non-biased, the content is enough to stir the blood and inspire action at a personal level - this reader for one is already making efforts to avoid shopping at supermarkets. And reading it 3 years after its publication is still worthwhile - particularly as it now seems the power of corporate lobbying has reached the point where it can even co-erce governments into going to war.

The only thing that may put some readers off is that Monbiot is a researcher first, populist agitator second, and the academic-style prose with long lists of facts make certain sections a bit of a grind to read. For this reason a film by Monbiot would probably be a lot less successful than one by Michael Moore. But it would be a lot harder to pick holes in his arguments.

Interesting, but over-rated and under-sourced..., 28 Dec 2003
This is undoubtedly a very important book, highlighting many of the 'innovative' ways in which British servies have become run in recent years. Local democracy, already strangled under the Thatcher years, has pretty much disappeared under Blairism in the midst of big business money and central control-freakery.
with the banks. PFI's come in for criticism - it is also good to see the Skye Bridge mentioned here, with interviews with Robbie the Pict. However, Monbiot's 'Guardian' columns and his website hint at the self-important tone which permeates this book - and the constant references to 'we' are especially annoying, as I feel little empathy with middle class bleeding hearts like this author. The importance of the subject matter, however, far outweighs any problems I might have with the writing style, and this deserves to be widely read.

Good grief . . ., 08 Aug 2003
I read this book in one sitting, completely transfixed - not so much at the greed of the businesses and corporations concerned (which one takes as a given) as the complicity of government officials in nuturing it. Having read it as I did a day after going through Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation" I found myself slowly losing the will to live...

"Captive State," throroughly researched, well-written, and engaging, leads me to conclude that we are not far off the sort of lifestyle grimly portrayed by the likes of Orwell - only it won't be the State whose control we're under, but rather the multinationals. Everything needs to make a profit - our taxes, it seems, are not intended to enhance our quality of life but to assist in "driving commerce forward", "expanding into new markets" and other supercilious corporate-speak. For shame!

I held back one star because I was expecting a bit more from Monbiot as to how we, the Great Unwashed, can turn this horrible juggernaut around. There seems little point in voting for a change in government (he points out that New Labour has actually lowered the corporate tax rate - Maggie Thatcher would no doubt approve), and changing our habits as consumers means in most cases merely shifting our credit card bills from one set of greedy ogres to another.

Corporations certainly have an important role to play in a modern society, and are a necessary evil of any free enterprise system; it would seem governments have taken advantage of voter apathy and couch-potato behaviour to let them ride roughshod over the world.

I hope Mr. Monbiot will continue to enlighten us with further relevations in future books.

The Unwitting Sculptors Of The American Super Industrial Model, 02 Aug 2007
They created their industrial and financial bases for a variety of reasons, the overriding being personal greed and to quench an insatiable thirst for personal power. 'For the good of humanity' whilst never a deliberate intention was, nevertheless, an accidental by-product of The Tycoons nefarious wheeling and dealing in pursuit of wealth and dominance.

Charles Morris tells the comprehensive but not unnecesarily over-detailed account of The Tycoons sometimes individual and sometimes overlapping commercial machinations. The result is a highly readable and interesting account of a pivotal period in the evolution of The American Supereconomy.

When their unethical practices were at last outlawed by the State, there at least remained a framework upon which, with good governance and improving management techniques, others were able to make The United States of America into the World's greatest trading nation. For that The Tycoons are owed a debt of gratitude if not affection.

Back in the 1980s, capitalism seemed ready to finally inherit the earth. According to the likes of Francis Fukuyama, in his infamous book The End of History, history was coming to an end with the triumph of western capitalism, witnessed by the dramatic collapse of the Soviet Bloc and the growth of the global free market. Subsequent events, from the downfall of Mrs Thatcher to the recent financial unrest in Southeast Asia, have seriously questioned the validity of Fukuyama's arguments (not to mention other luminaries of the New Right). However, John Gray's wonderful False Dawn is the first book to convincingly dismantle the economic and historical presumptions of the 1980s, as we head into political and financial uncharted water.

Writing with great economy and accessibility, Gray's argument is concise but portentous: the unfettered global free market economy will not spawn a self-regulating utopia, but increasing social instability and economic anarchy. With an impressive breadth of economic and social history, False Dawn convincingly argues that "the free market is a rare, short-lived phenomenon", a specific product of English nineteenth-century social engineering, from whose cycles of boom and bust we still have much to learn. Even more provocatively, Gray argues that "democracy and the free market are competitors rather than partners." The failures of the free market, from pre-war Europe to the collapse of the Mexican economy in 1994, have persistently shown that democratic state intervention is required to place checks and balances upon the erratic cycles of boom and bust which has characterised the relatively short history of the free market.

Arguing with great passion and conviction, Gray explores the emergence of the belief in the global free market, via the increasingly discredited philosophy of the European Enlightenment, through the rise and fall of the free market in England from Palmerston to Thatcher. The book then analyses the potentially catastrophic investment in the free market coming out of the USA, the recent "Anarcho-capitalism" of post-communist Russia, and the crisis in the markets of Southeast Asia. Avoiding calls for a return to socialist planning, False Dawn is a refreshing and challenging polemic. Nevertheless, it offers few solutions to what Gray sees as "the deepening international anarchy" as free markets spiral out of control. While False Dawn may expose the shortcomings of contemporary global capitalism, it remains to be seen whether or not its arguments provoke more concrete solutions to the chronic instability of the free market. --Jerry Brotton

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 defence of liberal democracy from the dark 1940s, 05 Jul 2007
First published in 1944, Hayek's polemical work is a defence of classical liberalism in the face of totalitarianisms of both right- and left-wing hues. The author deplores all sorts of `collectivism', that is departures from such aspects of liberalism as the free market, individualism and the minimal state. Thus, conservatives such as Bismarck (responsible for business cartels) share the dock with communists such as Lenin. In a chapter entitled `The Socialist Roots of National Socialism', Hayek argues that collectivist achievements such as the welfare state and the war economy paved the way for the collectivism of the Nazis: `Few are ready to recognize that the rise of Fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period, but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.' (p. 4). This is a mirror image of the classic Marxist argument that Fascism, far from being a reaction against the upheaval in the capitalist economy in the 1930s, was in fact the logical culmination of capitalism, the last redoubt of the bourgeoisie.
Intriguing an argument as it is, I think Hayek over emphasizes the socialist element of National Socialism: as far as I know Hitler was quite happy to allow German capitalists to make large profits as long as they agreed to economic planning. Also, the German Workers' Party adopted `National Socialist' and `Workers' in the title only to attract working class votes, and not out of any enthusiasm for Marxism. Hayek would probably object that planning is planning regardless of whether capitalists are allowed to make profits or not.
This, of course, is the central conceit of the book and its Achilles heel: that all planning is bad and precipitates the onset of totalitarianism: `There is no other possibility than either the order governed by the imp