Classic doesn't really do it justice, 05 Sep 2008
Much has obviously been said of this work! Humanist-Marxists say it is too mechanistic whilst analytic Marxists try to ignore the Dickensian passages which describe working conditions. In truth this book, in true Marxian style is the 'dialectical' synthesis of basically all that went before. Marx forswears many of the grinding debates with other intellectuals and revolutionaries of the time in favour of a 'capitalism for dummies style'. Your hand is held as you progress from simple 'laws', each of which is taken to the limit of its logic before the next idea is broached.

In fact what is striking is how pertinent this book is even today. Granted things have moved on, and it is no longer 'grim up north' but even a quick consideration makes one realise how our service-industry-fueled economy still holds to most of the same processes as Marx noted all those years ago. Beaudrillard claimed Marx was superseded because consumption has now trumped production, but a read of Capital and a bit of thought soon puts that idea to rest.

It is worth ignoring the suggestions that The German Ideology is a good introduction to Marx, or that Capital is some advanced monolith. It is large, but completely readable; just as readable as Manifesto, only longer. Despite spawning abstruse French theorists, Russian and Chinese revolutions and analysis second only in quantity to the Bible there is nothing to be intimidated about.

Classic doesn't really do it justice, 05 Sep 2008
Much has obviously been said of this work! Humanist-Marxists say it is too mechanistic whilst analytic Marxists try to ignore the Dickensian passages which describe working conditions. In truth this book, in true Marxian style is the 'dialectical' synthesis of basically all that went before. Marx forswears many of the grinding debates with other intellectuals and revolutionaries of the time in favour of a 'capitalism for dummies style'. Your hand is held as you progress from simple 'laws', each of which is taken to the limit of its logic before the next idea is broached.

In fact what is striking is how pertinent this book is even today. Granted things have moved on, and it is no longer 'grim up north' but even a quick consideration makes one realise how our service-industry-fueled economy still holds to most of the same processes as Marx noted all those years ago. Beaudrillard claimed Marx was superseded because consumption has now trumped production, but a read of Capital and a bit of thought soon puts that idea to rest.

It is worth ignoring the suggestions that The German Ideology is a good introduction to Marx, or that Capital is some advanced monolith. It is large, but completely readable; just as readable as Manifesto, only longer. Despite spawning abstruse French theorists, Russian and Chinese revolutions and analysis second only in quantity to the Bible there is nothing to be intimidated about.

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.

Classic doesn't really do it justice, 05 Sep 2008
Much has obviously been said of this work! Humanist-Marxists say it is too mechanistic whilst analytic Marxists try to ignore the Dickensian passages which describe working conditions. In truth this book, in true Marxian style is the 'dialectical' synthesis of basically all that went before. Marx forswears many of the grinding debates with other intellectuals and revolutionaries of the time in favour of a 'capitalism for dummies style'. Your hand is held as you progress from simple 'laws', each of which is taken to the limit of its logic before the next idea is broached.

In fact what is striking is how pertinent this book is even today. Granted things have moved on, and it is no longer 'grim up north' but even a quick consideration makes one realise how our service-industry-fueled economy still holds to most of the same processes as Marx noted all those years ago. Beaudrillard claimed Marx was superseded because consumption has now trumped production, but a read of Capital and a bit of thought soon puts that idea to rest.

It is worth ignoring the suggestions that The German Ideology is a good introduction to Marx, or that Capital is some advanced monolith. It is large, but completely readable; just as readable as Manifesto, only longer. Despite spawning abstruse French theorists, Russian and Chinese revolutions and analysis second only in quantity to the Bible there is nothing to be intimidated about.

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.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Classic doesn't really do it justice, 05 Sep 2008
Much has obviously been said of this work! Humanist-Marxists say it is too mechanistic whilst analytic Marxists try to ignore the Dickensian passages which describe working conditions. In truth this book, in true Marxian style is the 'dialectical' synthesis of basically all that went before. Marx forswears many of the grinding debates with other intellectuals and revolutionaries of the time in favour of a 'capitalism for dummies style'. Your hand is held as you progress from simple 'laws', each of which is taken to the limit of its logic before the next idea is broached.

In fact what is striking is how pertinent this book is even today. Granted things have moved on, and it is no longer 'grim up north' but even a quick consideration makes one realise how our service-industry-fueled economy still holds to most of the same processes as Marx noted all those years ago. Beaudrillard claimed Marx was superseded because consumption has now trumped production, but a read of Capital and a bit of thought soon puts that idea to rest.

It is worth ignoring the suggestions that The German Ideology is a good introduction to Marx, or that Capital is some advanced monolith. It is large, but completely readable; just as readable as Manifesto, only longer. Despite spawning abstruse French theorists, Russian and Chinese revolutions and analysis second only in quantity to the Bible there is nothing to be intimidated about.

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.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too biased towards the republican side, 17 Nov 2008
I didn't like this book as although no one would pretend that Franco wasn't a deeply unpleasant man let alone the German and Italian leaders who sent him assistance, the author doesn't seem to explain properly the following facts:

1 The republic government only had a small majority of seats and the opposition had a majority of votes. Although technically the republic government was the legal government a sensible govenment with a small majority of seats and a minority of votes would have tried to adopt moderate policies. The republican government managed to upset too many important groups at once with foolish policies some of which may have been right and some of which were definitely wrong but all of which were foolish for a government with only a small majority to introduce. They alienated the Church, the armed forces, the peasantry in some areas of the country, the landowners and even the moderate middle class. There were huge areas of the country where they were deeply unpopular.

2 During the Spanish Civil War there was infighting between communist and anarchist groups. Read Orwell's "Homagee to Catalonia" for details.

3 Both sides carried out gratuitous atrocities and the republicans murdered thousands of low ranking priests, momks and nuns many of whom had never had any involvement with politics and had spent their entire lives teaching or nursing the poor.

4 The republic govenment was supported by the USSR and the attitude of the republic government towards religion and private property made it difficult for many other countries e.g. the United States and Great Britian to give it any moral support.



Really useful Introduction, 26 Jun 2008
I was a total beginner in terms of knowing about the Spanish Civil War and came across this little book in the local branch of Blackwells. As an introductory text, it is superb, the layout of each chapter indicating the main themes which may further be explored.
The author first gives an overview of the origins of the war: the dying colonialism of Spain's Imperial past, the consequent loss of status and role for the officer clas, the rise of a new industrial class, the increasing influence of the professions, all of which came to challenge the traditonal grip of the church and the big estate owners.
The author then situates these political and economic changes within the context of the wider European struggles following the first World War, particulary the establishment of the Soviet Union and the consequent fears that Spain would also become socialist. Because of these, the support for Franco by the governments of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, which together with 'non-aligned' policies of Britain and the UK were in effect, guaranteed to lead to the defeat of the second Spanish Republic.
The author also discusses the internal splits between the socialists, communists,and the anarchists, its iconic significance for the international community of artists and intellectuls who moved by the Republican's idealism and effective military, political and economic isolation within Europe wrote, fought, painted and fought for the cause. She also en passim reflects upon the impact upon women, many of whom became political activists or fighters. She concludes that its signicance is crucial to any understanding of the subsequent development of European history.

A Very Substantial Introduction, 22 Oct 2007
There's so much material in this little book that I had to read it twice: the first time I was overwhelmed.

There's an 8 page chronology at the back of the book which I suggest reading first, to get an overview of the flow of events.

I had arrived at this book after reading Rudolf Rocker's "The Tragedy of Spain" and Colin Ward's "Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction", both of which discuss the role of the anarcho-syndicalist trade-union CNT in this civil war. The Wikipdea entry "Anarchism in Spain" also presents a significant role for the CNT in the Spanish Civil War. Graham references the CNT in a number of places but in minor ways, so I'm left uncertain as to whether they played as large a role as Rocker and Ward indicate. Graham notes some conflicts between the CNT and socialist groups which interfered with their working together effectively. Without help from England, France, and the United States and with limited help from the Soviet Union, the Left in Spain was at a huge disadvantage, given Italy and Germany's support of Franco. It seemed remarkable that the Left was able to fight for as long as it did.

I don't recall studying anything about this civil war in school, let alone knowing how much was involved. The relevance seems high: a country in which conservatives and liberals were in serious conflict. The conservatives started a war. A sobering lesson: bombing of, imprisonment of and execution of liberals. The conservatives won.

Graham has done her job in this introduction: I'm encouraged to read more about the Spanish Civil War. Graham provides 5 pages of further reading which includes some websites (3 in Spanish 2 in English)

Great overview of the political and social impact, less so for military aspects and causes, 18 Apr 2007
Before you buy this book, you need to ask yourself what aspects of the Spanish Civil war are you most curious about. If you are interested in the military history, then this is not the book for you, as little attention is devoted to the military developments of the war. Also, if you are interested in the origins of the war (i.e. what started it) then this book will only provide a general overview of the antecedents rather than a complex examination of them. However, if you have a general curiosity about the Civil War, especially the social and political aspects of it whilst it was going on, then this is a superb book.

The author has done three things particularly well. Firstly, the author been able to explain the political motivations of the outside powers Italy and Germany, whose involvement had more to do with cynical financial gains than it did with any ideological commonality with Franco. Secondly, the book beautifully examines and explains the strategies and motivations for the faction leaders. I found this to be amongst the most interesting aspects, and it was very informative to learn why Mussolini, Hitler, Franco and Negrin were involved in the war, and what strategies they had in place to get the best favourable outcome for their side. Finally, the author also elegantly weaves the international frictions of the time into the conflict into the story.

Another interesting and enjoyable part of the book is its examination of what happened to the losing side. We discover that many fighters fled to France and became active in the French resistance, some even making it via the leftist underground to the USSR. Indeed, many of these men would one day fight the Spanish nationalists for a second time, as they clashed with Spanish Blue Shirt volunteers in the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front.

The book does have one or two weaknesses. One weakness is the aforementioned scant treatment of the origins of the war and its military developments, although to be fair the author does warn us that these aspects will not be covered in any depth. Perhaps more serious is the slight bias the author has for the Republican side in the conflict. Indeed, her accounts of the Republic border at times on a letter to a fan club, or even a hagiography.

All in all however, the book provides an excellent overview of the Spanish Civil War, and for the price is simply the best introduction there is.


A great starting point, 27 Jun 2006
This is a great introduction to the topic. There is all the information you require to get an overall picture of the war and give you ideas for areas to further research.
My one complaint would be that I found it sprang back and forth a bit in terms of time lines, but referring to the breakdown of the war by date at the back of the book helped keep it in order.

Classic doesn't really do it justice, 05 Sep 2008
Much has obviously been said of this work! Humanist-Marxists say it is too mechanistic whilst analytic Marxists try to ignore the Dickensian passages which describe working conditions. In truth this book, in true Marxian style is the 'dialectical' synthesis of basically all that went before. Marx forswears many of the grinding debates with other intellectuals and revolutionaries of the time in favour of a 'capitalism for dummies style'. Your hand is held as you progress from simple 'laws', each of which is taken to the limit of its logic before the next idea is broached.

In fact what is striking is how pertinent this book is even today. Granted things have moved on, and it is no longer 'grim up north' but even a quick consideration makes one realise how our service-industry-fueled economy still holds to most of the same processes as Marx noted all those years ago. Beaudrillard claimed Marx was superseded because consumption has now trumped production, but a read of Capital and a bit of thought soon puts that idea to rest.

It is worth ignoring the suggestions that The German Ideology is a good introduction to Marx, or that Capital is some advanced monolith. It is large, but completely readable; just as readable as Manifesto, only longer. Despite spawning abstruse French theorists, Russian and Chinese revolutions and analysis second only in quantity to the Bible there is nothing to be intimidated about.

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.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too biased towards the republican side, 17 Nov 2008
I didn't like this book as although no one would pretend that Franco wasn't a deeply unpleasant man let alone the German and Italian leaders who sent him assistance, the author doesn't seem to explain properly the following facts:

1 The republic government only had a small majority of seats and the opposition had a majority of votes. Although technically the republic government was the legal government a sensible govenment with a small majority of seats and a minority of votes would have tried to adopt moderate policies. The republican government managed to upset too many important groups at once with foolish policies some of which may have been right and some of which were definitely wrong but all of which were foolish for a government with only a small majority to introduce. They alienated the Church, the armed forces, the peasantry in some areas of the country, the landowners and even the moderate middle class. There were huge areas of the country where they were deeply unpopular.

2 During the Spanish Civil War there was infighting between communist and anarchist groups. Read Orwell's "Homagee to Catalonia" for details.

3 Both sides carried out gratuitous atrocities and the republicans murdered thousands of low ranking priests, momks and nuns many of whom had never had any involvement with politics and had spent their entire lives teaching or nursing the poor.

4 The republic govenment was supported by the USSR and the attitude of the republic government towards religion and private property made it difficult for many other countries e.g. the United States and Great Britian to give it any moral support.



Really useful Introduction, 26 Jun 2008
I was a total beginner in terms of knowing about the Spanish Civil War and came across this little book in the local branch of Blackwells. As an introductory text, it is superb, the layout of each chapter indicating the main themes which may further be explored.
The author first gives an overview of the origins of the war: the dying colonialism of Spain's Imperial past, the consequent loss of status and role for the officer clas, the rise of a new industrial class, the increasing influence of the professions, all of which came to challenge the traditonal grip of the church and the big estate owners.
The author then situates these political and economic changes within the context of the wider European struggles following the first World War, particulary the establishment of the Soviet Union and the consequent fears that Spain would also become socialist. Because of these, the support for Franco by the governments of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, which together with 'non-aligned' policies of Britain and the UK were in effect, guaranteed to lead to the defeat of the second Spanish Republic.
The author also discusses the internal splits between the socialists, communists,and the anarchists, its iconic significance for the international community of artists and intellectuls who moved by the Republican's idealism and effective military, political and economic isolation within Europe wrote, fought, painted and fought for the cause. She also en passim reflects upon the impact upon women, many of whom became political activists or fighters. She concludes that its signicance is crucial to any understanding of the subsequent development of European history.

A Very Substantial Introduction, 22 Oct 2007
There's so much material in this little book that I had to read it twice: the first time I was overwhelmed.

There's an 8 page chronology at the back of the book which I suggest reading first, to get an overview of the flow of events.

I had arrived at this book after reading Rudolf Rocker's "The Tragedy of Spain" and Colin Ward's "Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction", both of which discuss the role of the anarcho-syndicalist trade-union CNT in this civil war. The Wikipdea entry "Anarchism in Spain" also presents a significant role for the CNT in the Spanish Civil War. Graham references the CNT in a number of places but in minor ways, so I'm left uncertain as to whether they played as large a role as Rocker and Ward indicate. Graham notes some conflicts between the CNT and socialist groups which interfered with their working together effectively. Without help from England, France, and the United States and with limited help from the Soviet Union, the Left in Spain was at a huge disadvantage, given Italy and Germany's support of Franco. It seemed remarkable that the Left was able to fight for as long as it did.

I don't recall studying anything about this civil war in school, let alone knowing how much was involved. The relevance seems high: a country in which conservatives and liberals were in serious conflict. The conservatives started a war. A sobering lesson: bombing of, imprisonment of and execution of liberals. The conservatives won.

Graham has done her job in this introduction: I'm encouraged to read more about the Spanish Civil War. Graham provides 5 pages of further reading which includes some websites (3 in Spanish 2 in English)

Great overview of the political and social impact, less so for military aspects and causes, 18 Apr 2007
Before you buy this book, you need to ask yourself what aspects of the Spanish Civil war are you most curious about. If you are interested in the military history, then this is not the book for you, as little attention is devoted to the military developments of the war. Also, if you are interested in the origins of the war (i.e. what started it) then this book will only provide a general overview of the antecedents rather than a complex examination of them. However, if you have a general curiosity about the Civil War, especially the social and political aspects of it whilst it was going on, then this is a superb book.

The author has done three things particularly well. Firstly, the author been able to explain the political motivations of the outside powers Italy and Germany, whose involvement had more to do with cynical financial gains than it did with any ideological commonality with Franco. Secondly, the book beautifully examines and explains the strategies and motivations for the faction leaders. I found this to be amongst the most interesting aspects, and it was very informative to learn why Mussolini, Hitler, Franco and Negrin were involved in the war, and what strategies they had in place to get the best favourable outcome for their side. Finally, the author also elegantly weaves the international frictions of the time into the conflict into the story.

Another interesting and enjoyable part of the book is its examination of what happened to the losing side. We discover that many fighters fled to France and became active in the French resistance, some even making it via the leftist underground to the USSR. Indeed, many of these men would one day fight the Spanish nationalists for a second time, as they clashed with Spanish Blue Shirt volunteers in the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front.

The book does have one or two weaknesses. One weakness is the aforementioned scant treatment of the origins of the war and its military developments, although to be fair the author does warn us that these aspects will not be covered in any depth. Perhaps more serious is the slight bias the author has for the Republican side in the conflict. Indeed, her accounts of the Republic border at times on a letter to a fan club, or even a hagiography.

All in all however, the book provides an excellent overview of the Spanish Civil War, and for the price is simply the best introduction there is.


A great starting point, 27 Jun 2006
This is a great introduction to the topic. There is all the information you require to get an overall picture of the war and give you ideas for areas to further research.
My one complaint would be that I found it sprang back and forth a bit in terms of time lines, but referring to the breakdown of the war by date at the back of the book helped keep it in order.

Really bad history..., 26 Aug 2008
Silly, jingoistic, pulp history shot through with half truths, unsupported and unsupportable claims and distortions. John Lewis Gaddis is a history professor at Yale University but how he can draw so many stupid conclusions from the Cold War is beyond me. Nobody in their right mind would say that Joe Stalin was a good guy, nor would they be likely to say his successors were freedom loving liberals either but the standard neo-con treatment these days is to score points with heavy handed jingoism rather than presenting history as it happened. I'm sorely tempted to call it propaganda.

The layout of the book is extremely poor and jumps from one thing to another without any real semblance of method. You will find yourself reading about Stalin one minute, then Kruschev the next and finally back to Stalin again. Very confusing and giving the appearance that he has something of an obsession with Stalin.

His assertion that the US achieved its amazing industrial power due to a lack of Government intervention is a neo-con line which is not supported in fact. Most US Government war contracts were designed to fulfil Government specifications. His claim that Americans in 1945 lived in the freest society on the planet is unsupportable. Obviously he has never been to Australia, New Zealand or Eire. When he said nobody knows how the Berlin Blockade started, I couldn't believe my eyes! Both Hilton and Taylor explain it in their respective books on the Berlin Wall.

He spends barely a page on the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and scarcely bothers to explain that the missiles were installed because of fears that the US would invade after the attempted Bay of Pigs invasion the year before. Asserting that this information has only just been released from Soviet archives does nothing for the argument. Blind Freddy could have seen that.

When the Soviets or the Chinese cracked down on insurgencies in their own territories or those of a client state, Gaddis digs deep for another triumphant assertion that the US never did this but does not concede that the states they supported most certainly did, especially the dictatorships they cheerfully installed in Central and South America. Later in the book he does point out the activities undertaken by the CIA in South America but by then it's scarcely relevant.

Another example of his oversimplified a polarised view is that all the US leaders were great and all the Communist leaders were murderers. Nobody would deny the issues but a better explanation of their reasons goes begging for the duration of the book. I am most decidedly a Kennedy fan but he oversimplifies the margins between western and communist leaders to the point that it is no longer representative of reality. A decided point of view can be a strong point of a book but when there is no clear, clinical analysis (devoid of political agendas), the real issues go missing from a book where they should be paramount and people simply end up misinformed. How he could write a book like this and barely mention the UK and especially the role of MI6, is truly a wonder of the world.

This is junk. How it got such rave reviews I haven't the faintest idea. His oversimplified, polarised points of view do nothing to give the reader any insight into what really happened. Both Christopher Hilton and Frederick Taylor wrote better Cold War history in their books on the Berlin Wall. So did David Stafford in his book "Spies Beneath Berlin". All these authors point out the shortcomings of the Eastern Bloc system, Stalinism and the murderous repression of democratic principles. If this book is where history is going then I lament the passing of truth and objectivity. This is rubbish. Avoid it like the plague.

Fantastic As An Introduction..., 02 Feb 2008
I, like many others, had my interest in the cold war peaked by glamorous tales of espionage and horrific tales of near nuclear holocaust. The only problem was, I found myself lacking any real knowledge of events leading to the birth of the cold war or any real facts about the war itself other than 'Kennedy didn't really get on with those Russians and Cubans'.
This book gave me the opportunity to change that. Don't get me wrong; I do not, after reading this book, consider myself to now be an expert on the cold war, and if you consider yourself to be an expert, don't even give this book a second look, (I was going to say 'don't give this book a chance' but then felt that this was an unfair comment).
It's an information packed book and a history told with a clear, fluid dialect.
My one problem with this book is the discussion of the Korean War where the author indulges himself in a 'What If' scenario without informing the reader until a few paragraphs later that this was a fictional possibility. However, this is probably brought on by the fact that I had sent a text message to my dad stating boldly, 'This book is so wrong... I know for a fact no atomic or hydrogen weapon has ever been used in aggression other than on Japanese soil', realizing in the next paragraph that I'm a hot headed fool.
Moral of the review...
John Lewis Gaddis has written a very good introduction to a subject that should be taught in schools so that we, as a species, can learn from our mistakes but also that I... am a 'jump to conclusions' idiot.


Very One Sided, 21 Jan 2008
As a read, the book is good (why it gets 2 stars.) As an objective book of the Cold War it is not. For a proffessional critique of this book see David Painter's review 'A Partial History of the Cold War.' in Cold War History, 6:4, 527 - 534.
It ignores a lot of recent work on the Cold War and presents as 'fact' things that are not universally agreed on. If your view of the Cold War is based solely on this book then you will struggle to objectively analyse the Cold War. It is a shame for an academic as renowned as Gaddis to completely ignore other sides of the argument, he may not agree with them but it is right to acknowledge their existence. If you are looking for something more objective try Zubok & Pleshakov's 'Inside the Kremlin's Cold War' or anything by Len Scott.

A Cold War Student

Very readable introduction to the topic, 12 Jan 2008
Being relatively ignorant of the cold war and its causes, I picked up this book on a whim. I've found it very readable, gripping really, in the manner of a bestseller. The protagonists of the drama of the century past are laid out well, and if you can see past the tendency for the book to portay democratic/egalitarian values as having started from a moral high ground, very educational. Surprisingly, a light and filling read

Going back to my youth, 21 Sep 2007
as I get to middle age (42..) I'm looking back at all sorts and re-reading "o" level novels etc to see what more I get out of them. As an A level history student I studied and lived through the cold war and this was a superb way to re-open the door and reactivate my interest in the subject. If amazon allow a sales plug, I'd suggest a read of this followed by a trip to the national cold war museum at Cosford, informative and scary.

Few political reputations have collapsed quite as quickly as that of Lenin, the ideological guru of Russian Communism, the hero of the revolution of October 1917, and the first leader of the Soviet Union. Just as the Berlin Wall was pulled to the ground, so were thousands of statues of Lenin toppled across Eastern Europe and the new Russia in the early 1990s. But now that the dust has settled, and the Cold War is over, historians can be more objective about the life and achievements of Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov (Lenin was his adopted revolutionary name). Robert Service's book is the first major biography of Lenin for several decades and it benefits from the thaw that has opened up previously inaccessible material, particularly on Lenin's family and his medical history. Born into a wealthy family of landowners, lawyers and government officials, Lenin's revolutionary path was marked out when his elder brother was executed for his part in an assassination plot on the Tsar. From that point on, aided by his sisters, his wife and a loyal but argumentative band of Bolshevik followers, Lenin committed himself to the overthrow of the Tsarist regime, enduring exile, prison and ostracism in the process. This compelling and action-packed book brings Lenin and Leninism to life in a way that no previous account has managed to do. --Miles Taylor

Classic doesn't really do it justice, 05 Sep 2008
Much has obviously been said of this work! Humanist-Marxists say it is too mechanistic whilst analytic Marxists try to ignore the Dickensian passages which describe working conditions. In truth this book, in true Marxian style is the 'dialectical' synthesis of basically all that went before. Marx forswears many of the grinding debates with other intellectuals and revolutionaries of the time in favour of a 'capitalism for dummies style'. Your hand is held as you progress from simple 'laws', each of which is taken to the limit of its logic before the next idea is broached.

In fact what is striking is how pertinent this book is even today. Granted things have moved on, and it is no longer 'grim up north' but even a quick consideration makes one realise how our service-industry-fueled economy still holds to most of the same processes as Marx noted all those years ago. Beaudrillard claimed Marx was superseded because consumption has now trumped production, but a read of Capital and a bit of thought soon puts that idea to rest.

It is worth ignoring the suggestions that The German Ideology is a good introduction to Marx, or that Capital is some advanced monolith. It is large, but completely readable; just as readable as Manifesto, only longer. Despite spawning abstruse French theorists, Russian and Chinese revolutions and analysis second only in quantity to the Bible there is nothing to be intimidated about.

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