OK, tried something new to open up this blog post. The point being, Hayek was on the syllabus for the spring semester of Social Studies 10, and for no good reason, I never gave his work much of a chance. Yeah, it was probably mostly laziness, but it was hard to summon the will power to read someone lesser known than Marx or Weber as Boston was just emerging from my first New England winter.
The better part of a decade later, Hayek all of a sudden is no longer obscure to all but the most diligent students of social theory, but a talking point for the populist right. Mildly ashamed that I lack the first-hand opinion that I should have and afforded a much more leisurely timetable to read, I accepted my dad's loan of Road to Serfdom and gave it another shot with ol' Fred.
Before reading the book, I'd accept that central planning is riddled with practical problems. The debate still comes down to what a society values -- freedom, individualism and entrepreneurship vs. equality, security and order. Hayek casts doubt on whether socialism/planning can actually deliver on its promises. The only means that can be used to approach their "utopia" betray the ideals -- propaganda, demagoguery and class warfare, favoritism, the end of the rule of law. Basically, practical problems crossed with absolute power corrupting leads to totalitarianism. His image of a socialist dystopia is plausible and compelling, a world I would not like to live in.
As with most liberal -- really, libertarian -- perspectives, Hayek doesn't advocate pure lassiez-faire. There's room for dealing with externalities, breaking monopolies, a social safety net, etc. I've increasingly found myself receptive to libertarian arguments, but the focus of the book was really a takedown of socialism rather than Hayek's preferred alternatives. A few chapters combat the notion that society progresses inexorably toward socialism; I agree that there's no predetermined course in any direction. I can envision (and would hope to see) an evolving balance between a libertarian and socialist state in the modern U.S.
Another resonant point was that presumptive central authority figures are only deluded that they have the capacity to plan a state or even an economy. I've thought since Harvard that one of the appeals of economics was the chance to be an "economic dictator" as Hayek would term it, playing with policy without building legislative consensus or navigating oppressive oversight. And who wants to entrust that much power to that kind of person?
On the less positive side of the ledger, at times, I could see the book's appeal to the less-intellectual (yes you, Glenn Beck) side of the Right. Hayek seemed to belabor some points that were really just a slap in the face to the Left, associating Nazism with their side of the political spectrum. Does the Cold War bear Hayek out? I guess it's not proof that socialism couldn't turn out differently, but has it ever? In any case, keeping with the minor cattiness, I also found it entertaining when he called out some by name -- H.G. Wells (!), some dude Carr.
Lastly, even though I spent very little time on Hayek in SS10, other Social Studies lessons did stick. I wouldn't entirely call Hayek an armchair philosopher -- he does inform his points with more than cursory references to history and references to literature and journalism. But in a number of spots, I thought the questions he raised could be settled by contemporary economics or psychology. I wonder if his modern proponents, or critics, have tried to take on his points from a less theoretical standpoint.
I wouldn't call it a *fun* read, and I'm definitely looking forward to moving on to some graphic novels. Yeah. But I'm more than a little proud to have finally made good, and do feel more educated for it. I doubt this blog post would get much credit as a SS10 paper, but it's the best they're gonna get.
No comments:
Post a Comment