Hayek, The Road to Serfdom - 24th session

Tuesday, December 22, 2020, 24th

The Road to Serfdom Reading Discussion, 24th Online Meeting: Mori, Kangyoung, Dandi

Chapter 10. Why Do the Worst Get on Top?

Why do the current government and ruling-party politicians engage in conduct even more base than that of ordinary people?

How did such low-caliber people come to dominate our society?

Why are they obsessed with national pride and exclusionary toward other countries and peoples?

Why has comedy and humor disappeared in our society amid the emphasis on political correctness?

Why have those who once followed the spirit of Roh Moo-hyun regressed into left-wing zombie “Daekkaemun”?

Why has a figure like Lee Jae-myung, with many flaws and little regard for democratic procedure, not been marginalized but instead emerged as a major politician?

This is the chapter that explains why, through the case of Germany in the past, for those of us bewildered by this sudden regression. It is the real highlight of The Road to Serfdom.

As we read a text that depicts the current state of our society with such startling clarity, everyone was too shocked to continue speaking.

The Moral Effects of Collectivism

- Many people think the hateful features of totalitarianism are merely the accidental result of gangsters seizing power. In other words, they see our current 586 activist government as a monster born by chance.

- This perspective easily leads to the temptation to establish proper statism through a benevolent dictatorship in order to prevent such danger.

- The worst aspects of a totalitarian system are not accidental byproducts but the inevitable result of totalitarianism as it pursues its plans.

- A politician who seeks to plan economic activity will sooner or later face a choice between exercising dictatorial power and abandoning economic planning.

At this point, Kangyoung spoke about a scene from the drama Vikings, which she is currently absorbed in, in which a leader facing failure in conquest cannot retreat and is forced to choose to fight to the end.

- In a situation where one must either ignore ordinary moral values or let the plan fail, immoral people who openly do bad things are therefore more likely to succeed in a society moving toward totalitarianism.

- The point is that we must focus not on the moral foundations of collectivism but on its moral consequences. Those determined to push through their plans at all costs cannot help becoming hateful totalitarians.

p.204 The Temptation of the Benevolent Dictator

We must not deceive ourselves into believing that all good people are necessarily democrats or that they will necessarily wish to participate in government. There is no doubt that many people would rather entrust government to someone they believe to be more capable. Even if approving the dictatorship of a good person is not wise, it is by no means something evil or dishonorable. We have often heard the claim that totalitarianism, whether good or bad, is a very powerful system, and that the purpose for which it is used depends entirely on the dictator. Those who think we should fear not the system itself but the danger that it may be run by bad people are even tempted to prevent that danger by allowing totalitarianism to be established by good people.

p.204–5 Why All Totalitarianism Turns Toward Evil

There are strong reasons to believe that the worst aspects of existing totalitarian systems are not accidental byproducts but phenomena that totalitarianism will inevitably produce sooner or later. A democratic politician who seeks to plan economic activity will before long face a choice: exercise dictatorial power or abandon economic planning.

Likewise, a totalitarian dictator will soon face a situation in which he must either disregard ordinary moral values or let the plan fail. This is precisely why immoral people who openly commit bad acts are likely to succeed in a society moving toward totalitarianism. Anyone who does not see this has still failed to grasp the depth of the abyss separating totalitarianism from liberalism—the immense difference that makes the entire moral atmosphere under collectivism essentially different from the overall moral atmosphere of individualist Western civilization.

The Smaller the Common Denominator Required, the Larger the “Homogeneous” Group

- The slow and cumbersome process of democratic procedure delays the progress of social planning. Dissatisfaction with the inefficiency of parliamentary majority rule leads to a preference for a person strong and resolute enough to “get things done.”

- The source of strong power comes to be found not in broad popular support, but in the absolute and unconditional support of a smaller yet more thoroughly organized group.

- The old socialist parties in Germany and Italy refused to become ruthless for the sake of their goals and therefore failed to push planning through forcefully. After socialist parties refused to take on that responsibility, fascism seized power.

In the middle and latter part of its term, the Roh Moo-hyun government gave up the ruthless pursuit of left-wing policies for the future of the country. It made what was desirable for the fate of the community, but the same political camp turned its back on it as a failed government, and in the end it entered the stage of total collapse. The current government and its supporters appear determined not to repeat that failure. One cannot help wondering whether they have chosen the path of ruthless fascism.

- At the time, German socialists had already learned that in a planned society, the key issue is not what the majority of the people agree on, but what is the largest single group within which enough agreement exists among its members to make unified direction on all issues possible. The Korean left also seems to have realized this through Roh Moo-hyun’s election victory.

- There are three reasons why such a homogeneous opinion group is likely to be formed by the worst people.

-- 1. The higher people’s intellectual abilities, the more differentiated their views and preferences become. It is only by descending to a lower moral and intellectual level dominated by primitive instincts and tastes that common similarities increase. What unites the largest number of people is the lowest common denominator.

-- 2. Obedient, gullible, and easily swayed people are readily mobilized through agitation.

-- 3. There is more agreement around negative programs of hatred, envy, and anger than around positive tasks. Negative programs allow more discretion than positive ones.

Their slogans of hatred and negation—such as “cleansing pro-Japanese elements” and “bringing down the vested-interest forces”—are in fact merely programs for internal cohesion.

p.207 The Formula for Success in a Planned Society

Socialism can be realized only by methods that most socialists cannot approve. This fact, of course, is a lesson many social reformers of the past learned while trying to put their ideals into practice. The old socialist parties needed to be ruthless in order to carry out the task they had chosen, but their ideals of democracy made them reluctant to do so. In both Germany and Italy, socialist parties refused to assume the responsibilities of government before fascism succeeded. Socialist parties were unwilling sincerely to adopt the methods they themselves had suggested. They still hoped for the miracle that a majority would agree on a particular plan for organizing society as a whole.

But others had already learned the important lesson. In a planned society, the crucial issue is not what the majority of the people agree upon, but what is the largest single group within which sufficient agreement exists among its members to make unified direction possible on all matters—or, if no such group exists that is large enough to impose its views, how such a group can be created and who will succeed in doing so.

The Egocentric Tendency Peculiar to Socialism

- Collectivist policies have a universal tendency to become nationalistic. That was true of socialist states and fascist states alike.

- Collectivism can be practiced only in small groups. In theory socialism is international, but in actual application it becomes radical nationalism.

- The concepts of humanity and internationalism are entirely products of an individualistic view of human beings. Collectivism, which values “us” over outsiders, cannot possess a universal humanitarianism or true internationalism.

- The factors that reinforce the tendency of collectivism to become particularized and exclusionary are as follows.

-- 1. The individual’s desire to identify with the group is often an expression of inferiority. In other words, that desire is satisfied only when membership in the group confers superiority over non-members.

-- 2. The fact that violent instincts that must be restrained within the group are freed in collective action against outsiders becomes a secondary inducement for individuals to suppress their individuality and dissolve themselves into the group.

E.H. Carr said that “among modern people there is a growing tendency to imagine themselves ethical because they have shifted their vices onto ever larger groups.”

-- 3. The more contact there is with the outside world, the harder it becomes to execute the plan effectively.

The historical finding that “most planners were militaristic nationalists” was by no means accidental.

p.211

Collectivism has no room for the broad humanitarianism of liberalism; it contains only the narrow exclusiveness of totalitarianism.

If the “community” or the state takes precedence over the individual, if these have higher purposes separate from the purposes of individuals, then only individuals working toward the same ends will be regarded as members of that community.

p.212

The very concept of genuine humanity and the concept of internationalism in any form are entirely the product of an individualist view of man, and such concepts have no place within a collectivist system of thought.

At the end of this chapter comes the shocking statement of the Fabian socialists, the Webbs.

*Fabian Society

Fabianism is another form of socialism that seeks gradual social reform while maintaining the view that the means of production should be publicly owned. Fabian socialism resembles state interventionism in believing that the state plays a highly positive role in pursuing and achieving social good. But in ultimately regarding capitalism as something to be overcome, it goes half a step beyond state interventionism toward socialism.

Through this strategy, the Fabian Society induced the British state to take an active role in welfare, caused Britain’s liberal tradition to wither, and established the Labour Party in its place.

As Fabian thought flowed into the British Liberal Party (the Whigs), the party’s line shifted toward active state intervention in welfare policy. Thereafter, in Britain and the United States, liberalism came to be understood as an ideology for legally advancing socialist policies. The Liberal Party’s policy shift helped Labour enter politics, and after that the socialization of the British state accelerated sharply. In the 1906 election through the Liberal-Labour alliance, 29 Labour members entered Parliament. Labour later withdrew from the coalition government and then won a sweeping election victory, while the Liberal Party, having lost the essence of liberalism, collapsed and disappeared from history.

https://band.us/band/76473539/post/188

https://band.us/band/76473539/post/189

https://band.us/band/76473539/post/187

The Webb couple, Fabian socialists, played a major role in this process.

In 1905, through the Minority Report in the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws’ poverty investigation, they became central figures in leading society to think that the old Poor Laws should be abolished and that welfare based on more active state intervention should begin.

That Minority Report later led to the Beveridge Report and the rise of a Labour government, and in turn to the full-scale implementation of Britain’s welfare system and socialist policies summed up as “from the cradle to the grave.”

For reference, the Fabian Society included not only the Webbs but also George Bernard Shaw and the economist John Maynard Keynes. Bertrand Russell later joined as well. The Fabian Society, which had gathered under the banner of eradicating poverty, opposed free trade, preferred protectionism, and came to advocate land nationalization. It later became deeply involved in the founding of the British Labour Party in 1900, and the society’s platform became the foundation of Labour’s platform.

http://www.kmtimes.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=15694

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%ED%8E%98%EC%9D%B4%EB%B9%84%EC%96%B8_%ED%98%91%ED%9A%8C

https://band.us/band/76473539/post/202

It is striking that the ideological foundation of the socialists who argued, through the Minority Report, that the socially vulnerable should be actively protected was in fact an imperialistic worldview.

The Worship of Power

- For the thoroughgoing collectivist, power itself is one of the goals. The desire to organize society according to a plan itself also arises from the desire for power.

- This lust for power arises from the recognition that success in achieving one’s aims depends on creating power so immense that it can be wielded over others.

- Only a competitive system, through decentralization, minimizes the power one person can exercise over another.

- The claim that economic power should be replaced by political power—a claim made in our society today by both ruling and opposition camps alike—amounts only to replacing limited and therefore finite economic power with absolute political power from which there is no escape.

- Economic power is neither exclusive nor total power. It cannot be power over a person’s entire life. Once concentrated as political power, it creates nothing but a condition of servile dependence.

p.215 Why the Collectivist Seeks Power

For the thoroughgoing collectivist, power itself was one of the goals. As Russell explained so well, the desire to organize social life according to a single plan itself often arises from the desire for power. But power became a goal in itself not so much because of a lust for power as because collectivists came to realize the following fact: in order to achieve their ends, they had to create a power that could be wielded over others with a force never before seen, and their success depended on how much of such power they could attain.

*Bertrand Russell

- It is said that the title of this book, The Road to Serfdom, was inspired by the phrase “road to servitude” in the work of the 19th-century French liberal philosopher Tocqueville. The phrase “road to serfdom” also appears in Bastiat’s writings.

For reference, when the book was published in the United States, the American publisher wanted to change the title to “Socialism: The Road to Serfdom.” But Hayek insisted to the end that central planning was a problem of both left and right, and the book was therefore published under the original British title, The Road to Serfdom.

But why is the “serf” in the title not servant or servitude, but serfdom?

Because of the rhyming counterpart, freedom. In other words, The Road to Serfdom was a rebuttal to the book Road to Freedom.

- Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism, and Syndicalism (1918)

by Bertrand Russell

“Bertrand Russell was one of the greatest intellects of the 20th century, a mathematician and philosopher of logic. As an Englishman, he won the Nobel Prize in Literature and was a New Left intellectual who professed liberalism. In Roads to Freedom, Russell examines the historical significance and substance of socialism, anarchism, and syndicalism, while offering insight into the values toward which the human community should strive in the future.

In the final part of Roads to Freedom, Russell argues for the inevitability of introducing partial elements of socialism as a corrective for modern society, and even presents anarchism as one possible direction for the future.”

Toward Bertrand Russell, a Fabian socialist who argued for the inevitability of introducing partial socialism, Hayek was warning that this would ultimately become a road to totalitarianism, and revealing that the “freedom” Russell professed was in fact false.

A Social Purpose That Justifies All Means

- Collectivism has two central characteristics:

; a system of common purposes for the group, and the granting of maximum power for the achievement of those purposes. From this is derived a distinctive moral system.

- Unlike individualist ethics, the principle that the end justifies the means is accepted. If something serves the good of the whole, then there remains no taboo against doing it.

- “The good of the whole” becomes the single standard.

- If it is necessary for the ends established by the community or by the superiors who command in its name, then there is nothing conscience can forbid. That is how zealots are born.

Habits Encouraged in the Citizens of a Totalitarian State

- The attitudes and etiquette that flourish in an individualist or commercial society—tolerance and respect for others, independence of spirit, the upright character that holds to conviction against one’s superiors, consideration for the weak, contempt for power, kindness, humor, respect for privacy, and trust in the good intentions of neighbors—make social contact smoother, reduce the need for top-down control, and create dispositions that make such control difficult. These disappear when a collectivist or militaristic type of society becomes dominant. The moment comedy programs in our society became solemn and humor disappeared from human relationships was already a sign that a collectivist society had arrived.

- Once it is accepted that the individual is merely a means serving the purposes of an entity higher than the individual, the characteristic features of a totalitarian system inevitably follow. Merciless repression of opponents and complete disregard for personal life and happiness become mainstream features of society. That is what our society looks like today.

- Conduct that feels repulsive in an individualist society becomes, for the mass citizens of a totalitarian state, selfless devotion to an ideal.

“Because the determination of ends is made by the supreme leader alone, individuals who are merely his instruments must have no moral convictions of their own. Unconditional devotion to the leader as an individual becomes the highest priority.”

- An individual must have no principles, no ideals, and no concept of good and evil in order to do anything required. The only satisfactions left are the pursuit of power, the pleasure of subjugating others, and the pleasure of being part of a smoothly functioning whole.

- Accordingly, a willingness to do bad things for the sake of the goal becomes the shortest route to promotion and power. The names of many ministers, many incumbent members of the National Assembly, and many politicians come to mind.

As this chapter’s discussion came to an end, Kangyoung spoke about Nassim Taleb’s Antifragile, which she has been reading recently.

She said that when innovation first appears, people often do not fully grasp its significance.

That is because the essence of innovation is not really adding something, but removing something.

The innovation of the wheel was significant not because the wheel was added, but because it eliminated the grueling labor of carrying heavy loads by hand.

Perhaps the innovation we need to discover in order to change the course of the world is created not by searching for what to add, but by searching for what to remove. It is hard to express the exact link in words, but for those of us seeking solutions to our problems, it felt like a valuable hint.

---

Original title: 하이에크 <노예의 길>-24차

Author: Jayujuui Ipmun Dokseo Toron Moim

Date: 2020-12-22

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=reading01&pn=6&idx=23385