The Road to Serfdom, Chapters 9 and 10

Meeting name: Jagongbi (Let’s Study Liberalism and Soar)

Book title: The Road to Serfdom

Date and time: Wednesday, November 27, 2024, 6:30 p.m.

Location: Jongno café

Participants: mori, J, Born to Run

Written by: mori

Chapter 9. Security and Freedom

-The fate of a society that seeks security beyond permissible limits

The whole of society will become one office, one factory, where equality of labor and equality of pay are achieved.

-Lenin (1917)-

In a country where the state is the only employer, to dissent means to starve to death slowly.

The old principle, “He who does not work shall not eat,” will be replaced by a new one:

“He who does not obey shall not eat.”

-Trotsky (1937)-

Two kinds of security p239

-False “economic freedom” = “economic security”

-“If security is understood in too absolute a sense, the general striving for security, far from increasing the opportunities for freedom, becomes the gravest threat to freedom.”

- Limited security vs. absolute security

= guaranteed minimum income vs. guaranteed particular income that someone is thought entitled to receive

= security outside the market system vs. security through market control

-The state’s providing security and preserving individual freedom can coexist.

-Measures against the periodic occurrence of mass unemployment accompanying general fluctuations in the economy: it is necessary to seek final remedies compatible with liberalism that do not replace the market. We must carefully watch whether dependence on government increases; this is reflected in the achievements of later liberal economists such as Milton Friedman.

-State assistance that does not weaken individual effort is not a problem

In the case of sickness and accidents, where the desire to avoid such misfortunes or the effort to overcome their consequences is not generally weakened by state assistance for such preparation—in other words, where we are dealing with risks against which insurance can be taken out—it is fully meaningful for the state to help organize a comprehensive system of social insurance. (p241)

(p187 As in the case of sickness and accidents, where the desire to avoid such misfortunes or the effort to overcome their consequences is not generally weakened by state assistance for such preparation—in short, where we are truly dealing with “risks of an insurable kind”—there is a very strong case for the state’s supporting the organization of a comprehensive system of social insurance.)

-Large-scale public works are also risky

Some other economists believe that real success can be expected only through well-timed large-scale public works. But this can constrict the sphere of private competition far more seriously than the increase in public works. And as we experiment with economic policy in this direction, we must watch our steps carefully lest we gradually make all economic activity dependent on the direction and magnitude of government expenditure.

(p188 Some other economists believe that real success can be expected only through well-timed large-scale public works. This would impose much more serious restrictions on the competitive sphere.

And as we experiment in this direction, we must watch our steps carefully lest we gradually make all economic activity dependent on the direction and magnitude of government expenditure.)

The variability of income inherent in a free economy p243

-Security or the realization of justice of a kind unrelated to the results of one’s efforts cannot coexist with freedom of choice regarding one’s employment.

-Sympathy and support for occupational groups whose incomes decline due to social change proceed not only to protecting them from hardship but even to maintaining their former incomes and shielding them from changes in the market.

-If freedom of occupational choice is to be allowed, a certain income cannot be guaranteed to everyone.

-If security is provided to some, it is a privilege granted at the cost of reducing the security of other groups.

-If an unchanging income is to be guaranteed to everyone, freedom of occupational choice for all must be abolished.

-As security is parcelled out among this group and that group, the instability of those excluded from its benefits increases.

-As the value of security privileges continues to rise, and the demand for those privileges rises as well, people come to regard lightly the price paid to obtain them—even if that price is freedom.

-Security of status possible only in a society organized on military lines p246

-The assumption of rightful losses and gains -> the state’s view determines each individual’s reward. This can only be arbitrary.

-If people doing the same work receive different rewards according to the authorities’ view, the incentive to attempt socially desirable change disappears.

-If change can no longer be induced by monetary rewards and losses, it comes to depend on direct orders.

-The results of change are expressed as changes in the value of occupations, that is, in differences in remuneration among occupations.

-“Without a free reservoir of labor, discipline cannot be maintained without corporal punishment, as in slave labor.”

-“Where the ultimate sanction of the competitive economy is the bailiff, the ultimate sanction of the planned economy is the hangman.”

-In a planned system, mistakes in one’s work are regarded not as one’s own problem but as crimes against the community.

-This leads to restrictions on freedom and to a military hierarchy.

The reason proposals of this kind could not be accepted in the past is that those who wished to surrender their freedom in order to obtain economic security always demanded that the freedom of those unwilling to do so likewise be taken away. It is, of course, hard to find any justification for such a claim. (p250)

p194 The reason proposals of this kind were not much accepted in the past is that those who wished to surrender their freedom in order to obtain economic security always demanded that the freedom of those unwilling to do so likewise be taken away. It is, of course, difficult to find any justification for such a claim.

Security for certain groups means insecurity for other groups p251

-A policy of distributing the privilege of economic security to this group and that group makes the desire for economic security stronger than the love of freedom.

-This is because granting security increases the insecurity of the remaining groups.

-The variety of opportunities, an essential element of the “security” provided by the competitive system, gradually declines.

-If people are prevented from competing at low prices in a particular field, others who are worse off than they are are deprived of the chance to benefit from that industry’s prosperity.

-If entry into a particular line of work is restricted, the security of everyone outside that line decreases.

-In the end, this tendency leads to mass unemployment. Efforts to guarantee security greatly increase the insecurity of most of the population.

-The contrast grows sharper between the stability of those who have acquired security through privilege and the rising insecurity of those excluded from such privilege.

-As a result, security becomes even more valuable.

What lends prestige to social status and rank is no longer strong independence but security. A young man’s suitability for marriage will depend not on confidence in his ability to succeed by his own efforts but on a secure claim to a pension. Meanwhile, to be denied admission in youth to the refuge of a salaried position will mean remaining for life in the appalling condition of the lowest outcast. (p254)

Yet the policies now being pursued everywhere—policies that distribute the privilege of security now to this group, yesterday to that one—are rapidly creating conditions in which the desire for economic security becomes stronger than the love of freedom. The reason this happens is that every time complete security is granted to one group after another, the insecurity of the remaining groups necessarily increases. (p251)

(P195 Yet the policy now followed everywhere, namely the policy of distributing the privilege of security now to this group, now to that, is rapidly creating conditions in which the desire for economic security becomes stronger than the love of freedom.

The reason this occurs is that every time complete security is granted to one group after another, the insecurity of the remaining groups necessarily increases.)

The meaning of the growing demand for security p254

-Our young people grow up hearing from childhood that a position with a guaranteed salary is superior to the risks of enterprise, and more selfless and less attached to self-interest. (p255)

The younger generation of today has grown up in a world where schools and the press treat commercial enterprise as dishonorable, making profits as immoral, and employing a hundred people as exploitation, while regarding commanding the same number of people as honorable. (P255)

-As a result of anti-capitalist agitation, values had already changed well in advance of changes in institutions; the ideal of security triumphed over and displaced the ideal of independence.

-Where nothing can be obtained except a position of dependence, and where anything else is too insecure a position, one that is despised whether it succeeds or fails, very few people will be able to resist the temptation to surrender freedom in exchange for security. (p257)

-In a society that has reached this point, freedom becomes something obtainable only at the sacrifice of all good things.

-In this condition, freedom without economic security comes to be felt as “not worth having,” and people willingly sacrifice freedom to obtain security.

There can be little doubt that one of the chief aims of policy ought to be properly securing people against severe privation and reducing the causes of misdirected effort and consequent disappointment. But if these efforts are to succeed without destroying individual freedom, security must be provided outside the market, and competition must be allowed to function unobstructed. (p257-8)

Since most people will be willing to bear the risks necessarily inherent in freedom only so long as those risks are not too great, some degree of security is necessary if freedom is to be preserved. (p258)

-Freedom has a price. To preserve individual freedom, one must be prepared to bear material sacrifices as well.

“A man who will give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.” (p258)

-Do the state’s social security policies infringe on individual freedom? How far should the scope of social security extend?

-Why do absolute security policies hinder changes in the market?

-Why does political conflict among social groups intensify as the state’s social security policies expand?

-Why does stronger social security policy lead to higher youth unemployment?

-Why do more people excessively aspire to jobs at large corporations and in the civil service as the state’s security policies increase? And why does the non-marriage rate rise?

-Why do totalitarian states become militarized?

-Why has cruel execution become routine in North Korea?

-Why should we not pursue a full-employment society?

-How is the treatment of entrepreneurship as dishonorable related to the sacrifice of freedom?

-Must all security policies be avoided in order to preserve freedom?

-Why does the younger generation’s sense of defeat over the gap between the haves and the have-nots grow more stark by the day? Is it merely poverty amid affluence?

Chapter 10. Why the Worst Get on Top

All power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

-Lord Acton-

-In contrast to the French tradition of not caring much about a leader’s personal corruption and the Anglo-American tradition of emphasizing a leader’s personal moral flaws when choosing leaders, which is the better standard? What gives rise to those different political cultures?

-What has caused the change in American political culture whereby Trump, though at odds with America’s political traditions, has enjoyed explosive popularity among the public and been chosen as a leader?

The moral effects of collectivism p261

-The idea that the hateful features of totalitarianism came about accidentally because gangsters seized power; this leads to the temptation to establish totalitarianism through a benevolent dictatorship in order to prevent that danger.

-The worst aspects of the totalitarian system are not accidental by-products but inevitable results.

-A politician who seeks to plan economic activity soon faces a choice between exercising dictatorial power and abandoning economic planning.

-This is why immoral people who openly do bad things are more likely to succeed in a society moving toward totalitarianism, when the choice is between disregarding ordinary moral values and letting the plan fail.

-The issue is not the moral foundation of collectivism but its moral consequences.

-The temptation of the benevolent dictator

We must not deceive ourselves into believing that all good people will surely be democrats, or that they will necessarily participate in government. Many will no doubt prefer to entrust government to those they consider more capable rather than to good people. Even if approving the dictatorship of a good person is unwise, it is not at all thought to be something bad or dishonorable. We have often already heard the claim that totalitarianism, whether good or bad, is in any case a very powerful system, and that the ends to which it is used depend entirely on the dictator. Those who think they should fear not the system but the danger that it may be run by bad people are even tempted to prevent that risk by having totalitarianism established by good people. (p262)

(p204 We must not deceive ourselves into believing that all good people will surely be democrats, or that they will necessarily seek to participate in government. There is no doubt that many will prefer to entrust government to those they consider more capable. Even if approving the dictatorship of a good person is unwise, it is not at all something bad or dishonorable. We have often already heard the claim that totalitarianism, whether good or bad, is in any case a very powerful system, and that the ends to which it is used depend entirely on the dictator. Those who think they should fear not the system but the danger that it may be run by bad people are even tempted to prevent that risk by having totalitarianism established by good people.)

-Why all totalitarianism tends toward evil

There is strong reason to believe that the worst aspects of existing totalitarian regimes are not accidental by-products but phenomena that totalitarianism is bound sooner or later to produce. A democratic politician who seeks to plan economic activity soon faces the choice of either exercising dictatorial power or abandoning economic planning. Likewise, a totalitarian dictator will soon face the choice of either disregarding ordinary moral values or allowing the plan to fail. This is precisely why immoral people who openly do bad things are likely to succeed in a society moving toward totalitarianism. Anyone who fails to see this has not yet properly grasped the depth of the abyss separating totalitarianism from liberalism—that is, the enormous difference that makes the moral atmosphere under collectivism fundamentally unlike the general moral atmosphere under individualist Western civilization.

(p204-5 There is strong reason to believe that the worst aspects of existing totalitarian regimes are not accidental by-products but phenomena that totalitarianism is bound sooner or later to produce. A democratic politician who seeks to plan economic activity soon faces the choice of either exercising dictatorial power or abandoning economic planning.

Likewise, a totalitarian dictator will soon face the choice of either disregarding ordinary moral values or allowing the plan to fail. This is precisely why immoral people who openly do bad things are likely to succeed in a society moving toward totalitarianism. Anyone who fails to see this has not yet properly grasped the depth of the abyss separating totalitarianism from liberalism—that is, the enormous difference that makes the moral atmosphere under collectivism fundamentally unlike the general moral atmosphere under individualist Western civilization.)

The less demanded in the common denominator, the larger the “homogeneous” group p264

-Dissatisfaction with the slow and cumbersome process of democratic procedures and the inefficiency of parliamentary majority rule leads to favor for a figure strong and decisive enough to “get things done.”

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

-The old socialist parties of Germany and Italy refused to become ruthless for the sake of their goals (and thus failed). After socialist parties refused to assume the responsibilities of government, fascism seized power.

-Socialists had already learned the lesson that in a planned society the issue is not what a majority of the people agree on, but what is the largest single group among whose members there is enough agreement to make unified direction on all issues possible.

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

--1. The higher the intellectual ability, the more differentiated people’s views and tastes become. Greater common similarity is found only by descending to a lower moral and intellectual level ruled by primitive instincts and tastes. What unites the greatest number of people is the lowest common denominator.

--2. Obedient, gullible, and easily swayed people are readily united by agitation.

--3. There is more agreement on negative platforms of hatred, envy, and anger than on positive tasks. A negative program gives more freedom of action than a positive one.

-The formula for success in a planned society

Socialism can be put into practice only by methods that most socialists cannot condone. This, of course, is a lesson many social reformers of the past learned while trying to realize their ideals. The old socialist parties needed to be ruthless in order to carry out the task they had chosen, but their democratic ideals made them hesitant to do so. In both Germany and Italy, socialist parties had refused to take responsibility for 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 in the meantime, others had learned the important lesson. In a planned society, it is no longer a question of what the majority of the people agree on, but of what is the largest single group that agrees on an opinion and can thereby ensure that things proceed consistently—or, if no group large enough to impose that opinion exists, how and by whom such a powerful group can be created. (p266)

(p207 Socialism can be put into practice only by methods that most socialists cannot condone. This, of course, is a lesson many social reformers of the past learned while trying to realize their ideals. The old socialist parties needed to be ruthless in order to carry out the task they had chosen, but their democratic ideals made them hesitant to do so. In both Germany and Italy, socialist parties had refused to take responsibility for 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 question is no longer what a majority of the people agree on, but what is the largest single group among whose members there is sufficient agreement to permit unified direction on all issues—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.)

A negative program has the great advantage, in most cases, of giving them more discretion than any positive program could. (p268)

(P209 A negative program has the great advantage, in most cases, of giving them more discretion than any positive program could.)

The egotistical tendencies peculiar to socialism p269

-Collectivist policies have a universal tendency to become nationalistic.

-Collectivism can be practiced only in a small group. In fact, socialism is international in theory, but when actually applied it becomes militant nationalism.

-The concept of humanity and the idea of internationalism are entirely products of an individualist view of man.

-Factors contributing to the strengthening of collectivism’s tendency to become particularistic and exclusionary

--The individual’s desire to identify himself with the group is often an expression of inferiority. That desire is satisfied only when membership in the group confers superiority over non-members.

--A secondary incentive for individuals to suppress their individuality and submerge themselves in the group is the fact that violent instincts, which must be restrained within the group, are free to operate in group action against outsiders.

-“There is an increasing tendency among modern men to imagine themselves ethical because they have shifted their vices onto ever larger groups.”

--The more contact there is with the outside, the more difficult the effective execution of the plan becomes.

-“Most ‘planners’ are militaristic nationalists.”

Collectivism has no room to embrace the broad humanism of liberalism; it can contain only the narrow exclusiveness of totalitarianism. If the “community” or the state takes precedence over the individual, if these are held to have higher ends separate from and superior to the ends of individuals, then only those individuals working for the same ends will be regarded as members of that community. (p271)

(p211 Collectivism has no room to embrace the broad humanism of liberalism; it contains only the narrow exclusiveness of totalitarianism.

If the “community” or the state takes precedence over the individual, if these are held to have higher ends separate from and superior to the ends of individuals, then only those individuals working for the same ends will be regarded as members of that community.)

The concept of true humanity and the concept of internationalism in any form are entirely products of the individualist view of man. In the collectivist system of thought, there is no place for such concepts. (p272)

(p212 The very concept of true humanity and the concept of internationalism in any form are entirely products of the individualist view of man, and in the collectivist system of thought there is no place for them.)

The worship of power p275

-To the thoroughgoing collectivist, power itself is an end. The very desire to organize society according to a plan arises from the desire for power.

-This lust for power arises from the awareness that success in achieving one’s ends depends on creating power strong enough to be wielded over others.

-The illusion that power itself can be abolished by taking it away from individuals and transferring it to society. Power is not abolished; it is transferred and infinitely strengthened.

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

-The argument for replacing economic power with political power is merely an argument for replacing limited power with absolute power from which there is no escape.

-Economic power is neither exclusive nor complete power. It cannot be power over the whole of an individual’s life. Once concentrated as political power, it creates a condition of slavish dependence.

-Why collectivists pursue power

For collectivists, power itself is the only goal. As Russell explained so well, the desire to organize social life according to a single plan itself usually springs from the desire for power. But power itself became the goal not so much because of a lust for power as because collectivists realized the following fact: in order to achieve their ends, they must create unprecedentedly great power to wield over others, and their success depends on how much such power they are able to attain. (p275-6)

(p215 For thoroughgoing collectivists, power itself was one goal. As Russell explained so well, the desire to organize social life according to a single plan itself usually springs from the desire for power. But power itself became the goal not so much because of lust for power as because collectivists realized the following fact: to achieve their ends, they had to create power unprecedented in its ability to be wielded over others, and their success depended on how much such power they attained.)

Social ends that justify all means p278

-The two central features of collectivism: a system of common ends for the group, and the granting of maximum power to achieve those ends. From this is derived a distinctive moral system.

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

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

-If necessary for the ends set by the community or by the superior who directs it, there is no action conscience can forbid.

Habits encouraged in the citizens of a totalitarian state p280

-The attitudes and manners that flourish in an individualist or commercial type of society—tolerance and respect for others, independence of spirit, upright character that stands by conviction against 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, remove the need for control from above, and create a disposition that makes control difficult. These disappear when the collectivist or military type of society becomes dominant.

-Once it is accepted that the individual is nothing but a means serving the ends of some higher entity than himself, the characteristic features of a totalitarian system necessarily emerge: merciless suppression of opponents and complete disregard for personal life and happiness.

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

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

-Thus, a willingness to do bad things for the sake of the end becomes the shortest road to promotion and power.

-The type of person useful in a totalitarian society

To become a useful tool in the operation of a totalitarian state, it is not enough willingly to accept specious justifications for vile acts. One must be prepared actively to destroy every moral rule one once knew, if such vile acts are necessary to achieve the ends assigned to him. Since the determination of the ends is made by the supreme leader alone, the individuals who are his instruments must have no moral convictions of their own whatsoever. Above all, they must show unconditional devotion to the leader himself. Next in importance, they must be completely without principles and literally capable of anything. They must never have ideals of their own that they hope to realize, nor possess any conception of good and evil that would allow them to judge the leader’s intentions. (p284)

(p222 For a person to become a useful tool in the operation of a totalitarian state, it is not enough that he be willing to accept specious justifications for vile acts; if such vile acts are necessary to achieve the purposes assigned to him, he must be able actively to destroy all the moral rules he formerly knew. Since the supreme leader alone determines the ends, the individuals who are his instruments must never have moral convictions of their own. Above all, they must be unconditionally devoted to the leader himself.

Next in importance, they must be completely without principles and literally capable of anything. They must never have ideals of their own that they hope to realize, nor possess any conception of good and evil that would allow them to judge the leader’s intentions.)

-The people who rise in a totalitarian society

By our standards, good people have little reason to aspire to leading positions in the totalitarian machinery, while there is much to turn them away from it. Ruthless and cruel people, by contrast, will find special opportunities in the totalitarian apparatus. In it, there will be tasks which no one would doubt are evil in themselves, but which must nonetheless be carried out with the same professionalism and efficiency as any other task for the sake of a higher purpose. Since it will also be necessary to perform bad acts that people still influenced by traditional morality would hesitate to commit precisely because they are bad in themselves, a willingness to do bad things becomes the shortest road to promotion and power. In a totalitarian society, there are countless positions requiring the practice of cruelty and intimidation, cunning deceit, and espionage. (p285)

(p223 By our standards, good people have little reason to aspire to leading positions in the totalitarian machinery, and there is much to turn them away from it. Ruthless and cruel people, by contrast, will find special opportunities in the totalitarian apparatus. In it, there will be tasks which no one would doubt are evil in themselves, but which must nonetheless be carried out with the same professionalism and efficiency as any other task for the sake of a higher purpose. Since it will also be necessary to perform bad acts that all people still influenced by traditional morality would hesitate to commit precisely because they are bad in themselves, a willingness to do bad things becomes the shortest road to promotion and power. In a totalitarian society, there are countless positions requiring the practice of cruelty and intimidation, cunning deceit, and espionage.)

-If a good leader takes power in a planned society, will good results follow? How should Park Chung-hee be viewed?

-Why are the upper ranks of socialist states filled only with immoral and bad people?

-What is the source of the government’s power today? Why do decisions emerge that focus more on consolidating its own support base than on winning support from moderates?

-Is it a coincidence that all socialist states that survived have been fascist dictatorships?

-Why is the current government reopening the completed investigation into the truth of the Gwangju Uprising and pushing compensation for the Donghak Movement?

-Why is an individualist an internationalist?

-Why do power struggles become stronger and more overt in a collectivist society?

* The “Liberalism Reading Group” Kakao open chat and Band groups are communication spaces run by members of the reading group. Please note that these are not channels operated by the Center for Free Enterprise (CFE), and take this into account when joining and participating.

▶ Join the Liberalism Reading Group:

https://open.kakao.com/o/g4Nn1uud

---

Original title: <노예의 길> 9장, 10장

Author: Ja-yujuui Ipmun Dokseo Toron Moim

Date: 2024-11-27

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=reading01&pn=1&idx=27211