What does the path to totalitarianism look like in modern society? How can nations protect themselves from sliding into socialist control?
According to Friedrich Hayek, socialism is a danger we need to steer clear of. In his book The Road to Serfdom, he contends that societies can avoid totalitarianism by recognizing and responding to early warning signs.
Continue reading to explore Hayek’s essential guidelines for maintaining freedom and preventing the rise of authoritarian control.
Image credit: Levan Ramishvili on Flickr (License)
Friedrich Hayek on Socialism
According to Friedrich Hayek, socialism doesn’t have to be inevitable. We’ll explore three of Hayek’s tenets for avoiding its potential tyranny.
#1: Examine and Learn From Mistakes
According to Hayek, societies that have adopted socialist policies must recognize that those decisions were mistaken and reverse them. They must confront their errors, learn from them, and abandon harmful ideologies that might linger from them. Hayek argues that it’s better to abandon plans and make fresh starts than to continue down a path to totalitarianism.
(Shortform note: Confronting a complex national past is a good idea in theory, but it can be difficult in practice. For example, after the fall of the Soviet Union, former Soviet states shifted from centrally planned to market-oriented economies. They encouraged entrepreneurship and protected citizens’ economic freedom. However, despite adopting market principles, many former Soviet states still face challenges in democratic governance, which suggests that economic liberalization doesn’t ensure democracy.)
#2: Nurture—Don’t Engineer—Growth
Looking to the future, Hayek believes countries need to encourage rather than dictate growth. He argues that societies should foster conditions for progress, allowing free markets to guide development rather than the state dictating specific outcomes. For example, if a country finds that a highly educated workforce is good for progress, it should support the creation of higher education institutions. It shouldn’t determine how many universities should open or what they should teach, but rather let market demands guide those decisions.
(Shortform note: Hayek’s idea that societal progress emerges from individual actions rather than central planning reflects his belief in spontaneous order. This term reflects the dynamic nature of social systems where order arises naturally from the interactions of individuals pursuing their own goals. It highlights the belief that free markets can self-organize to achieve beneficial outcomes without explicit direction from authorities.)
#3: Protect Freedom at All Costs
Hayek warns that, before introducing any new policies, society should ensure they won’t lead to tyranny. We must reject interventions that increase the government’s influence over individuals’ lives in a way that limits personal choice.
(Shortform note: Although the debate around Hayek’s ideas often comes down to right versus left, or conservative versus socialist, it might be more helpful to think of Hayek as a libertarian. Libertarianism encompasses a variety of theories with a common thread of valuing individual rights over state or group authority. Hayek’s emphasis on the necessity of safeguarding individual freedoms against government encroachment illustrates his belief in the fundamental libertarian principle that prioritizes individual rights over collective control.)
Continuing the example above, if a government wants to expand access to educational programs, it might set quotas for different demographics to ensure all are represented at the university level. Despite the idea’s noble purpose, Hayek might argue that the government’s increased influence over its citizens’ education would limit their freedom. For instance, someone might be unable to pursue the career they want if their demographic is already overrepresented.
Stay Alert to Warning Signs
Hayek argues that to protect freedom, you must know the warning signs of creeping totalitarianism. He emphasizes that comprehensive economic planning can lead to the loss of personal freedoms, but he offers several other signs that indicate that a society might be headed to totalitarianism. These signs include:
1. Historical denialism: Hayek argues that it’s dangerous to overlook the connection between totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany and the socialist ideals they advocated for. Denial prevents us from recognizing and addressing similar threats in our society today, making us vulnerable to repeating past mistakes.
(Shortform note: Other authors also warn about the dangers of historical denialism or negationism—deliberately distorting or denying historical facts, particularly concerning events like the Holocaust, to serve ideological purposes. They argue deniers often obscure their intent to manipulate public perception and memory by disguising their denialism as legitimate historical revisionism. While legitimate revisionism tries to refine understanding based on new evidence, negationism aims to erase or alter uncomfortable truths.)
2. Rigid labor policies: Hayek warns against policies where the government and unions closely regulate the labor market instead of letting the job market regulate itself. These policies, like not allowing union job wages to be lowered, can create privileged classes and make all other workers more vulnerable since they’ll lack the same protection.
(Shortform note: Some critics argue against the notion that deregulation alone will lead to optimal labor market outcomes. They explain that exploitation and unfair labor practices could proliferate without some form of regulation, undermining the freedoms Hayek champions. For instance, without regulatory frameworks to ensure fair competition, larger corporations could dominate the market, reducing overall employment options for workers. This would contradict the ideal of a free and equitable market that Hayek advocates for. Conversely, some analysts highlight that unions can help raise wages and improve working conditions, which may benefit the broader economy by increasing consumer spending and reducing income inequality.)
3. Government monopolies: Public monopolies of goods and services can make citizens subservient to the government since they can’t opt out of using the government’s services or buying government-controlled goods. This dynamic strengthens oppressive regimes and erodes democratic principles like freedom of choice.
(Shortform note: Other experts share Hayek’s distrust of public monopolies. For example, proponents of Public Choice Theory argue that self-interest motivates government workers, compelling them to create public monopolies that don’t serve the nation’s interest. Moreover, if they collude with special interest groups, they can manipulate policies to entrench their power and maintain monopolistic control, limiting consumers’ options.)
4. Attempts at “scientific” societal control: In pursuit of the common good, socialist governments often rely on highly educated intellectuals to organize every aspect of society to be as efficient as possible. However, this organization leads to authoritarianism since it requires managing society as a machine, where every person has a mandated role to play—a role that they don’t choose for themselves.
(Shortform note: Hayek might disapprove of today’s data-driven technocrats who rely on scientific facts and theories to make decisions for society. Technocracy is the system of governance where decision-makers have technical expertise and specialized knowledge rather than political affiliations or popular support. The relationship between experts and citizens has become a key political battleground in the 21st century. For example, the 2008 financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the disconnect between the preferences of regular citizens and the decision-making of experts in leadership roles.)
Exercise
Hayek argues that we must reject any government interventions that limit personal choice. Can you think of any examples of such interventions by your government? What were the promised positive impacts of the intervention? Does the prospect of losing individual freedom outweigh the benefits?
