“The Road to Serfdom” was published at a time of transition for most of the world. Following World War II, political ideals and tensions were at an all-time high worldwide. Although America was better off than much of Europe, the destruction felt from the bombing of Pearl Harbor was the first in a long time when American wars were fought on American soil. In Europe, the German society and economy were in states of disrepair. Many once powerful nations were trying to figure out how to recover from this time of war, and the question of rebuilding their economies was of utmost importance. This opinion piece, "The Road to Serfdom," captures the sentiment of a man who had witnessed the triumphs and failures of different regimes, and is still worth reflecting on today.
Agreements, disagreements, and reflections
I thought that the author of this essay has an interesting viewpoint in the discussion of economic systems that few may have. When learning about World War II in school, students learn much about the Holocaust, American involvement in the war, and event leading up to the war, but what happened after is usually brushed over. I had little knowledge of how the economies of Japan and Germany had been rebuilt following the near destruction of their population and infrastructure but knew that drastic policy changes had to be put in place to achieve the results that were achieved. It was interesting reading how the author used liberal and progressive in this context, as most people would argue that in current language the meanings behind these terms have been exchanged. Before, the conservative ideals the author describes would be that of keeping socialist policies, while liberal/ progressive policies were that of aggressive capitalism.
I agreed with some opinions of the author, especially when taking control of power over a government. For example, I agree that keeping a population uneducated allows for a government to better control their subjects. This is especially true in the age of social media, where it is very easy or misinformation spreads, or for stories to be twisted for shock value and to intentionally confirm pre-existing biases. When stories are blown out of proportion, or are intentionally misconstrued, it can be much easier to paint a picture to supporters that they are already hoping to hear. I also agree that it is easier to unite people over a common enemy. People are usually very quick to jump to conclusions about others and tend to look for situations that can be described as “us versus them.” When there is a “them” that can be blamed for anything negative, such as a failing economy or crime, it is very easy for individuals to find the blame for this issue. It is much more difficult to motivate individuals to come together to fight for a common good, or a policy that they want implemented. I also agree with the author that policies that may be implemented with good intentions can stray far from their original design and become soured and hurt the people it was intended to help. I do not think that any institutions are free from the danger of corruption, because it is human nature to want better for oneself. All that it takes to corrupt an institution is one selfish individual or group that has the power to see their goals into reality.
While there were several points that the author spoke of that I agreed with, there were some critiques of the author that I disagreed with or could be applied to other economic models other than socialism. For instance, he argues that city planning in the sense of socialism is not about strategically laying out the future of a city to ensure the wellbeing of its inhabitants, but it is instead done to express absolute power. Those with the power in a socialist society to make plans and shape policies wield a power no one else has or can attain. While in theory in a capitalist economy everyone has equal ability and responsibility over their own future to find success, I would argue that this does not always hold true. For many people, cyclical poverty is something near impossible to escape in communities, and when born into an uber-wealthy environment, the resources and connection that can be made are near impossible to find otherwise. For example, it is known that very wealthy individuals can lobby and shape policy, such as what the Gates have done in Washinton single handedly. Finally, the author’s critique that both capitalism and socialism strive to provide equality for its citizens, but there is a sark difference; capitalism reaches this giving its citizens no bounds, while socialism ensures this by equally oppressing its citizens. I would argue that this sentiment would be felt any time that you are in the minority in my opinion, even if you are living in a capitalist society. I believe that it can be stifling and hopeless when you are in the minority of opinion and goals, and often there is not much that a single individual can do when in the minority.
