Central Planning vs. Individualism

Introduction of Hayek's work

After reading Friedrich Hayek’s work, “The Road to Serfdom” and a little bit of his essay, “The Intellectuals and Socialism” my eye was opened to a lot of concepts. Though some I knew, it was interesting to hear the arguments reflecting the dangers of centralized planning, the importance of individual freedoms, and how intellectuals shape public opinions. Hayek’s criticism of Socialist ideas also led to his argument about how socialism can lead to totalitarianism, and he centered a lot of his ideas around how easily intellectuals can influence society and draw them to Socialism.

Basics of Central Planning

The first major point that I want to talk about is how Hayek writes about central planning and the effects of it. He states that central planning and the idea of the Rule of Law, since they are completely state and government controlled, can lead to fascism and totalitarianism. He states, “When all the means of production are vested in a single hand, whether it be nominally that of ‘society’ as a whole or that of a dictator, whoever exercises this control has complete power over us” (Hayek, 41-42). I really do agree with this statement because whenever we lose our freedoms, we lose our ability to make our own choices and we live under the power of someone else. This can ultimately lead to less individual preferences in products and services and produces products that people might not want or need. Whenever we aren’t making our own choices in what is being produced, we can’t market to society, and we don't cater to their needs anymore. I think the idea of planning should be for competition, not against it is an important statement that Hayek makes. If we can’t cater to a market’s needs, we are then operating in a far less competitive market. In return, this leads to a lower variety in products and services and higher prices because of the lower number of sellers. Competition is good in a market and we should keep it that way. Another quote by Hayek that I think summarizes this point states, “He demonstrates that fascism and what the Germans correctly call National Socialism are the inevitable results of the increasing growth of state control and state power, of national ‘planning’ and socialism” (Hayek, 34). I think this quote really emphasizes the point of how socialism practices can lead to an authoritarian government because of the overwhelming control and power that the state holds. Fascism limits all sources of individual freedoms and rights which turns governments into authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Though they are different forms of government, authoritarianism and totalitarianism are both forms of dictatorship, with totalitarianism being an extreme version of authoritarianism. They isolate communities, suppress political freedoms and liberties, weaken relationships with other countries, and weaken the economy. There are really no positives to dictatorship and in no way can it help improve an economy or society that is struggling, and practicing Socialism could potentially lead us to that reality.

Individualism and why it is important

The second main point that Hayek makes that I agree with is the idea that Individualism and Free Markets are important when guaranteeing freedom. Hayek says, “Our generation has forgotten that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves” (Hayek, 41). I think it is important to have Individualism in an economy, not only because of the individual freedoms it gives property owners, but also the competition it fosters within a market. We want competition to keep prices lower, and having that free reign to price and have your own values in a business is very important. Hayek also makes this point and says, “It is based on the conviction that, where effective competition can be created, it is a better way of guiding individual efforts than any other. It emphasizes that in order to make competition work beneficially a carefully throughout-out legal framework is required, and that neither the pats nor the existing legal rules are free from grace defects” (Hayek, 45). It is important to advocate for effective competition, and I believe it is the best way to coordinate the self-interests of human efforts. This really can only be done with Individualism. Socialism tends to be a threat to Individualism because of the way it can restrain and violate some of our traditional political rights. Another threat to Individualism is Collectivism. While Individualism is focused on the autonomy, rights, and freedom of individuals and their independent choices and values, Collectivism ultimately prioritizes the needs of a group over individual desires. I also think that with Collectivism, power can emerge and there is a risk for dominant groups to have personal gain, similar to authoritarian or totalitarian government systems.

Conclusion

Overall, I do agree with a lot of Hayek’s points and the arguments behind them. I believe he wrote this to make people aware of the road we are on as a society, and what the effects of that look like. Central planning is not compatible with democracy and contradicts it. How can we make sure as a society that we do not start to hinder our democracy and not lean towards totalitarian government? How can we plan without giving all of the power and say to our government?