How Central Planning in Socialism Can Lead to Authoritarianism

Friedrich August von Hayek, was profoundly known by most of the individuals who took interest in classical liberalism in the early 20th century as an economist, but he was also considered a competent philosopher and also a political thinker due to his books that he wrote. Hayek was a renowned political economist who had an enormous impact upon how individuals in industrialist or capitalist social orders comprehend the idea of freedom and liberty. His one of most renowned works to date, which he wrote in years between 1940-43, named as “The Road to Serfdom”, in the majority part of this book Hayek discusses the argument that basically central planning and interventionism will eventually and inevitably lead to dictatorial and tyrannical authoritarianism. And why is this because dictatorship has the ability of oppression and enforcement in an effective way and that central planning could be done on a widespread.

When it comes to describing planning is that whenever there is a time of despair and national discomfort or even war, there are individuals or group of people and community who Hayek termed as being the planners. They plan on ahead of the peace policies and the terms and condition before the war is even ended. And to obtain what Hayek says as planners what they want they think of ways to create power not only power over the laws and the nation but power practiced by the men they(planners) choose fit. To such suppression of the liberty of the people, only one thing stands in there way, that is Democracy. The “Central planning board”, who Hayek also says as socialist are the ones with the highest power over the law and people even though the people think as being free from the governmental oppression. They have the power over other men in such high magnitude that the only way to minimize and repress such power from the central planning board is through Democracy, from which the power possessed by the planners can be taken away.

He more often keeps comparing the lifestyle of a man in a capitalist country compared to Germany or even Russia. He says that through working as private individuals there is to some extent an oppression or coercion but it never wholly grasps the entirety of the persons life. Liberty for Hayek is different from what we all perceive liberty to be, for him it is the freedom of economic power. But when this economic power centralized as a medium of power over the people through politics, this creates men to be slaves to the politics without them knowing that they are on the path to serfdom. An arranged economy Hayek accepted will never deliver as much output, creativity and inventiveness and joy as a free economic system. In Germany, this planning or socialism more or less was in the rise and at its prime position among the society.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

When it comes to the discussion that can Socialism coexist with Democracy. Hayek accepted regardless of whether in democratic structure, to complete government policies, you have to forfeit individual freedoms. There can be no trade-offs and compromises with democracy and socialism. This is the great lie of a social utopia. Social projects imply the devastation of opportunity. This has been the incredible exercise of the twentieth century. Individuals need to see know about the expense and read history. One might just assume that the socialists have inherently and instinctively good intentions. Even though, a similar pattern comes into light and emerges when a government is implementing central planning.

Socialism and democracy if were to co-exist, this notion will definitely fail as the individual will pursue their own individual plan, which will mostly conflict with the plan made at the center by the central planning. Central planners will eventually have to implement new rules in which they have to indirectly corner the main elective representative of the people to choose the desired plan which according to them is better for the society. Hayek says central planners generally make decisions which eventually leads to failure and downfall because of their ill intentions inherently and from the start. Democratic Socialism is hence a meaningless term here. Hence, there is no place for socialism in a democratic society.

And lastly to the notion of characterizing Socialism and Nazism according to Hayek, Both the National socialism which are the Nazis and the socialist movements are built on disgust against liberalism. To have private way of earning income and economic production liberalism. Both are inspired and came into contact to the notions of Marxism. According to Hayek the connections between the socialists and the Nazi Intellectual was highlighted by him by mentioning some of the German Marxist supporters in WW1. Hayek indicates out that opposite what many figures, Nazism did not just show up out of nowhere and taint the brains of mild German individuals. There were scholastic roots that, while developed in the dirt of communist idea, developed into a rationality that applauded German predominance, extreme war, and the debasement of the person. And also when it comes into speaking of intellectuals in socialism, many helped lay down or build the intellectual foundation for the rise of the Third Reich. Many socialist transitioned from socialism to German war and eventually leading to Nazism.

At its very center, and as indicated by these German scholars, liberalism was the most outstanding adversary of arranging and association. What’s more, except if undeniable National Socialism was received, the individual would not be adequately squashed as to take into account authoritarian rule. This scorn and dread of the individual is the perspective embraced by these scholars and it proceeds with the individuals who guarantee to be socialist today. Except if the idea of independence and individualism is totally annihilated, the celebrated state can’t appear. Let this, for goodness’ sake, be an exercise on why Hayek puts such a great amount of significance on the person. It is the person, the individual, over all things, and the philosophical viewpoint that protects his or her rights, who displays the best obstruction to totalitarianism.