Today in America, we find ourselves at a crossroads once again — should we embrace socialism or should we continue down the slow road of liberalism? To find an answer to this question, we look at Freidrich Hayek’s first chapter in The Road to Serfdom where he makes an interesting proposition about the fate of liberalism. He claims that “the very success of liberalism became the cause of its decline.” Whether he is right or wrong, understanding what Hayek means by this statement has meaningful implications for politics today. While he puts it short and sweet, the ironic nature of this argument complicates its understanding which is why he uses most of the chapter to preface his conclusion.
Hayek opens commentary by describing Europe’s current state of affairs. He explains that at that time, European society felt threatened and undignified causing it to search for blame everywhere except within itself. As a result, people began to embrace the persuasive rhetoric of socialists, later turned totalitarians. The promises made by such men fed into people’s fears and through that comfort, people started to become less and less interested in the principles that made initial progress possible. More importantly, individuals gradually became more oblivious to the fact that their new leaders were abrogating their basic freedoms. Hayek saw this dynamic as a gross diversion of principles in which otherwise liberal people were being tricked into choosing authoritarian leaders, disguised as national socialists.
Hayek describes the decline in this way: because of liberalism’s necessarily slow progress, people who expect immediate solutions are bound to be disillusioned with its short-term results. Such was the case of 1930s Europe where people were desperate for better conditions. This coupled with liberalisms heavy reliance on the gradual increase of wealth, brought on a negative perception that the increase of wealth was offering more to some than it did to others. For whatever that’s criticism is worth, the progress and wealth created by liberalism began to be taken for granted in its entirety and the benefits that came out of it were no longer being recognized as a result of its implementation.
127 our experts are availableright now
Ultimately, Hayek says, people will begin to see wealth and success created by liberalism as evil. He pushes back, however, on the merits of that notion, saying that ambitious, power-hungry authoritarians themselves are responsible for people’s irritation with the liberal doctrine. Through the use of liberal semantics, totalitarian’s ambitious and withdrawn ways paved a path of wealth and economic prosperity that had already existed, while their “antisocial privileges” furthered the oppression of individuals. As society became more and more detached from liberal tenets, it became more widely accepted that in order for society to move “forward”, it had to overcome its irreconcilable past. Instead of remodeling the old system, it became a question of replacing it. Hayek adds that this change was abetted by a lack of understanding and appreciation for age-old systems as well as a pervasive level of anti-intellectualism brought about by the authoritarian presence.
