“Totalitarianism is neither a consequence of ‘corruption’ nor ‘historical accident’, but rather a logical consequence of institutional incentives of the attempts to centrally plan an economy”. In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek seeks to convince the British people that socialism can lead their country to the end of Fascism, which is not a particular product of the wicked Germany. Without using mathematical economic model, Hayek consciously delineates the intuitive proceedings from ‘good economic plans’ to the ‘bad national socialism’ , and indicates the truth that Marxism had led to Fascism, which in all essentials, it is Fascism and National Socialism.
Hayek believes that socialism, except the similarities it shares with democracy, which include …show more content…
The notion of “plan for competition”, which is in contrast with “plan against competition”, seems vague when it functions in practice. Hayek demonstrates that the “successful use of competition as the principle of social organization precludes certain types of coercive interference with economic life”. However, he does not mean to eliminate all kinds of coercive interference with the economy, instead, he agrees that certain amount and appropriate way of government control is necessary. A major role of government in free and competitive market ought to be the executor and protector of rules and laws. In the legal framework of regulations, thorough institutions are necessarily to be established, such as free flowing market and channels of information, which can guarantee the competition can truly benefit the economy. The idea of “planning for competition” seems to tackle the arbitrary problem superbly, while in fact, the situation is even more complex than assumed. A great number of decision makers have complained that in most cases, they have no choice but are forced by circumstances to replace the “planning for competition”. This is because technological changes occur so rapidly that they afterwards weaken the competition unconsciously. Therefore, planners have often argued that technological
Hayek believes that socialism, except the similarities it shares with democracy, which include …show more content…
The notion of “plan for competition”, which is in contrast with “plan against competition”, seems vague when it functions in practice. Hayek demonstrates that the “successful use of competition as the principle of social organization precludes certain types of coercive interference with economic life”. However, he does not mean to eliminate all kinds of coercive interference with the economy, instead, he agrees that certain amount and appropriate way of government control is necessary. A major role of government in free and competitive market ought to be the executor and protector of rules and laws. In the legal framework of regulations, thorough institutions are necessarily to be established, such as free flowing market and channels of information, which can guarantee the competition can truly benefit the economy. The idea of “planning for competition” seems to tackle the arbitrary problem superbly, while in fact, the situation is even more complex than assumed. A great number of decision makers have complained that in most cases, they have no choice but are forced by circumstances to replace the “planning for competition”. This is because technological changes occur so rapidly that they afterwards weaken the competition unconsciously. Therefore, planners have often argued that technological