Hayek - The Great Utopia - Meaning of Freedom Distorted

Monrovians - Unite!  Hayek's second chapter is entitled The Great Utopia.

Hayek notes that by 1944, large numbers of people supported Socialism, believing that a Socialist system would bring freedom and justice.  He explains how the meaning of the word "freedom"  had been distorted by socialists to hide the truth about socialism's restriction of freedom with the inevitable state-sponsored injustice.

Hayek points out that:

Where freedom was concerned the founders of socialism made no  bones about their intentions.  Freedom of thought they regarded as the root-evil of nineteenth-century society, and the first of modern planners, Saint-Simon, even predicted that those who did not obey his proposed planning boards would be "treated as cattle."

In the 1800s, those in favor of Socialism were in favor of central planning and control (a lot like the Kings and Queens of Europe), while those in favor of Democracy celebrated the common man's ability to control his or her own future, and to vote accordingly.  At the time, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:

Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it.  Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number.  Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality.  But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

When it became obvious that the forces of Democracy would carry the day, the socialists began a campaign to gain the allegeiance of those in favor of Democracy, by changing the meaning of the word freedom.

To . . . harness to its cart the strongest of all political motives - the craving for freedom - socialism began increasingly to make use of the promise of a "new freedom."  . . . The coming of socialism was to bring "economic freedom."

The subtle change in meaning to which the word "freedom" was subjected . . . is important.  To the great apostles of political freedom the word had meant freedom from coercion, freedom from the arbitrary power of other men, release from the ties which left the individual no choice but obedience to the orders of a superior to whom he was attached.  The new freedom promised [by the socialists], however, was to be a freedom from necessity; release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choices of all of us, although for some very much more than for others.

Freedom in this sense [that is, the socialist's new freedom] is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth. . . . The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for an equal distribution of wealth.

Recall that the "old" demands of the socialists were for centralized planning, power to be wielded by the elites only, with anyone who disagreed with the central planning board to be "treated like cattle."  Of course, that philosophy had not proven very popular, so the socialists, like any good public relations outfit, decided to hide their true desires behind words that had carried the day - freedom.  Socialists began claiming that they were in favor of "Economic Freedom", "Democratic Socialism" and "Economic Justice" - and successfully disguised the fact that they wanted central planning, not economic freedom in economic affairs, central planning, not decentralized democracy where decisions are made by the individual, and identical economic results for everyone regardless of their choices, an unjust restribution of wealth by force, the opposite of justice.

Seveal  years earlier, W.H. Chamberlain, who in twelve years in Russia as an American correspondent had seen all his ideals shattered, summed up the conclusions of his studies there and in Germany and Italy in the statement that "socialism is certain to prove, in the beginning at least, the road NOT to freedom, but to dictatorship and counter-dictatorsihps, to civil war of the fiercest kind.  Socialism achieved and maintain by democratic means seems definitely to belong to the world of "utopias."  Similarly a British writer, F.A. Voigt, after many years of close observation of developments in Europe as a foreign correspondent, concludes that "Marxism has led to Fascism and National Socialism, because, in all essentials, it is Fascism and National Socialism."  And Walter Lippmann has arrived at the conviction that "the generation to which we belong is now learning from experience what happens when men retreat from freedom to a coercive organization of their affairs.  Though they promise themselves a more abundant life, they must in practice renounce it; as the organized direction increases, the variety of ends must give way to uniformity.  That is the nemesis of the planned society and the authoritarian principle in human affairs."

Note that  Chamberlain had visited communist Russia, Nazi Germany, and Facist Italy.  The communists sought international socialism (i.e., world government), while the Nazis were National Socialists.