What do you think?
Rate this book
Chicago Shorts
Hayek's The Road to Serfdom: A Brief Introduction
The Road to Serfdom, F. A. Hayek’s 1944 warning against the dangers of government control, continues to influence politics more than seventy years after it was turned down by three American publishers and finally published by the University of Chicago Press. A classic work in political philosophy, intellectual and cultural history, and economics, the definitive edition of The Road to Serfdom included this essay as its Introduction. Here, acclaimed Hayek biographer and general editor of the Collected Works of F. A. Hayek series, Bruce Caldwell explains how Hayek came to write and publish the book, assesses misunderstandings of Hayek’s thought, and suggests how Hayek’s fears of Socialism lead him to abandon the larger scholarly project he had planned in 1940 to focus instead on a briefer, more popular and political tract—one that has influenced political and economic discourse ever since.
54 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 13, 2013
116 people are currently reading
107 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
November 23, 2025
Fantastic exposition of the ‘tea’ behind ‘The Road to Serfdom’ – which is probably 1 of my all-time favourite books, although I have sheepishly only read it once, and as an edgy teenager in 2019, too.
It is my quixotic delusion, as a matter of literary technique/ fantasy, to imagine that everything in a particular book/ text/ work is the result of a preordained, organized argument that flows from the author’s mind, and all the author was doing in the writing process was to transfer his knowledge verbatim on paper. I have some trouble understanding myself, because I have little idea how this delusion even benefits me, but the truth is it gives me much pleasure, especially as it pertains to my own writing, both professional and personal. So it was very interesting to pry into the backstory of ‘The Road to Serfdom’, which directly challenges this delusion of mine – but many new gossip were gained.
I did not know that TRTS itself was merely an extension of the final part of Hayek’s broader ‘Abuse of Reason’ project, which Hayek never completed. This interesting tidbit, coupled with the story behind ‘The pure theory of capital’, which Hayek worked on over the past decade before TRTS, tells me all I need to know – even geniuses embark on overly ambitious projects and fail to complete them. This calls to mind a hilarious thought I have, where Hayek diagnoses the failures of completion of capital projects as malinvestment due to low interest rates and government meddling in the money supply (via Hayekian triangle logic), so I wonder how he would diagnose his own failures to complete his projects. No central authority interfered with his price signals! Lmao.
Gossip aside, Dr Caldwell’s concise and informative intro gave me crucial context to assess TRTS.
For several years, I have myself challenged, or even borderline dismissed, TRTS by invoking the slippery slope fallacy. Also, it is easy to look at the historical trajectory of Western democracies following TRTS, and note that many of them have greatly expanded their welfare states, with no result in a road to serfdom, or the other fears that Hayek pounded the table about. The Western powers did not go to anything like complete central planning, nor did a complete loss of individual liberty occur. By this view, Hayek was wrong, and overreacted. It’s also easy to criticize TRTS for being very one-sided – as the top review on this site, Trevor, argues.
One could even argue that the Western democracies have successfully transitioned to a form of market socialism – a notion that, apparently, according to Caldwell, the economists of Hayek’s time were intrigued with. Anyway, how many countries today aren’t mixed economies to some degree?
Caldwell made me realize that Hayek wasn’t making a concrete prediction, he was issuing a warning. It’s easy to strawman Hayek in the following way: that he thought that once a society engages in a LITTLE planning, it’s doomed to end up as a totalitarian state. Rather, Hayek warned – if we don’t change our ways, we’re headed down the road to serfdom. What’s more pernicious is that the start of the road to serfdom is laden with good intentions. I guess that’s what makes refusing to walk the road to serfdom an especially challenging endeavour.
Furthermore, although I have admittedly not reread TRTS since my schoolboy days, I have still meditated on the fact that it is long on criticism but short on concrete policy proposals. Keynes’s letter to Hayek on TRTS made me realize an important insight: that the Austrian remedy to ‘never waste a recession’ just isn’t politically or practically viable – the people will revolt. And who knows, they’ll just put a socialist in office anyway. Caldwell says that Hayek saw this shortcoming of TRTS as well (through his critics) – and ‘The Constitution of Liberty’ is precisely his policy proposals that were absent from TRTS.
It is my quixotic delusion, as a matter of literary technique/ fantasy, to imagine that everything in a particular book/ text/ work is the result of a preordained, organized argument that flows from the author’s mind, and all the author was doing in the writing process was to transfer his knowledge verbatim on paper. I have some trouble understanding myself, because I have little idea how this delusion even benefits me, but the truth is it gives me much pleasure, especially as it pertains to my own writing, both professional and personal. So it was very interesting to pry into the backstory of ‘The Road to Serfdom’, which directly challenges this delusion of mine – but many new gossip were gained.
I did not know that TRTS itself was merely an extension of the final part of Hayek’s broader ‘Abuse of Reason’ project, which Hayek never completed. This interesting tidbit, coupled with the story behind ‘The pure theory of capital’, which Hayek worked on over the past decade before TRTS, tells me all I need to know – even geniuses embark on overly ambitious projects and fail to complete them. This calls to mind a hilarious thought I have, where Hayek diagnoses the failures of completion of capital projects as malinvestment due to low interest rates and government meddling in the money supply (via Hayekian triangle logic), so I wonder how he would diagnose his own failures to complete his projects. No central authority interfered with his price signals! Lmao.
Gossip aside, Dr Caldwell’s concise and informative intro gave me crucial context to assess TRTS.
For several years, I have myself challenged, or even borderline dismissed, TRTS by invoking the slippery slope fallacy. Also, it is easy to look at the historical trajectory of Western democracies following TRTS, and note that many of them have greatly expanded their welfare states, with no result in a road to serfdom, or the other fears that Hayek pounded the table about. The Western powers did not go to anything like complete central planning, nor did a complete loss of individual liberty occur. By this view, Hayek was wrong, and overreacted. It’s also easy to criticize TRTS for being very one-sided – as the top review on this site, Trevor, argues.
One could even argue that the Western democracies have successfully transitioned to a form of market socialism – a notion that, apparently, according to Caldwell, the economists of Hayek’s time were intrigued with. Anyway, how many countries today aren’t mixed economies to some degree?
Caldwell made me realize that Hayek wasn’t making a concrete prediction, he was issuing a warning. It’s easy to strawman Hayek in the following way: that he thought that once a society engages in a LITTLE planning, it’s doomed to end up as a totalitarian state. Rather, Hayek warned – if we don’t change our ways, we’re headed down the road to serfdom. What’s more pernicious is that the start of the road to serfdom is laden with good intentions. I guess that’s what makes refusing to walk the road to serfdom an especially challenging endeavour.
Furthermore, although I have admittedly not reread TRTS since my schoolboy days, I have still meditated on the fact that it is long on criticism but short on concrete policy proposals. Keynes’s letter to Hayek on TRTS made me realize an important insight: that the Austrian remedy to ‘never waste a recession’ just isn’t politically or practically viable – the people will revolt. And who knows, they’ll just put a socialist in office anyway. Caldwell says that Hayek saw this shortcoming of TRTS as well (through his critics) – and ‘The Constitution of Liberty’ is precisely his policy proposals that were absent from TRTS.
September 12, 2020
In preparing for a discussion group on the issue of freedom in democracies, I wanted to include the ideas of F A Hayek in his book, The Road to Serfdom. However, since it has been 20 years or so since I had read it, I thought a review was in order and Caldwell's book looks like just the thing.
Though it isn't purely a synopsis of the ideas in Hayek's book (it's more a story of how the book came to be written, the objections to its ideas and Hayek's responses to his critics - an interesting story in itself), it does hit the highlights of his objections to what he calls market socialism or collectivism and his support for liberal democracy (using the pre-FDR meaning of liberal as a reference to an unfettered free market). Hayek felt that once a government begins providing socialist style programs, there is a real fear that it will slide toward collectivism, i.e. a socialist welfare state where everyone sacrifices their liberties for the nation and the government takes over ownership of the means of production.
Hayek wrote his book in the 1940s in the shadow of WWII and the totalitarian governments of Europe. In Hayek's view, there is little difference between the fascism of Germany, Spain and Italy and the communism of the USSR. They're all collectivist and result in loss of freedom for its citizens. He also saw that the western democracies, primarily France and England, were enacting socialist style programs and were taking over much of the means of production for the war effort. This, he feared, may be impossible to stop after the war, which would result in Western democracies losing their freedoms under a socialist economy or what Hayek called market socialism.
Caldwell says, "But it is perhaps sufficient to say, as Hayek did in 1948, that until a real-world example of such an 'ingenious scheme' is forthcoming, it is best considered a theoretical construct of interest only to specialists, one that has no particular relevance for the world in which we actually live." However, he wrote this brief intro in 2007 and had access to plenty of examples of social democracies or market socialist economies that work and work very well. These include the Western European democracies and, especially, the northern democracies, notably Norway, Sweden and Denmark. And none has slid down the slippery slope into full fledged communism, which it seems was Hayek's worst fear.
Caldwell's, and thus Hayek's, thesis would have been clearer if the notion of market socialism was made clearer. Would Hayek think that the democratic socialist government of say Denmark will eventually move inexorably toward full fledged socialist dictatorship? Or would he support these governments? The title of Caldwell's book includes the word introduction, not summary, so perhaps I now need to go back to The Road to Serfdom to get some clarity.
Though it isn't purely a synopsis of the ideas in Hayek's book (it's more a story of how the book came to be written, the objections to its ideas and Hayek's responses to his critics - an interesting story in itself), it does hit the highlights of his objections to what he calls market socialism or collectivism and his support for liberal democracy (using the pre-FDR meaning of liberal as a reference to an unfettered free market). Hayek felt that once a government begins providing socialist style programs, there is a real fear that it will slide toward collectivism, i.e. a socialist welfare state where everyone sacrifices their liberties for the nation and the government takes over ownership of the means of production.
Hayek wrote his book in the 1940s in the shadow of WWII and the totalitarian governments of Europe. In Hayek's view, there is little difference between the fascism of Germany, Spain and Italy and the communism of the USSR. They're all collectivist and result in loss of freedom for its citizens. He also saw that the western democracies, primarily France and England, were enacting socialist style programs and were taking over much of the means of production for the war effort. This, he feared, may be impossible to stop after the war, which would result in Western democracies losing their freedoms under a socialist economy or what Hayek called market socialism.
Caldwell says, "But it is perhaps sufficient to say, as Hayek did in 1948, that until a real-world example of such an 'ingenious scheme' is forthcoming, it is best considered a theoretical construct of interest only to specialists, one that has no particular relevance for the world in which we actually live." However, he wrote this brief intro in 2007 and had access to plenty of examples of social democracies or market socialist economies that work and work very well. These include the Western European democracies and, especially, the northern democracies, notably Norway, Sweden and Denmark. And none has slid down the slippery slope into full fledged communism, which it seems was Hayek's worst fear.
Caldwell's, and thus Hayek's, thesis would have been clearer if the notion of market socialism was made clearer. Would Hayek think that the democratic socialist government of say Denmark will eventually move inexorably toward full fledged socialist dictatorship? Or would he support these governments? The title of Caldwell's book includes the word introduction, not summary, so perhaps I now need to go back to The Road to Serfdom to get some clarity.
December 6, 2020
More about the context of Hayek's work than a summary of it.
Fairly interesting but I found the author's liberal bias and assumptions irritating and smug, eg. "fascism and communism... have more in common with each other than the sorts of governments and economic systems that exist under liberal free market democracies." It's the kind of thing annoying 16 year olds say thinking it's deep, like the horseshoe theory, 'bro science'.
It's to be expected though, anyone who takes Hayek seriously enough to write a book about him is a gammon or an oligarch's bootlicker.
Fairly interesting but I found the author's liberal bias and assumptions irritating and smug, eg. "fascism and communism... have more in common with each other than the sorts of governments and economic systems that exist under liberal free market democracies." It's the kind of thing annoying 16 year olds say thinking it's deep, like the horseshoe theory, 'bro science'.
It's to be expected though, anyone who takes Hayek seriously enough to write a book about him is a gammon or an oligarch's bootlicker.
January 17, 2021
Better than the book itself
I found Road to Serfdom to be rather mediocre relative to its reputation. This commentary makes it retroactively more enjoyable, as I now feel I better understand the context and themes. It’s also gratifying to see that many of the flaws my book club found were the same as those identified by contemporary critics. Before being made aware of this I had a nagging feeling my friends and I were missing something.
I found Road to Serfdom to be rather mediocre relative to its reputation. This commentary makes it retroactively more enjoyable, as I now feel I better understand the context and themes. It’s also gratifying to see that many of the flaws my book club found were the same as those identified by contemporary critics. Before being made aware of this I had a nagging feeling my friends and I were missing something.
May 22, 2019
Excellent review
This work is not so much a summation of Hayek’s views in The Road to Serfdom as it a short cultural, political, and economic survey of the conditions surrounding the writing of the book, the publishing of the book, and the central criticisms leveled both for and against Hayek’s thesis.
This work is not so much a summation of Hayek’s views in The Road to Serfdom as it a short cultural, political, and economic survey of the conditions surrounding the writing of the book, the publishing of the book, and the central criticisms leveled both for and against Hayek’s thesis.
December 28, 2020
A good introduction
An interesting and timely overview of Hayek's work. The author's comments on the use of war, whether they be real wars or political fictions, to increase state control, is particularly relevant at the moment.
An interesting and timely overview of Hayek's work. The author's comments on the use of war, whether they be real wars or political fictions, to increase state control, is particularly relevant at the moment.
June 30, 2025
This is a nice addendum to Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, written by Hayek's biographer and editor of his collected writings. I do not recommend reading this if you have not already read The Road to Serfdom (TRTS). TRTS was written in 1944 as a warning against totalitarianism, both from the left and the right. TRTS is arguably the second most published work in English, following the Bible.
Read TRTS, it's still relevant to today. Then, if you are interested, h this provides a nice, short addition.
Read TRTS, it's still relevant to today. Then, if you are interested, h this provides a nice, short addition.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews