Capitalism vs. Freedom: The Toll Road to Serfdom

by Rob Larson

For years, we've been taught that capitalism is good for freedom. Dominant right-wing talk radio hosts to this day recommend “libertarian” classics like Hayek's Road to Serfdom and Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom that claim markets free us, and this picture still dominates the schools and the political spectrum. Well get bent, one percent, because Rob Larson's Capitalism vs. Freedom: The Toll Road to Serfdom puts big business under a microscope. This book debunks the conservative classics while demonstrating that the marketplace has its own great centers of power, which the libertarian tradition itself claims is a limit to freedom. In fact, Larson illustrates how capitalism fails both this and other concepts of human liberty―not just failing to establish a right to a share of society's production, but also leaving us subject to the great power plays of the one percent's corporate property.

Genres: Economics, Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Political Science, History, Theory

248 pages, Paperback

Published June 29, 2018

Reviews

[David Wineberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Freedom’s not just another word

Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman wrote a very influential book called Capitalism and Freedom. It implies that freedom is a product of capitalism. Capitalism vs Freedom refutes it and more in a blistering litany of well-documented counterattacks. It is a 240 page rebuttal.

Rob Larson quotes directly from Friedman, and the claims self-destruct before your eyes:

-Where Friedman saw freedom of choice for shoppers, Larson sees enormous concentration, limiting choice to (sometimes) one sole vendor or manufacturer, operating numerous brands it has taken over. For example, almost all beer is sold by two companies. Almost all eyewear comes from Luxottica. Throwing cable into deregulation resulted in megamergers, not consumer choice. Consumers are not offered repairable products they prefer or even sufficient legroom on flights. Forced arbitrations denies consumers even their day in court. Larson says we aren’t so much free to choose as free to imagine we are free to choose.

-Friedman saw freedom for workers to choose their employers. They could like their bosses and love their work, at will. Larson sees the labor market running on fear, not free choice. He sees offshoring and outsourcing at the slightest sign of wage savings or unionization, not to mention interminable internships, and 48% of US jobs paying minimum wage or less. Non-compete “agreements” enslave. Barring unions keeps wages below labor’s value. In the gig economy of capitalism, choice is a bitter laugh.

-Friedman argued bizarrely that inheritance of a fortune was no different than inheritance of talent. How can you criticize inherited wealth if you’re not against inherited talent?

-“Economic power can be widely dispersed. There is no law of conservation which forces the growth of new centers of economic strength to be at the expense of existing centers.”

-“The kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom, because it separates economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other.”

Looking at these statements today, Larson’s job is like shooting fish in a barrel. As he piles up the knockouts, he keeps repeating : ”Irony loves company!”

“Treating labor as an asset priced by supply and demand, like toasters or toothbrushes, is a gross insult to the human spirit, and is indeed responsible for some of the gravest crimes committed against humanity in our history,” Larson says. He calls Friedman an intellectual opportunist, and shows repeatedly how the very opposite of what he said is what is true. “Today’s libertarians follow in a long line of defense of power.”

For good measure, Larson collars Friedman’s co-conspirators Ludwig Von Mises and Paul Collier. In a letter to Atlas Shrugged author Ayn Rand, Von Mises said: “You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you.”

For Von Mises, who created the Austrian School that inspired Friedman’s Chicago School, the capitalist is a romantic hero and martyr to be exalted: “Creating for him is agony and torment, a ceaseless excruciating struggle against internal and external obstacles; it consumes and crushes him.”

Larson ranges far and wide. He criticizes capitalist colonialists for never giving the colonized infrastructure like sanitation or drinking water, while piling up trash on land, sea and in the air until it is unbearable for the locals. In contrast, libertarian Oxford economist Paul Collier, considered a “bold thinker” among neoliberals, said in his book The Plundered Planet: “We are not here to serve nature. Nature is here to serve us. “ For Larson, these are neoliberals’ true colors showing through.

For all of these reasons, and many more, Larson thinks the concentration of capitalism is taking away our freedoms – both the negative freedom to live without fear and the positive freedom to do what we like.

His conclusion is that nothing has ever been achieved without a struggle. Labor is clearly not out to fight to for fewer benefits and more neoliberal libertarian “freedoms”. Sadly, it’s not out to fight anything. At some point, labor must awake to its pathetic situation and activists will bloom again.

David Wineberg

[Anne · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book and I reckon anyone interested in how the world works financially would get a lot out of it. Larson takes the views of Milton Friedman, the esteemed economist, and dissects them in a context of the present day. He starts with definitions of freedom - both positive and negative freedoms. One gives us freedom to do as we choose and the other gives freedom from being interfered with. Both these are important in a market economy.

We think we make choices every day because we live (at least in most of the west) in a capitalist society but if you actually look at what we buy, the choice is between different brand names owned by a very few large companies. They then set prices as the supplier rather than us as the consumer. The 'free market' is a fraud.

Mr Larson writes at a fair pace and in an entertaining fashion. You will either like his style or you won't - I loved it. "Meanwhile the radio empire Clear Channel carries Rush Limbaugh and a parade of other similar idiot radio hosts who put the blame for our economic problems on our "heavily regulated" economy. But the huge size and power of Clear Channel, their employer, is a direct result of the deregulation of radio and other media following the 1996 law. Irony loves company!" How can you not love a writer who can use exclamation marks!

"Fox News, then, has built up its empire of feverish right wing political reporting thanks to a (then) privileged exemption to the allegedly repressive-of-business power of the government. Yet the channel still runs "Regulation Nation" segments, claiming that the economy's weak job market is caused by the government's rigid regulations, which were no obstacle to building its own empire."

We have Friedman, we have Hayek, we have the fact that media that relies on advertising cannot speak freely in their editorials as they may lose revenue from advertisers. We have clear and concise arguments about where the faults exist and what should be done to fix them. So a vicious circle of propping up the capitalist way so the few rich capitalists at the top can continue to feed us (in every sense of the word) what they choose while we give away our freedoms, needs to be broken. And this is an excellent rallying cry.

Recommended if you are starting to get a little uncomfortable with the way your choices are being eroded by a few large conglomerates and media moguls.

I was given a copy of this book by Netgalley in return for an honest review.

[Khaled · Rating 5 out of 5]

Solid Blow to Libertarian Nonsense

A solid breakdown of why Mises, Hayek, Friedman, and most other conservative "economists" are intellectually dishonest grifters. The book gets libertarian left towards the end and says some questionable things about AES, but the analysis of capital was solid in my opinion.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

You should just go read David Wineberg's review bc it's spot on and I don't have anything useful to add.

[Camille McCarthy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I greatly appreciated Rob Larson's point-by-point dissection of capitalism from a point of view of "freedom," looking at both positive and negative freedoms and refuting libertarian and pro-capitalist opinions on the matter. I thought it was very thorough, easy to understand, and nuanced. I also appreciated that towards the end he talks about some of the shortcomings of the Russian revolution, in particular pointing out Lenin's hypocrisies. It was refreshing to read a modern book on the subject, and I think a little easier to understand and digest than reading early socialist thinkers or even works from the '60's. I would definitely recommend this book, especially for anyone who is a proponent of freedom and democracy.

[Francesco · Rating 5 out of 5]

Are we really free in a capitalist system? Neoliberals such as Friedman and Hayek would say yes, because they claim free-market capitalism is the social arrangement that most encouraged human freedom. Rob Larson’s book demonstrates that they were wrong, because capitalism and freedom are two antagonistic concepts, as suggested in the title of this book. Many people in the world are beginning to suspect that they are not free to choose what they want to do with their life and others don’t feel free to safely express their opinion online.
Larson’s book shows us how free-market capitalism based on a competitive market is not creating an overall freedom, but is concentrating more power in the hands of bigger firms and creating towering corporations with full monopoly all by itself.
What is even more surprising is that capitalism is putting at risk one of the most important among our freedoms. The practice of controlling information is becoming more and more prevalent. Free markets are not allowing a free flow of information, but instead are creating a more consolidated industry, less diverse. Free-market forces narrowed the diversity of opinion in the media, because media firms’ owners and advertisers warp and shape the information that reaches the average citizen. The philosophy of the market is not to share real information, but to supply the right information, that which is most conducive to immediate profit-making. The media markets bring us information warped by concentrated ownership and by their advertising revenue-based business model.
Concentrated power is also making difficult for the average citizen to freely express his political opinion, because dollars in the market give far more votes to those with a lot of money. Our having to say is being flooded by money surging through the electoral and political process. Most working people have not the necessary resources required to fight political confrontations. Parties are no longer debating about ideas, because gigantic amounts of cash are involved in shaping policy today. Therefore, average citizens’ preferences are non-significant. Ordinary people do not have any power over policy decisions. Policies are all driven by decisions and strategic maneuvers of coalitions of political investors in shifting economic conditions.
Capitalism has also a great impact on the environment, therefore it has power over future generations. The decisions made through the modern period of capitalism have rarely taken into account the welfare of the people who must live in the world we leave them. The side-effects of capitalism are very serious, but neoliberals tend to ignore them. Among the side-effects of capitalism are climate change, the extinction of some species, the over-consuming of natural resources and pollution. The actual economic system needs to be more sustainable, otherwise the future generations will not have the possibility to enjoy adequate fresh air and water, and will not have the freedom to enjoy nature.
Larson’s solution is to eradicate capitalism abolishing private ownership of productive capital and gigantic power arising from it and limiting concentrated power and maximizing freedom. A socialist society can limit the scale of private property and workers can cooperate and collaborate in the decision-making. A collaboration of equal companions can replace the command of masters and obedience of servants. A socialist economy can be created by the solidaric collaboration of the workers with hand in each special branch of production. Socialism, according to Larson, can contribute to a spiritual change among humanity, because it gives ordinary people the possibility to contribute in the economic process.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great introductory text for the curious reader who's started to suspect that capitalism's claims to being an engine of freedom are exaggerated. Larson delves deep into key foundational texts from the Chicago school (Friedman) and the Austrian school (Hayek, von Mises, Rothbard), taking good-faith quotes straight from the source before thoroughly dismantling them. It's the book I wish I'd read 10 years ago, or written 4 years ago.

[Arianne X · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Road to Where ?

The title is delightful as it coveys to the reader those with whom Rob Larson crosses swords in the text. His opponents are those referred to in the title, Milton Friedman, author of ‘Capitalism and Freedom’ and F.A. Hayek, author of the ‘The Road to Serfdom’. This is cute, at least by my eccentric standards. The book is cleverly written and a delightful read, it is a very readable and lucid critique of the current neoliberal economic paradigm, but lacking is the realistic road map to somewhere other than nowhere. OK, capitalism does not equal freedom, so what does? We seem to be caught between the madness of continuing and impossibility of stopping. I am afraid that we are like the preverbal person running down a steep hill who cannot stop without falling but who cannot go on at an ever-increasing rate without tumbling out of control – this is the future that awaits us, tumbling down the road to nowhere. This is a useful metaphor for economic growth, it cannot go on forever, but there will disastrous consequences if it stops. This illustrates the essential contradiction of neoliberal capitalism. There are no alternative forms of economic organization that will alter this course. I can award this book five stars for the first four chapters and one star for the fifth and final chapter.

Essential Message of the Book:

The essential thesis presented by Rob Larson is quiet basic, the accumulation and concentration of large amounts of economic wealth are just as inimical to human flourishing as the accumulation and concentration of large amounts of political power. The later having been well studied and convincingly demonstrated, both in theory and practice, while the former condition remains opaque and understudied.

Rob Larson’s conclusion is that while unchecked political power leads us down the road to serfdom, unchecked economic power leads us down the same road, but via the toll bridge. ‘Wealth Concentration versus Freedom’ is a title that better reflects the theme of this book but without the same satire on the Friedman book. The problem of course is that economic power (accumulation and concentration of wealth) becomes a platform for political power (accumulation and concentration of authority). It is a libertarian fantasy to believe that wealth does not lead to economic power, social influence and political power. Correspondingly, political power becomes a platform for accumulating and concentrating wealth. The problem is that the large accumulation and concentration of wealth creates independent power centers, it does not offset the accumulation and concentration of centralized political power as libertarians contend, it instead creates additional centers of centralized power based on financial capital. Rather than acting as a counterweight to political power, economic power allows the wealthy to capture the levers of centralized political power leading to a plutocracy. This increasing appears to be the case, at least in the U.S. But even without directly capturing political power, great wealth still exerts enormous influence on what is produced and for whom it is produced, the conditions of employment, future investments, social priorities, and the shape of the future to come. It creates new arcane dimensions of power that are often overlooked when analysis of focused solely on political power.

Assumptions & Asymmetries of Capitalism and Socialism

Underlying the assumption that market exchange activities will achieve equilibrium is a more fundamental assumption, viz., that the world is a moral world. One must first make this assumption, take this proposition on faith about an underlying moral order to accept the conclusion that market activities lead to just outcomes. Lurking beneath this assumption are often unstated theological claims about God, thus reducing the market paradigm, and the farcical notion of equilibrium to the fanciful levels of religious claims. The corresponding unacknowledged and unstable assumption made in socialism is that world is rational. There is an over determined assumption that reason governs choice and behavior. That is, given the opportunity, people will be reasonable enough to choose cooperation over competition and command, mutual decision making over hierarchy, will understand long-term consequences and act accordingly; that people will behave in ways that are just and mutually beneficial. This over stated claim for reason is just as much a case of blind faith as with the moral assumption.

The current economic paradigm is that wealth equals freedom, or at the least the opportunity to accumulate wealth is the purpose of freedom. This creates the Euthyphro Dilemma. To wit, does freedom make us wealthy or does wealth make us free? Another way to ask this question; is freedom promoted by markets or are markets the result of freedom? Defenders of the pure market paradigm cannot resolve this dilemma. Many who defend the wisdom of the market paradigm, that wealth equals freedom, find mandated equality of outcomes to be unjust and instead advocate equality of opportunity as the essential principles of justice and fairness never realizing that opportunities depend on prior outcomes.

Critical Comments:

We learn a lot about practically everything except what needs to be done. I am not defending the current neoliberal capitalist order that is leading us to catastrophe (ecological) collapse (financial) and conflict (resources) but the author offers nothing new; just Marxism 101 with the same shop-worn socialist dreams about the bottom up organization of society and the worker paradise featuring worker control over decision making, ownership, investment etc. That is, Larson operates from within his own framework, not a fully enlightened framework, he employs his own certain socialist interpretation of capital and provides only a truncated view of free enterprise, leaving socialism as the only alternative. He does not fully allow the capitalist framework to speak for itself because he confines his critique of capitalism to two books and two thinkers with only passing references to others. The alternative offered is just a vague notion about what socialism means and entails. This reminds me of two recent vacuous and superficial political slogans. To wit, “Make America Great Again” and prior to it “Hope and Change”. In each case, the slogans are vague enough to allow the true believers to fill in the details as they see fit and create an asymmetry of objective values and subjective perspectives. That is, everyone agrees on the goals and values, but everyone has a different idea of what they mean or entail. The notion that socialism will do away with authority is beyond naïve. Both capitalism and socialism involve power, hierarchy and authority. Under capitalism, the centers of power are economic; under socialism, the centers of power are political. Even a representative democratic workers collective is still a form of organization and as such it will need hierarchy, direction, control and thus a power structure. It is not power, it is the lack of power, that presents the greater risks for the rational organization of human activity. It is not markets and states that are the problem, it is the failure of markets and states due to a lack of power that creates human misery. Economic institutions are not mutually exclusive from political institutions and power. The much-vaunted worker control will necessarily evolve into a hierarchy of necessity with the attendant class structure.

If Friedman and Hayek had a capital fetish, then Rob Larson has a borderline labor fetish. Too high a share of national income apportioned to capital or labor creates asymmetries that can become destabilizing and dangerous. That we have swung too far in the direction of capital in this regard I think is obvious and Rob Larson does outstanding work in documenting this shift. There is an urgent need for rebalancing, but an extreme counter swing in favor labor will create its own problems and unintended consequences just as much as the swing in the direction of capital has done in the last forty or so years. This makes it more likely than not that just such an overreach or extreme shift will take place, but it will only take place after an existential crisis in the current system.

I agree with the author that comparisons of the U.S. to the U.S.S.R. as a valid comparison of capitalism to socialism is nothing more than a false equivalency fallacy. There are too many cultural, historical, demographic, political, social and economic differences to make the comparison valid. But I must ask, what about a comparison of East and West Germany or North and South Korea? In these cases, we have as close to a ceteris paribus comparison as possible with the only important variable being the economic system of organization. I think the results speak for themselves. Rob Larson does not advocate state central planning as the road to the libertarian socialism that he advocates, but it is a transition stage. The trouble is that it seems like each experiment in socialism stalls at this transition stage and never moves to the final stage of full citizen participation, ownership and control. Further, the author dismisses attempts to reform or soften the most unjust and unfair aspects of capitalism or even transforming the neoliberal form capitalism into the social democratic form of capitalism with improvements to welfare, unemployment, stronger unions, access to education and healthcare as only timid half-way measures. This is not radical enough for Rob Larson as his call is for decisive conformation. Decisive conformation is the road to nowhere, methodical consistent reform in the direction of social democracy is the best we can hope to achieve. The conformation Larson calls for is a confrontation with what people do naturally. Capitalism is just a label used to describe what happens naturally when humans are turned loose onto nature, with scarce resources, to fend for their survival; they come together to engage in exchange, this is not unreasonable human behavior. Socialism sets too high a standard for human behavior and action. It would take a spiritual transformation to obtain the lofty goals for the human race that Rob Larson has in mind. The irony is, I agree with his goals, but I do not think that humans are of a disposition to reach those lofty goals and forging ahead regardless of human caprice and predilection has been the mistake of hubris made by every proceeding socialist experiment.

Two Views, One World

It is not the case that those who are critical of the free market such as Rob Larson do not value human freedom rather, it is the world that does not provide a moral order upon which to build market mechanisms that result in just outcomes for all market participants. It is not the case that those who are critical of socialism do not value fairness and justice rather, it is the world that does not provide a rational basis upon which to build the social paradise that results in just outcomes for all social participants. The problem of course is that every age and every culture manufacture their own narrow bandwidth theories (social, political, economic) used to shape, modify and predict the behavior of human beings. Every theory, theology or philosophy, every historical tale and narrative story that we are pleased to tell ourselves about human experience to aid us in navigating a human existence that proceeds without purpose or meaning have the same goal, to help us rationalize and justify the current paradigm and take comfort in its implied morality or implied rationality. The current age is characterized by a theology of foolish notions about self-help with childish levels of optimism. These are timeless human biases but seem even more prevalent and have even become necessary to maintain a market system and to predict a socialist paradise in the face of the obvious peril. The frightful truth is that we understand much less about social relationships, economic relations and organizations structures than we like to pretend.

Capitalism and socialism, for that matter democracy and aristocracy are all just abstractions. It does no good to say that capitalism is rapacious but efficient or that socialism is benevolent but inefficient or that democracy is fair and aristocracy unfair, these are just labels and abstractions from reality. The reality is us. If we want more humane politics, more rational economics, and sensible social relationships then we must become more humane, rational and sensible people. The method of political, economic or social organization is just beside the point. These dichotomies only represent the way in which we create factions divided against the whole. We can have any so called ‘system’ we desire but its outcomes will be governed by who we are as human beings. The answers are to be found where the problems are it is to be found, with us and within us. This is a matter of social and cultural evolution with the key question being, can evolve fast enough to head off our own shortsighted foolishness. It is not from our sinfulness, but our foolishness and hubris from which we need to be saved.

Glaring Factual Error:

I am always sorry to this happen and I am reluctant to point it out as it does not undermine the thesis of the book, but I feel compelled as part of a book review to mention it. Listed on p. 118 are the authors of the Federalist Papers as James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and John Jay. I hope that it is obvious to the reader that Thomas Jefferson was in no way connected to the writing or publication of the Federalist Paper and that the Federalist Paper author missing from p. 118, ironically the mastermind behind the entire project, is Alexander Hamilton, ugh.

[X Li · Rating 5 out of 5]

introduction what is freedom
john mill/ issaih berlin
capitalism curb both kinds of freedom

c1 classes and crashes freedom of work
atlas hugged: free market and competetion/ get out of the way of

creative elites
the fun percent: every elite have a lawyer
to the bigger go the spoils: libetarian leads to monopoly
labor's loves lost
no man is an island but he can buy one: house/ philanthropy
ups and downs and downs

c2 pennies for your thoughts
freedom of information
the price is righteous
the press compressed
money yells: information network value increase with more users
putting their money where your mouth is
original spin: free to imagine that we choose
tmi inc

c3 codependence day
political freedom
minority rules
you say you bought a revolution
the new deal dealt
shadow puppets
touche pinochet
global elites and the man in the street

c4 heirloom doom
freedom of future generations
there goes the neighborhood: freedom in general, not immedietaly

material gain for the few
inherit the whirlwind
serfdom 2100

c5 socialism and freedom
democratic economic organization
the big idea
sanitized radicals
bolshit
crashes to ashes bust ot rust

[Colleen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book. Larson shits on the popular conception that America is where one experiences the greatest freedom and that the reason for its greatness is capitalism. In five dense chapters, he illustrates how it is that right-wing libertarian "intellectuals" completely subverted the philosophical concept of freedom from that of Fromm's "freedom to" to Hayek's "freedom from", thereby justifying the increasing market freedom of corporations (Kim Phillips-Fein's Invisible Hands goes into this at amazing depth). Their unchecked hegemonic freedom can be seen wherein privatization of industries has led to concentrated wealth/monopolies. Where the average American sees unlimited freedom, the objective economic analysis sees limited consumer choices in the hands of a few large corporations, media conglomerates' control of TV and radio programming, super PAC spending, and Koch Brother-funded right-wing propaganda on college campuses. Where is the freedom in any of this? And if you think we have it bad, how do you think people in the developing countries to which we have exported our most dangerous, exploitative work feel? Luckily, Larson offers a beacon of hope in the many experiments vying for differing varieties of socialism having at its core the anarchistic concept of worker control. We may not be able to abolish private property in our time but we can try to avoid being a mouthpiece for the interests of power and create anti-capitalist spaces.

[Ernst · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book absolutely destroys the notion that capitalism "promotes freedom". I think this is more suitable as an introduction to anticapitalist to someone unfamiliar with these ideas (and with some basic facts about capitalism that everyone really should know) than as a book for those already on the anticapitalist left. It does do a good part of dismantling the 'arguments' ("assertions" is a better word) put forward by Friedman, Hayek, etc. Other than that it didn't surprise me with new ideas but was still good to read.

Definitely recommend it, especially for your family members and friends that defend capitalism with "capitalism promotes freedom"-type arguments or believe "the market" can solve all problems.

[Kern Sus · Rating 2 out of 5]

A very mixed bag. He doesn't go very in depth about the critique of libertarianism, instead opting for a simple viewing on how capitalism and the two definitions of freedom work. There are some good parts, such as when he walks through markets ang global imperialism, though even these parts aren't that in depth. The worst part are the lies about what he calls "authoritarian socialism" and the politics of Lenin. He basically regurgitates Cold War propaganda about the USSR, and also lies about Rosa Luxemburg, claiming that she stood as an antithesis to Lenin and the bolaheviks, which couldn't be further from the truth.
I would probably skip this one and focus on reading Noam Chomsky instead

[Viral · Rating 5 out of 5]

A solid text for introducing people to the inherent problems within capitalism, framed as a response to famed capitalit economists Milton Friedman and Frederick Hayek twin works, Capitalism and Freedom and The Road to Serfdom, respectively. Short, and a bit limited in its explanation of socialist alternatives, but a solid explanation of why capitalism makes us less free and why we need to get away from it.

[Brandon Neill · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book, detailed information and references. An insightful look at how big business can be even more curtailing of our freedoms that big government. Looks at the influence of business over government that has grown significantly over the last 40 years. Introduced me to the idea of positive and negative freedoms (freedom from vs freedom to).

Very good resources for those upcoming holiday "discussions".

[Harvey Bilbrough · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rob Larson's relatively short text is simple enough for anyone to understand the stark condemnation of modern capitalist development. Dismantling the ideological rhetoric for the sham that neoliberalism is, he then demonstrates the reality of just how capitalism erodes its own supposed bases of "free trade" and how it is not conducive to even liberal notions of what freedom is.

[Gary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great counterarguments to the familiar refrains of conservative economists, most notably Friedman and Heyak, turning them on their heads. The most interesting sections are the first couple of chapters. The last few chapters are less interesting or compelling, but presented in part for completeness. An overall great read.

[Kaushik · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great introduction to libertarian socialist thinking. Nothing new if you're already a leftist, but amazing for any newcomer, a must read.

[Redpoet · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dull, boring, nothing new, slow, repetitive...do you get that i was not impressed. I can’t remember why I purchased it to begin with.

[Ietrio · Rating 2 out of 5]

The second star is because I have loved the puns. The text is yet another rehash for the believers.

[Kelley Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enjoyed this book.

[Julia Landes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book that gives me a lot to think about! Surprisingly hopeful in the ways that we could change from a capitalist society to a truly free society!

[Kevin Dood · Rating 5 out of 5]

A superb takedown of Milton Friedman’s austere and incoherent economic worldview.

[Matheus Fronza · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book, mostly a response to Friedman and Hayek.

[Randy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is among the best books I've read critiquing neoliberalism.

[David B. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Docked a star because he did a 'not real socialism.'

[Robin · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is a good book that I recommend reading. Not sure if it changes minds but does provide ideas to the uninitiated and indoctrinated who sense conceptual holes in their current ideological dispensation.

My only quibble would be the almost absolute denounciation of Lenin post revolution, let alone the leaders that follow. That is the only thing in this book that is a bit knee-jerkish .
Why are people on the left so keen to denounce the Russian revolution and the Soviet state that followed, it has become almost an assertion of purity to immediately let it be known how much one hates the Soviet Union/project.
Trotsky was one of first fall for it and people on the left especially in the west just can't seem to let go of this useless impluse.
Ask people in the third world what the revolution and the project that followed meant , yes for all its faults.