4 ms·
I like Hayek's "planning" tool for distinguishing socialism. That is, does the ideology position the state as the planner of its citizens lives in one way or an
by RA_Fisher 8y ago
I like Hayek's "planning" tool for distinguishing socialism. That is, does the ideology position the state as the planner of its citizens lives in one way or another? Socialism is the intervention of the state in its citizens lives be it healthcare, industry, moral rules, etc. From this view fascism is indeed socialism.
The alternative is liberalism or the absence of planning.
- detaro 8y agoBy that definition, many monarchies would be "socialist" (E.g. the German Empire, which created many of the social security systems in Germany, specifically to avoid socialism rising). That sounds like a pretty massive re-definition of the term to allow pushing it into a one-dimensional scale, especially in the context of the time where the Nazis choose their label.
- kingofhdds 8y agoGerman monarchy yielded a lot to socialist demands to avoid revolution. This concessions, of course, made German Empire more socialist country then many people believe.
- olavk 8y agoDoesn't that make everything socialism? What political system wouldn't be socialism?
- RA_Fisher 8y agoLiberalism is the opposite of planning. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism I highly recommend Hayek's Road to Serfdom for more details.
- throw2016 8y agoThat seems to be describing governance, democracy and rule of law. Before that we had feudalism for thousands of years. And before that there were informal market places where people exchanged goods and services, the ultimate 'information processors' according to Hayek, yet these marketplaces did not lead to any kind of civilization, progress, 'freedom' or modernism. Without rule of law there is barbarism. Any law infringes 'freedom', the thief's freedom, the plunderers freedom, the polluters freedom, the arsonists freedom, the greedy fisherman's freedom, so whose freedom are you going to protect and whose freedom will you take? And if you take someone's freedom they will not consent so you need force. That means you need planning to develop rules, to convince the majority to agree to the rules, a system to enforce the rules and reach some kind of ongoing consensus for any sustainable peaceful society. And you are back to a society with planning, rules, democracy, governance and loss of 'freedom'. Even a basic marketplace needs 'planning' and rules to function so this 'market as planner' thesis seems aspirational.
- RA_Fisher 8y agoThe main difference is whether the rules are set ahead of time or whether they're adjusted by a central authority. For example, compare the tort system to a regulatory board. Hayek explores this distinction in detail in the Road to Serfdom.