The spatial politics of F.A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom
Abstract This paper re-examines Hayek's Road to Serfdom in historical context. Of particular interest is Hayek's claim that “left” and “right” socialism of the 1930s had much in common. In making this argument, Hayek held that all socialism implied planning at the expense of consumer sovereignty. We first agree to plan, but if we are then unable to agree on its contents, someone imposes a specific course of action on us. Hayek was strenuously opposed at the time by Abba Lerner and E.F.M. Durbin, who held that we can conceptualize, and perhaps put into place, a sort of socialism which yields to the will of consumer preferences.
The Political and Social Prerequisites for a Soviet-Type Economy
Very many will be rendered obsolete, and knowledge shall be multiple. Now while the first part of this is a cliche it is less common, in the deplorably specialised state of the social sciences, that any contribution should be multiple. For what I have to say this afternoon belongs to no particular discipline as the learned world defines them, but lies upon the borderlines of many. It is not so located for fun or for display, but in order to answer the question posed. It is methodologically very backward since it contains no algebraical symbols and probably could not have contained any, even had a more skilled hand than mine been at work. Suitable stuff, then, for an inaugural, and moreover doubly apposite, since my appointment is joint between a school of humanities and a school of social science, and since it concerns the Soviet Five Year Plans, and like them is delivered twelve months late. Practising politicians are by definition political economists, and political sociologists too. Them apart, almost the only modern students of this art are Marxists. Marx's own interest in it was no greater than, say, Mill's, for political economy was a central part of 19th century thought. But notoriously Mill left no successors,2 and the art degenerated in the West from, as it were, the Royal Academy portrait to the political poster. In reviving political economy, then, we have to take a stance vis-a-vis the only modern school of it, the Marxist school. It is not particularly appropriate, it may indeed be merely confusing, that I should be forced by my specialised ignorance to do so in the context of the Soviet-type economy. For Marxists know little about that type of economy, and have contributed almost nothing to its elucidation.:
The radical challenge
Radicalism in social work is an accumulation of social and political critiques from a variety of sources. The uneasy coexistence of these critiques results from the contradictory position in which radicals find themselves. The springboard of radicalism is a rejection of social work in any of its present forms as anything but an institutionalised substitute for the caring relationships which people in any predicament could expect and enjoy in a less exploitative society. On the other hand many radicals believe that those who are exploited or rejected by society should pursue their rights as forcefully as possible, and social work offers one method of helping them towards a position to do so. Radicals are also faced with having to earn a living themselves and resisting their own exploitation. The resulting contradictions make it difficult if not impossible to act consistently. Facing up to them, and simultaneously attempting to maintain open and honest relationships with clients in conditions which favour deceit, make radicalism a vulnerable and painful undertaking. Add the fact that the involvement in union and political activity which radicals consider indispensable can itself either be boring or attract intense hostility from established interests, and our commitment becomes yet more unenviable; the courage, caring and capacity for work which are required make real radicalism a daunting task.