如何评价哈耶克《通往奴役之路》的观点？ 第2页

只要看世界上有谁真的按他的一套干就行了。非常希望除中国之外，其它国家都执行他的那一套。

更新：

稍有常识的人都该知道，20世纪英国的所有执政党，即便是被哈耶克点名的工党，从来没有想过要搞苏式的指令经济，对经济变革的纲领大多脱离不开福利国家的范畴和温和渐进的路线。而这些也是哈耶克不能接受的。

实际上 @李修宇 为支撑这一论点引的哈耶克原文是：

依照拉斯基的动议而作出的决议中有一些要求是要在和平时期仍保留“在战时用来动员全国资源的政府控制措施”。不但这个决议中的那些要求，就是一切独特的用语，类如拉斯基教授现在要求大不列颠实行的“平衡的经济”或者“对生产具有集中指导作用的公共消费”，等等。

这真是重新定义“福利国家的范畴和温和渐进的路线”了。

There were also more overtly political forces to be reckoned with, forces whose hopes for the postwar world became increasingly clear as the conflict began to turn in favor of the allies. In early 1942 the Labour Party issued a pamphlet, The Old World and the New Society, that laid out the principles for reconstruction after the war. Here are some of its key claims:


There must be no return to the unplanned competitive world of the inter-War years, in which a privileged few were maintained at the expense of the common good . . .
A planned society must replace the old competiitive system . . .
The basis for our democracy must be planned production for community use . . .
As a necessary prerequisite to the reorganization of society, the main Wartime controls in industry and agriculture should be maintained to avoid the scramble for profits which followed the last war.

These ideas were incorporated into a resolution proposed by Harold Laski and passed at the Party Conference on May 26, 1942. In his speech defending the resolution, Laski noted that “Nationalization of the essential instruments of production before the war ends, the maintenance of control over production and distribution after the war—this is the spearhead of this resolution.”

——Bruce Caldwell Introduction to the Road to Serfdom

提出一个激进目标，然后执政时实现不了，这是再正常不过的事。然而不能因此假装自己的目标和纲领是一贯的，实现不了就重新定义激进目标，或假装激进目标从来不存在。事实上，战后数十年工党内对于公有制和计划经济的路线争论一直存在。党纲的公有制条款是1995年废除的，见 英国工党公有制思想与政策的演变

贝弗里奇是个英国自由党人，支持市场经济，无论从何种角度来看都和苏式共产主义/激进社会主义者扯不上什么关系。哈耶克在写这本书的时候的首要假想敌就不是苏联或者正统的社会主义者，而是左翼具有进步性质的自由主义者们。

呵呵

According to Beveridge’s biographer, “the Social Insurance plan formed merely an iceberg tip—and in Beveridge’s view perhaps the least important tip—of the very much more ambitious and far-reaching program of social reconstruction that he had in his mind at the time . . . [which] included such possible objectives as the nationalization of land and housing, national minimum wage legislation, public ownership of up to 75 per cent of industrial production, a public enterprise board to direct both public and private investment, and permanent state control of income, prices, and manpower planning.”

“左翼具有进步性质的自由主义者们”提出如此激进的经济制度主张，保守主义者争相向“社会主义”示好，这种思想氛围正是哈耶克写这本书的动因。然后你反过来指责哈耶克居然骂非共产主义的自由主义者和保守主义者？

可以看一看《通往奴役之路》的第13章《我们中间的极权主义者》——从名字就能看出来，如果哈耶克针对的是一般意义上的社会主义者/共产党人，他会说这是“我们中间的”吗？实际上，在整整一章里，哈耶克一直在抨击当时英国社会改革。

能把第十三章《我们之间的极权主义者》理解为哈耶克辱骂（包括保守党人）在1920-40年代搞的社会改革，也是天才的理解。读了这一章全文的人不难看出，哈耶克所说“英国差德国20年”，“左右派都在削弱英国自由主义传统”指的是英国政界和思想界对社会主义的态度倾向与20年代德国非常相似，提都没提20-40年代的社会改革，更遑论哪里说做过头要刹车了。

事实上前言里讲得更清楚：

这个国家并非与希特勒德国，也就是目前这场战争中的德国有任何相似之处。但是，研究思潮的人们很难对此视而不见，即在上一次战争期间及战后的德国思潮与目前这个国家的思潮之间存在着并非只是表面上的相似性。现今，在这个国家中肯定存在着同样的决断，要把出于防卫目的而建立的国家体制保留下来用于创造。这里，也有着对19世纪自由主义的同样蔑视、同样的伪“现实主义”乃至犬儒主义，对“不可避免的趋势”同样的宿命论的接受。”
"也许有人会说，这不是提出这种意见针锋相对问题的时候。但我们所谈的社会主义不是一个党派问题，我们正讨论的问题也与政党之间争论的问题没什么关系。某些集团可能比另外一些集团较少地需要社会主义，某些集团需要社会主义是出于某一集团的利益，而另外一些集团则是出于另一个集团的利益，这些对我们的问题并没有影响。重要之点在于，如果我们要挑出一些其见解能影响各种发展的人，那么在这个国家中，他们在相当程度上都是社会主义者。如果强调“我们现在都是社会主义者”已不再时髦的话，这仅仅是因为事实再明显不过了。几乎没有人怀疑我们必须要继续向社会主义前进，大多数人试图做的也不过是按照某一阶级或集团的利益改变这个运动的方向而已。”

需要强调，对于《通往奴役之路》反福利国家，认为社会政策会滑坡到极权主义的解读方式，右派国奥和左派社民都很喜欢。但这是年代错置的解读。在1942年，哈耶克所担心的最大威胁是战后延续统制经济，绝不是过去20年的那些零碎社会改革。

————————————————————————

反驳无所谓，但注意不要树稻草人。例如 @李修宇 的回答 如何反驳哈耶克《通往奴役之路》的观点？ 就是一个对于《通往奴役之路》的常见错误理解。

哈耶克在这本书的1956年美国版序言，以及1976年版序言里讲了《通往奴役之路》与福利国家的关系。可以看出，哈耶克本人对资本主义福利国家的前景是怀疑的、不看好的，但《通往奴役之路》这书本身不涉及福利国家。

That hodgepodge of ill-assembled and often inconsistent ideals which under the name of the Welfare State has largely replaced socialism as the goal of the reformers needs very careful sorting out if its results are not to be very similar to those of full-fledged socialism. This is not to say that some of its aims are not both practicable and laudable. But there are many ways in which we can work toward the same goal, and in the present state of opinion there is some danger that our impatience for quick results may lead us to choose instruments which, though perhaps more efficient for achieving the particular ends, are not compatible with the preservation of a free society. The increasing tendency to rely on administrative coercion and discrimination where a modification of the general rules of law might, perhaps more slowly, achieve the same object, and to resort to direct state controls or to the creation of monopolistic institutions where judicious use of financial inducements might evoke spontaneous efforts, is still a powerful legacy of the socialist period which is likely to influence policy for a long time to come. ——Foreword to the 1956 American Paperback Edition

The reader will probably ask whether this means that I am still prepared to defend all the main conclusions of this book, and the answer to this is on the whole affirmative. The most important qualification I must add is that during the interval of time terminology has changed and for this reason what I say in the book may be misunderstood. At the time I wrote, socialism meant unambiguously the nationalization of the means of production and the central economic planning which this made possible and necessary. In this sense Sweden, for instance, is today very much less socialistically organized than Great Britain or Austria, though Sweden is commonly regarded as much more socialistic. This is due to the fact that socialism has come to mean chiefly the extensive redistribution of incomes through taxation and the institutions of the welfare state. In the latter kind of socialism the effects I discuss in this book are brought about more slowly, indirectly, and imperfectly. I believe that the ultimate outcome tends to be very much the same, although the process by which it is brought about is not quite the same as that described in this book. ———Preface to the 1976 Edition

事实上《通往奴役之路》的第九章明确支持社会保障：

These two kinds of security are, first, security against severe physical privation, the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all; and, second, the security of a given standard of life, or of the relative position which one person or group enjoys compared with others; or, as we may put it briefly, the security of a minimum income and the security of the particular income a person is thought to deserve. We shall presently see that this distinction largely coincides with the distinction between the security which can be provided for all outside of and supplementary to the market system and the security which can be provided only for some and only by controlling or abolishing the market.
There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. There are difficult questions about the precise standard which should thus be assured; there is particularly the important question whether those who thus rely on the community should indefinitely enjoy all the same liberties as the rest. An incautious handling of these questions might well cause serious and perhaps even dangerous political problems; but there can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. Indeed, for a considerable part of the population of England this sort of security has long been achieved.
Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance— where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks—the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to supercede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatibility in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom. To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such “acts of God” as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.

另外可以补充一个论据。众所周知凯恩斯在政府宏观经济干预方面和哈耶克立场相反，而凯恩斯对《通往奴役之路》的评价是：

In my opinion it is a grand book […] Morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it: and not only in agreement with it, but in deeply moved agreement.

可见凯恩斯认为哈耶克反的是计划经济，不是一般的政府干预。

对于《通往奴役之路》的稻草人反驳如此盛行，本身反映了欧美社民左派的退潮。1940年代公开宣扬的国有化+计划经济不能要了，然后拿资本主义福利国家去“打哈耶克脸”，不客气地讲，这反映的就是哈耶克的胜利。

至于《通往奴役之路》怎么反驳呢？我认为无法反驳，因为真正实践了计划经济+国有化的激进左派，反而非常认同与这本书相同的逻辑。

全民所有制和集体所有制这两种所有制并存的局面不会有根本改变。而只要有这两种所有制，商品生产，货币交换，按劳分配就是不可避免的。由于“这只能在无产阶级专政下加以限制”，城乡资本主义因素的发展，新资产阶级分子的出现，也就是不可避免的。如果不加限制，资本主义和资产阶级就会更快地发展起来。
把无产阶级专政变成一句空话，把对资产阶级的全面专政变成残缺不全，只在某些领域专政，不在一切领域专政，只在某个阶段 ( 比如所有制改造以前 ) 专政，不在一切阶段专政，也就是说，不是全部地打掉资产阶级的一切土围子，而是留下一些，让它再扩大队伍，那岂不是为资产阶级复辟准备条件吗 ? ——《论对资产阶级的全面专政》

人类实践了几千年，试验了几千年。

最终会发现，孔夫子是对的。

从小不进行圣贤教育，长大了不管选择什么道路，都是错的。

其初心，不是企图得到，就是企图消灭。

唯有圣贤，才是为了利益众生。

事实胜于雄辩。

如果用事实反驳不了，那就退而求其次，用雄（che）辩（dan）来驳倒它吧。

比起有些人试图让哈耶克破防，密尔顿·弗里德曼^[1]有关哈耶克的评价更能让有些人破防：

世界上再没有人如同弗里德里希·哈耶克一般，对铁幕里的知识分子产生如此庞大的影响。他的书的翻译本在那些国家的黑市被广泛流传和阅读，最后形成了导致苏联解体的公众舆论环境。

参考

1. ^ 芝加哥经济学派经济学家、诺贝尔经济学奖得主

奥地利学派反对理性？

奥地利学派反对的是发明全社会唯一的真理，剥夺他人的思考的权利。反对用暴力逼迫所有人跟你合作推进你的社会实验。

你可以理性思考如何运作一个社会更有效率，让所有人更幸福。但是你不可以剥夺他人的财产和土地上自由迁徙的权利、生育的权利，强征所有公共资源搞什么乌托邦。没有能力承担风险的货色不佩搞什么GP顶层设计。

奥派不阻止个人和组织使用自己的财产、自己能争取到的资源搞社会实验。实验失败的后果由你和你的信徒埋单。

用暴力瓜分其他人的财产搞社会实验是不义，搞到饿殍遍地自己没种承担后果顿顿红烧肉是不仁。

你知道沉溺于酒精、性爱、赌博（打牌）的社会边缘人把精力和金钱都浪费在无用的地方，但是你无权强行剥夺对方的财产和人身自由去让对方干正事。

保守主义承认每个社会参与者的理性，才更不接受少数人用枪杆子和暴力逼迫他人服从自己的理性。

没法反驳，就是铁一样的事实。左派的什么“积极自由”“四大自由”，无非都是在早就明确了的群己权界上搅混水。后果就是把个体和公共的关系弄成一锅粥，现在人们还在没完没了地争：该不该戴口罩、该不该打疫苗、该不该封城、该不该全员居家……

为什么说“没有市场自由就没有一切自由”？因为现今条件下，除了对诈骗、抢劫等有明确受害者指向的犯罪行为的打击，几乎一切侵犯市场自由、私有财产的行为都明确无误地反映了这样一种价值观，即为了“公共利益”，个人行动自由应该也必须让道。而这个“公共利益”含糊不清、可大可小、无从计算却又不容置疑。在这四个闪着金光的大字面前，个人及其一切诉求都显得那样渺小而可鄙。在“公共利益”的名义下，今天可以禁止你使用塑料吸管，明天可以禁止你发表某些言论，后天可以强征你的财产和住房……反正“人是一切社会关系的总和”，万事万物皆可“公共利益”。在这样的情况下，个人还可能有什么自由可言呢？

世界上压根不存在分裂的“经济自由”和“社会自由”，没有任何经济行为不体现社会意义，也没有任何社会自由的行使不涉及经济活动。开什么车、用什么吸管是个人自由吧？一谈到环保，它就变成了“经济活动”，需要被海量专们管；生不生孩子是个人自由吧？一涉及社保体系稳定，它就变成了经济活动，也要海量专们管；言论自由总该不可侵犯了吧？你看现在的“右派言论”给大媒体、大社交网络公司们急的。

一旦你相信“社会是需要治理的、超越个人利益之和的公共利益是值得追求的”，那么为了避免那些无知的、信息不对称的、在“系统性歧视”中没有“真正的自由”的人们不断地犯错误，进而实现“资源的最优配置”，唯一可行的做法就只能是建立海量专家的绝对权威，对社会生活的一切方面进行无孔不入的规划和指导。这也就是为什么老凯恩斯派萨缪尔森直到八十年代都深信，只要计算机技术发展够快，苏联经济一定能超越美国。

哦对，新的“自由左派”代表现在是这个德行：