During this winter holiday, I have read a book written by Hayek one of the most remarkable liberalist philosopher.
This book is a bible of modern liberalism containing a basis doctrine of how market economy should work as from historical and phylosophical point of view (rather than modern-economical point of view). The theory presented in this book is adoptable to any kind of economic system which remains freedom of choice and a fair competitive environment. Hayek himself uses the word "Liberalism" rather than "Capitalism" which is the word preferably used by, particularly, Marxist, many sorts of socialists/collectivists, and anarch-syndicalists. This aspect indicates the market system called capitalism by many collectivists or anti-meritocrats is potentially preferable system which is more likely to provide individual freedom in both choice and living.
Majority of political philosophers admiring Hayek's doctrine tend to defend "Classical Economic Theory" which claims for "laissez-faire" economic system (relying on a long-term solustion and little control on a stability of the business cycle) and denotes aggregate surply curve as vertical. Also this implication leads many anti-Keynesian economists tend to refer to Hayek's liberalism as the philisophical basis of their theory. However, according to my analysis, Hayek did not seem to contradict Keynesian theory. Although Milton Friedman, contradicted entire Keynesian economic theory, most notably took over Hayek's ideas of society, Hayek's theory is fairly adoptable to the philosophical background knowledge of Keynesian economists. The main reason is that Hayek is in fact not technically a macroeconomist; he is rather a political philosopher! Hayek marely mentions a big picture of how economic system in modern world has been formed rather than a detailed picture of systematic function in an economics. This implies that Hayek just indicated the inevitability of market system to secure individual liberty in both choice and life and intensive collectivised economic system eventually causes to restriction of individual liberty. Furthermore, Hayek does not deny an government intervention to control the business cycle i.e. secure fair competition and social justice and avoid exploitation; althuogh criticise the excess intervention. As Keynesian theory supports to remain a market system itself and contradict both Marxian collectivism and Corpotatist monopoly Hayek's theory and Keynesian theory often goes well together in terms of these common aims.
On the other hand, Hayek is well-known as the most notable political philosopher who adjust Fasism, National-Socialism, and Communism inevitably share similar or even same characteristics of ideology and quality of society. This is because that if individuals and society rely on social support from government and give the power to control the distribution system the self-centered characteristic of human-being eventually allows dominant individuals controlling over government to alter the social justice and property right with ones these dominant individuals wish to hold. Hayek also understands the original idea of socialism is to save destitutes and cultural minority, who are far difficult to survive in a competitive society, from lack of necesities human-being need in a society. However, Hayek warns if such a socialist state starts to control the distribution system, it is more likely to become difficult to amend a mislead idea of state ideology. Even though socialism is meant to secure the life of all individuals in society under a welfare system, once society and market start relying on a government power, society is more likely to be under the control of one big power rather than heterogeneous individual interests. The socialist evolution just alters "Who does not work shall not eat" with "Who does not obey shall not eat."
Nevertheless, this essay must emphasise that Hayek could not predict the future that a new corporatism overwhelms nationalism! Hayek's theory missed out the aspect if a government power allows the corporate power or not.
