Just wow.
Since this thread was posted I went back and re-read Hayek's "The Road To Serfdom" from front to back, playing particular attention to Chapter 10. It has been at least ten years since I read it last, and it reminded me again why it ranks to me as one of the most influential books I have ever read. It is one of the books that I was compelled to buy a hardcover, the audio version, and the Kindle version.
Funny. It was the first book I ever did that for, and it was because I had so many notes and highlights in the hardcopy, they were useless. So I do all those in the eBook version.
It is astonishing, to read it once again, and to do so in the context of the actions of the Left today. The prescient Hayek, when he wrote that book in 1944 clearly explains the terrible dynamic of socialism.
I began paying attention to Chapter 10, which was how socialism by its very inherent nature puts the worst people into power. (from the reference in the linked article to this thread in which the author cites the propensity of Socialism to bring to the forefront bad people with the "Bad causes attract bad people" explanation.
But when I went to the next chapter (Chapter 11, The End of Truth) I was struck by how well he understood perfectly the way that Socialism has to be sold with lies, and that language must be perverted and mangled as a method to remove all meaning and understandability (the mechanism of Orwell's NewSpeak):
The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those which they, or at least the best among them, have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before
The people are made to transfer their allegiance from the old gods to the new under the pretense that the new gods really are what their sound instinct had always told them but what before they had only dimly seen.
And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning.
Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as the complete perversion of language, the change of meaning of the words by which the ideals of the new regimes are expressed.
The worst sufferer in this respect is, of course, the word “liberty.” It is a word used as freely in totalitarian states as elsewhere. Indeed, it could almost be said—and it should serve as a warning to us to be on our guard against all the tempters who promise us New Liberties for Old —that wherever liberty as we understand it has been destroyed, this has almost always been done in the name of some new freedom promised to the people.
Even among us we have “planners for freedom” who promise us a “collective freedom for the group,” the nature of which may be gathered from the fact that its advocate finds it necessary to assure us that “naturally the advent of planned freedom does not mean that all [sic] earlier forms of freedom must be abolished.” Dr. Karl Mannheim, from whose work these sentences are taken, at least warns us that “a conception of freedom modelled on the preceding age is an obstacle to any real understanding of the problem.”
But his use of the word “freedom” is as misleading as it is in the mouth of totalitarian politicians.
Like their freedom, the “collective freedom” he offers us is not the freedom of the members of society but the unlimited freedom of the planner to do with society what he pleases. It is the confusion of freedom with power carried to the extreme. In this particular case the perversion of the meaning of the word has, of course, been well prepared by a long line of German philosophers and, not least, by many of the theoreticians of socialism.
But “freedom” or “liberty” are by no means the only words whose meaning has been changed into their opposites to make them serve as instruments of totalitarian propaganda. We have already seen how the same happens to “justice” and “law,” “right” and “equality.” The list could be extended until it includes almost all moral and political terms in general use. If one has not one’s self experienced this process, it is difficult to appreciate the magnitude of this change of the meaning of words, the confusion which it causes, and the barriers to any rational discussion which it creates.
It has to be seen to be understood how, if one of two brothers embraces the new faith, after a short while he appears to speak a different language which makes any real communication between them impossible. And the confusion becomes worse because this change of meaning of the words describing political ideals is not a single event but a continuous process, a technique employed consciously or unconsciously to direct the people. Gradually, as this process continues, the whole language becomes despoiled, and words become empty shells deprived of any definite meaning, as capable of denoting one thing as its opposite and used solely for the emotional associations which still adhere to them.
Hayek, F. A.. The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) . University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
The only person I think who understood this better than Hayek did was probably George Orwell, which was both ironic and interesting, as he was a proponent of socialism himself, IIRC.
The Managerial Revolution by James Burnham was one of my textbooks in an economics class I had when I was young. The prof (Manning I think) gave his huge lectures in one of the amphitheater style halls, and it was generally full (as opposed to most such setups). One of my better university experiences, I must say.
https://search.brave.com/search?q=the+managerial+revolution+full+text&summary=1