Fox News – Breaking News Updates

latest news and breaking news today

What best describes serfs? - Answers

source : answers.com

What best describes serfs? – Answers

A serf is best decribed as a peasant bound to his lord’s land or someone degraded by virtual servitude.Serfs were laborers, usually agricultural peasants, who were not free to leave their homes or work. They were not slaves, attached as possessions to owners, but were attached to the land they lived on.

HIST201-FinalExam-Answers

HIST201-FinalExam-Answers – Polish landlords could inflict the death penalty on their serfs. b. Prussian serfs were assumed to be in "hereditary subjugation" to their lords. c. Estate agriculture declined. d. As of 1609, Russian serfs were prohibited from moving from one estate to another. e. A landlord's authority over his peasants was unlimited. ..Most of the peasants were serfs or villeins. The other labourers were called Cottagers or small holders. Under feudalism the lords and nobles of the land had certain rights over Medieval Serfs and…C.Serfs and peasants worked on manors until they earned higher titles; they then gained their own plots of land. D.The king provided vassals with plots of land; peasants and serfs worked and lived on the vassals' land. Question 2 Which of the following describes how the Catholic Church was a part of European culture in the Middle Ages?

During the Middle Ages, what was the life of a serf like – Which of the following outcomes was a result of the mongol empire's invasion of russia? a. the pax mongolica allowed medicine and theater to spread throughout russia. b. the mongols suspended the civil service exam and enforced strict racial divisions. c. heavy mongol taxes caused many russians to give up their land and become serfs. d.Peasants/Serfs. The Peasants or Serfs were at the bottom of the Feudalism social hierarchy. They were basically divided into two types such as the free peasants and the unfree peasants. The free peasants worked on their independent businesses and paid a certain amount of rent to the Lord for utilizing their provided piece of land.Which of the following best describes one of the basic principles of the Magna Carta? Peasants and serfs had certain guaranteed rights and liberties. Nobles had certain rights that the king could…

During the Middle Ages, what was the life of a serf like

question 1 Which of the following describes how the – Which of the following best describes serfs? A. peasants who gave their land to the local lords in exchange for protection B. slaves to the local lord who could be forced off their land without reason C. the lowest-level vassal in a feudal system D. peasants who remained free and owned their own landSerfs were technically free but they were tied to the land they farmed. Which of the following best describes a fief? answer choices . the peasants who worked the farm land. the oath of loyalty sworn to the monarch. the income raised by the peasants.Serfs are often described as unfree. More accurately, because that term is usually misunderstood, they might best be called peasants who were bound to the land they lived on but did not own. The…

Dark Ages Redux: American Politics and the End of the ...
Which of the following best describes the data ...
Answered: 6) Which of the following terms best… | bartleby
Which of the following best describes the United States ...
Which of the following best describes a bankers acceptance ...
Which of the following best describes the ... | Clutch Prep
Unit 20 -- Revolution in Science and Thought (15th through ...
Answered: Which of the following statements best… | bartleby
Which of the following best describes an objective ...
Ducktales 2017 Fan and Donald Transcriptionist — Lena ...
Place each figure in order from most powerful to least ...

Les serfs au Moyen Âge – Hi, it's Alain.
In my video on feudalism, I must confess, I've only touched on one specific facet of society, the one that binds the vassals to their lord, for it is this vassal bond that precisely defines the notion of feudalism. Still, it's true that there's a whole bunch of this society that I've been keeping quiet about: the life of the peasants, their relations with their own lords, and especially their condition as free men or serfs. And when it comes to serfdom, immediately, one imagines appalling conditions of slavery, entire peoples, I quote, "taxed and drilled at will"… and many still don't know exactly what it means. So let's go back a little bit to serfdom in the Middle Ages, and the differences between serf and slave conditions. Well, we're not gonna lie to each other, it's a very complicated subject. On the one hand, historians do not often agree with each other, but we're kind of used to this; but on the other hand, there are very few sources to go around. As a result, knowledge on this point is advancing very slowly. In the 19th and early 20th century, the tendency is to say that serfdom is for peasants what vassalage is to knights and nobles in general. From a lower rank, no doubt, but the same kind of gift of self to a Lord or an abbey able to protect you in exchange for a service: serf, serfdom, service, it all has the same root, doesn't it? But obviously, it's more complicated than that. First, because it implies a kind of break with previous eras, which obviously didn't happen: just as we didn't wake up one day and think, "Oh, this is it, Antiquity is over, we're finally in the Middle Ages"… or "well, the Middle Ages are over, we're going to enjoy the Renaissance", we didn't suddenly go from Roman slavery to medieval serfdom. Roman society cannot exist without slavery, it's a fact: to exploit the vast estates of the patrician villae, you need slaves. And in large numbers. Of course, the fall of the Roman Empire, which I'll actually have to talk to you about sometime in the future, and what we call « barbarian invasions », have pretty much put this system on the ground. All the more so as the slaves of the Romans, around here, well, they were often captured from these same barbarians, beyond the Limes, that border between the Empire and the territories of the Goth, Visigoth, Alamanni, Vandals and so on. Some historians then distinguish 3 different statuses: slavery, servitude and serfdom. In ancient slavery, man was reduced to the state of a thing, or beast of burden, which is the same thing, and is totally dependent on his master: he has no rights, no property. And then there's the state of servitude, that we're could date during the Merovingian period and until the beginning of the feudal system,in the middle of Carolingian times. It's a bit of an intermediate state, where the human condition is recognized but where the master's power is still extremely strong. But we can still speak of a certain limitation of the Lord's hold on his serfs. This word, by the way, of serf, can then be used, and we're not talking about slaves anymore. Finally, the feudal system, towards the middle from the Carolingian era, then.., brings the notion of serfdom, not servitude: the very person of the serf no longer depends on his Lord, but only part of his work and income. We can talk at this point about a very clear emancipation from the condition of serf. Yeah, but well… I told you it was complicated: presented like that, it's simple, it's formal, you can distinguish between states and eras, it's all good. But the reality is that these three conditions could coexist simultaneously, and that from one region to another, rights, freedoms and possessions have varied considerably. In fact, a distinction must be made between different types
of servitude. First, there's the slave of traffic, the one who's sold and bought, excluded and desocialized, like I said, and that still exists, in the Middle Ages: not much in Europe, although… But many in the Middle East, in particular. And then there's Viking slavery, too. But then again, that's a really very… special. But alongside this extreme dependence, there are other types of serfdom. For some, it is ultimately only a status, and they have almost no real constraint. Others are in a rather hard slavish status, like domestic serfs, directly in the service of the lord. The cartularies and chronicles of the 11th and 12th century speak, for example, of "ministerials", those serfs equipped as knights and who are the agents of the lords and are often the most violent towards the peasants. Sometimes they even backfire on their lord, "What ?.. It's a shame ! Revolt !.." or even kill him, like Erembaud of Bruges, in 1127. when threatened with a hardening of his servile condition. We also see serfs who are craftsmen and bourgeois, who show real ease, not to say wealth. We can therefore see that the majority of medieval serfs do not live a life of servitude… and the line between free man and serf is sometimes quite blurred. So finally, what's the difference from each other? Well, they are mainly prohibitions and tributes, owed by the serf to his lord, and asmy goal is to keep it simple, let's say that we will retain three essential elements to define medieval serfdom: the « chevage », the « mainmorte » (mortmain) and the « formariage ». The « chevage » is a tax. Not very high, actually, but quite symbolic of the situation of dependence, servitude or serfdom, as I was saying earlier, and therefore often considered quite humiliating. There are other taxes, such as « taille », a royalty in real money, or the corvée, a kind of tax in kind. But these are not specific to serfs: the only difference is that in a state of rather harsh serfdom, the serfs are "taillables et corvéables à merci," as I said at the beginning. That is to say that the lord (or the abbey, because the large landowners are not only the civil nobles) has every right to his serfs in terms of tax requirements. On the other hand, a free man can appeal if the conditions are too harsh. But then again, you shouldn't take that as too binary: like, "the lord has every right over the serfs." Depending on the period and the region, seigneurial rights were regulated and limited. Mortmain is the impossibility of passing on one's property by inheritance. "So I hear you've come here to claim your inheritance? Well, it's denied…" This measure was taken to prevent the squandering of the property of one seigniory for the benefit of another. Serfdom is indeed hereditary. But in the event that the heir is not in the same lordship as his father, which can happen, we obviously don't want the father's estate to get lost in the competing lordship… Which means, by the way, that the serf has property of his own. And since he has the ability to do them grow, sometimes he even becomes relatively rich. I mean… especially after the 13th century, when conditions soften. But then again, this mortmain is not to be considered like a huge weight that binds the poor serf to his exploiting lord. On the one hand, there are ways around it, when the owner of the property is not strictly speaking the serf himself but the family: at that point, there is no inheritance, since it is not the serf who owns it. It's downright hypocritical, but it did exist, proof that the pressure wasn't always overwhelming. And then in some cases, the Lord is content to reclaim part of the inheritance, not all of it: a piece of furniture, part of the herd… In fact, it sounds a lot like our inheritance rights, finally. Of course, again, it depends on the times and the regions. and conditions tend to lighten over time. Finally, there's the « formariage », i.e. the impossibility to marry outside the lordship without the lord's consent. So on these marriage issues, you have to remove a lot of more or less stupid preconceptions. Already, we're forgetting the « right of the first night », « droit du seigneur », « Primae Noctis rights »… it never existed. It's an invention of the French Revolution, when they wanted to explain that nobles and lords were horrible exploiters of the poor people. In fact, this « cuissage » expression (in French) really existed but is related not to the female thigh but to the baking of bread. No relation with the point. Nor is there, as some believe… a systematic obligation to apply for the right to marry. « Formmariage » is only for marriages between serfs of different lordships. Again, the goal is not to see go away a property belonging to the lord. Let me get this straight: I did say that in servitude and serfdom the person does not belong to the lord. This means that he cannot dispose of them as he wishes. On the other hand, and the nuance is sometimes subtle, the work of the serf belongs to the lord. And therefore, the notion of manpower is crucial: this is the property belonging to the lord I speak of, and that explains why the serf isn't free to move. In fact, you can only be a serf with certain charges, in certain respects… and sometimes even to a specific person. But you can't say that there's a general rule and the cartularies show some kind of contract as if they were cobbled together on a case-by-case basis with rather disparate elements, picked here and there. There is no precise definition of serfdom today, you understand? What's for sure, too, is that most of these practices are much more inherited from the Carolingian traditions, that is to say, Frankish, after all, than antiquity and Roman slavery. And among these practices, we must add rites, perfectly formal, input or output of the serf state, for example, like legal acts, of course, but also this man making himself a serf who puts a noose around his neck facing his lord, or who pays the « chevage », 4 denarii, placed on his bowed head. We are far away from vassal homage, hands clasped in those of the lord. All this tends to gradually disappear from the 12th / 13th century. Yes, I know, it's really during the French Revolution that all forms of serfdom or servitude were abolished (at least officially). But at that point, if there were some forms of human exploitation, we can no longer speak of serfs or serfdom. Curiously, the role of the Church in the emancipation of serfs is relatively negligible: it may advocate the equality of all men and care for the salvation of serfs as free men, the fact remains that they were the largest landowners and that they therefore had a huge need for manpower and therefore serfs. It's still possible that she may have had a moral role. For example, at the level of filiation : a child born from a purebred slave had no legal father: he belonged entirely to his master. At the very beginning of the 9th century, a child serf does have a father. He inherits his serf status, it's true, but in terms of socialization, there's still a lot of progress. And that's just one example… Still, from the 13th century onwards, serfs gradually began to disappear. Oh, this is not a social evolution, which would like this iniquitous state is on a slow but inevitable march towards extinction. It's not like that at all: we constantly see serfs disappearing and then reappearing, according to the needs of time and place, in a very heterogeneous system, as I said, where servitude criteria are constantly changing. No, what's going on with Philip the Fair, it's simply that serfdom seems less profitable than emancipation. Because the latter has to be paid for, of course, and Philippe le Bel is in great need of money. With the emancipation of the serfs of the royal estate, the land will always be cultivated and the cities will always be active, but on top of that, the state coffers are filling up with the cost of the emancipation. It's all win-win, and it doesn't really make any difference to the society itself. In the collective imagination, we usually remember that people are divided into 3 groups, nobles, priests (to put it simply) and peasants, which we almost always get confused with the serfs, exploited and martyred… systematically by the first two groups. I've tried to show you here that the truth is much more complex. For one thing, because the domination exercised over the serfs has never been based on pure force. And then because if the dependance we're speaking of here is not of the same type as the bond of vassalage and remains tinged with the legacy of ancient slavery, a serf is not a slave at all, despite Hollywood and, muddy and miserable pseudo-medieval fiction. In short, it must be remembered that the medieval West did not implement the horrors of slavery at all, or even an excessively rigorous exploitation of the peasantry. It is still true, however, that the ruling classes, however Christian they may have been, have still not refrained from creating a lower class, that they have above all been burdened with a gigantic contempt. What do you want… .

Black lives matter: history of racism in Russia – Russia rejected the chattel Slavery of the American South without practicing it long before the first shot of the Civil War.
Emperor Nicholas I banned the human trade of Africans in Russia in 1842. Any Black slave, who stepped on Russian soil, would be declared a free man. This happened 23 years before slavery was abolished in the United States. And 19 years earlier than serfdom itself was abolished in Russia, which, although not a form of chattel slavery, deprived the peasants of their personal freedom. So how has life been for black people in Russia, from the olden days till the present. In 2018, at the height of World Cup action, articles appeared in foreign media with headlines like: "African migrants in Russia describe "hell on earth" "Football racism still rife in 2018 World Cup host Russia" But when you're talking about a country of 148-million people, making generalizations doesn't really work. For example we have the ‘dark-skinned Lenin’, as the old ladies call him in a village 120 kilometers from Moscow. If there is anywhere where a Black person would not be accepted – it is the Russian heartland, where the least-tolerant-to-foreigners part of the population lives. But no, in 2010, Jean Sagbo from Benin was elected to the Novozavidovsky Council of Deputies, becoming the first and only black politician in Russia. And a favoured son to all the grannies. But for a long time Blacks in Russia were fairly close to the halls of power. In the 17th-19th centuries, Black people were often servants of the European aristocracy. The most famous black man in pre-revolutionary Russia was Abraham Hannibal. As a child he was "given" to Peter the Great as a house servant, Hannibal rose to the rank of Major-General and having many children. The poet Alexander Pushkin was his great-grandson. Black servants in Russia, as well as in Europe, showed the high status of their master. But in Russia Africans only served the Tsars exclusively. The official position of the "Moor of the Imperial court" was given to the Black men in service at the Palace. The Moors were dressed lavishly. Their uniform cost 500 rub, at the time a man's suit in Petersburg cost 6 rub. In the Palace, the Moors of the Imperial court were mostly on duty as doormen. But under Emperor Alexander II, they also prepared the king's hookah. So, dark skinned individuals usually lived better than locals in the Russian Empire. However, the Revolution of 1917 came and smashed the monarchy. How did it affect black lives? By the 1930s, the number of blacks in Russia began to increase, with engineers from the Western companies coming to the USSR from abroad for their work shifts. In Soviet Russia, they received a warm welcome, and the authorities sought to show that they were building a state in which the skin color of its citizens did not matter. After Stalin's death, the Soviet leadership turned its attention to African countries, looking for political allies and markets for its products. The second wave of Africans came to the Soviet Union in the late 1950s. The USSR began attracting African students to study at the new Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, which is now known as the “Peoples' Friendship University of Russia”. The culmination of Soviet-African friendship occurred in 1957, when the VI World Festival of Youth and Students was held in Moscow. The event was absolutely massive and led to many international couples forming. This coined the term "children of the festival” which became a common way to refer to mixed race children in the USSR. At the time of the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, almost 30,000 African students were studying in Soviet universities. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the situation for black people in Russia began to deteriorate. These were dangerous and unstable times in Russia so people who "stood out" were often subject to racism, and this also applied to Russians who became ethnic minorities in the breakaway former Soviet Republics. Here is what an immigrant from the Congo said to a French publication about the situation: "I say this with tears in my eyes. It's not easy to live here. This is the 21st century, but we are still being insulted. I am ashamed to repeat it: "Chimpanzee, Negro, go back to Africa, this is Russia, and no one needs you here." But that was the early 2000's let's talk to some Africans who live here now. Russian friends I’ve met here have been really really good. They always offered to teach me how to speak better. And they’re just friendly people. People you even meet in the stores – very nice, very nice people. I’m actually happy with my life here in Russia. It has been great so far. I have nothing to complain about. I am a stranger among my own people. I grew up here, I have a purely Russian mentality, I think like a Russian person, but because of the fact that I am not Russian outwardly, they still let me know that I am not Russian. I'm used to defending myself, they call me the English word "nigger". I'll say something funny in response like: "Yes, Yes, you can't see me in the dark, only my teeth and eyes stick out." It's easier for me to say something offensive to Blacks myself than for someone to get ahead of me and say it. At the end of the 90s and into the 2000s it was a nightmare. In 2002-2003 there was a skinhead movement in Mytishchi where I was living. My life at the time was oriented purely on survival. It finally fell apart and ended around 2006. It's just that Russians have a different manner and different values. For example, speaking to somebody rudely is not considered a bad thing, That is, this rudeness is celebrated in your culture. And it is clear that if a person is uneducated, it can take manifest itself in such ugly ways. But I actually think most people aren't this way. It's just that this minority is ruining everything. Because it attracts a lot of attention. Our values have grown, that we need education, that we need to play sports, get ourselves in order, that we need to learn to negotiate with people, and not flex our biceps to get a response. In other words, this is a common culture, from movies and music, and it changes people. Opinions are divided, some people are fine, and other people with dark skin in Russia have problems. But what is important, is what Gyro said about positive trends, and his words are supported by statistics. The number of hate crimes is declining and in 2019 reached a 15-year low. And there are fewer and fewer regions where crimes based on racial hatred are recorded. Human rights activists say that the situation of black migrants has improved, as members of extremist groups have become more likely to face criminal prosecution. For comparison, here are the statistics of crimes against family members for 2018. We live in a world of conflict and racism will never go away, but that doesn't mean that black people are oppressed in Russia. Since Africans are a fraction of 1% of the population that means that most reactions to them are out of curiosity and surprise and not hatred. Today, they can live here, serve in the army, help out old ladies, drive a tram, or study at a university. And speaking of studies, here are just a few graduates of the Russian peoples ' Friendship University. In the movie "Circus", which became a symbol of the 1930s, the role of the son of the main character was played by Black actor James Patterson, who at that time was only 2 years old. He immediately became a national celebrity. If you want to learn more about Soviet cinema, then like, share and comment and we'll make a video about it! .

POLITICAL THEORY – Friedrich Hayek – TEORÍA POLÍTICA Friedrich Hayek Friedrich August von Hayek era un economista político que tuvo una tremenda influencia sobre el cómo las personas en las sociedades capitalistas entienden el concepto de libertad.
De manera controversial, para Hayek la “libertad” no significaba democracia o un compromiso con un conjunto de ideas “liberales”. En cambio, Hayek creía que la libertad era “una política que deliberadamente adopta la competencia, los mercados y los precios como sus principios ordenantes”. Para la forma de pensar de Hayek, eran los mercados los que garantizaban la libertad individual. Y, por contraste, era la interferencia del estado en los mercados lo que interrumpía la operación de la libertad y lo que empezaba a hacer decaer la sociedad, como de manera famosa lo puso, El Camino de Servidumbre. Hayek nació en una parte minoritaria de la aristocracia austrohúngara. Su padre, quien descendía de una línea de escolares, era un doctor en Medicina y de manera parcial era conferencista en botánica. La infancia de Hayek estuvo llena de consideración por la filosofía y por la economía. Tras una breve participación en el ejército austrohúngaro durante la primera guerra mundial, Hayek estudió en la Universidad de Viena, obteniendo doctorados en leyes y en ciencia política y después llegó a ser un académico en economía La carrera de Hayek puede ser dividida en dos periodos. El primero, el cual terminó hacia finales de la década de 1940, fue agotado principalmente en la Escuela de Economía de Londres, donde Hayek se interesó en varios de los debates macroeconómicos del momento. La segunda parte de la carrera de Hayek fue mucho más variada. Desde 1945 en adelante estuvo, primero, en Chicago, y luego en Freiberg, en Los Ángeles y en Salzburgo, donde Hayek escribió y dio conferencias en un amplio rango de temas – economía, sí, pero también en política, psicología, filosofía y en la filosofía de la ciencia. Y mientras que oficialmente se retiró en 1968, fue de hecho en las décadas de 1970 y 1980 en las que Hayek disfruto de sus más grandes momentos de influencia, al ser galardonado con el Premio Nobel de Ciencias Económicas en 1974 y subsecuentemente siendo influyente en los gobiernos de Ronald Reagan y en el de Margaret Thatcher. Durante la estadía de Hayek en la Escuela de Economía de Londres, a la cual él entró en 1931, luchó con un número de los entonces contemporáneos debates dentro de la teoría económica. Mucho de esto giró alrededor del ciclo comercial el cual, puesto de manera sencilla, es la forma en la que las economías crecen y se contraen. La tradicional teoría económica mantuvo que, en el tiempo las economías se encuentran a sí mismas en equilibrio. En cortas palabras, los excesos y la escasez deben balancearse a través de los mecanismos del mercado, llevando a la óptima distribución de los recursos dentro de una economía. El problema era que los picos económicos y las depresiones parecían seguir ocurriendo y también parecían ser más dramáticas de lo que deberían ser. Cuando la economía mundial se estancó y luego colapsó a finales de las décadas de 1920 y de 1930, un furioso debate empezó acerca del porque esto había ocurrido. Llegando a la economía desde una posición bastante clásica, Hayek se enfocó en los problemas de la oferta. Hayek noto que cuando las economías están en recesión, los bancos centrales comúnmente de manera artificial inyectaron más dinero a la economía al imprimir dinero o sino (o adicionalmente) retuvieron bajas las tasa de interés para estimular la inversión en vez del ahorro. Hayek argumentó que esto era un error. Cuando el dinero estaba disponible demasiado fácil, los empresarios invertían en productos los cuales no eran necesariamente deseados por los consumidores. Cuando estos productos no se vendían, las compañías entraban en bancarrota dejando la capacidad industrial invertida donde no necesitaba estar. Adicionalmente, el crédito barato insentivaba inversiones de capital de largo plazo y Hayek argumentó que esto también era un problema porque limitaba las posibilidades del que los emprendedores intentaran lograr ganancias de corto plazo lo que podía darle un puntapié de inicio a la economía. Resistirse a la tentación de entrometerse en la oferta monetaria era, para Hayek, crucial para solucionar los problemas de la Gran Depresión. Los colegas de Hayek en la Escuela de Economía de Londres fueron receptivos a su más clásico acercamiento a la economía. Pero más allá en el camino, en Cambridge, un muy diferente conjunto de ideas estaba emergiendo, centrado en el pensamiento de John Maynard Keynes. Keynes argumentaba que los problemas de la economía de la década de 1930 estaban ubicados no tanto en problemas con la oferta, sino con la demanda. Para Keynes, el papel del gobierno era el invertir en obras públicas, en la construcción de carreteras por ejemplo, las cuales crearían empleo y por ende esto le daría dinero a las personas para gastar, estimulando el crecimiento económico. Para Keynes, empleo pleno era, por lo tanto, no tan sólo una loable meta social sino también una vital meta para la economía. La economía liderada por la demanda estaba fundamentalmente en contra de las ideas de Hayek. Hayek sintió que el enfoque de Keynes acerca de empleo pleno requeriría el que los gobiernos se mantuvieran incrementando la oferta de dinero. Esto, en su momento, crearía una inflación severa del tipo que había borrado los ahorros de su familia cuando en la década de 1920 Austria sufrió un asalto de hiperinflación. A través de la década de 1930 Hayek y Keynes se escribían cartas mutuamente, argumentaban amargamente y encontraron muy pocos campos en común. Durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, hasta se conocieron, bajo bizarras circunstancias. Debido a la campaña de bombardeo de Alemania en contra de Londres, la Escuela de Economía de Londres había sido evacuada a Cambridge. Una noche, Keynes y Hayek fueron asignados juntos a hacer la vigilancia en caso de ataque en el techo de la Iglesia del King’s College. Tristemente, no sabemos qué fue lo que hablaron durante esa noche. La apertura a la segunda mitad de la carrera de Hayek está marcada por su búsqueda fuera de los secos argumentos económicos y por la publicación de lo que es probablemente su obra más famosa, Camino de Servidumbre. Hayek vio el escribir este libro como una forma de trabajo de guerra, al cual fue forzado debido a que como con anterioridad había sido combatiente de enemigos, Hayek fue rechazado del servicio oficial en el esfuerzo de guerra Británico. En contra del telón de fondo de las ideas de Keynes acerca de la planeación, las cuales habían llegado a ser aceptadas al interior de los círculos de gobierno Británico, Camino de Servidumbre fue un intento de salvar a las personas de sí mismas, o más adecuadamente, del gobierno central. Hayek expuso varios argumentos claves: 1. El que no había nada de intrínseco en los Alemanes como una raza de personas que hubiesen causado el que adoptaran formas de gobierno autoritarias. Hayek rechazó la idea, de alguna manera popular en la época, del que había algo acerca de la cultura Alemana, o ciertamente algo inherente a la raza alemana, que los predisponía hacia formas de gobierno autoritarias y expansionistas. 2. Hayek argumentó el que donde Alemania, y la Unión Soviética también para este asunto, se habían equivocado era en el garantizar el que la planeación estatal interfiriera con la natural operación de los mercados. Para Hayek, el problema con la planeación estatal era el que necesariamente envolvía el ofrecer una responsabilidad para la toma de decisiones sobre un plan a una persona individual. En el sistema burocrático, así como el del estado, Hayek argumentó, alguien en últimas tiene que decidir qué curso de acción debe ser tomado. Y el juicio de esa persona necesariamente tendría que ser diferida y diferida de manera repetitiva sobre un periodo de tiempo dado. En este sentido, la planeación lleva a las sociedades a caminar dormidas hacia una dictadura. 3. Hayek no sólo se preocupo acerca de la inherente necesidad para los planeadores del someterse de manera humilde ante un sólo individuo, sino que también estaba preocupado con el que fundamentalmente ningún individuo podría de hecho hacer decisiones racionales en relación a problemas económicos debido a el que ellos no tienen información suficiente en la que basar sus decisiones. Para ser claros, no era Hayek necesariamente condenando la dictadura. Después de todo, su visión de libertad era una sociedad en la cual los mercados eran el principal método de organización económica, no necesariamente una donde la sociedad de manera colectiva decidiera acerca de su gobierno a través de una urna. Para este fin, a Hayek no le incomodaban dictadores quienes adoptasen políticas de libre mercado que envolvieran minimalistas intervenciones del estado en la economía de la nación. Pero aquellos dictadores quienes emprenden la planeación económica eran, para Hayek, un gran mal. Hayek lo vio así; los mercados son redes extremadamente complicadas con millones, sino son billones, de transacciones ocurriendo todo el tiempo. Incluso el considerar algunas de las transacciones básicas del mercado nos lo muestra – artículos se compran y se venden, se invierte y se deja de invertir en productos básicos, y la hambruna y los abundantes campos de cultivo afectan el cuanto hay para comer y cuánto costará el adquirirlos, al mantenerse dentro de las leyes de la oferta y de la demanda. Cuando los individuos deciden en cuanto a la compra o no de estos productos básicos, ellos afectan los precios de estos productos básicos. Si el producto escasea, el precio aumenta. Si el producto es abundante, su precio baja. En este sentido, el libre mercado actúa como un tipo de constante referendo para el valor de los bienes al interior de una economía. Para Hayek, el mercado representa una forma de acuerdo colectivo, hecho entre todas las personas que operan en el mercado, con respecto al valor de unos bienes y servicios en particular. Y en contra de la sabiduría colectiva de cientos, o miles, o millones de personas, ¿qué puede esperar ofrecer un planeador individual que represente una forma superior de sabiduría? La libertad, por lo tanto, se encontraba en el dejar que el mercado hiciese su trabajo. Camino de Servidumbre lanzó la carrera profesional posterior de Hayek. De manera instantánea, llegó a ser uno de los libros más vendidos (durante la segunda guerra mundial la impresión de éste fue limitada debido a la escasez de papel y el obtener una copia era casi imposible debido a la demanda absoluta). En los Estados Unidos, una versión condensada en el Readers’s Digest del libro trajo el mensaje al público en general. Así mismo una serie de conferencias dadas por Hayek durante 1945 en varios lugares de encuentro en Estados Unidos hizo lo mismo. Hayek, a quien los creadores de políticas y economistas le dieron la espalda en Gran Bretaña, estaba encantado con la recepción que tuvo en los Estados Unidos y en 1950 se trasladó a la universidad de Chicago, la cual llegó a ser el centro del pensamiento neoliberal económico, con el cual Hayek estaba cercanamente asociado, así como Cambridge había sido el lugar particular para la economía keynesiana. Pero a pesar de la popular aclamación de Camino de Servidumbre, dos reacciones negativas lo irritaron. Primero que todo, algunos de sus propios colegas, normalmente simpáticos con las ideas que él exponía vieron Camino de Servidumbre como una especie de forma de periodismo liviano, en lugar de una forma de escolarización. En segundo lugar, Keynes, quien leyó Camino de Servidumbre, le envió a Hayek lo que fue, en su mayoría, un mensaje complementario acerca de su contenido. No obstante, hacia el final, y en una rápida orden, Keynes retó a Hayek a que trazara la línea acerca de la planeación gubernamental. Alguna planeación era claramente necesitada, Hayek no era un anarquista económico después de todo, pero, Keynes lo reto a ¿Dónde trazar la raya? Le tomó muchos años a Hayek el encontrar una respuesta para Keynes (quien murió en 1946) pero la respuesta eventualmente llegó en el libro de Hayek de 1960 Los Fundamentos de la Libertad. El libro expuso la visión práctica de Hayek acerca de donde debería ser trazada la línea entre el estado y el mercado y fue altamente influyente entre la política de derecha. En una anécdota, se cuenta una historia en la que en un encuentro con el Departamento de Investigación Conservador en 1975, Margaret Thatcher respondió a una ensayo político acerca de filosofía política buscando y sacando de su cartera una copia de Los fundamentos de la Libertad. Sosteniéndola en alto, Thatcher declaró “Esto es en lo que creemos”. Mientras se desdoblaba el siglo veinte, las ideas de Hayek ganaron mayor valor. La idea en la que el estado debería limitarse a sí mismo a proveer el marco legal en el cual los emprendedores pueden engancharse con los libres mercados está en el corazón de gran parte del pensamiento económico del mundo de hoy en día. Muchos políticos y una larga porción del público también, son escépticos acerca de la habilidad del estado para planear y para emprender lo que sea, hasta la más simple de las tareas económicas, y esto se debe bastante a las advertencias de Hayek acerca de los anti libertarios riesgos de planear y de la falta de habilidad de los planeadores para verdaderamente entender el mundo que los rodea. Incluso cuando la crisis financiera de 2007-8 golpeó la economía mundial, llevando a una prolongada recesión, la fé en la planeación del gobierno no fue restaurada en la imaginación popular. Esto fue mejor testificado cuando Camino de Servidumbre alcanzo el numero uno en ventas en la lista de los libros más vendidos de Amazon en 2010, a pesar de haber sido escrito hace más de sesenta años. .