Hayek, Orwell, and “The End of Truth”

In 1942, after fighting in the Spanish Civil War (1936–1937), a disillusioned writer returned to London to write about his experience. It wasn’t just that the fascists in Spain had won and his side — a small, anti-Stalinist Marxist group — had lost. What frightened him was the ease with which truth itself had been erased and replaced by propaganda.

I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories…and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened.

The writer was George Orwell, and the quote appears in his book Looking Back on the Spanish Civil War. 

The disconnect between reality and narrative clearly made an impression on Orwell, who worried that “the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world.” The theme of falsified history and the destruction of truth would resurface in his fictional masterpiece Nineteen Eighty‑Four, where “memory holes” swallowed inconvenient facts and the past was rewritten to suit the Party’s needs.

Orwell’s book would go on to sell 25 million copies worldwide, and he is today remembered as a prophet for foreseeing a future in which the state's deliberate power could extinguish truth itself.

Yet few today remember that five years before the publication of Nineteen Eighty‑Four, an Austrian economist, in his own magnum opus, explored how the state destroys truth. 

Management of Minds

Unlike George Orwell, Friedrich Hayek (1899–1992) is not a household name, but his 1944 classic The Road to Serfdom made him one of the twentieth century’s most influential thinkers — despite the book’s inauspicious beginning. 

Originally a memo penned at the London School of Economics, The Road to Serfdom was rejected by three publishers before finding a home with Routledge. The first run — 2,000 copies — sold out in 10 days. Hayek’s book went on to sell more than two million copies and be translated into over twenty languages. Its core argument was straightforward: central planning, however well-intentioned, erodes individual freedom and sets society on a path toward serfdom.

What is often overlooked is Hayek’s deeper insight. Economic control does not remain confined to the economy. Once the state directs production and prices, it inevitably reaches into thought, expression, and belief. For Hayek, the danger of socialism was not only material impoverishment — as seen in the USSR — but the steady expansion of intellectual control.

“...It is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends,” Hayek wrote. “It is essential that people should come to regard them as their own ends.”

Hayek was warning that once the state begins to manage prices and production, it will soon find it necessary to manage minds. When a government takes control over economic life, it must “justify its decisions to the people” and “make people believe that they are the right decisions.”

In doing so, it inevitably begins to decide which opinions and values align with its plan — rewarding and amplifying voices that comply while punishing, suppressing, and silencing those that do not.

‘The End of Truth’

The quotes above appear in Chapter 11 of Serfdom, aptly titled “The End of Truth.” 

When I first read the book twenty years ago, the chapter didn’t stand out to me. Today it does. After all, we recently lived through a period in which the phenomenon Hayek described played out before our eyes.

The COVID-19 pandemic was a vast economic experiment. The federal government issued a wide array of public health “recommendations” that soon became dogmas. To question the efficacy of masks or social distancing — a policy we learned in 2024 had no basis in science — was to risk being censored or accused of spreading “misinformation.” Scientific debate gave way to official decree, and many who questioned “the plan” or resisted it lost their jobs or were booted from platforms.

None of this would have surprised Hayek, who warned that the plans constructed by central planners must be “sacrosanct and exempt from criticism.”

“If the people are to support the common effort without hesitation, they must be convinced that not only the end aimed at but also the means chosen are the right ones,” he wrote. “Public criticism or even expressions of doubts must be suppressed because they tend to weaken public support.”

Hayek’s chapter is not primarily about censorship. Instead, he argues that the rise of state power will systematically undermine the concept of truth itself and the human pursuit of it.

As governments assert control over economic and social life, facts and evidence are subordinated to political goals — an idea Orwell illustrated vividly when the Party refused to accept Winston Smith’s claim that two plus two equals four.

‘Sometimes, Winston…’

The phenomenon Orwell described was not moral relativism but factual relativism. It was a theme Hayek also addressed. The Austrian economist noted that in totalitarian systems, even basic facts — including mathematics — become subservient to state dogma. He reminded readers that in the USSR and Nazi Germany, ideology had consumed even the sciences. There was “German Physics” and a “Marxist-Leninist theory in surgery.”

“It is entirely in keeping with the whole spirit of totalitarianism that it condemns any human activity done for its own sake and without ulterior purpose,” he wrote. “Science for science’s sake, art for art’s sake, are equally abhorrent to the Nazis, our socialist intellectuals, and the communists.”

Hayek observed that as the state's power grows, the sciences become corrupted. Instead of advancing truth, they become tools in the hands of planners. “Once science has to serve, not truth, but the interest of a class, a community, or a state,” he wrote, “the sole task of argument and discussion is to vindicate and to spread still further the beliefs by which the whole life of the community is directed.”

Hayek said the phenomenon he described was most pronounced in dictatorships, but he added that it was not “peculiar to totalitarianism.” Even in free societies, he warned, “the most intelligent and independent people cannot entirely escape [the] influence” of state propaganda. His point was unsettling: susceptibility to propaganda is not limited to the gullible or uninformed — propaganda ensnares the thoughtful and educated as well.

The erosion of truth becomes apparent through a decay in language. Words like “freedom,” “right,” “equality,” and “justice” lose their meaning. Eventually, the word “truth” itself “ceases to have its old meaning.”

“It describes no longer something to be found,” Hayek wrote, “it becomes something to be laid down by authority — something which has to be believed in the interest of unity of the organized effort, and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organized effort require it.” (emphasis added)

All of this sounds familiar to readers of Nineteen Eighty-Four, who see Winston Smith struggling to hold onto objective truth in a world where truth is dictated by power. Surely two plus two equals four, he pleads. 

“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five,” he is told in the Ministry of Love. “Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder.”

‘The Tragedy of Collectivist Thought’

Orwell was a master, and Nineteen Eighty-Four is a masterpiece. But Hayek was describing Orwellianism several years before Orwell gave it fictional form. (It’s also worth noting that G.K. Chesterton used the “two plus two equals four” blasphemy metaphor nearly a half-century before Orwell.)

This doesn’t diminish Orwell’s work. On the contrary, it shows how powerfully he dramatized ideas that Hayek had already diagnosed in theory. (Orwell, it should be noted, read The Road to Serfdom and enjoyed it, with caveats.)

Still, Hayek deserves credit for superbly articulating — in one chapter! — the phenomenon that Orwell would translate into a terrifying warning, one that millions of junior high and high school students would receive in English courses. 

The economist Daniel Klein recently called “The End of Truth” the most important chapter in Hayek’s most important work. I couldn’t agree more. The chapter serves as a reminder that the human mind is not something to be controlled but something to be unleashed. If we forget this simple lesson, we risk surrendering the very capacity for independent thought that sustains civilization. 

“The tragedy of collectivist thought,” he noted, “is that, while it starts out to make reason supreme, it ends by destroying reason because it misconceives the process on which the growth of reason depends.”

Jonathan Miltimore is Senior Editor at the American Institute for Economic Research. He is a contributor to the Washington Examiner and has had bylines in Fox News, Newsweek, National Review, the Epoch Times, Real Clear Politics, Washington Times, and other media.