What does Hayek mean when he speaks of "political serfdom"?

>Hayek presumably was hoping to stand such an argument on its head, to show that, rather than the only means of counteracting totalitarianism, planning itself constituted a significant step along the way toward the totalitarian state

so the political serfdom in a government means to be entirely ruled by laws, legislature, planning?

if so I can understand this.

>Even if it were to begin as a “liberal socialist” experiment (none of the real-world cases have ever done so, one might add), full-scale planning requires that the planning authorities take over all production decisions; to be able to make any decisions at all, they would need to exercise more and more political control. If one tries to create a truly planned society, one will not be able to separate out control of the economy from political control. This was Hayek’s logical argument against planning, one that he had succinctly articulated in 1939 in “Freedom and the Economic System

How is this man the corner stone of EU economics when what he writes is g*ddamn enarly against everything it stands for

>>9113113
>welfare state
He doesn't mention it.
Also:
>Let a uniform minimum be secured to everybody by all means; but let us admit at the same time that with this assurance of a basic minimum all claims for a privileged security for particular classes must lapse

>>9113113
What this means he liked the $$$ funelled by rich enterprises to his cult-like think tank and fuck poor people.

>>9113557
he does plabber about sweden in a preface
something about Sweden being less socialistic coutnry than Great Britain