The purpose of this multi-part series is to debunk the thesis put forward in F.A. Hayek’s seminal work The Road to Serfdom; wherein, he suggests that Western Civilization had been moving towards socialism and that this was ultimately a road to destruction and servitude.
Much of what is said in regard to socialism today is merely a re-articulation of what Hayek said so many decades ago. This is why it is imperative, as a socialist, to completely dispel all the falsehoods he promotes so that we can make clear what the legacy and mission of socialism really is. Some might think this is a scholarly endeavor; revisiting works from the last century for the purpose of some aggrandizing intellectual adventure. Nothing could be farther from the truth. As my series will show, what Hayek has said continues to be the battle-cry against all progressive and revolutionary efforts throughout the world. Reactionaries of every stripe come bearing the words of Hayek as though the future of liberation is entirely doomed because one man made a few assertions over 50 years ago. Perhaps this reveals the true depravity of the right-wing but regardless we should take very seriously the effort to debunk the baseless nonsense of Hayek so that the people can see through the ideological garbage fed to them.
The series is separated into several parts, each composing 2 chapters or more, therefore making the series as comprehensive as possible. Because Hayek wrote so spaciously, the reader will find I seem to jump around from point-to-point perhaps without much of a coherent line; however, this is done so that every claim Hayek makes can be fully debunked. I will make use of quotations from the text and any additional allusions will be sourced and explained in references at the end.
Chapter 1: The Abandoned Road
What’s most interesting about Hayek’s opening chapter is that he does not begin with a cursory explanation of the ideas he writes about (as many writers on the subject do). Instead, he starts with many poetic appeals to the sentiments of the presumably White European reader. This writing strategy (if it could be called that) becomes more important as the book goes on; however, it should be clear from the start his intentions for even writing the book. He wants to invoke the romanticized memories of ‘Europe of old’ the tales of European glory, history, and ‘progress’. This is really his primary strategy for criticizing socialism (which should be noted, he lumps in with fascism as well) being that he wants to make it seem to the reader to be ‘unauthentic’: not within the lineage of European progress but as this foreign and externalized foe.
The title of the chapter ‘The Abandoned Road’ truly says it all. Hayek very early makes the claim that this ‘road to serfdom’ which is the perceived European progression towards socialism is an abandonment of those prized principles long held in high regard throughout Europe.
“We are ready to accept almost any explanation…except one: that the present state of the world may be the result of genuine error on our part and that the pursuit of some of our most cherished ideals has apparently produced results utterly different from those which we expected.” 
So what exactly was this ‘genuine error’? What was the road that was abandoned? Hayek goes onto explain in the following pages.
“We are rapidly abandoning not the views merely of Cobden and Bright, of Adam Smith and Hume, or even of Locke and Milton, but one of the salient characteristics of Western civilization as it has grown from the foundations laid by Christianity and the Greeks and Romans. Not merely nineteenth- and eighteenth-century liberalism, but the basic individualism inherited by us from Erasmus and Montaigne, from Cicero and Tacitus, Pericles and Thucydides, is progressively relinquished.” 
Now the story becomes much more clear. In the mind of Hayek, the acceptance of socialism and progressive ideals by some within Europe is tantamount to the abolition of the whole history of European development (which he clearly holds quite sacred).
Here we will make a few points:
1. As is perhaps already clear, Hayek is an idealist. And not even an idealist in some sort of redeemable sense or the idealism of the hegelians. All of history, according to Hayek, has been guided by ideas or as he refers to it in his social context the “European thought”. Immediately anyone familiar with dialectics or any materialist philosophy can identify the problem. History is not some arena of ideas, a protracted conflict between the thought of this people/region against this people/region each with its own essential characteristics to be ‘discovered’ and utilized; rather, history as explained by Marx is a history of class struggle. But what exactly does this mean? It means that the primary locomotive of history is not the ideas of people but their concrete social contradictions located in an existing material framework namely in the mode of production. It was not the ‘ideal of liberalism’ which did away with feudal Europe; it was the burgeoning success of entrepreneurs, of petty capitalists become advanced capitalists, who wrestled social power away from the feudal monarchies and absolutist regimes. Hayek, here, can only see one half of the coin. He can somewhat identify competing ideologies in the midst of social change but he cannot identify the material forces upon which these ideologies are founded. What spells death to capitalism, in Europe and around the world, is not some ‘genuine error’ or the ideals of a few progressives, it is the material force of humanity in contradiction. The working class and oppressed peoples seek to destroy capitalism and unleash their potential because of their material condition as workers and as the oppressed. Integral to any progressive ideology or ideal is the material foundation, perhaps transcendent in some cases, that places a subject in the conditions to be revolutionary. Ideas do not define history, social forces do, and it is true that these social forces produce ideas and that these ideas act upon material forces themselves, but this nuance is entirely absent from Hayek. He is an idealist unable to comprehend the real motion and force of history and society.
2. Hayek is a reactionary. Maybe obvious by now but worth emphasis. What Hayek really wants to stress is a preservation of this “European thought” and “Western Civilization”. He is a classic example of an individual motivated entirely by his own privileged social location to the defense of the old society; constantly making poetic and psuedo-intellectual allusions to the ‘good ole days’. Despite this he is constantly presenting himself as this novel individual fighting against the pervasive sentiments of “totalitarianism” which plague the good wholesome Christian Europe. A great and hardly believable charade, really. After the first chapter it becomes questionable whether or not he is even a real ‘classical liberal’ or a psuedo-monarchist in liberal clothing. The prevailing slogan of every reactionary is ‘this is a mistake’ because nothing is more earth-shattering to a genuine reactionary than the prospect of social change which is possibly the only thing intrinsic to the whole human experience in history.
Hayek continues on the chapter with the expected defense of the achievements of laissez-faire capitalism and the ‘free entrepreneur’. All of which he claims has been constructive and beneficial to Europe and the world as a whole:
“The result of this growth surpassed all expectations. Wherever the barriers to the free exercise of human ingenuity were removed, man became rapidly able to satisfy ever widening ranges of desire. And while the rising standard soon led to the discovery of very dark spots in society, spots which men were no longer willing to tolerate, there was probably no class that did not substantially benefit from the general advance…the working man in the Western world had reached a degree of material comfort, security, and personal independence which a hundred years before seemed scarcely possible.” 
In a phrase, capitalism is/was awesome because it advanced the productive forces and made everyone feel good about their liberal values handed down to them. Sure, there was some “dark spots” but overall everything was greener on the other side.
Let’s make a few points:
1. Every epoch of human history has brought an advancement of the productive forces. That is sort of how the accumulation of knowledge works in regard to technology and the construction/improvement of existing means. Hayek here gives too much credit to the advent of something rather expected in the course of history. It’s true, however, that capitalism did experience spectacular growth in regard to the Western world. The circulation of capital meant profound investment in the productive forces and the creation of nearly every human industry we understand today. However, Hayek misses the internal contradictions of capital accumulation as well as its conjuncture with existing social formations outside of Europe. The ‘spectacular growth’ mentioned meant the forcible movement of millions of rural laborers into the dark, cramped, terrible industrial cities of Europe. Often where conditions were far worse than even their ‘more backward’ mode of existence in the rural areas. Life for the industrial proletariat at the beginning of capitalism was horrendous (and continues to be for those exploited in our modern era) and perhaps this is what Hayek means with his “dark spots” but even then his claims are wild underestimates of the true human toll of this reckless and brutal productive explosion. None of this begins to mention the parallel colonial exploitation within what he terms ‘the New World’ as well as the ongoing pillaging of Asia and Africa. In Hayek’s eyes its not whether the non-Western world is peripheral but whether it exists at all as a functional society worthy of respect.
2. Hayek’s contemplation of “free exercise” and “personal freedom” is of course built upon the liberal social construction of the ‘free man’ (importantly not a ‘free woman’ as to Hayek and many intellectuals a male-centric analysis is standard). It’s far too tempting at this point to reiterate what Lenin said at the beginning of the 20th century: freedom for who and to do what? It’s important to imagine the notion of ‘freedom’ as being inextricably bound to a set parameter of ‘acceptable action’; meaning that freedom can only exist within limits of action. Freedom, within capitalism argued Lenin, was freedom for the slave owner; freedom for the exploiter to do his exploiting . Hayek, of course, would very much disagree (not simply to the terminology employed as well) arguing that in fact the freedom of capitalism is the freedom of entrepreneurship: the endeavor of every ‘free man’ to pursue his own aspirations and ‘make his own way’. For Hayek it’s not so much as describing capitalist society but romanticizing it. A Marxist has no desire in romanticizing this or that. Revolutionary science is about making clear what was previously hidden; uncovering the contradictions within society which continue to drive our social realm. Quite the opposite of what happens in the process of bourgeois apologism such as that from Hayek. Nothing could provide a greater contrast than a study of The Road to Serfdom wherein Hayek makes sweeping claims regarding the moral character of capitalism contrasted to what he calls “collectivism”; on the opposite hand, Marx a century before Hayek in his seminal work Capital provides an objective and abstract criticism of political economy, as a whole, as practiced by bourgeois economists. Marx was dedicated to uncovering, for the people, what had been previously hidden; the same mission we uphold today.
Before finishing our analysis of the first chapter we should visit the primary phrase which captures so much attention from popular readers: “socialism means slavery” . Perhaps the most integral phrase to the entire book, Hayek’s presentation of socialism as slavery makes clear the bourgeois sentiment regarding even the possibility of liberation: absolute terror.
However, one must ask, if socialism is slavery, what exactly is capitalism? What is capitalism to the billions who live on less than two dollars a day? What is capitalism millions of children who go hungry every night? What is capitalism to the single mom working three jobs just to scrape by? What is capitalism to the homeless man begging outside the Louis Vuitton store? If capitalism really is freedom, then I cannot fathom what an unholy Hell socialism must be.
But what really is socialism? Socialism is the political power of the working class and oppressed peoples concretely realized. The incredible idea that human need, potential, and progress is more important than making a profit. Socialism is the audacious demand that everyone deserves a meaningful existence not plagued by servitude and exploitation; an opportunity to realize themselves and better humanity as a whole. What a unimaginable terror socialism must be.
Now Hayek is right to claim that socialism means prohibition in some cases. Some freedoms must be abolished. But just what sort of freedoms does socialism abolish? The freedom to exploit; the freedom to oppress; the freedom to discriminate against others; the freedom to exclude whole swaths of the population; the freedom to dehumanize; the freedom to objectifiy; the freedom to terrorize. All of these modern day ‘freedoms’ must be swept away for socialism to succeed. In this sense, I completely agree with Hayek: socialism is slavery; an eternal slavery for those whose only desire is to subjugate others.
In addition, some institutions and proliferated ideas must also be swept away. Racism must be eliminated; sexism must be eliminated; heteronormativity must be eliminated; patriarchy must be eliminated; ableism must be eliminated; every form of conceivable oppression wherein some group of people are subjugated to another must be done away with. So in a sense, the old society along with its values must tossed into the dustbin of history.
We are unapologetic in this regard and to Hayek what could be more terrifying than the looming possibility of human liberation?
Chapter 2: The Great Utopia
Hayek opens chapter two with much of the same rhetoric merely continued onto another page. It’s a distinct possibility the first two chapters were written as an extended opening and only edited as separate selections after the fact. Regardless, Hayek makes general claims regarding the socialists desire to limit freedom and invokes utopian socialists such as Saint-Simon to make the point. The allusion is quite disingenuous considering modern and even most 19th century socialists had little in common with the utopian speculation of Saint-Simon. His sort of nonsense was heavily criticized for its clear failures by Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Perhaps Hayek never read Engels, or more likely he was just drawing abject connections for the point of defaming actual revolutionary theory.
Upon analyzing the democratic currents of socialism in the 19th century (although he treats these breaks as continuities rather than scientific and qualitative ruptures, as they were) he concludes that democracy is entirely incompatible with socialism.
“Nobody saw more clearly than Tocqueville that democracy was an essentially individualist institution stood in an irreconcilable conflict with socialism…Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude” 
First, one must question the ‘individualism’ of a social system based upon the quantitative accumulation of abstract social-value (money) wherein ones entire existence depends on her ability to acquire more money. Perhaps not the system most friendly to those who seek an individual expression outside of what is accepted by the ruling class of capital owners. Second, as Lenin noted, capitalism does have democracy, democracy for the slave holder (as cited earlier). Every dollar has a vote, almost literally. No money? Tough luck I suppose. It’s laughable to conclude that a system of decision making where those with more wealth have more influence could be anything but a functional tyranny. Furthermore, what could be more dehumanizing (regarding cold calculations, use of numbers, etc.) than the dictatorship of financial capital that dominates our social system? Billions of jobs, thousands of homes, endless livelihood rests on the speculative dance of numbers across a spectacular screen. In the event those numbers show retraction, the market crashes, and literally lives are ended. What sort of democracy is that?
Hayek goes onto claim socialists very subtly challenged the common understanding of ‘freedom’ to include “economic freedom”. However, one can hardly call the historic challenge of ‘freedom’ something of a plot to “lure” liberals into socialism, as Hayek contends . Rather, redefining ‘freedom’ as it had been put forward before is something inherent to any significant social movement. Even in the French Revolution, the Jacobins wanted to challenge feudal understandings of ‘freedom’ as that provided by God and mediated by the monarchy; they wanted to redefine freedom to reinforce their own class interests. Therefore its not surprising that socialists of the 19th and 20th centuries wanted to expand our understanding of ‘freedom’ to include life-affirming freedoms such as that to housing, a job, retirement security etc. Nonetheless, Hayek takes particular issue with this expanded understanding of freedom (a very common theme throughout the book, clearly):
“Freedom in this sense is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth…The demand for new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for an equal distribution of wealth.” 
Once again we find Hayek attempting to draw connections between socialism and old feudal doctrines of equality and utopian promises. There is not much to dislike about socialism, unless of course you are a member of the ruling class or one of their stooges, so Hayek goes about drawing as many nightmarish connections as one can imagine. None of which are particularly compelling and all of which can be easily proven wrong with a rudimentary study of history and socialist theory. But Hayek’s dystopian web only snowballs into a complete conflation of socialism with fascism:
“Observer after observer…has been impressed with the extraordinary similarity in many respects of the conditions under ‘fascism’ and ‘communism’… ‘instead of being better, Stalinism is worse than fascism, more ruthless, barbarous, unjust, immoral, anti-democratic, unredeemed by any hope or scruple,’ and that it is ‘better described as superfascist’.” 
Lenin correctly described fascism as actually being “capitalism in decay” . What does that mean precisely? Well, as the internal conradictions of capitalism become more pronounced, throughout its development, the ruling class makes considerable social concessions to the opportunists among the working class in order to preserve capitalism as a whole. Fascism is a classic example of class collaborationism dominated by the bourgeoisie, not an example of socialism, wherein the working class and oppressed peoples make up the dominant class in society. In fascism, the ruling class is left largely intact, a few political enemies might be expropriated, some popular concessions made, but capital still runs the show without a question. This fundamental difference between fascism and socialism is gone without mention in Hayek’s short appraisal. Once again, conflating socialism with some other popularly undesirable system is essentially his strategy throughout most of the book.
His remarks regarding ‘Stalinism’ are also quaint and expected. First, no one in a genuine sense could have much love for the Stalin period within the Soviet Union. Not as if there were not tremendous achievements by the young socialist country, there certainly were; however, this period was marked by crippling material desperation (as an isolated and underdeveloped socialist center) and political turmoil as the world’s first socialist country made bold steps into a future never traveled before. Second, his referencing of ‘Stalinism’ is politically and historically empty. As modern historians such as J. Arch Getty have shown, the Soviet Union from 1928-1953 was hardly Stalin’s playground for his ‘evil’ desires . Rather, the political landscape of the Soviet Union was complicated and intricate down to the municipal apparatuses of the young Communist Party. Political contradictions between landed classes, the new Bolsheviks, and the old Bolsheviks gave rise to a plethora of antagonisms certainly exacerbating any existing crises. Therefore, recent historical work has very much admonished Stalin himself of the failures and controversies during that period and instead given greater light to the whole administration of the Communist Party and Soviet government especially at the local nodes. This makes sense in regard to a Marxist study of history: the application of historical materialism. Where attention is given not to individual ‘great men of history’ but rather the broad social forces and their contradictions which made such individuals manifest and drove the course of history.
Another contention is the way in which Hayek glosses over the relative success of socialism and absolute failure of fascism. The Soviet Union went from perhaps the most backward nation in Europe at the time of revolution in 1917, to a world superpower rivaling industrial giants such as the United States in 1945 . Keep in mind that the first Five Year Plan began nearly 11 years after the revolution in 1928. The success of the socialist plan in developing the productive forces of society is absolutely unprecedented even by standards of the early Industrial Revolution. Fascist Italy and Germany, on the other hand, were tin castles which floated only on speculative war spending . There economies were hardly sustainable in the long-haul which is perhaps even a reason why the Nazis were so eager to invade Poland after their series of expansions southward.
In another sphere, the young Soviet Union achieved monumental progress in the social liberation of marginalized groups. Russia had always been a prison house of nations, forcibly repressing dissident nationalities from the independence and self-determination they deserved. The Soviet Union established a formal body by which minority nationalities could express their demands and achieve the recognition they deserved (although some would rightly argue that even these measures did not go far enough); a progressive achievement far ahead of any Western nation certainly the ultra-nationalist and xenophobic fascists of Europe. Women were also fully recognized members of Soviet society, equal in rights to their male counterparts, and able to express themselves as ‘full humans’. And while Black people in the United States were being hosed down by riot police, segregated, and thrown in jail, racial discrimination in the Soviet Union was completely abolished. Every man, woman, and child regardless of race walked as equals in fellowship among the streets, something the United States today still struggles to achieve.
Ultimately we could dedicate hours to disproving Hayek’s ridiculous conflation between European fascism and Soviet socialism at the time but we would only be exhausting ourselves. In the end, there is a very real difference between the fascists and socialists of the time. The difference lies between those who started the holocaust and those who ended it.
Hayek continues the chapter building off of his conflation made previously. He explores avenues by which “Marxism has led to fascism” and all sorts of similarly unfounded claims . His only strand of evidence lies in the fact that many of the prominent Nazis and fascists of the period were previously socialists to some extent, as if this is some sort of little known ‘gotcha’ moment. Clearly, many fascist leaders were previously associated with socialist movements. As stated earlier, fascists are the cream of political opportunism; capitalizing on the energy of the masses for their own intentions at preserving the status quo. In this sense, it’s no surprise that leaders like Benito Mussolini fancied themselves socialists for a period. However, any close study of the same leaders (e.g. Mussolini) reveals a train of political opportunism, flopping sides, changing rhetoric, and general appeasement. The fact many fascists considered themselves socialists is no indictment of socialism but rather an insight into their own opportunist strategy made possible by class collaboration.
In the following page, Hayek builds his argument by noting how, for example, in the both Italy and Germany fascists and socialists “competed for the support of the same type of mind” . This has just the smallest kernel of truth to it. In the early stages of the fascist movement in Europe, both fascist corporatists and socialist unionists were indeed locked in a struggle at the ballot box and most certainly at the workplace. Once again, not surprising given the opportunist and psuedo-populist prose of the fascists at the time. However, as time went on certainly this all changed. The greatest support for fascism in Germany and Italy came not from the working class, as we commonly understand it, but actually from arguably ‘lumpenized’ portions of the military apparatus. Unemployed soldiers from the previous World War, feeling alienated and longing for pride again, became the henchmen of both Hitler and Mussolini before and during their respective regimes . The communists and socialists found strength among the working classes but were unable to fully capitalize in that respect. Remember, after the fascist rise to power in both Germany and Italy, it was the communists, socialists, and trade unionists who were tossed in jail or the concentration camp first. Therefore, any competition between fascists and socialists early on as indicative of the two being “similar” in principle is absolute nonsense that any honest study of history can easily dispel.
After making many similar and numerous claims in the following pages, Hayek finally makes the summary points of his entire chapter:
“That democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for it produces something so utterly different that few of those who now wish it would be prepared to accept the consequences, many will not believe the connection has been laid bare in all its aspects.” 
Before addressing his final statement we should revisit his train of argumentation, throughout the chapter, leading up to this point. First, socialism was ‘authoritarian’ and undemocratic until some sly socialists ‘subtly’ changed the definition of freedom; all of which we showed was a certain and blatant misrepresentation. Second, he conflates socialism with fascism and makes a quip regarding the “superfascist” nature of “Stalinism”; something that was easily and distinctly debunked through a more holistic study of history. Finally, he finds refuge in the fact that at some point fascists and socialists were in steep competition therefore indicating we must be “similar” at least in principle. Although, once again, he is proven wrong simply by revisiting the historical period with an eye towards the developing social contradictions between the evolving classes in Europe just prior to World War II. Hayek’s final conclusion? “Democratic socialism” is a utopian fantasy and unattainable because of his previously established (false) premises and subsequent (fallacious) conclusions.
1. Socialism, if it is actually socialism in the way described by Marxists over the previous centuries, must be a “democratic socialism”. Not in the parliamentary sense or in the bourgeois sense of the “representative democracy” but an organic democracy for the people. If socialism is not guided by the people with the interests of the people then it is simply not socialism by its very cardinal traits.
2. Socialism is only as “utopian” as we consider the scientific advancement of humanity to be “utopian”. Certainly, one hundred years ago the idea of humans landing on the moon was out of the question, “utopian” even. Now we seem to parade around the galaxy as if it were our own cosmic backyard. The primary edifice of any reactionary is an implausible mistrust of the future. Anything which transcends the fundamental contradictions of our present society must be considered totally ‘unattainable’ or else the entire fabric of our totality would disintegrate. People around the world are constantly informed by the bourgeois media, theorists, and popular culture that “this is the best we got”. But like peasants under the Hapsburg dynasty during the French Revolution, we can look clearly upon examples to the contrary and know that this is not “the best we can have”. Looking back at socialist experiments only reaffirms our desire to make the future more than plausible but actualize the success we know from collective experience is attainable.
That is the ‘revolutionary optimism’ which is the existential enemy of reactionary charlatans like F. A. Hayek; those individuals who spend their days deriding the achievements of the masses and doubting the possibility of any substantive liberation. We already know that a better future is possible; not only is it possible it is certain with the concerted effort of the masses in a way hardly conceived by ruling class stooges such as Hayek and his modern successors. If socialism is only a “Great Utopia” then consider the past and present revolutionaries the real visionaries for the whole of humanity progressing endlessly towards an absolute liberation of all people everywhere.
 F. A. Hayek. 1944. The Road to Serfdom. p. 66-67
 Ibid. p. 67-68 note: It’s interesting that Hayek includes classical Greek and Roman thinkers in his statement which only builds upon the idea of his holistic ‘Western thought’ taken as a monolithic continuity. Absent, of course, is the non-Western influence upon popular Western thought such as the Arabic reintroduction of Platonic philosophy and mathematics prior to the Renaissance.
 Ibid. p. 70 note: Hayek uses “discovery” to imply capitalism’s incremental solution to contradictions within class society of previous epochs; however, forgetting that many of such “very dark spots” were no doubt introduced with the proliferation of private capital.
 Lenin, Vladimir. 1917. The State and Revolution. Chapter 5: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State. Note: It’s quite a coincidence that Lenin makes note of freedom in the “Ancient Greek republics” when alluding to capitalist “freedom” and how Hayek makes special mention of those prized Greek thinkers.
 Hayek. 1944. p. 67
 Ibid. p. 77
 Ibid. p. 78
 Ibid. p. 78
 Ibid. p. 78-79
 Lenin, Vladimir. Collected Works.
 Getty, J. Arch. 2010. The Road to Terror: Stalin and the Self-Destruction of the Bolsheviks, 1932-1939. note: Getty has been labeled a “pro-stalin” apologist despite being openly non-communist and even liberal in commentary.
 Keefe, Joshua R. 2009. Stalin and the Drive to Industrialize the Soviet Union. Note: this article follows most of the bourgeois commentary on the ‘great man of history’ but does a good job of inserting raw figures to demonstrate growth.
 Liu, Larry L. 2013. Economic Policy in Nazi Germany: 1933-1945. note: the author cites as much as 61% of industrial labor in Nazi Germany was devoted to war production helping to maximize employment and circulation in the domestic economy.
 Hayek. 1944. p. 79
 Ibid. p. 81
 McNab, Chris. 2009. The Third Reich. Note: the Nazis were infamous for recruiting in beer halls where many ex-soldiers gathered leading many to label the henchmen simply as “bullies”.
 Hayek. 1944. p. 82