Welcome to Keith's night. Don't try it on anyone.
This is Marxist and Austrian class analysis by Hans Hermann
Hopper, from the Department of Economics, at the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas published in the Journal of libertarian
studies in 1990. I want to do the following in
this paper. First to present the Theses that
constitute the hard core of the Marxist theory of History.
I claim that all of them are essentially correct.
Then I will show how these truth is.
These are derived in Marxism from a false starting point.
Finally. I will demonstrate how Austrian
ISM in the mises. Rothbard tradition can give a
correct. But categorically different
explanation of their validity. Let me begin with the hard core
of the Marxist, belief system. Number one, the history of
mankind is the history of class struggles.
It is the history of struggles between a relatively small
ruling class and a larger class of the exploited.
The primary form of exploitation is economic the ruling class
expropriate. It's part of the productive
output of the exploited or as Marxist say it appropriates a
social surplus product and uses it for its own.
Consumptive purposes. Number two, the ruling classes
unified by its common interest in upholding, its exploitative
position and maximizing. It's exploitative.
Lie, appropriated Surplus product.
It never deliberately gives up power or exploitation income.
Instead, any loss in power or income must be wrestled away
from it through, struggles, whose outcome ultimately depends
on the class consciousness of the voided, IE on whether or
not, and to what extent the exploited are aware of their own
status and are consciously United with other class members
in common opposition to exploitation.
Number 3, class rule manifests itself, primarily in specific
Arrangements, regarding the assignment of property rights or
in Marx's terminology in specific relations of
production. In order to protect these
arrangements or production relations.
The ruling class forms and is in command of the state, as the
apparatus of compulsion and coercion the state enforces and
helps. Reduce a given class structure
through the administration of a system of class Justice and it
assists in the creation and the support of an ideological.
Superstructure, designed to lend legitimacy to the existence of
class rule, number four internally, the process of
competition within the ruling class.
Generates a tendency toward increasing, concentration and
centralization. Multipolar system of
exploitation is gradually supplanted by an oligarchic or
monopolistic one fewer and fewer exploitation centers remain in
operation. And those that do are
increasingly integrated into a hierarchical order and
externally. EG within the International
System, the internal centralization process.
Will the more intensively the more advanced it is lead to List
Interstate Wars and the territorial expansion of
exploitative rule. Number five, finally, with the
centralization and expansion of exploitative rule gradually
approaching. Its ultimate limit of world
domination class rule will increasingly become incompatible
with the further development and Improvement of productive
forces. Economic stagnation and crises
become more and more characteristic and create the
objective conditions for the emergence of a revolutionary
class. - of the exploited, the situation becomes ripe for the
establishment of a classless society.
The withering away of the state, the replacement of government of
men over Men by the administration of things and as
a result unheard of economic prosperity.
All of these Theses are perfectly justifiable as I will
show, unfortunately. However, it is Marxism, which
subscribes to all of them that has done more than any other
ideological system to discredit their validity by deriving them
from a patently absurd theory of exploitation.
What is the Marxist theory of exploitation, according to Marx,
such pre-capitalist social systems, as slavery and
feudalism. Our care.
Terrorized by exploitation. There is no quarrel with this.
After all the slave is not a free laborer and he cannot be
said to gain from his being enslaved.
Rather his enslavement. Reduces his utility at the
expense of an increase in wealth, appropriated, by the
slave master, the interest of the slave, and that of the slave
owner are indeed antagonistic. The same is true of the
interests of the feudal Lord, who extract sale and rent from a
peasant. Who works on homesteaded land,
the Lord's gain gains are the peasants as loss, and it is also
Undisputed that slavery as well as feudalism.
Hamper, the development of productive forces.
Neither slave nor surf will be as productive as he would be
without slavery or serfdom. But the genuinely new Marxist
idea is, that essentially nothing is changed.
As regards exploitation under capitalism, IE.
If the slave becomes a free laborer, or if the peasant
decides to Farmland homesteaded by someone else, and pays rent
in exchange for doing. So, to be sure marks in his
famous 24th, chapter of the first volume of his Capital
titled, the so-called original accumulation gives a Account of
the emergence of capitalism that makes the point that much.
Or even most of the initial capitalist Prosperity is the
result of plunder and closure and Conquest.
Similarly, in chapter 25 on the modern theory of colonialism,
the role of force and violence and exporting capitalism to the,
as we would now, say third world is heavily emphasized.
Admittedly all. This is generally correct.
And insofar as it is. There can be no quarrel with
labeling such things capitalism exploitative yet.
One should be aware of the fact here.
Marx is performing a trick and engaging in historical
investigations and arousing the readers indignation at the
brutalities underlying the formation of many capitalist
fortunes. He actually sidesteps the issue
at hand evading. The fact that his thesis is
really an entire. Early different one namely that
even under clean capitalism. So to speak IE a system in which
the original appropriation of capital was a result of nothing
else, but homesteading work and savings the capitalists who
hired labor to be employed with this.
Capital would nonetheless be engage in exploitation indeed
marks. Consider the proof of this
thesis, his most important contribution to economic
analysis. His proof of the exploitative
character of a clean, capitalism consists in the observation that
the factor prices in particular. The wages paid to laborers by
the capitalists are lower than the output prices.
The laborer, for instance, is paid a wage that represents
consumption Goods that can be produced in three days, but he
actually works. Five days for his wage and
produces an output of consumption Goods that exceeds.
What Receives as remuneration the output of 2 extra days.
The Surplus value in marches terminology is appropriated by
the capitalist hands. According to Marx, there is
exploitation. What is wrong with this
analysis? The answer becomes obvious.
Once it is asked why the laborer would possibly agree to such an
arrangement, he agrees because his wage payment represents
present Goods while his own labor services.
Represent only future goods and he values present Goods more,
highly. After all, he could also decide
not to sell his labor services to the capitalist and then reap
the full value of his output himself.
But this would, of course, imply that he would have to wait
longer for any consumption Goods to become available to him in
selling his labor Services. He demonstrates, that he prefers
a smaller amount of consumption Goods.
Now, A possibly larger one at some future date, on the other
hand. Why would the capitalist want to
strike a deal with the laborer? Why would he want to advance
present Goods, money to the labor in exchange for services,
that bear fruit? Only later.
Obviously, he would not want to pay out for instance, a hundred
dollars now. If he were to receive the same
amount in one year's time, in that case, why not simply hold
on to it for a year, then receive the extra benefit of
having actual command over during the entire time?
Instead. He must expect to receive a
larger sum than $100 in the future.
In order, to give up $100. Now in the form of wages, paid
to the laborer, he must expect to be able to earn a profit or
more correctly in interest return.
And he is constrained by time preference.
IE. The fact that an actor
invariably prefers earlier over later Goods in.
Yet another way for if one can obtain a larger sum in the
future by sacrificing a smaller one in the present.
Why then is the capitalist not engaged in more saving than he
actually is. Why does he not hire more
laborers than he does? If each one of them promises an
additional interest return, the answer again should be obvious
because the capitalist is a consumer to and cannot help
being one the amount of his savings and investing is
restricted by the necessity that he too like the laborer.
requires a supply of present Goods, large enough to secure
the satisfaction of all those wants the satisfaction of which
during the waiting time is considered more urgent than
advantages, which a still greater lengthening of period of
production, would provide What is wrong with Marx theory of
exploitation then? Is that he does not understand
the phenomenon of time preference.
As a universal category Of Human Action that the laborer does not
receive his full worth, has nothing to do with exploitation,
but merely reflects the fact that it is impossible for man to
exchange future Goods against the present ones except at a
discount, unlike the case of slave and slave master where the
latter At the expense of the former, the relationship between
the free laborer. And the capitalist is a
mutually-beneficial one, the laborer, enters the agreement
because given has time preference.
He prefers a smaller amount of present Goods over a larger one,
and the capitalist enters it because given his time
preference. He has a reverse preference
order and ranks a larger future amount of goods more highly than
a smaller. Present one.
Their interests are not antagonistic, but harmonious
without the capitalist expectation of an interest
return. The labourer would be worse off
because he would have to wait longer than he wishes to wait
and without the laborers preference for present Goods.
The capitalist would be worse off because he would have to
resort to less roundabout and less efficient production
methods than those. He desires to adopt.
Nor can the capitalist wage system be regarded as an
impediment to the further development of the forces of
production, as March claims, if the laborer were not permitted
to sell his labor services and the capitalist to buy them
output would not be higher but lower because production would
have to take place with relatively reduced levels of
capital accumulation. Under her system of socialized
production, quite contrary to Marxist proclamations.
The development of productive forces would not reach new
heights, but would instead sink dramatically for obviously
capital accumulation must be brought about by definite
individuals at definite points in time and space through
homesteading producing and or saving in each case.
It is brought about with the expectation that it will lead to
an increase. In the output of future Goods
the value and actor attaches to his Capital, reflects the value.
He attaches to all expected future incomes attributable, to
its cooperation, and discounted by his rate of time preference.
If as in the case of collectively owned factors of
production and actor is no longer granted exclusive control
over his accumulated capital and hence over the future income to
be Derived from its employment, but partial control, instead is
assigned to non homesteaders, non producers and non Savers,
the value for him of the expected income.
And hence, that of the capital goods is reduced.
His effective rate of time. Preference will rise, there will
be less homesteading of resources who scarcity is
recognized and less saving for the maintenance of existing and
the Duction of new capital goods, the period of production.
The roundabout nests of the productive structure will be
shortened and relative impoverishment will result.
If Marx's theory of capitalist exploitation and his ideas on
how to end exploitation and establish Universal, Prosperity
are false to the point of being ridiculous.
It is clear that any theory of history that can be derived
from, it must be false to or if it should be corrected must have
been derived and correctly instead of going through the
lengthy task of explaining, all the flaws in the Marxist
argument as it sets out from it. Theory of capitalist
exploitation and ends with the theory of history that I
described earlier. I will take a shortcut.
I will now outline in the briefest possible way the
correct. Austrian Miss essien rothbard
Ian theory of exploitation. Give the explanatory sketch of
how this Theory makes sense out of the class theory of history
and highlight along the way some key differences between this
class Theory and the Marxist. 81 and also point out some
intellectual affinities between Austrian ISM and Marxism
stemming from their common conviction that there does
indeed exist, something like exploitation and a ruling class.
The starting point for the Austrian exploitation theory is
plain and simple as it should be.
Actually it has already been established through the analysis
of the Marxist theory, exploitation characterized, the
relationship between slave and slave master, answer, fan feudal
Lord, but no exploitation was found possible under a clean
capitalism. What is the principal difference
between these two cases? The answer is the recognition or
Ignition of the homesteading principle, The Peasant under
feudalism is exploited because he does not have exclusive
control over land that he homesteaded and the slave
because he has no exclusive control over his own Homestead
body. If on the other hand, everyone
has exclusive control over his own body is a free labor that is
and acts in accordance with the homesteading principle.
There can be no exploitation. It is logically.
Absurd to claim that a person who homesteads, good, not
previously homesteaded by anybody else, or who, employ
such Goods in the production of future Goods, or who saves
presently homesteaded or produced Goods, in order to
increase the future supply of goods.
Could thereby exploit. Anybody nothing has been taken
away from anybody in this process and additional Goods
have actually been created and it would be equally absurd to
claim that an Women between different homesteaders Savers
and producers regarding their non exploitative lie,
appropriated goods or services could possibly contain any Foul
Play. Instead exploitation takes
place, whenever any deviation from the homesteading, principle
occurs exploitation occurs, whenever a person successfully
claims partial or full control over the scarce resources.
He has not homesteaded saved or produced and which he has not
acquired. Actually, from a previous
producer, owner exploitation is the expropriation of
homesteaders producers and Savers by late coming, non
homesteaders, non producers, non Savers and non contractors.
It is the expropriation of people whose property claims are
grounded in work and contract by people whose claims are derived
from thin air and who disregard others work?
And contracts. Needless to say exploitation.
Thus defined is, in fact, an integral part of human history,
one can acquire, an increase wealth either through
homesteading producing saving or Contracting or by expropriating
homesteaders, producers Savers or contractors.
There are no other ways. Both methods are natural to
mankind alongside homesteading, producing and Contracting there.
Have always been non productive and non-contractual property.
Positions and in the course of Economic Development just as
producers and contractors can form firms and two prizes and
corporations. So can exploiters create
large-scale, exploitation, Enterprises governments, and
states, the ruling class, which may again be internally,
stratified is initially composed of the members of such in
exploitation firm and with a ruling class established over a
given territory and engaged in the expropriation of economic
resources. From a class of exploited
producers the center of all history.
Indeed becomes a struggle between the exploiters and the
exploited history. Then correctly told is
essentially the history of the victories and defeats of the
rulers in their attempt to maximize exploitative lie,
appropriated income, and of the ruled in their attempts to
resist and reverse. This tendency.
It is in this assessment of history that austrians and
Marxist agree. And why a notable intellectual
Affinity between Austrian and Marxist, historical
investigation exists. Both opposed A historiography
that recognizes only action or inaction economically and
morally On a par and both opposed A historiography that
instead of adapting, such a value neutral stand thinks that
one's own arbitrarily introduced.
Value judgments have to provide the foil for one's own
historical narratives, rather history must be told in terms of
freedom and exploitation parasitism and economic
impoverishment, private property and its destruction.
Otherwise, it is told falsely. While productive Enterprises
come or go because of voluntary support or its absence a ruling
class, never comes to power because there is a demand for
it, nor does it abdicate, when abdication is demonstratively,
demanded one cannot say by any stretch of the imagination that
homesteaders producers Savers and contractors.
Have demanded their own expropriation.
They must be coerced into accepting it.
And this proves conclusively that the exploitative a firm.
Is not in demand at all. Nor can one say that a ruling
class can be brought down by, abstaining from transactions.
With it, in the same way, as one can bring down a productive
Enterprise for the ruling class. Acquires its income through
non-productive and non-contractual transactions.
And thus is unaffected by boycotts.
Rather what makes the rise of an exploitation for impossible and
what alone Can in turn, bring it down.
Is a specific state of public opinion or in Marxist
terminology a specific state of class consciousness.
An exploiter creates victims and victims are potential enemies.
It is possible that this resistance can be lastingly
broken down by force. As, for example, in the case of
a group of men, exploding another group of roughly the
same size. However, more than force is
needed to expand exploitation over a population, many times
its own size for this to happen. A firm must also have Public
support, a majority of the population.
Must accept the exploitative actions as legitimate.
This acceptance can range from active enthusiasm to passive
resignation, but it must be Acceptance in the sense that a
majority must have given up the idea of actively or passively
resisting, any attempt to enforce non-productive and
non-contractual property acquisitions.
The class Consciousness must be low undeveloped and beg only.
As long as the State of Affairs. Last is there still room for an
exploitative firm to prosper, even if no actual demand exists
only if and insofar as the exploited and expropriated
develop a clear idea of their own situation and are united
with other members of their class.
To an ideological movement, that gives expression to the idea of
a classless society, where all exploitation is abolished.
Can the power of the ruling class be broken.
Only if and insofar as a majority of the exploited public
becomes consciously integrated into such a movement and
accordingly displays, a common outrage over all non-productive
or non-contractual property. Acquisition shows a common
Attempt for everyone who engages in such acts and deliberately
contributes nothing to help, make them successful, not to
mention actively trying to obstruct them.
Can its power be brought to crumble.
The gradual, abolition of feudal and absolutist Rule and the rise
of increasingly capitalist Societies in Western Europe.
And the United States accompanied by unheard of
economic growth and increasing population was the result of a
growing class Consciousness among the exploited who are
ideologically molded together through the doctrines of natural
rights and liberalism in this austrians.
And marxists agree, they disagree.
However, as to whether the reversal of this liberalization
process and the steadily increased levels of exploitation
in the societies since the last third of the 19th century and
particularly pronounced since World War One, are the result of
a loss in class Consciousness. In fact, in the Austrian view,
Marxism must accept much of the blame for this development by
Miss directing attention from the correct exploitation model
of the Homesteader producer saver contractor versus the non
Homesteader producer saver contractor to the fallacious
model of the wage earner versus the capitalist.
Thus, muddling things up. The establishment of a ruling
class over an exploited, one many times its size by coercion.
And the manipulation of public opinion.
I e0 a low degree of class Consciousness among the
exploited Finds. Its most basic institutional
expression in the creation of a system of public law,
superimposed on private law, the ruling class sets itself apart
and protects its position as a rule.
In class by adopting, a constitution, for their firm's
operations. On the One Hand by formalizing,
the internal operations within the state apparatus, as well, as
its relations with the exploited population, a constitution
creates some degree of legal stability, the more familiar and
popular private law Notions are imposed into Constitutional and
public law. The more favorably disposed will
be the public to the existence of the state.
On the other hand, any Constitution and public law.
Also formalizes, the immune status of the ruling class as
regards to the homesteading principle.
It formalizes, the right of the states representatives to engage
in non productive and non-contractual property
Acquisitions and the ultimate subordination of private to
Public Law, class Justice, IE, one set of laws for the rulers.
And another for the ruled comes to bear in this dualism of
public and private law and in the domination and infiltration
of public law over. And into private law.
It is not because private property rights are recognized
by law. As marxists think the clasp that
clasp Justice is established. Rather class.
Justice comes into being precisely whenever a legal
distinction exists between a class of persons acting under
and being protected by public law and another class acting
under and being protected instead by some subordinate.
It law more specifically, then the basic proposition of the
Marxist, theory of the state in particular is false.
The state is not exploitative because it protects the
capitalists property rights, but because it itself is exempt from
the Restriction of having to acquire property, productively
and contractually. In spite of this fundamental
misconception, however, Marxism because it correctly interprets
a state as exploitative. Unlike for example, the public
Choice school, which sees it as normal firm.
Among others is on to some important, insights regarding
the logic of State operations. For one thing, it recognizes the
Strategic function of redistributionist State
policies. As an exploitative firm, the
state must at all times be interested in a low degree of
class Consciousness. Among the ruled, the
redistribution of property and income, is the state's means by
which it can create divisiveness among the public and destroy the
formation of a unifying class Consciousness among the
exploited, furthermore, the redistribution of state power
itself. Through democratizing the State
Constitution and opening up every ruling position to
everyone and granting everyone. The right to participate in the
determination of State personnel.
And policy is actually a means for reducing the resistance
against exploitation as such. Secondly, the state is indeed as
Marxist. See the great Center of
ideological propaganda. And mystification exploitation
is really Freedom. Taxes are really voluntary
contributions. Non-contractual relations are
really conceptually contractual ones.
No one is ruled by anyone, but we all rule ourselves without
the state, neither law nor security would exist and the
poor would perish. Cetera.
All of this is part of the ideological superstructure,
designed to legitimize an underlying basis of economic
exploitation. And finally marxists are also
correct in noticing the close association between the state
and business, especially the banking Elite, even though their
explanation for it is faulty. The reason is not that the
Bourgeois Z establishment season support.
The state as a guarantor of private property rights and
contractual ISM on the contrary The Establishment correctly,
perceives the state as the very antithesis to private property
that it is and takes a close interest in it.
For this reason, the more successful business, the larger,
the potential danger of government exploitation, but the
larger also the potential gains That can be achieved if it can
come under governments special protection and is exempt from
the full weight of capitalist competition.
This is why the business establishment is interested in
the state and its infiltration. The ruling Elite in turn is
interested in close cooperation with the the business
establishment because of its Financial powers.
In particular, the banking Elite is of interest because as an
exploitative firm, the state naturally, wishes to possess
complete autonomy, for counterfeiting by offering to
cut the banking Elite in on its own counterfeiting.
Mechanizations and allowing them to counterfeit in addition to
its own counterfeited notes under a regime of fractional
Reserve banking. The state can easily Reach This
goal and establish a system of State monopolized money and card
alized banking controlled by the central bank.
And through this direct counterfeiting connection with a
banking system, and by extension the bank's major clients the
ruling class in Extends far beyond the state apparatus to
the very nerve center of Civil Society.
Not that much different at least in appearance from the picture
that marxists like to paint of the cooperation between banking
business Elites, and the state competition within the ruling
class, and among different ruling classes.
Brings about a tendency towards increased.
The concentration Marxism is right in this, however, it's
faulty theory of exploitation again, leads it to locate the
cause for this tendency in the wrong place.
Marxism, sees such a tendency as inherent in capitalist
competition yet. It is precisely so long as
people are engaged in clean capitalism.
That competition is not a form of zero some interaction, the
Homesteader, the producer saver and contractor do not gain.
At the others expense, their gains either, leave another's.
Physical possessions, completely unaffected, or they actually
imply Mutual gains as in the case of all contractual
exchanges. Capitalism.
Thus accounts for increases in absolute wealth.
But under its regime. No systematic, tendency towards
relative concentration, can be said to exist, instead 0.
Some interactions characterized. Not only the relationship
between the ruler and the ruled, but also between competing
rulers exploitation defined as non productive and
non-contractual property Acquisitions is only Possible.
As long as there is anything that can be appropriated, get if
there were free competition in the business of exploitation,
there would obviously be nothing left to expropriate, the
sexploitation requires Monopoly, over some given territory and
population. And the competition between
exploiters is by its very nature.
Eliminative, and must bring about a tendency toward relative
concentration of exploitative firms.
As well as a tendency towards centralization within each
exploited firm. The development of States rather
than capitalist firms provides. The foremost illustration of
this tendency. There are now a significantly
smaller number of states with exploitative control over much
larger territories than in previous centuries.
And within each state apparatus there has, in fact, been a
constant tendency toward increasing the powers of the
central government at the expense of its regional and
local subdivisions. Yet outside the state apparatus.
A tendency toward relative concentration, has also become a
parent for the same reason. Not as should be clear by now
because of Any trait inherent in capitalism, but because the
ruling class has expanded its Into Civil Society, through the
creation of a state banking business Alliance.
And in particular, the establishment of a system of
Central Banking, if a concentration and centralization
of state power, then takes place.
It is only natural that this be accompanied by a parallel
process of relative concentration, and cartelization
of banking and industry along with increased State Powers, the
associated Banking, and business establishment powers of
eliminating or putting economic competitors at a disadvantage by
means of non-productive and or non-contractual expropriations.
Increase business. Concentration is the reflection
of a state ization of economic life.
The primary means for the expansion of state power and the
elimination of rival exploitation centers is war and
Military domination. Interstate competition.
Implies a tendency toward war and imperialism as centers of
exploitation their interests are by Nature antagonistic.
Moreover, with each of them internally in command of the
instrument of Taxation and absolute counterfeiting Powers.
It is possible. For the ruling class, to let
others pay for their Wars naturally.
If one does not have to pay for one's risky Ventures, oneself,
but can force others to do. So one tends to be a greater
risk taker and more trigger-happy.
Then one might otherwise be Marxism contrary to most of the
so-called booze huasi social sciences gets the facts.
Right? There was indeed a tendency
toward imperialism operative in history and the foremost Realist
powers are indeed. The most advanced capitalist
Nations. Get the explanation.
Is once again faulty. It is the state as an
institution exempt from the capitalist rules of property
Acquisitions. That is by nature aggressive.
And the historical evidence of a close correlation between
capitalism and imperialism, only seemingly contradicts this.
It Finds Its explanation easily enough.
In the fact that in order to come out successfully from
Interstate Wars, a state must be in command of sufficient in
relative terms, economic resources, other things being
equal, the state with more ample resources will win as an
exploitative firm estate is by nature.
Octave of wealth and capital accumulation.
Wealth is produced exclusively by civil society and the weaker,
the state's exploitative Powers, the more wealth and capital
Society accumulates. Thus paradoxical, as it may
sound at first, the weaker or the more liberal a state is
internally. The further developed capitalism
is a developed capitalist economy to Tracked from makes
the state richer and a richer State, then makes for more and
more successful expansionist Wars.
It is this relationship that explains why initially the
states of Western Europe and in particular, Great Britain were
the leading imperialist powers and why in the 20th century,
this role has been assumed by the United States.
And a similarly straightforward yet.
Once again entirely non-marxist explanation exists for the
frequent Marxist. Observation that the banking and
business establishment is usually among the most Ardent
supporters of military strength and Imperial expansionism.
This support does not occur because the expansion of
capitalist markets requires exploitation, but because the
expansion of State protected and privileged business requires,
That such protection be extended, also to foreign
countries and that foreign competitors be hampered through
non-contractual and non productive property Acquisitions
in the same way or more so than internal competition.
Specifically, The Establishment supports imperialism.
If this support promises to lead to a position of military
domination of One's Own Allied State over another for then,
from a position of military strength, it becomes possible.
Possible to establish a system of what one may call monetary
imperialism. The dominating state will use
its Superior power to enforce a policy of internationally
coordinated inflation. Its own Central Bank sets the
pace in the process of counterfeiting.
And the central banks of the dominated states are ordered to
use, its currency, as their own reserves and inflate.
On top of them, thus, along with the dominating State and as the
earliest, Receivers of the counterfeit Reserve currency,
its Associated Banking and business.
Establishment can engage in almost Costless, expropriation
of foreign property, owners and income.
Producers a double layer of exploitation of a foreign State
and a foreign Elite on top of a national state.
And Elite is imposed on the exploited class in the dominated
territories, causing prolonged economic dependency on.
Of relative economic stagnation in comparison with the dominant
Nation, it is this very uncapitalized situation that
characterizes the status of the United States and the US dollar
and that gives rise to the correct accusations concerning
US economic exploitation and dollar imperialism.
Finally, the increasing concentration and centralization
of exploitative powers leads to economic stagnation and thereby
creates the objective conditions for the ultimate demise of these
powers and the establishment of a classless society capable of
producing unheard of economic Prosperity, contrary to Marxist
claims. This society would not be the
result of any historical laws. In fact, no such thing as an
Bowl historical laws as Marxist conceived of them exist, nor
will it be the result of a tendency for the rate of profit
to fall with an increased organic composition of capital
and increase in the proportion of constant to variable Capital
that is as Marx thought just as the labor theory of value of is
false Beyond repair. So is the law of the tendency of
the profit rate to fall which it is based on the source of Value
interest and profit is not exclusively the expenditure of
labor but much more General acting.
IE the employment of scarce means in the pursuit of goals by
agents who are constrained by time preference and uncertainty
imperfect knowledge. There was no reason to suppose
then that changes in the organic composition of capital should
have any systematic relation to changes in interest.
And profit. Instead, the likelihood of
crises that stimulate the development of a higher degree
of class Consciousness. I e0 the subjective conditions
for the overthrow of the ruling class increases because to use
one of Marx's, favorite terms of the dialectics of exploitation
that I have already touched on earlier.
Exploitation is destructive of wealth formation.
Hence, in the competition of exploitative.
X, IE of States less exploitative or more liberal
ones tend to out-compete more, exploitative ones, only because
they are in command of more ample resources, the process of
imperialism. Initially has a relatively
liberating effect. On society's coming under its
control a relatively more capitalist.
Social model is exported to relatively less capitalist more
exploitative societies. The development of productive
forces is stimulated. Economic integration is
furthered division of labor extended and a genuine World
Market. Establish population figures, go
up in response and expectations about the economic future rise
to unprecedented Heights with exploitative domination, taking
hold and Interstate competition reduced or even eliminated in a
process of imperialist expansionism.
However, the Constraints on the dominating State's power of
integral exploitation and expropriation gradually
disappear. Internal exploitation, Taxation
and regulation. Begin to increase the closer.
The ruling class comes to its ultimate goal of world
domination, economic stagnation sets in and the worldwide higher
expectations become frustrated. And this high expectations and
an economic reality, increasingly falling behind.
These expectations is the classical situation for the
emergence of a revolutionary potential.
A desperate need for ideological solutions to the emerging crises
arises along with a more. Widespread recognition of the
fact that state rule, Taxation and regulation far from offering
such as solution, actually constitute the Problem, that
must be overcome if in this situation of economic,
stagnation crisis and ideological disillusion, a
positive solution is offered in the form of a systematic and
comprehensive libertarian philosophy.
Coupled with its economic counterpart, Austrian economics.
And if this ideology is propagated by an activist
movement, then the prospects of igniting the Revolutionary
potential To activism become overwhelmingly, positive and
promising. Anti status pressures, will
Mount and bring about an irresistible tendency toward
dismantling the power of the ruling class and the state as
its instrument of exploitation. If an so far as this occurs,
however, it will not mean contrary to the Marxist model
social ownership of means of production.
In fact, social ownership is not only economically inefficient,
as has already been explained but incompatible with the idea
that the state is withering away.
A for if means of production are owned collectively and if it is,
realistically assume that not everyone's ideas as to how to
employ these means in production happen to coincide as if by
Miracle, then it is precisely. Socially owned factors of
production. That require continued State
actions, IE and institution. Coercively imposing one person's
will on another's instead the withering away of the state.
And And with this, the end of exploitation and the beginning
of Liberty and unheard of economic Prosperity means the
establishment of a pure private property Society regulated by
nothing but private law. Thank you for watching Keith,
and I don't tread on anyone.