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.