Comments (9)

• Paul Marks

• A fine article.

• Published: September 29, 2006 10:49 AM

• quincunx

• I have been reading mises.org for about a year and until now have not noticed that I share two superficial things in common with Mises. I was born exactly 101 years after Mises in the same city (L'viv, L'vov, Lwow, Lemberg, Leopolis). Also, I have been to the town of Brody, where his mother is from.

  It's a small world afterall.

• Published: September 29, 2006 12:39 PM

• Charles Smyth

• A well written and succinct article which will hopefully introduce new readers to how important it is to know where to look so that proper progress beyond the banal propaganda which too much passes for credible thought in today's economic and political climate, overburdened with vapidity and opportunism, can be made.

• Published: September 29, 2006 2:31 PM

• Mark J. McGrath

• Does anyone know where Mises is buried?

• Published: September 30, 2006 6:59 AM

• david

• Mr Reisman

  very nice sketch of the Mises legacy. I may be treading on toes here, (particularly in your case given the very title of your book), but I would like to raise a semantic issue: I believe that in using the term 'capitalism' so proudly, alas as even Mises himself did, the proponents of free markets and economic liberty do ourselves a great disservice.

  the word has accumulated an awful lot of unwanted baggage, to the extent that it has come to mean different things to different people. The term itself was used in the first place as a pejorative by Marx in his adverserial polarisation of the relationship between labour and capital. Whereas 'labourism' ( or socialism I suppose) would imply the political use of State power to advance the (short-term) interests of labour at the expense of other factors of production, 'capitalism' implies the same thing with a different 'beneficiary': the use of State power to entrench the interests of capital at the expense of the other market participants.
  
  Of course, we know that this is not what we mean by 'capitalism' when we use it to refer to the principle of free markets (and in any case, we also know that this sort of interventionism cannot even achieve its own objectives sustainably!). But perception is a powerful force even if it is erroneous, and from the point of view of most of those on the Left, this is exactly what capitalism DOES mean ( if only because they largely dont understand the fundamental truths of economics anyway).
  
  this is why I believe that the genuinely free-market approach of the Austrian school, which invokes no interventionist role for the state, for or against any narrow grouping of market participants AT ALL, requires to be called something other than 'capitalism'. (How about 'marketism?')

  In my view, Marx himself was not entirely out of line in using the term in the first place, even if his thinking was ill-founded: when we consider that the poverty and 'exploitation' he saw around him was in large part due to State interference and law calculated to advance the interests of the owners of capital at the expense of labour, it is an appropriate pejorative. But Marx missed the subtle point, and advocated merely reversing the roles politically or by revolution, rather than turning his sights to where the problem really lay: the institutional structure of an interfering state, irrespective of who the intended 'beneficiary' may be.

  Ever since, the 'capitalism' that WAS responsible for exploitation, ( viz. the use of state power to entrench plutocratic interests), and bona fide 'free markets', have been conflated into a single animal in the minds of the entire Left and indeed the mainstream, thus helping to preserve the fiction of an inherently oppositional relationship between capital and labour in the popular conscioussness. Make a leftist understand that tangle of concepts properly, and half the battle of convincing is done. But labelling market freedom as 'capitalism' makes this so much more difficult, because we will always have to carefully explain what Capitalism ISN't first, and hope that the shutters don't come down before we can get any further. And lets face it, theres no point in preaching to the converted: the main reason we write and talk about what we believe in is not to chummily agree with one another, but to convince those who currently hold an opposing view.

  I hope you will take this point in the spirit in which it is meant

  David

• Published: October 2, 2006 5:54 AM

• ken wood

• If this Country returned to a Capitalistic society we would have to give up:
  Social Security
  City owned football stadiums
  State and National Parks
  State run child care
  the Government Public schools
  The Post Office
  ...this list can get real long.

  I'm willing if you are.
  Happy Birthday Mr. Von mises.

• Published: October 2, 2006 1:57 PM

• Nick Reardon

• Ken,
  All we would be giving up is the State's relationship with the things you mentioned. The market would provide football stadiums, parks, child care, schools, and shipping. Not only would we not be giving these things up, but they would be efficient, high quality, and legitimate as they would be a product of the market.

• Published: October 3, 2006 11:06 PM

• Mark Baumann

• I believe Ken was being facitious..... notice he put a gov't connotation on all except the Post Office, but that is synonomous with the government anyway.
  

  
  Happy Birthday Ludwig.....

  
  And thanks for the great article Prof George!

• Published: October 4, 2006 7:09 PM

• Nick

• I didn't feel his facetious vibes because of the words "have to give up," followed by a list of government functions. Hard to pick up on computer sarcasm. Regardless, up with Capitalism, down with government, and we all lived happily ever after.
  

• Published: October 5, 2006 9:33 PM