Uma teoria do socialismo e do capitalismo

by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

O professor Hoppe apresenta a tese de que só é possível existir dois arquétipos econômicos: socialismo e capitalismo. Todos os outros sistemas são combinações destes dois tipos. Ele define o modelo capitalista como a absoluta proteção da propriedade privada, da livre associação e da troca — sem exceções. Quaisquer desvios deste ideal são espécies de socialismo, onde ocorrem propriedade pública e interferências no comércio.

Como parte da estrutura do socialismo, ele distingue as versões de esquerda e de direita. O socialismo "conservador" apoia intensas regulamentações, controles comportamentais, protecionismo e nacionalismo. A versão "esquerdista" tende mais ao apoio da estatização e da redistribuição. As consequências do socialismo variam de acordo com seu grau e tipo, mas possuem similaridades: alto custo, desperdício de recursos e baixo crescimento.

Este tratado é uma proeza intelectual.

Genres: Economics, Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Society, History, Ebooks

205 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 1988

Reviews

[Mostafa Bushehri · Rating 4 out of 5]

هانس هرمان هوپ در این کتاب کوشیده است بنیان‌های سوسیالیسم را، در دو جبهه اقتصاد و اخلاقیات، سست کند. وی سوسیالیسم را به پدیده‌ای تنزل می‌دهد که فقط از بُعد روانشناختی-جامعه‌شناختی اهمیت دارد؛ یعنی پدیده‌ای که وجودش نه دلایل اقتصادی قانع‌کننده‌ای دارد، نه دلایل اخلاقی و فقط براساس تجاوز و تاثیر تباه‌کننده‌ای واجد حیات می‌شود که از سیاستِ «تفرقه بینداز و حکومت کن» در میان عامه مردم برخاسته است.

هرمان هوپ در این کتاب به نقد انواع گونه‌های سوسیالیسم اعم از نوع روسی، محافظه‌کار و سوسیال دموکرات می‌پردازد. وی هرگونه نوع سوسیالیسم را مردود می‌شمارد و تنها گزینه برای جهان و آینده را «سرمایه‌داری ناب» می‌داند.

هرچند او با روش قیاسی، و به درستی، به برتری سرمایه‌داریِ فعلی نسبت به نمونه‌های سوسیالیستی اذعان دارد اما همین کشورهایی که ما به نام سرمایه‌داری آنان را می‌شناسیم، و نیز اقتصاددانان جریان اصلی، از نقدهای کوبنده او مصون نیستند.

هانس هرمان هوپ که در بال راستِ اقتصاددانان مکتب اتریش جای دارد، به معنای واقعی یک «آنارکو-کاپیتالیست» است و حتی نهاد دولت را یک «شرّ ضروری» نیز نمی‌پندارد.

او در این کتاب با با اپیستومولوژی مکتب اتریش و فلسفه آن به نقدِ دخالت‌های دولت در امور قضایی و امنیت یا اصطلاحا همان «کالاهای عمومی» می‌پردازد و آنان را مردود می‌شمارد.

چه با هوپ مخالف باشیم چه نباشیم، چه نظریات وی را آرمانی بدانیم یا خیر، نقدها و فلسفه او از بنیان‌های قوی‌ای برخوردار است و حتما برای لحظاتی تفکر ارزش خواندن دارند.

پ.ن: از ترجمه و ویراستاری کتاب راضی نبودم.

[Zachary Moore]

A strong theoretical overview of the economic and ethical issues involved in the capitalism vs socialism debate and includes Hoppe's argumentation ethics which shows that even the act of taking a position and arguing in favor it is implicitly based on recognition of individualism and the legitimacy of private property. A very readable treatise although the economic side of the argument is not developed in sufficient detail to likely prove convincing on people unfamiliar with Austrian literature.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is one of the best and certainly the most innovative of Rothbards disciples. Whether you agree with him or not, there is no denying that he is always thoughtful and eloquent. Among other things, he came up with a defense of the rothbardian philosophy via discourse ethics and he showed the link between time preference and democracy.

Before you take on this book, you should be familiar with the Austrian School of economics and the philosophy behind anarchocapitalism. For a New Liberty, The Ethics of Liberty and The Machinery of Freedom are excellent starting points for anarchocapitalism, and Choice or Economics in One Lesson for the Austrian School.

In this book, Hoppe presents both a case for anarchocapitalism and against socialism. His argumentation is rigorous and stringent, and he never loses track of where it's supposed to lead. Hoppe doesn't go on tangents or loses himself on side issues (except in his footnotes). Halfway through the book, he starts talking about epistemics to disprove empirical-positivism, by showing that you cannot defend empiricism with empirical arguments and hence that the position is self-defeating. It takes him maybe twenty pages to get there, and yet he doesn't skip any steps in his argumentation, nor does he try to simplify it. Bringing up the epistemics this late and then treating them in this much detail takes a lot of intellectual courage, but Hoppe is not lacking in that.

The one major error I could find was that he didn't differentiate properly between the calculation- and the knowledge-problem. When he starts talking about these two problems, he cites Hayek, not Mises, but then talks about it as Mises would, until he doesn't anymore:

Nor can he establish whether his way of producing for consumer demand is indeed the most efficient way (as compared with conceivable alternative ways) of satisfying the most urgent consumer needs, or if less urgent needs are being satisfied at the expense of neglecting more urgent ones, thus causing at least a relative drop in the value of the goods produced. Without being
able to resort unrestrictedly to the means of economic calculation, there is simply no way of knowing. Of course one could go ahead and try to do one’s best. That might even be successful sometimes, though one would have no way of assuring oneself that it is. But, in any case, the larger the consumer market is which one has to serve, and the more the knowledge regarding preferences of different groups of consumers, special circumstances of historical time and geographical space, and possibilities of technology is dispersed among different individuals, the more likely it is that one will go wrong.

As Mises pointed out, however, even a near-omniscient central planner could not rationally allocate means of production, unless the economy was stagnant or production chains very short. The planner could know exactly what consumptions goods are in demand, which technological possibilites exist and how the geographical circumstances are, and he still couldn't plan the economy. That is why the two problems should not be thrown together. Hoppe himself has learned the lesson, as he later participated in the dehomogenization debate with an essay printed in his collection The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Socialism: A Property or Knowledge Problem?.

[Juan "El más guapo" Esteban · Rating 5 out of 5]

Me siento mal de poner al mismo nivel otros libros a los que he dado 5 estrellas con esta joyita.

[Daniel Moss · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very similar to Democracy: The God That Failed in how he analyzes institutions.

[Sylvester · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics is Hoppe's first work to be translated in English. It's a valuable addition of what Rothbard and Nozick have already explained in their work. It reaffirms the ultra minarchy in Anarchy, State, and Utopia and the idea that free market can provide for law enforcement and military. It's still a bit shaky on the Constitution aspect but overall it's a pretty solid work for those want to refresh their arguments for liberty. However, the writing was very academic (which means "hurr durr, I am so smart") so not very beginner friendly if you want to teach them basic economics and philosophy.

[Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hoppe seems to have a different conception of socialism than Mises. Mises argued against socialism on the grounds that it was impossible to have an economy without a price system, and so true socialism was impossible and planners instead aimed to mimic market signals but lacked the relevant information which is distributed among individuals. Hoppe does think socialism exists as the degree of state intervention or ownership in the economy. For Hoppe there are only two possible economic systems: socialism and capitalism. All systems are on a continuum between these two types. Pure capitalism he defines as complete private property and exchange without intervention by the state. Any deviation from this entails some degree of socialism, with state ownership and interference with trade. Within socialism, he distinguishes three types: "Conservative" socialism accepts private ownership but favors regulation, behavioral controls, and protectionism to preserve social order, the "liberal" or social democratic version tends toward mixed ownership and redistribution for egalitarian ends, and Soviet or state socialism which is total state ownership and a planned economy to completely remake society.

Socialism of these types are defined by political ends like social equality or status quo maintenance, so economic critiques don't totally discredit socialism. After all, what if one agrees that state intervention makes some people worse off, but still prefer the intervention for other ends? Socialism after all, as Mises argued, is built on a theory of conflict be it class or nation, and so don’t see making their opponents worse off as a bad thing which seems to be at the root of politics. Hoppe does admit that capitalism leads to greater inequality and social disruption which are the concerns for those critical of total free market capitalism. By Hoppe’s logic most people would be socialist or capitalist to some degree. To this Hoppe gives moral arguments against socialism for natural property rights, which paradoxically could allow voluntary non-capitalist communities, based on rationalist axioms of human action whereas Mises made a consequentialist case for market economics making everybody overall better off while property rights historically arising from violence or occupation in practice defined by the government.

[Iegfb · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pure libertarian autism, 10/10 would read again

[Alec Piergiorgi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Note: 4.5/5

Incredibly thorough despite its relative shortness, there a lot of books much longer that in fact say much less or argue their cases even worse. The book is dense to be sure, well worth multiple rereads, and going back over highlighted sections again to let their insights sink in. Not everything was immediately approachable, and I would probably refer to this book as an intermediate level read, with some concepts being quite heady.

My favorite chapters were probably the trio examining the different types of socialism: Russian-style, social-democratic, and conservative. The third one was maybe the most challenging since Hoppe doesn't really go into the philosophical backing of conservatism (which is quite extensive), but he's not wrong either in his argument of the specific types of "socialism" it employs. Though I probably would disagree with him (at least in the current time) that this conservative type is the most pernicious in Europe, I think it's the second type that has seized the day.

A lot, and I mean a lot, of run on sentences so if that's not your style then you might have a tough time getting through it. Hoppe seems to love those and employed them throughout, leading for great flows of thoughts but at times you have to double back to make sure you haven't lost your place. I will say though, besides the very abstract epistemology discussions (which dominate Chapter 6 and some of Chapter 7), I found it to be overall fairly readable. Some of the more complicated economic concepts are also a bit tricky but Hoppe does a very nice job in reminding you the meaning of concepts when you encounter them later on.

It's academic in its thorough explanations and evidence-based argumentation, but you can certainly feel a powerful tone emanating from Hoppe's prose. Sometimes, you can get the attitude from the author of a malaise self-assuredness but with Hoppe you can tell that everything being repeated here is a forceful conviction.

[Arash Foroutan · Rating 4 out of 5]

هانس هرمان هپه اقتصاددان برجسته مکتب اتریش و فیلسوف لیبرترین آنارکو-کاپیتالیست در این کتاب (به نقل از خلاصه پشت جلد) می‌گوید: "هیچ شکلی از سوسیالیسم هرگز نمی‌تواند موجد صلح و شکوفایی باشد. ‌فقط سرمایه‌داری‌ است که توانایی چنین کاری را دارد."

کتاب در طی فصول مختلف در پی اثبات مدعای فوق است. نخست تعریفش از سوسیالیسم و سرمایه‌داری را ارائه می‌دهد. در فصول سوم تا پنجم ناکارآمدی انواع سوسیالیسم (روسی، سوسیال دموکرات و محافظه‌کار) را شرح می‌دهد. سپس به سوسیالیسم مهندسی اجتماعی، بنیانهای تحلیل اقتصادی آن و اینکه چرا باید جدی‌اش گرفت می‌پردازد. در فصل هفتم شرح می‌دهد چرا سوسیالیسم علاوه بر ناکارآمدی اقتصادی، غیر اخلاقی نیز هست. فصل هشتم به ارتباطات بنیان‌های جامعه‌شناختی-روانشناختی سوسیالیسم با نظریه دولت و نکوهش آن می‌پردازد. و نهایتاً، در دو فصل پایانی مسائل "انحصار" و "تولید کالاهای عمومی" در اقتصاد سرمایه‌داری (که غالباً مورد انتقاد مخالفان بازار آزاد است) را شرح و به ایرادات مطرح شده پاسخ می‌دهد.

نقطه ضعف کتاب زبان ثقیل آن است. اگرچه که مترجم (متین پدرام) به خوبی از پس وظیفه‌اش بر آمده، اما متن به خودی خود سخت و حاوی تعداد بی‌شماری جملات طولانی و پیچیده است. این مسأله در فصل ششم که مباحث فلسفی با مباحث اقتصاد سیاسی در می‌آمیزد به اوج خود می‌رسد. البته کتاب ادعایی در این خصوص ندارد و تقریباً به یقین می‌توان گفت برای مخاطب عام و ناآشنا با ادبیات موضوع به رشته تحریر در نیامده است.

کتاب سرشار از جملات و عبارات به یاد ماندنی‌ست. این شرح کوتاه را با یکی از آنها به پایان می‌برم: "... این نتیجه‌ای است که پیشتر در 1849، گوستاو دو مولیناری بدان رسید؛ در دوره‌ای که لییرالیسم کلاسیک همچنان ایدئولوژی غالب بود و واژه‌های "اقتصاددان" و "سوسیالیست" عموماً، و به درستی: نقیض یکدیگر به شمار می‌رفتند."

[María Álvarez Oliver · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una gran obra de Hoppe, muy necesaria para aquellos que quieran entender por qué el estatismo es esencialmente socialismo y el capitalismo puro solo se puede dar en anarquía. Los primeros capítulos del libro me gustan mucho porque sistematizan muy bien el socialismo de diferentes tipos (al estilo ruso, socialdemócrata, conservador y tecnócrata). El experimento real del muro de Berlín debería ser suficiente para aquellos que siguen defendiendo el socialismo porque según ellos “las circunstancias influyen en los resultados y el socialismo real sí que funcionaría” (spoiler: no, nunca ha funcionado porque, como bien demuestra Hoppe, sus errores teóricos son clave).
Los dos últimos capítulos, sobre el problema del monopolio y los bienes públicos en el capitalismo, me han resultado más difíciles de entender y no me han gustado tanto. He tenido que leerlos un par de veces. Para quien no tenga conocimientos básicos en economía dudo que sea capaz de entenderlo, ya que emplea términos puramente económicos.
Por último decir que he leído el libro en español, aunque la versión que cito es en inglés. La traducción que he usado no es muy buena, pero la prefiero a leer cosas que, para mí, ya son suficientemente complejas en español.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hans-Herman Hoppe has written here an essential book on understanding how socialism in its core is also clearly present in the ideal of a social democracy (and thus Liberals in the US) as well as in conservatism - and then showing why those views are wrong, and then ending on why the alternative of Capitalism prevails as the right choice of economics in a society. Best is the first part of the book, as the connection between Socialist ideals and our modern societies is not often very apparent, and the proponents of those theories would say that they do not agree with socialism at all - while Hoppe shows that yes, they do. This is very important to grasp! The second half, roughly, is less accessible and denser to read, although slowing down and carefully reading helps in getting it and understanding it. Sometimes Hoppe gets help from others to explain it all in more simple terms, like Murray Rothbard.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hoppe’s breadth and scope is astounding. What seemingly begins as a meager exercise in economic deductive logic applied to different social systems becomes mini-treatises of semantics, epistemology, and ethics. Decades’ old prejudices of mine were laid bare, never to be seen again. Hoppe cured deep-seated skepticism of mine, and, of course, his economic analyses are phenomenal and air-tight. Economics, as a discipline, reaches its full potential in the Austrian key, and Hoppe exemplifies this. Next to Cuddihy’s “Ordeal of Civility,” the best social science book I’ve ever read.

[Charles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like every other book on economics I've tried to read, my eyes glazed over after 5 minutes. What is it with economists brains that prevents them from being clear, concise, and easy to understand. Instead it's full of abstruse theories and phrases that your brain has to be wired a certain way to understand easily. Maybe I'm just dumb... Much to Rusticus' chagrin, the gist of this book is socialism=bad, capitalism=good. Over and over and over.

[Jedimage · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reise bu kitabiyla basladim 10 numara

[Rob Price · Rating 4 out of 5]

https://pricelesseconomics.wordpress....

[Frederick Hammill · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not a particularly fun read, and the points the author made aren’t anything new. They’re more or less recycled tropes that have spun in and out of political discourse, to little success.

[Fabricio Ter★n · Rating 4 out of 5]

Aquí pueden leerse los embriones de las teorías que luego Hoppe desarrollará en su obra posterior.

[Dave Benner · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredible Austrian treatise in one succinct volume. Probably my favorite work of his.

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Strong Look into the strengths of a strictly free market society. VOLUNTARY contributions, learned quite a lot.

[Rune Lauritzen · Rating 5 out of 5]

An absolute beast of a book! Best breakdown of politics into socialism vs capitalism. Hoppe doesn't pull any punches!

[Vinicius Montgomery · Rating 4 out of 5]

Esse livro é espetacular. Com exceção talvez do capítulo 7, excessivamente teórico, o livro é imperdível.

[Christian Thompson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible. Chapters 8-10 should be required reading for all people who votes and/or engages in political discussion online.

[Seyitali Emir · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought Hoppe was a very good rhetorician and after reading this book I think he is both a good rhetorician and a very solid theoretician

Masterpiece

[Nichita Damian · Rating 4 out of 5]

The state is an institution of organized aggression.

[Mahshad · Rating 5 out of 5]

کتابی بسیار عالی در زمینه مقایسه دو دیدگاه اصلی در اقتصاد امروز جهان

[ziombel · Rating 4 out of 5]

//polish
Książka Hoppego opisuje różne rodzaje socjalizmu oraz przeciwstawia je kapitalizmowi. Autor rozpoczyna od wyprowadzenia prawa własności oraz zdefiniowania pewnych pojęć. Później przechodzi do opisywania różnych odmian oraz teorii socjalistycznych. Swój opis rozpoczyna od socjalizmu typu sowieckiego, socjaldemokratycznego oraz konserwatywnego. Hoppe przedstawia także trochę praktycznych przykładów związanych z implementacją tych teorii. Następnie przechodzi do aspektów psychologicznych oraz moralnych społeczeństwa w socjalizmie i kapitalizmie. Pod koniec autor porusza kwestię dóbr publicznych i monopoli na wolnym rynku. W rozdziale dotyczącym dóbr publicznych porusza także temat prywatnej produkcji bezpieczeństwa. Jednak autor całkowicie pominął problem "produkcji" prawa w społeczeństwie bez państwa, co według mnie jest dużym minusem, ponieważ libertarianie często pomijają ten problem.

Dla mnie najbardziej wartościowa była krytyka empiryzmu(rozdział 6). Jest to pogląd filozoficzny, według którego wszelkie prawa mogą być wyprowadzone jedynie z badań empirycznych. Dodatkowo takie badania nigdy nie przesądzają o wyniku, ponieważ kolejne badanie może mieć odwrotny wynik. Przez to wszelkie tezy o nieefektywności gospodarki planowanej oraz realne doświadczenia związane z taką gospodarką (ZSRR, III Rzesza itd) nie mają żadnego znaczenia, ponieważ kiedyś może się okazać, że taka gospodarka będzie działać. Tak samo jest z całymi dziedzinami nauki, jak matematyka, ekonomia itd. Według Hoppego, ta filozofia jest autodestrukcyjna, ponieważ w jaki sposób można uzasadnić empirycznie tezy empiryzmu? Oprócz tego wskazuje na wiele innych problemów związanych z tą filozofią.

Jednak w jednym miejscu autor daje mi raka. W rozdziale 4(Socjalizm typu socjaldemokratycznego) autor napisał coś takiego:
"Pewną popularnością cieszy się również inny zarzut, że podwyższenie podatków prowadzi do obniżenia dochodu pieniężnego, a obniżenie dochodu oznacza wzrost krańcowej użyteczności pieniężnej formy dochodu względem innych jego form (takich jak czas wolny), przez co wcale nie osłabia, a wręcz wzmacnia skłonność do podejmowania pracy w celu uzyskania dochodu pieniężnego. Należy zauważyć, że obserwacja ta jest całkowicie prawdziwa."

Czy autor nie powinien uwzględnić także tego, że zmienia się nie tylko użyteczność krańcowa następnej złotówki ale także każdej następnej godziny pracy? Przy takim opodatkowaniu rośnie wartość kolejnej złotówki ale maleje ich ilość na każdą godzinę pracy. Więc według mnie nie da się stwierdzić, że ludzie będą pracować więcej. W mojej opinii część ludzi będzie pracować więcej, część tyle samo, a część mniej. Wszystko zależałoby od ich indywidualnych wartościowań. Wnioskiem z rozumowania autora byłoby pogląd, że przedsiębiorcy powinni obniżać płace na skraj ludzkiej egzystencji, aby ludzie pracowali jak najwięcej, co oczywiście nie działało by w ten sposób.

Podsumowując, książka nie jest zła, ale mogłaby być lepsza. Dużą wadą są długie zdania wielokrotnie złożone, które utrudniają podążanie za tokiem myślenia autora. Książka przeznaczona raczej dla libertarian.

[Eduardo Garcia-Gaspar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un tratado que define al capitalismo, pero sobre todo al socialismo en sus distintas versiones, algo pocas veces reconocido y que es definido en lo general como un sistema de agresión sistemática a la propiedad personal. Presentado en su versión rusa, al estilo soviético, conocido como comunismo; en su versión democrática, al estilo de la UE, conocido como democracia social o estado de bienestar; en su versión conservadora, al estilo del "crony capitalism"; y el socialismo de la ingeniería social, conocido como nazismo y similares.
En cada capítulo de esos, el autor hace una explicación teórica yy añade al último consideraciones pragmáticas cono casos reales que prueban su teoría (siendo el caso de las dos Alemanias uno que es casi de laboratorio). Después agrega consideraciones éticas que justifican al capitalismo y reprueban al socialismo.
El capítulo acerca de los fundamentos socio-psicológicos del socialismo es quiizá el más fascinante de todos, al explicar las causas por las que el socialismo sobrevive a pesar de ser un fracaso teórico y práctico. El los dos últimos capítulos examina el problema del monopolio y el de los bienes públicos.
Hoppe, de la Escuela Austriaca de Economía, alumno de M. N. Rothbard y un escritor de enorme claridad, presenta aquí una obra recomendable a todos los que quieren conocer siquiera un poco más acerca del tema y tienen la mente suficientemente abierta comoo para aceptar los peligros de la democracia y los ataques que de ella recibe la libertad; y para escuchar argumentos en contra de clisés consentidos y falsedades queridas.
El efecto neto de la obra es quizá el poder reconocer al socialismo en sus diferentes disfraces y bajo nombres diferentes. Una habilidad que parece no existir en estos tiempos. En fin, una obra muy recomendable, auqnue en algunas partes es densa.
Finalmente, el tema limita a la obra a límites políticos y económicos que ponen en otro terreno a asuntos más metafísicos acerca de la naturaleza humana y sus consecuencias morales. Es decir, no es una obra que atienda esos campos más metafísicos, lo que sin duda provoca críticas, pero sí produce una pregunta fascinante: si sabemos cual sistema económico-político es el mejor para crear progreso y riqueza —y combate a la pobreza— ¿no es acaso inmoral preferir y promover el sistema opuesto?

[Ebubekir Alan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Türkiye’de “Allah bizi bu coğrafyada yaratmakla neyi kastetti?” diye hayatı sorgularken küfre düşen bir grup müşterisiz azınlık Türk liberalinin öz eniştesi; bu topraklara uğradıktan sonra (Aziz Pavlus’un yaptığı gibi) bizi terk etmeyeceğini bilakis İbn Arabi’nin Anadolu’yu mayaladığı ve Mevlana’nın yurt edindiği gibi bir şekilde elimizden tutacağını umduğumuz; Misesçiliğin hainlerine karşı piyasa anarşisi fikrini ihya etmesine benzer yöntemle doğu kafasının devletçiliği altında ezilen bizleri de ihya edeceği müjdelenen seçilmiş mehdimiz ve üç kere büyük olan Hans Herman Hoppe’nin dilimize tercüme edilen ilk kitabı.

Demokrasiye inanan liseli gençlerin okuması elzemdir. Çünkü hayatında 1 kez oy kullanmış kimesneler bile fark edecektir sandık sistemi süreli bir monarşiden ibarettir. Egemenliğin kralda olduğu dönemlere kıyasla demokratik toplumlarımız (bireyin talepleri bağlamında) çok büyük bir ilerleme kaydememiştir. Hoppe ABD’deki demokratik liberalleri sol görüş olarak sınıfladıktan sonra artık Türkiye’de solcu olmayan hiçbir siyasi parti bulunmadığını şaşkınlıkla idrak edeceksiniz.

Hoppe’nin kitapta sunduğu argüman etiği argümanı o kadar iyi ki insan “bunu önce ben düşünmüştüm” demekten kendisini alamıyor. Ancak ekonomik liberalizmin veya liberalizm etiğinin ampirik yöntemle değil de rasyonel-apriorik yöntemle tespit edileceği yönündeki düşüncelerine (ki bu düşünceler Mises’ten miras kalıyor) hemen teslim olmamalıyız. Ampirik yöntemin sosyal mühendisler tarafından “bu kez olacak” söylemiyle tekrar tekrar suistimal edildiği bir gerçektir; ancak liberalizmin ispatını bu suistimalden kaçınma düzleminde konumlandıramayız. Fakat siz yine de apriorik yönteme ayrılan ve aslında kitabın akışını bozan altıncı ve yedinci bölümleri iyice anlamadan geçmeyin.

[César Serradas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hans-Hermann Hoppe demonstra neste livro que todos os sistemas económicos (e sociais) vigentes nos países são uma combinação de capitalismo e socialismo. Não existem outras formas de organização social e económica. São definidas as diferentes formas de socialismo (socialismo conservador, socialismo russo e social-democracia) enquanto diferentes combinações dos dois. O socialismo aparece refutado pelo argumento ético e pelo argumento económico. Além disso o autor demonstra que uma sociedade plenamente capitalista, voluntária e contratual é a mais capaz de garantir prosperidade e paz, sendo que quanto mais elevado for o grau de socialismo e presença do estado mais difícil será atingir esse objectivo.

A leitura é breve e fácil. Hans-Hermann Hoppe evita o cálculo económico mais pesado do seu professor - Murray Rothbard. Assim, recomendo para os que se queiram iniciar na literatura libertária. Um livro muito interessante!