What do you think?
سوسیالیسم و سرمایهداری: رسالهای روشمند درباره اقتصاد، سیاست و اخلاقیات
چپگرایان، شکست اقتصادی و فجایع اجتماعی را «آخرین بحران سرمایهداری» مینامند و «درمان» آن را در توسل به یکی دیگر از نسخههای سوسیالیسم میدانند. در این کتاب توضیح داده خواهد داد شد که هیچ شکلی از سوسیالیسم هرگز نمیتواند موجد صلح و شکوفایی باشد و فقط سرمایهداری است که توانایی چنین کاری را دارد. البته سرمایهداری مورد نظر مولف با آن چیزی که «سوسیالیستهای بدگو» میگویند، سراپا فرق دارد. به اعتقاد هانس هرمان هوپ، سرمایهداری یعنی آزادی و اختیار مالکان خصوصی به منظور انعقاد قرارداد و دادوستد.
272 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1988
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
July 12, 2018
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.
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.
Read
July 29, 2011A 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.
June 7, 2017
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:
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?.
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?.
March 31, 2021
Me siento mal de poner al mismo nivel otros libros a los que he dado 5 estrellas con esta joyita.
August 22, 2016
Very similar to Democracy: The God That Failed in how he analyzes institutions.
March 12, 2021
Pure libertarian autism, 10/10 would read again
June 5, 2017
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.
April 11, 2021
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.
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.
April 25, 2025
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.
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.
April 14, 2026
Hoppe commands not just a great prose, but a great mind that refuses to bend to anything but the truth, and that quality distinguishes this treatise as truly enlightening. Not only does he provide a comprehensive analysis on the workings of social systems, and on the failings and faults of some, but he formulates a durable, universal theory of economics insofar as we are polemical human beings.
He has clearly studied many opinions on the topic thoroughly, as one may see from his footnotes, and the additional twenty pages of references, though I will not use that to justify him. Instead, I would ask anyone reading this review for whatever reason to spend some time reading the book, but trying to answer the problems presented by oneself while reading. Especially in the private production of security and monopolistic market scenarios, it is easy to make seemingly true conclusions, but I would encourage one to ask oneself "what would I do if there is a monopoly on furniture," "what would I do if there were an outlaw corporation," "how would I price this service," and apply that en masse. Comprehension of these treatises, in my humble opinion, requires that one is able to emulate the arguments in one's own words.
Lastly, a point on Hoppe. He is widely regarded as a homophobic, racist, etc. person. I will not deny these claims. I am not the person who can affirm nor deny them (I simply don't know enough). In any case though, he preaches a universal system of ethics which would apply, by nature, similarly to every member. I do believe that he understands that a meaningless stereotype is unprofitable, so that might quench some of your worries, but if you still think that some group will suffer due to the adherence of the non-aggression principle, then I strongly ask that you look at whether their well being is worth aggressing on the innocent.
On the reason that I started reading this for, I find myself only affirmed to the (I imagine) dismay of my peers.
He has clearly studied many opinions on the topic thoroughly, as one may see from his footnotes, and the additional twenty pages of references, though I will not use that to justify him. Instead, I would ask anyone reading this review for whatever reason to spend some time reading the book, but trying to answer the problems presented by oneself while reading. Especially in the private production of security and monopolistic market scenarios, it is easy to make seemingly true conclusions, but I would encourage one to ask oneself "what would I do if there is a monopoly on furniture," "what would I do if there were an outlaw corporation," "how would I price this service," and apply that en masse. Comprehension of these treatises, in my humble opinion, requires that one is able to emulate the arguments in one's own words.
Lastly, a point on Hoppe. He is widely regarded as a homophobic, racist, etc. person. I will not deny these claims. I am not the person who can affirm nor deny them (I simply don't know enough). In any case though, he preaches a universal system of ethics which would apply, by nature, similarly to every member. I do believe that he understands that a meaningless stereotype is unprofitable, so that might quench some of your worries, but if you still think that some group will suffer due to the adherence of the non-aggression principle, then I strongly ask that you look at whether their well being is worth aggressing on the innocent.
On the reason that I started reading this for, I find myself only affirmed to the (I imagine) dismay of my peers.
September 20, 2020
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."
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."
February 10, 2022
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.
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.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 31, 2021
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.
April 27, 2025
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.
February 19, 2021
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.
April 9, 2018
Reise bu kitabiyla basladim 10 numara
June 16, 2018
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.
October 26, 2018
Aquí pueden leerse los embriones de las teorías que luego Hoppe desarrollará en su obra posterior.
November 18, 2018
An incredible Austrian treatise in one succinct volume. Probably my favorite work of his.
October 30, 2020
Strong Look into the strengths of a strictly free market society. VOLUNTARY contributions, learned quite a lot.
December 7, 2020
An absolute beast of a book! Best breakdown of politics into socialism vs capitalism. Hoppe doesn't pull any punches!
December 20, 2021
Esse livro é espetacular. Com exceção talvez do capítulo 7, excessivamente teórico, o livro é imperdível.
November 21, 2023
Incredible. Chapters 8-10 should be required reading for all people who votes and/or engages in political discussion online.
April 28, 2025
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
Masterpiece
June 10, 2025
The state is an institution of organized aggression.
April 9, 2026
(4.5)
I mean as always, Hoppe is painstakingly thorough in his praxeological argumentation. Will be rereading again later this year.
I mean as always, Hoppe is painstakingly thorough in his praxeological argumentation. Will be rereading again later this year.
June 23, 2026
No lies detected.
March 31, 2019
کتابی بسیار عالی در زمینه مقایسه دو دیدگاه اصلی در اقتصاد امروز جهان
April 29, 2016
//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.
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.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews