Show description

This view seems to me far-reaching in its importance. It exposes a pre-supposition of classical economics which, once questioned by the Austrian, appears the very reverse of obvious. Why is an exchange an equality? Neither Marx nor any other defender of the labor theory has given an explanation for this assumption. Further, Marx assumed that an exchange involves a very strong sense of equality. In his view, the equality constituting an exchange must be explained by a common element on both sides of the equality.

2Marx, The Communist Manifesto, sect. 1. 51 52 Hans-Hermann Hoppe (2) The ruling class is unified by its common interest in upholding its exploitative position and maximizing its exploitatively appropriated surplus product. It never deliberately gives up power or exploitation income. , 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. " 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.

Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1992), pp. 118-33. 44 David Gordon obviously not the place for a discussion of the debate over this argument. But even if we turn a blind eye to Mises's demonstration, Marx's argument still does not work. Even if a socialist system could function, what reason is there to think it more productive than capitalism? Marx never devoted more than a few lines to socialism; unlike Moses, he could not catch sight his Promised Land even from across its borders. In the absence of argument, the assumption of the superior productivity of socialism is mere assertion.