What do you think?
Rate this book
The Anti-capitalistic Mentality
In
The Anti-capitalistic Mentality,
the respected economist Ludwig von Mises plainly explains the causes of the irrational fear and hatred many intellectuals and others feel for capitalism. In five concise chapters, he traces the causation of the misunderstandings and resultant fears that cause resistance to economic development and social change. He enumerates and rebuts the economic arguments against and the psychological and social objections to economic freedom in the form of capitalism. Written during the heyday of twentieth-century socialism, this work provides the reader with lucid and compelling insights into human reactions to capitalism.
Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973) was the leading spokesman of the Austrian School of Economics throughout most of the twentieth century. He earned his doctorate in law and economics from the University of Vienna in 1906. In 1926, Mises founded the Austrian Institute for Business Cycle Research. From 1909 to 1934, he was an economist for the Vienna Chamber of Commerce. Before the Anschluss, in 1934 Mises left for Geneva, where he was a professor at the Graduate Institute of International Studies until 1940, when he emigrated to New York City. From 1948 to 1969, he was a visiting professor at New York University.
Bettina Bien Greaves is a former resident scholar, trustee, and longtime staff member of the Foundation for Economic Education. She has written and lectured extensively on topics of free market economics. Her articles have appeared in such journals as Human Events, Reason, and The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty. A student of Mises, Greaves has become an expert on his work in particular and that of the Austrian School of economics in general. She has translated several Mises monographs, compiled an annotated bibliography of his work, and edited collections of papers by Mises and other members of the Austrian School.
Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973) was the leading spokesman of the Austrian School of Economics throughout most of the twentieth century. He earned his doctorate in law and economics from the University of Vienna in 1906. In 1926, Mises founded the Austrian Institute for Business Cycle Research. From 1909 to 1934, he was an economist for the Vienna Chamber of Commerce. Before the Anschluss, in 1934 Mises left for Geneva, where he was a professor at the Graduate Institute of International Studies until 1940, when he emigrated to New York City. From 1948 to 1969, he was a visiting professor at New York University.
Bettina Bien Greaves is a former resident scholar, trustee, and longtime staff member of the Foundation for Economic Education. She has written and lectured extensively on topics of free market economics. Her articles have appeared in such journals as Human Events, Reason, and The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty. A student of Mises, Greaves has become an expert on his work in particular and that of the Austrian School of economics in general. She has translated several Mises monographs, compiled an annotated bibliography of his work, and edited collections of papers by Mises and other members of the Austrian School.
88 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1956
About the author
Ludwig von Mises
192 books1,125 followersLudwig Heinrich Edler von Mises (German pronunciation: [ˈluːtvɪç fɔn ˈmiːzəs]; September 29, 1881 – October 10, 1973) was an Austrian economist, historian, philosopher, author, and classical liberal who had a significant influence on the Austrian government's economic policies in the first third of the 20th century, the Austrian School of Economics, and the modern free-market libertarian movement.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 204 reviews
November 30, 2008
This book is essential to understanding why people are socialists (whether they know it or not). In the past, I could never comprehend why people, that I knew well, could fail to realize their view of how the 'world should be' was a largely socialist viewpoint. "How could a rational, logical, thinking human ever come to the conclusions you have have arrived at?!" I would ask in dismay.
This book clears all that up. Mises shows the core of socialism is envy. He shows that capitalism, while making men equal before God and the law, exposes the fact that nature has distributed talent, intelligence, drive, and other gifts very, very unequally. Men have to choose between facing this inequality and admitting that the next man is more successful because he is endowed with a greater ability to meet the requirements of society, or he will refuse to face this fact and build a wall around his ego - a pseudo-philosophy to protect himself against the truth - this is socialism.
This book clears all that up. Mises shows the core of socialism is envy. He shows that capitalism, while making men equal before God and the law, exposes the fact that nature has distributed talent, intelligence, drive, and other gifts very, very unequally. Men have to choose between facing this inequality and admitting that the next man is more successful because he is endowed with a greater ability to meet the requirements of society, or he will refuse to face this fact and build a wall around his ego - a pseudo-philosophy to protect himself against the truth - this is socialism.
February 2, 2017
This book is a rant against anti-capitalists. It's repetitive and makes many false assumptions about them (while giving no satisfactory answers to why it does that). According to the book, all poor people had equal opportunity to be as rich and famous as anyone else, but they ruined it because they were worthless. And if not so, it's not fault of capitalism, but because it's not implemented in an absolute way. The book also says that all the technological advancements have been possible only because of capitalism (notice no mention of implementation or increased human understanding of physics here). There are so many such contradictions and hypocritical statements that i don't even want to go into all of them. This was mostly load of crap. Biased and with a tone which would make you cringe.
April 29, 2013
I got the impression that von Mises considers that every person who does not agree with a complete laissez-faire economics is a communist/socialist (for him both have the same meaning), and his political orientation is due to envy from the more intelligent and successful citizens. I find the argument very simplistic, and while some people can fall on this category, I suspect that most of Mises' "communists" have other reasons to oppose to laissez-faire and support government policies (environmental protection, consumer protection, care of the disabled, redistribution of wealth through taxes and many other areas).
In practice, the most developed countries have an important degree of government intervention on those areas, and they are not suspect of becoming communist.
For people looking for an introduction to the liberal point of view in economics I recommend Hayek over von Mises.
In practice, the most developed countries have an important degree of government intervention on those areas, and they are not suspect of becoming communist.
For people looking for an introduction to the liberal point of view in economics I recommend Hayek over von Mises.
April 16, 2020
I can't stress how much I love this book. I keep revisiting it every now and then for the shearing razor-sharp arguments against haters of freedom and progress world-wide. The world today is indoctrinated with socialists, social democrats, fascists, Nazis, communists, interventionists, totalitarians, nationalists, and all in all, eventual collectivists. The arguments in this book lays them bare, shows their envy, their spite, their hatred for successful people.
Wherever you go, you can assume the position of virtue by wearing the cloak of anti-capitalism. You would not dare say you are anti-freedom, anti-liberty: No, you have to be implicit and hide like a rat behind empty phrases and signals of virtue. The book explains what capitalism is, how it is virtuous, how it is supremely ethical, how its opposition destroys freedom, and how it is a necessary (but not a sufficient) condition for freedom.
It tells you how progressives misunderstand what they themselves are doing; how Marxists made the world worse (for over a hundred years now) -- and no, not those radical Bolsheviks and Maoists, but the sociology professors, the stupid activists, the common man in strike, and the unionists labour party members and worst of all the self-righteous politicians who put barriers on liberty in order to "protect the citizen and the consumer from the unhampered greed of capitalism and the destruction they bring forth." The book is majestic in telling the story of the "cousins" of the capitalists and the entrepreneurs; the policy of unions to reduce the number of workers; the (anti-)"anti-communists" who mask their communism with half-baked claims.
There are subjects on every issue, and economics is briefly re-explained by its master once again. The equivalence of socialism, communism, activism, and interventionism in outcome is demonstrated, and rebuttals of the beliefs of the many that the ability of socialism to work as told by those stupid theorists. Such a wonderful read. Please consider this book. (You can get it free of charge from Mises (dot) org.)
P.S. My favorite chapter is definitely the one about the book market and the development of literature. I am inspired to read more books on that.
Wherever you go, you can assume the position of virtue by wearing the cloak of anti-capitalism. You would not dare say you are anti-freedom, anti-liberty: No, you have to be implicit and hide like a rat behind empty phrases and signals of virtue. The book explains what capitalism is, how it is virtuous, how it is supremely ethical, how its opposition destroys freedom, and how it is a necessary (but not a sufficient) condition for freedom.
It tells you how progressives misunderstand what they themselves are doing; how Marxists made the world worse (for over a hundred years now) -- and no, not those radical Bolsheviks and Maoists, but the sociology professors, the stupid activists, the common man in strike, and the unionists labour party members and worst of all the self-righteous politicians who put barriers on liberty in order to "protect the citizen and the consumer from the unhampered greed of capitalism and the destruction they bring forth." The book is majestic in telling the story of the "cousins" of the capitalists and the entrepreneurs; the policy of unions to reduce the number of workers; the (anti-)"anti-communists" who mask their communism with half-baked claims.
There are subjects on every issue, and economics is briefly re-explained by its master once again. The equivalence of socialism, communism, activism, and interventionism in outcome is demonstrated, and rebuttals of the beliefs of the many that the ability of socialism to work as told by those stupid theorists. Such a wonderful read. Please consider this book. (You can get it free of charge from Mises (dot) org.)
P.S. My favorite chapter is definitely the one about the book market and the development of literature. I am inspired to read more books on that.
May 8, 2014
I had a foster brother, to whom if I threw a football and he happened to bobble and drop it--would yell, full of spite "Stupid football, dumb ball... this is a stupid ball!!" it was always entirely the footballs fault. It's this kind of immaturity that Mises muses is at root to the anti-capitalistic mentality. Mises speculates that they have either foiled ambitions or they bitterly envy and hate those more successful than themselves and to protect their precious little egos, they in essence scream "Stupid capitalism" and decide capitalism is the cause of all of the worlds problems and that it is the worst of all evils. They then think the only way people make in a capitalistic system is by selling their soul to the devil; stealing, exploiting, cheating, lying and pillaging the poor to satiate their greed.
Maybe Mises is on to something here and I have little doubt that all of this is true of some free-market haters in the west, yet it's hard for me to swallow that this explains the majority. Yet maybe, it was just such people that landed in Hollywood, politics, the media and in education and they've now poisoned the messes with propaganda and all. But I'd argue that the majority today have been merely poorly educated and brought in with emotional arguments, that successfully blind them to history, the obvious and common sense.
I did like his chapters "Noneconomic objections to capitalism" and "Literature under Capitalism" and the "Anticommunism verses Capitalism", they all touched on other aspects.
Mises wrote:
"Free Market is to allow producers and consumers to make their own decisions. Yet, as Mises points out “On the market of a capitalistic society the common man is the sovereign consumer whose buying or abstaining from buying ultimately determines what should be produced and in what quantity and quality... Big businesses always serves—directly or indirectly—the masses... The consumers are “always right” the patrons who have the power to make poor suppliers rich and rich suppliers poor... The profit system makes those men prosper, who have succeeded in filling the wants of the people in the best way possible and the cheapest way. Wealth can be acquired only by serving the consumers. ”
Now this of course is the reason there are so many trashy movies, poorly written novels, Sports, Tabloids, TV, McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Twinkies and the vices like alcohol, porn and drugs, are all big business. Give individuals freedom, and this is what the masses choose.
Progressive Liberals are often against the free market capitalism for this vary reason. They think people obviously don't know what is good for them, and they can't be trusted with there money. The masses are like a 5 year old who will just use it's money on candy. Therefore, the market should be controlled by the caring Elite who of course know best. People should be told what to eat, what books they can read, what movies to watch and they should most of their money should go to the government, for only they know best how to spend it.
Mises rightly points that putting it in the hands of the elite to control all of this, would likely do away with all the good books, movies and stuff that is also the fruit of a free-market.
Maybe Mises is on to something here and I have little doubt that all of this is true of some free-market haters in the west, yet it's hard for me to swallow that this explains the majority. Yet maybe, it was just such people that landed in Hollywood, politics, the media and in education and they've now poisoned the messes with propaganda and all. But I'd argue that the majority today have been merely poorly educated and brought in with emotional arguments, that successfully blind them to history, the obvious and common sense.
I did like his chapters "Noneconomic objections to capitalism" and "Literature under Capitalism" and the "Anticommunism verses Capitalism", they all touched on other aspects.
Mises wrote:
"Free Market is to allow producers and consumers to make their own decisions. Yet, as Mises points out “On the market of a capitalistic society the common man is the sovereign consumer whose buying or abstaining from buying ultimately determines what should be produced and in what quantity and quality... Big businesses always serves—directly or indirectly—the masses... The consumers are “always right” the patrons who have the power to make poor suppliers rich and rich suppliers poor... The profit system makes those men prosper, who have succeeded in filling the wants of the people in the best way possible and the cheapest way. Wealth can be acquired only by serving the consumers. ”
Now this of course is the reason there are so many trashy movies, poorly written novels, Sports, Tabloids, TV, McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Twinkies and the vices like alcohol, porn and drugs, are all big business. Give individuals freedom, and this is what the masses choose.
Progressive Liberals are often against the free market capitalism for this vary reason. They think people obviously don't know what is good for them, and they can't be trusted with there money. The masses are like a 5 year old who will just use it's money on candy. Therefore, the market should be controlled by the caring Elite who of course know best. People should be told what to eat, what books they can read, what movies to watch and they should most of their money should go to the government, for only they know best how to spend it.
Mises rightly points that putting it in the hands of the elite to control all of this, would likely do away with all the good books, movies and stuff that is also the fruit of a free-market.
March 13, 2017
Good grief, can there be a weaker, sillier, more one-dimensional interpretation of the motives of mankind than this? As far as von Mises is concerned, everybody who is not an ardent laissez-faire capitalist is suffering from envy for which he must find a scapegoat; even the rich who happen to embrace socialism or communism (the same thing to von Mises's deluded mind) are lying to themselves that they actually support communism, doing so only to ease the self-doubt they feel when faced with even more successful people.
If there is a single word which comes to mind while reading von Mises, it is this: Ego. von Mises is massively egoistical, constantly talking up the importance of economics, of laissez-faire capitalism and insulting mercilessly anybody who dares to disagree with his childish interpretation of human affairs. He makes the most outrageous assumptions and offers not a speck of evidence other than "common sense," a sense which seems uncommon to anybody outside of his school of thought.
There are a great many reasons why not all people support laissez-faire capitalism; he seems to imply that all such anti-capitalists are communists, even if not so in name. This, of course, is ridiculous in the extreme. Some people, for instance, care about the environment and so see the need for government to place restrictions on industry to prevent the deterioration of our green planet, our home. It is absurd to think that corporations will police themselves, and also contrary to the historical record.
While in my youth I once considered myself a proud libertarian, I have grown increasingly disillusioned lately. I care immensely for individual freedom, whereas mainstream American libertarianism cares only for economic freedom, business freedom; individual freedom means little to them. They insist that if the businesses are free, then so too are the people. I strongly disagree. I do not believe that the people can be free if the businesses are; government exists to be a counter-force against the oppression of business, not a fellow oppressor alongside business. My morality cannot allow me to support laissez-faire capitalism because my sense of morality tells me that in an anarcho-capitalist world, too many people would suffer needlessly because of the greed of the rest.
If there is a single word which comes to mind while reading von Mises, it is this: Ego. von Mises is massively egoistical, constantly talking up the importance of economics, of laissez-faire capitalism and insulting mercilessly anybody who dares to disagree with his childish interpretation of human affairs. He makes the most outrageous assumptions and offers not a speck of evidence other than "common sense," a sense which seems uncommon to anybody outside of his school of thought.
There are a great many reasons why not all people support laissez-faire capitalism; he seems to imply that all such anti-capitalists are communists, even if not so in name. This, of course, is ridiculous in the extreme. Some people, for instance, care about the environment and so see the need for government to place restrictions on industry to prevent the deterioration of our green planet, our home. It is absurd to think that corporations will police themselves, and also contrary to the historical record.
While in my youth I once considered myself a proud libertarian, I have grown increasingly disillusioned lately. I care immensely for individual freedom, whereas mainstream American libertarianism cares only for economic freedom, business freedom; individual freedom means little to them. They insist that if the businesses are free, then so too are the people. I strongly disagree. I do not believe that the people can be free if the businesses are; government exists to be a counter-force against the oppression of business, not a fellow oppressor alongside business. My morality cannot allow me to support laissez-faire capitalism because my sense of morality tells me that in an anarcho-capitalist world, too many people would suffer needlessly because of the greed of the rest.
April 14, 2011
This is the most passionate book by Mises that I've read. I would expect a polemic like this from Murray Rothbard or even Ayn Rand, but not him. I've read excerpts before, but never the whole book.
Mises explains the psychology of the anti-capitalist as if he were writing today. I recognize some of my younger self in his criticisms. Especially the envy, contempt, and over-confidence that marked my personality when I was younger.
It's sometimes challenging to understand why so many people hate and fear capitalism, properly understood. Voluntary cooperation between moral equals is what makes life worth living. Theft and violence are not drivers of progress; yet this is what most people believe today as in Mises' day.
Resentment, bigotry, parenting, and various peculiar American cultural artifacts (like the virtual segregation between businessmen, entrepreneurs, and intellectuals) combine to keep socialism raging throughout the country and the world.
Mises explains the psychology of the anti-capitalist as if he were writing today. I recognize some of my younger self in his criticisms. Especially the envy, contempt, and over-confidence that marked my personality when I was younger.
It's sometimes challenging to understand why so many people hate and fear capitalism, properly understood. Voluntary cooperation between moral equals is what makes life worth living. Theft and violence are not drivers of progress; yet this is what most people believe today as in Mises' day.
Resentment, bigotry, parenting, and various peculiar American cultural artifacts (like the virtual segregation between businessmen, entrepreneurs, and intellectuals) combine to keep socialism raging throughout the country and the world.
November 3, 2012
You call this analysis?
January 12, 2016
The Anti-Capitalist Mentality (1956) by Ludwig von Mises outlines why von Mises thinks that many people are against capitalism. The book makes the mistake of assuming that anyone who disagrees with von Mises is daft or mean spirited. However the book does make some interesting points. Von Mises points out how he believes that the market itself was critical in providing the prosperity and levels of technology that are available. He also points out how people who dislike markets disregard their immense value in providing information. The book also points out that markets enable people to make a huge number of free choices all the time, another fact that detractors of markets often ignore. Von Mises also points out that most Marxists and critics of markets have little or no experience in creating or running businesses and fail to appreciate the work, skill and risk involved. The book is highly unlikely to convince anyone who dislikes markets that they are useful tools, it is of interest to anyone who wants to read something by Von Mises that is short and well written, even though it's not fair minded.
September 8, 2018
The success of a human being and its value in the world is based on its financial success and material accumulation, individuals only possibly acquire material wealth through moral ways in a pure capitalistic system and all critics of capitalism are moved by envy and resentment. Gotcha.
Diseased ideology.
Diseased ideology.
December 16, 2023
Mostly Mises psychologizing about why people don't like capitalism. His basic answer: because it forces the unsuccessful to face up to the fact that their lack of success is their own damn fault and nobody else's. Which is a curious answer for someone to give who just a few pages earlier was at pains to separate issues of market success from individual merit.
Along the way, Mises also treats us to an unintentionally hilarious diagnosis of why people like trashy detective novels, a scathing dismissal of the idea of natural rights, and lots more fun stuff.
Mises sees resentment everywhere. Why does the middling office worker hate capitalism? Because he sees everyone around him - people no better than him, really, and probably a lot worse - reaping the rewards to which he believes he himself is entitled. He seethes, but rather than blaming himself for his failures, he chooses to blame the larger economic system.
Reading all of that, it's hard to avoid the thought that this book was written by an aging economist, relegated to the margins of his field - convinced that the profession has been stubbornly blind to the insights he has offered over the course of his career. I suspect Mises must have been quite familiar with the feeling of resentment, some of it perhaps quite justifiable. But that hardly makes this exercise in projection an edifying one, in anything other than an autobiographical sense.
Along the way, Mises also treats us to an unintentionally hilarious diagnosis of why people like trashy detective novels, a scathing dismissal of the idea of natural rights, and lots more fun stuff.
Mises sees resentment everywhere. Why does the middling office worker hate capitalism? Because he sees everyone around him - people no better than him, really, and probably a lot worse - reaping the rewards to which he believes he himself is entitled. He seethes, but rather than blaming himself for his failures, he chooses to blame the larger economic system.
Reading all of that, it's hard to avoid the thought that this book was written by an aging economist, relegated to the margins of his field - convinced that the profession has been stubbornly blind to the insights he has offered over the course of his career. I suspect Mises must have been quite familiar with the feeling of resentment, some of it perhaps quite justifiable. But that hardly makes this exercise in projection an edifying one, in anything other than an autobiographical sense.
March 20, 2011
This book is partly economic and partly "psychological," in that it attempts to explain why those who oppose capitalism do so. The economic or social science segments of this book are in fact extremely worthwhile and demonstrate von Mises' keen understanding of that field. Most people, including myself, will gain a lot from reading it. The psychological segments are useful, but are sometimes a bit of a stretch and engage in too much pigeonholing, or fitting a wide array of people's motives into one or a few boxes. Nonetheless, it seems to me that there is truth in those segments--just not the whole story.
February 9, 2016
This isn't Mises' best work. It's a short and fairly easy read, but I strongly suggest reading some of his others first.
May 29, 2024
Joder no exageraban mises es realmente gilipollas
No solo articula una crítica al anticapitalismo en la que cita a Lenin una vez (ni rastro de Marx, Engels o quie. Sea de forma directa solo bibliografía secundaria), es que ni siquiera define los conceptos esenciales con los que trabaja, está escrito con una pedantería bochornosa y está flagrantemente desconectado de la realidad o cualquier tipo de empirismo
Alterna entre posturas constructivistas y esencialistas según le conviene y su “teoría del arte” siendo generosos es infantil y soberbia
Del racismo ya ni hablamos 🫵🏻
No solo articula una crítica al anticapitalismo en la que cita a Lenin una vez (ni rastro de Marx, Engels o quie. Sea de forma directa solo bibliografía secundaria), es que ni siquiera define los conceptos esenciales con los que trabaja, está escrito con una pedantería bochornosa y está flagrantemente desconectado de la realidad o cualquier tipo de empirismo
Alterna entre posturas constructivistas y esencialistas según le conviene y su “teoría del arte” siendo generosos es infantil y soberbia
Del racismo ya ni hablamos 🫵🏻
October 4, 2019
Mises harshly contends that people oppose capitalism because they blame it for their personal failures. Although such cases exist plenty, I think most people’s anti-capitalistic mentality stems from their lack of understanding of the system and their irrational attachment to emotionally appealing socialist ideas. Mises also greatly underestimates the importance of one’s starting place in life, while overestimating the merits of capitalism in giving everyone the same chance to succeed. Despite these issues, the book is still a good, informative read about capitalism’s virtues and does get some of the mistaken objections against it quite right.
August 25, 2017
Excellent. Right up there with Friedman, Hayek, and Bastiat
January 18, 2022
"Everyone I don't agree with or like is stupid, motivated by emotion, and needs to read my books"
April 9, 2021
The book that Mises should not have published?
This one is difficult to rate. It surely contains a lot of gems. It is a brilliant tour de force in defense of capitalism and an attempt to unmask the somewhat hidden motivations of its detractors. Even though I am not deeply familiar with Ayn Rand's essays, this surely sounds like a Randian manifesto. But the whole context of the book leads me to give it just 3 stars, even though my strictly personal opinion would probably be a 4 out of 5.
The first thing to notice is that this is not really an economics book, but actually a sociological essay. Economic considerations and explanations are interspersed throughout the text, but the whole idea is to define the hidden motivations of the "anti-capitalistic mentality". As such,
1) the book should not be read as an economic defense of the capitalist system. I have come across economists who spoke disparagingly of Mises and then, when asked which of his works they have read, replied "The Anti-capitalistic Mentality". Its high current rating and its short extension surely will make people feel tempted to start reading Mises through this book. That is a recipe for disaster, and Misesian followers should not suggest this book to any person who does not already hold a fairly cynical view of most social strata. It is one of those books that will convince mostly no one - it will only make both lovers and haters feel surer of their opinion or prejudice with respect to Mises.
2) this book should not be read as an attempt to explain and reply to anti-capitalistic arguments. Even though it surely does some of that along the way (as it obviously should), it's main focus is the anti-capitalistic mentality and not anti-capitalistic arguments. What Mises tries to do is to sociologically explain the emotional roots of the hatred and despise some people show towards capitalism. Thus, most of Mises's arguments are psychological and stereotypical in nature (a bit Veblenian?), trying to bring to the surface the reasons for such hatred. This is why most well-intentioned socialists or social-democrats, specially of the modern type, will find this book appallingly biased - if they do not themselves acknowledge such anti-capitalistic mentality, they will surely feel that Mises is setting up a huge straw-man.
For example, while Mises speaks of and considers the alleged injustice that critics see in capitalism, the index does not even mention 'Inequality'. So any critic of capitalism who sees inequality as its main fault will surely find this a completely hateful book. Specially because Mises's tone borders arrogance.
So, unless you are interested in a sociological essay on the critics of capitalism, or unless you are already a fan of Mises, I recommend you go somewhere else instead. Hence my 3 star rating.
For those who are in for the ride: this book is a lot of fun. Mises's controversial thesis is that capitalism, as opposed to feudalism, gives people the opportunity to make a living for themselves, and that, therefore, such liberty to get a hold of one's own destiny also denies some strata of society the simple excuse for their lack of success. That is, capitalistic liberty and competition promote the resentment of those who refuse to simply admit that the successful businessman and the self-made man were better than them at something they could also have achieved themselves.
The white-collars feel repugnance that the blue-collars can get a higher pay. They feel repugnance that the firm's boss seemingly does the same work as they themselves do, while earning a much higher wage. The intellectuals despise the ignorant businessmen and their lack of taste. The "cousin" hates the successful family member who became the manager of the family's business.
Mises's acquaintance with the cultural landscape of old Europe also shines through, as he draws a lot of comparisons to modern (1950's) American society. In that respect, it should also be pointed out that this book was first published in the 50's, so one should not assume that Mises was talking to the same critics of capitalism as we see today. In fact, it must indeed be seen as a huge act of courage and boldness on his part, to have published this book just as the socialist, welfare mentality was taking over.
This one is difficult to rate. It surely contains a lot of gems. It is a brilliant tour de force in defense of capitalism and an attempt to unmask the somewhat hidden motivations of its detractors. Even though I am not deeply familiar with Ayn Rand's essays, this surely sounds like a Randian manifesto. But the whole context of the book leads me to give it just 3 stars, even though my strictly personal opinion would probably be a 4 out of 5.
The first thing to notice is that this is not really an economics book, but actually a sociological essay. Economic considerations and explanations are interspersed throughout the text, but the whole idea is to define the hidden motivations of the "anti-capitalistic mentality". As such,
1) the book should not be read as an economic defense of the capitalist system. I have come across economists who spoke disparagingly of Mises and then, when asked which of his works they have read, replied "The Anti-capitalistic Mentality". Its high current rating and its short extension surely will make people feel tempted to start reading Mises through this book. That is a recipe for disaster, and Misesian followers should not suggest this book to any person who does not already hold a fairly cynical view of most social strata. It is one of those books that will convince mostly no one - it will only make both lovers and haters feel surer of their opinion or prejudice with respect to Mises.
2) this book should not be read as an attempt to explain and reply to anti-capitalistic arguments. Even though it surely does some of that along the way (as it obviously should), it's main focus is the anti-capitalistic mentality and not anti-capitalistic arguments. What Mises tries to do is to sociologically explain the emotional roots of the hatred and despise some people show towards capitalism. Thus, most of Mises's arguments are psychological and stereotypical in nature (a bit Veblenian?), trying to bring to the surface the reasons for such hatred. This is why most well-intentioned socialists or social-democrats, specially of the modern type, will find this book appallingly biased - if they do not themselves acknowledge such anti-capitalistic mentality, they will surely feel that Mises is setting up a huge straw-man.
For example, while Mises speaks of and considers the alleged injustice that critics see in capitalism, the index does not even mention 'Inequality'. So any critic of capitalism who sees inequality as its main fault will surely find this a completely hateful book. Specially because Mises's tone borders arrogance.
So, unless you are interested in a sociological essay on the critics of capitalism, or unless you are already a fan of Mises, I recommend you go somewhere else instead. Hence my 3 star rating.
For those who are in for the ride: this book is a lot of fun. Mises's controversial thesis is that capitalism, as opposed to feudalism, gives people the opportunity to make a living for themselves, and that, therefore, such liberty to get a hold of one's own destiny also denies some strata of society the simple excuse for their lack of success. That is, capitalistic liberty and competition promote the resentment of those who refuse to simply admit that the successful businessman and the self-made man were better than them at something they could also have achieved themselves.
The white-collars feel repugnance that the blue-collars can get a higher pay. They feel repugnance that the firm's boss seemingly does the same work as they themselves do, while earning a much higher wage. The intellectuals despise the ignorant businessmen and their lack of taste. The "cousin" hates the successful family member who became the manager of the family's business.
Mises's acquaintance with the cultural landscape of old Europe also shines through, as he draws a lot of comparisons to modern (1950's) American society. In that respect, it should also be pointed out that this book was first published in the 50's, so one should not assume that Mises was talking to the same critics of capitalism as we see today. In fact, it must indeed be seen as a huge act of courage and boldness on his part, to have published this book just as the socialist, welfare mentality was taking over.
February 5, 2017
Είναι μια πραγματικότητα ότι διαχρονικά η ελληνική βιβλιοπαραγωγή ��στερεί σε τίτλους της ευρύτερης, σύγχρονης (νεο)φιλελεύθερης/libertarian σκέψης. Οι εκδόσεις Παπαδόπουλος έχουν ξεκινήσει μία τέτοια προσπάθεια παρουσίασης στο ελληνικό κοινό στοχαστών σαν τους Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek & Ludwig Von Mises. Kαι αν το "Καπιταλισμός και Ελευθερία" του πρώτου μου φάνηκε σχετικά αδιάφορο, τούτο εδώ το βρήκα απλά αστείο. Αποτελεί ουσιαστικά μια φορτισμένη πολεμική του Mises ενάντια στο έντονο αντικαπιταλιστικό πνεύμα και τους φορείς αυτού κατά την πρώτη δεκαετία μετά το τέλος του Β' Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου, όταν και έγραψε το "The Anticapitalistic Mentality". Μια εποχή που ξεκινώντας ακριβώς το 1945 και για τα επόμενα περίπου 30 χρόνια χαρακτηρίστηκε από τεράστιους ρυθμούς ανάπτυξης και οικονομικής επέκτασης. Μια περίοδος απότοκη της εποχής του New Deal, της κυριαρχίας των Κεϋνσιανών οικονομικών αλλά και της απόλυτης καταστροφής του ολοκληρωτικού πολέμου 1939-1945. Αλλά και μια περίοδος απόλυτης κυριαρχίας των αμερικανικών συνδικάτων, των οποίων η δράση σε συνδυασμό ακριβώς με πολιτικές επιθετικού, κρατικού παρεμβατισμού και αναδιανομής εισοδήματος οδήγησαν στην μεγένθυση της Αμερικανικής μεσαίας τάξης και του μέσου βιοτικού επιπέδου σε ομοσπονδιακό επίπεδο. Ο Μises λοιπόν στο έργο του αυτό, εκδοθέν μεσούσης της οικονομικής αυτής επέκτασης, δεν κάνει καμία απολύτως αναφορά στις ξεκάθαρες επιτυχίες του ομοσπονδιακού κεντρικού σχεδιασμού (sic) της εποχής αυτής παρα μόνο αναπολεί τις περασμένες εποχές του καπιταλισμού του Laissez-faire. Και ακριβώς στη βάση αυτή εξαπολύει μία αδιανόητα μικρόνοη και συμπλεγματική επίθεση σε ότι αυτός θεωρεί εχθρό της ελευθερίας (που ελευθερία για τον Mises ταυτίζεται πρώτα και κύρια με οικονομική ελευθερία), τα συνδικάτα, του διανοούμενους και στοχαστες της αμερικανικής αριστερής σκέψης, τους ελεύθερους επαγγελματίες και τους απλούς εργαζομένους. Μέσα από έναν αισχρό κοινωνικό δαρβινισμό κατηγορεί όλους τους παραπάνω ότι στέκονται ενάντια στους επιτυχημένους επιχειρηματίες και τα αφεντικά (ναι χρησιμοποιεί μέχρι κορεσμού τη λέξη αυτή) γιατί φθονούν την επιτυχία τους. Ψυχολογικοποιεί τις ταξικές αντιθέσεις και διαφορές και ανάγει αυτές σε προϊόντα διανοητικής διαφοράς, κατωτερότητας και φθόνου. Αν είσαι λοιπόν μεροκαματιάρης και από τη στιγμή που στέκεσαι κριτικά και ανταγωνίζεσαι το αφεντικό σου είσαι ένας "ζηλιάρης" που εποφθαλμιάς τις επιτυχίες του δεύτερου. Δεν υπάρχει κοινωνικό περιβάλλον, υπάρχουν μόνο επιτυχημένοι και αποτυχημένοι. Η ζωή κατά Mises είναι άδικη ναι, υπάρχουν έξυπνοι και ηλίθιοι και ναι φυσιολογικά οι πρώτοι υπερτερούν, και η φτώχια είναι ένα ατομικό λάθος και μόνο. Μέσα από ένα αντιεπιστημονικό συνοθύλευμα σοφιστειών και λογικών αλμάτων ο Mises ηρωοποιεί τον επιχειρηματία/αφεντικό και δικαιώνει τη κοινωνική του θέση στη βάση μιας υποτιθέμενης καπατσοσύνης, ευστροφίας και εργατικότητας. Πάτος.
October 30, 2023
Generalismos e exemplos rasos resumem a escrita deste ensaio. Apesar dos nuances argumentativos que se pautam por uma fraca tentativa lógica de convencer sobre os porquês do 'anti-capitalismo', a maioria das vezes apenas são expostas sentenças de efeito que agradam o público-alvo, ávido para consumir aquilo que selará, mesmo que superficialmente, seu ponto de vista. Na página 111 da 2ª edição da Vide Editorial, o autor faz uma crítica aos tais 'autores comunistas': "Esses escritores tomam os dogmas nos quais a sua explicação dos eventos é baseada como sendo evidentes e irrefutáveis e estão completamente convencidos que os seus leitores compartilham da sua certeza." A crítica é para os 'comunistas', mas a sentença pode ser usada integralmente como reflexão sobre a própria obra de Ludvig von Mises.
Particularmente me esforcei para encontrar mais pontos positivos durante a leitura, e posso até dizer que em algum momento da vida já compartilhei do ponto de vista do autor em algumas das questões abordadas, mas a quantidade de pontas soltas e falácias não permitiram maior respeito ao texto. Talvez o ensaio e o tom fizessem sentido na década de 50, quando foi escrito, mas hoje soam majoritariamente como retórica de aversão.
Particularmente me esforcei para encontrar mais pontos positivos durante a leitura, e posso até dizer que em algum momento da vida já compartilhei do ponto de vista do autor em algumas das questões abordadas, mas a quantidade de pontas soltas e falácias não permitiram maior respeito ao texto. Talvez o ensaio e o tom fizessem sentido na década de 50, quando foi escrito, mas hoje soam majoritariamente como retórica de aversão.
January 27, 2015
Good points, as always from prof. Mises.
May 4, 2017
My first ever Mises. Brilliantly illuminating.
December 6, 2021
Uff... Hay traca para rato en este libro. Muy bueno, recomendado. Aunque según mi padre Mises no sepa nada xD
December 28, 2023
An easy to read book that points out the critics of capitalism. Surely, many of the theses are applicable to modern times.
March 10, 2021
Over the last few centuries, laissez-faire capitalism caused vast improvements in the standard of living. The improvements in production helped the workers more than the producers, as capitalism caused mechanization of production: mass production for mass markets. Your radio is the same as a rich man's radio.
The history of mankind before capitalism was one of shortages and hunger, caused by taxes, trade restrictions, and other interferences with human action. These interferences by monarchs, noblemen, clergy, and guilds, benefitted them at the expense of everyone else.
Capitalism ultimately depends on the choices made by consumers. If the market does not want your product, you lose money. If it does, you make money. If you find a way to make a product cheaper or better, you make money. If you don't but someone else does, you lose money when consumers buy the cheaper or better product. Advances in the standard of living are caused by innovators who took a risk on a new process or new product and turned out to be right.
Bad art, music, movies, and literature are caused by the mass marked created by capitalism. They are marketed towards workers who in another era would have been spending all their money on food, shelter, and clothing. These consumers generally cannot tell the good from the bad. However, excellent art, music, and literature were also created under capitalism, and in greater abundance than before. No longer did an artist or writer need a patron for support.
The benefits of capitalism have, however, been ignored by some. Dissatisfied people say capitalism falls short of an imaginary perfect state of society, where there is plenty and everyone is equal. Equality under the law in a competitive economy means that some people will be more prosperous than others. Those others can either acknowledge their shortcomings or they can blame the system and imagine that they were the victims of the unethical connivance of others.
Socialism does not have a way, such as the price system, to determine what the market wants and how badly it wants particular things. It has no way to determine which of hundreds of applications is the best use of a resource. Under socialism, no one is free to innovate and start his own business. The producer, like the consumer, has no choice. The producer does as he is told. The consumer cannot buy another brand. A worker cannot quit his job and go into something another line of work.
Marx and other socialists never presented a mechanism as an alternative to the price system. They never speculated on it. For them, it is simply a matter of faith that under socialism, humanity will be able to evaluate the best uses of every resource. Under socialism as practiced, choice was replaced by compulsion: to obey orders. Those who question the socialist system on this ground, or any other, are not answered with logical arguments, or empirical evidence, but are instead accused of being evil or stupid.
Some people claim to be opposed to communism by advocating a third way. However, Mises points out that while capitalism is based on decisions made by consumers and the voluntary actions of capitalists and workers to supply the market with what the market wants to buy; socialism is not voluntary, but compulsory. Hence, the two systems are contradictory and any partial system will turn out to be an intermediate stage in time between capitalism to socialism.
The history of mankind before capitalism was one of shortages and hunger, caused by taxes, trade restrictions, and other interferences with human action. These interferences by monarchs, noblemen, clergy, and guilds, benefitted them at the expense of everyone else.
Capitalism ultimately depends on the choices made by consumers. If the market does not want your product, you lose money. If it does, you make money. If you find a way to make a product cheaper or better, you make money. If you don't but someone else does, you lose money when consumers buy the cheaper or better product. Advances in the standard of living are caused by innovators who took a risk on a new process or new product and turned out to be right.
Bad art, music, movies, and literature are caused by the mass marked created by capitalism. They are marketed towards workers who in another era would have been spending all their money on food, shelter, and clothing. These consumers generally cannot tell the good from the bad. However, excellent art, music, and literature were also created under capitalism, and in greater abundance than before. No longer did an artist or writer need a patron for support.
The benefits of capitalism have, however, been ignored by some. Dissatisfied people say capitalism falls short of an imaginary perfect state of society, where there is plenty and everyone is equal. Equality under the law in a competitive economy means that some people will be more prosperous than others. Those others can either acknowledge their shortcomings or they can blame the system and imagine that they were the victims of the unethical connivance of others.
Socialism does not have a way, such as the price system, to determine what the market wants and how badly it wants particular things. It has no way to determine which of hundreds of applications is the best use of a resource. Under socialism, no one is free to innovate and start his own business. The producer, like the consumer, has no choice. The producer does as he is told. The consumer cannot buy another brand. A worker cannot quit his job and go into something another line of work.
Marx and other socialists never presented a mechanism as an alternative to the price system. They never speculated on it. For them, it is simply a matter of faith that under socialism, humanity will be able to evaluate the best uses of every resource. Under socialism as practiced, choice was replaced by compulsion: to obey orders. Those who question the socialist system on this ground, or any other, are not answered with logical arguments, or empirical evidence, but are instead accused of being evil or stupid.
Some people claim to be opposed to communism by advocating a third way. However, Mises points out that while capitalism is based on decisions made by consumers and the voluntary actions of capitalists and workers to supply the market with what the market wants to buy; socialism is not voluntary, but compulsory. Hence, the two systems are contradictory and any partial system will turn out to be an intermediate stage in time between capitalism to socialism.
December 30, 2012
The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality theorizes the abhorrence of capitalism. Ludwig von Mises suggests that free market capitalism induces competition for scarce resources resulting in success or failure where men and women are subconsciously subjected to inferiority complexes. Anti-capitalists hate the potential of failure, for it brings awareness to defeat and insufficiency because success and failure are determined by supply and demand based on merit and achievement rather than the apparent human need or right.
The hatred of capitalism manifests into many forms. Noneconomic rhetoric resides in the apparent injustice, false sense of happiness and insatiable desire for materialism. Hollywood and Broadway are strongholds of anti-capitalist hotbeds, yet they fail to understand that the main motive championing the success of the screen and stage is capitalism because their material success depends on the sovereignty of the consumer.
Other noble sources of hatred are the resentment of frustrated ambition, white collar workers, intellectuals and cousins.
Overall, although the origins of the anti-capitalist stance is purely of subjective means, Ludwig von Mises provides very convincing arguments due to the envious tendency found in human nature. The book clearly defines as to what is hypocritical to the benefits bestowed upon by capitalism.
The hatred of capitalism manifests into many forms. Noneconomic rhetoric resides in the apparent injustice, false sense of happiness and insatiable desire for materialism. Hollywood and Broadway are strongholds of anti-capitalist hotbeds, yet they fail to understand that the main motive championing the success of the screen and stage is capitalism because their material success depends on the sovereignty of the consumer.
Other noble sources of hatred are the resentment of frustrated ambition, white collar workers, intellectuals and cousins.
Overall, although the origins of the anti-capitalist stance is purely of subjective means, Ludwig von Mises provides very convincing arguments due to the envious tendency found in human nature. The book clearly defines as to what is hypocritical to the benefits bestowed upon by capitalism.
August 6, 2013
In this short book, Mises sets out the view that the main spring of anti-market thought essentially derives from an envious spirit on the part of pseudo-intellectuals. Much of his insight seems to be sound although I am more inclined to the accept the thesis of intellectual error rather than malice aforethought to explain anti-market views, especially as the "left" and the "right" are typically presented to people as a package deal in which many unappealing tendencies are caught up in the "right" along with liberal economics. Mises, a true (classical) liberal, of course slams the anticommunist movement that dominated and indeed largely swallowed up pro-market views of the cold war era when the essay was written, but perhaps more attention could have been focused on the need to separate different aspects of ideology rather than become a camp-follower of one side or the other.
January 17, 2019
The local Libertarian chapter proposed to read this for their book club, so I decided to check it out to see what sort of guns the Austrian school could whip out. Instead, I got a bunch of half-assed psychoanalysis without historic evidence or what I would consider economic analysis. Mises basically just invented characters that don't exist and then got mad at them while making a bunch of baseless assertions.
February 6, 2017
Not even sure where to begin. This book is built on so many false premises that some of the arguments are totally ridiculous. Very, very weak.
April 7, 2021
i wish i could give 0 stars to this. ugh i hate it
Displaying 1 - 30 of 204 reviews