Murray N. Rothbard vs. the Philosophers - Ludwig von Mises Institute
Murray N. Rothbard vs. the Philosophers - Ludwig von Mises Institute
Murray N. Rothbard vs. the Philosophers - Ludwig von Mises Institute
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
REVIEWS AND COMMENTS BY MURRAY N. ROTHBARD 127<br />
Ano<strong>the</strong>r basic flaw in any caste society—and ignored by<br />
Polanyi—is <strong>the</strong> problem of population growth. The witch<br />
doctor, <strong>the</strong> custom of tribe, <strong>the</strong> chief or king, and Professor<br />
Polanyi can all decree that X and <strong>the</strong> son of X be a baker,<br />
Y and <strong>the</strong> son of Y be a farmer, etc., but what happens<br />
when population increases, as it almost inevitably tends to<br />
do? What does <strong>the</strong> younger son do? Polanyi sneers at<br />
Malthus but <strong>the</strong> Malthusian problem is always supremely<br />
evident in <strong>the</strong> caste society. What happens when <strong>the</strong> “natural<br />
checks” of famine and disease do not work sufficiently?<br />
This is why <strong>the</strong> caste-communal society of Sparta put<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir babies out in <strong>the</strong> woods for an “exposure test,” not<br />
because <strong>the</strong> Spartans were inherently a cruel people but<br />
because <strong>the</strong>y were faced with what was, in <strong>the</strong> context of<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir social structure, an insoluble problem: what to do with<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir population increase. It was population growth, fur<strong>the</strong>r,<br />
that was wrecking mercantilist Europe. Population growth<br />
was <strong>the</strong> reason for <strong>the</strong> rise of able-bodied beggars and<br />
thieves in eighteenth-century England. There was no work<br />
for <strong>the</strong>m to do. It was <strong>the</strong> rise of capitalism—<strong>the</strong> advance of<br />
capital to provide <strong>the</strong>m with jobs, <strong>the</strong> expansion of <strong>the</strong> market<br />
to produce cheap goods for <strong>the</strong> masses—that not only<br />
enormously increased <strong>the</strong> standard of living of <strong>the</strong> masses<br />
but also provided jobs for <strong>the</strong>se increasingly “excess” people.<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, Polanyi continues <strong>the</strong> old anti-capitalist<br />
canard that <strong>the</strong> Industrial Revolution was made possible by<br />
<strong>the</strong> enclosure movement, which supposedly drove sturdy<br />
yeomen off <strong>the</strong>ir lands and into <strong>the</strong> cities. 77 This is nonsense;<br />
not only did <strong>the</strong> enclosure movement enclose <strong>the</strong> “commons”<br />
and not people, and by <strong>the</strong> great increase in agricultural<br />
productivity provide <strong>the</strong> wherewithal in resources and<br />
77 In England in <strong>the</strong> eighteenth century, vast areas of <strong>the</strong> country<br />
were common land and were cultivated under <strong>the</strong> open field system.<br />
From 1830 on, <strong>the</strong> development of crop growing techniques made<br />
<strong>the</strong> large farms more efficient and almost all agricultural land was<br />
enclosed. According to Polanyi, this led to a mass exodus of small<br />
farmers from <strong>the</strong> countryside.