Betrayal of the American Right - Ludwig von Mises Institute

Betrayal of the American Right - Ludwig von Mises Institute Betrayal of the American Right - Ludwig von Mises Institute

22.07.2013 Views

Origins of the Old Right II: The Tory Anarchism of Mencken and Nock 19 just been reprinted. Oppenheimer had pointed out that man tries to acquire wealth in the easiest possible way, and that there were two mutually exclusive paths to obtain wealth. One was the peaceful path of producing something and voluntarily exchanging that product for the product of someone else; this path of production and voluntary exchange Oppenheimer called the “economic means.” The other road to wealth was coercive expropriation: the seizure of the product of another by the use of violence. This Oppenheimer termed the “political means.” And from his historical inquiry into the genesis of States Oppenheimer defined the State as the “organization of the political means.” Hence, Nock concluded, the State itself was evil, and was always the highroad by which varying groups could seize State power and use it to become an exploiting, or ruling, class, at the expense of the remainder of the ruled or subject population. Nock therefore defined the State as that institution which “claims and exercises the monopoly of crime” over a territorial area; “it forbids private murder, but itself organizes murder on a colossal scale. It punishes private theft, but itself lays unscrupulous hands on anything it wants.” 15 In his magnum opus, Our Enemy, the State, Nock expanded on his theory and applied it to American history, in particular the formation of the American Constitution. In contrast to the traditional conservative worshippers of the Constitution, Nock applied Charles A. Beard’s thesis to the history of America, seeing it as a succession of class rule by various groups of privileged businessmen, and the Constitution as a strong national government brought into being in order to create and extend such privilege. The Constitution, wrote Nock, enabled an ever-closer centralization of control over the political means. For instance . . . many an industrialist could see the great primary advantage of being able to extend his exploiting opportunities over a nationwide free-trade area walled in by a general tariff. . . . Any speculator in depreciated public securities would be strongly for a system that could offer him the use of the political means to bring back their 15 Ibid.

20 The Betrayal of the American Right face value. Any shipowner or foreign trader would be quick to see that his bread was buttered on the side of a national State which, if properly approached, might lend him the use of the political means by way of a subsidy, or would be able to back up some profitable but dubious freebooting enterprise with “diplomatic representations” or with reprisals. Nock concluded that those economic interests, in opposition to the mass of the nation’s farmers, “planned and executed a coup d’etat, simply tossing the Articles of Confederation into the wastebasket.” 16 While the Nock-Oppenheimer class analysis superficially resembles that of Marx, and a Nockian would, like Lenin, look at all State action whatever in terms of “Who? Whom?” (Who is benefiting at the expense of Whom?), it is important to recognize the crucial differences. For while Nock and Marx would agree on the Oriental Despotic and feudal periods’ ruling classes in privilege over the ruled, they would differ on the analysis of businessmen on the free market. For to Nock, antagonistic classes, the rulers and the ruled, can only be created by accession to State privilege; it is the use of the State instrument that brings these antagonistic classes into being. While Marx would agree on pre-capitalistic eras, he of course also concluded that businessmen and workers were in class antagonism to each other even in a free-market economy, with employers exploiting workers. To the Nockian, businessmen and workers are in harmony—as are everyone else— in the free market and free society, and it is only through State intervention that antagonistic classes are created. 17 16 Ibid. 17 This idea of classes as being created by States was the pre-Marxian idea of classes; two of its earliest theorists were the French individualist and libertarian thinkers of the post-Napoleonic Restoration period, Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer. For several years after the Restoration, Comte and Dunoyer were the mentors of Count Saint- Simon, who adopted their class analysis; the later Saint-Simonians then modified it to include businessmen as being class-exploiters of workers,

20 The <strong>Betrayal</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Right</strong><br />

face value. Any shipowner or foreign trader would be quick<br />

to see that his bread was buttered on <strong>the</strong> side <strong>of</strong> a national<br />

State which, if properly approached, might lend him <strong>the</strong> use<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> political means by way <strong>of</strong> a subsidy, or would be able to<br />

back up some pr<strong>of</strong>itable but dubious freebooting enterprise<br />

with “diplomatic representations” or with reprisals.<br />

Nock concluded that those economic interests, in opposition to<br />

<strong>the</strong> mass <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> nation’s farmers, “planned and executed a coup d’etat,<br />

simply tossing <strong>the</strong> Articles <strong>of</strong> Confederation into <strong>the</strong> wastebasket.”<br />

16<br />

While <strong>the</strong> Nock-Oppenheimer class analysis superficially<br />

resembles that <strong>of</strong> Marx, and a Nockian would, like Lenin, look at<br />

all State action whatever in terms <strong>of</strong> “Who? Whom?” (Who is<br />

benefiting at <strong>the</strong> expense <strong>of</strong> Whom?), it is important to recognize<br />

<strong>the</strong> crucial differences. For while Nock and Marx would agree on<br />

<strong>the</strong> Oriental Despotic and feudal periods’ ruling classes in privilege<br />

over <strong>the</strong> ruled, <strong>the</strong>y would differ on <strong>the</strong> analysis <strong>of</strong> businessmen<br />

on <strong>the</strong> free market. For to Nock, antagonistic classes, <strong>the</strong><br />

rulers and <strong>the</strong> ruled, can only be created by accession to State privilege;<br />

it is <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> State instrument that brings <strong>the</strong>se antagonistic<br />

classes into being. While Marx would agree on pre-capitalistic<br />

eras, he <strong>of</strong> course also concluded that businessmen and workers<br />

were in class antagonism to each o<strong>the</strong>r even in a free-market<br />

economy, with employers exploiting workers. To <strong>the</strong> Nockian,<br />

businessmen and workers are in harmony—as are everyone else—<br />

in <strong>the</strong> free market and free society, and it is only through State<br />

intervention that antagonistic classes are created. 17<br />

16 Ibid.<br />

17 This idea <strong>of</strong> classes as being created by States was <strong>the</strong> pre-Marxian<br />

idea <strong>of</strong> classes; two <strong>of</strong> its earliest <strong>the</strong>orists were <strong>the</strong> French individualist<br />

and libertarian thinkers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> post-Napoleonic Restoration period,<br />

Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer. For several years after <strong>the</strong><br />

Restoration, Comte and Dunoyer were <strong>the</strong> mentors <strong>of</strong> Count Saint-<br />

Simon, who adopted <strong>the</strong>ir class analysis; <strong>the</strong> later Saint-Simonians <strong>the</strong>n<br />

modified it to include businessmen as being class-exploiters <strong>of</strong> workers,

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!