What do you think?
Rate this book
Omnipotent Government
Liberty is not, as the German precursors of Nazism asserted, a negative ideal. Whether a concept is presented in an affirmative or in a negative form is merely a question of idiom. Freedom from want is tantamount to the expression striving after a state of affairs under which people are better supplied with necessities. Freedom of speech is tantamount to a state of affairs under which everybody can say what he wants to say. At the bottom of all totalitarian doctrines lies the belief that the rulers are wiser and loftier than their subjects and that they therefore know better what benefits those ruled than they themselves. Werner Sombart, for many years a fanatical champion of Marxism and later a no less fanatical advocate of Nazism, was bold enough to assert frankly that the Führer gets his orders from God, the supreme Führer of the universe, and that Führertum is a permanent revelation.* Whoever admits this, must, of course, stop questioning the expediency of government omnipotence. Those disagreeing with this theocratical justification of dictatorship claim for themselves the right to discuss freely the problems involved. They do not write state with a capital S. They do not shrink from analyzing the metaphysical notions of Hegelianism and Marxism. They reduce all this high-sounding oratory to the simple are the means suggested suitable to attain the ends sought? In answering this question, they hope to render a service to the great majority of their fellow men.
312 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1944
About the author
Ludwig von Mises
142 books1,082 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 32 reviews
October 20, 2022
2016-Nov. - This edition is beautiful.
Liberty Fund creates some of the best value classic books around and this one is a good example.
Acid free paper, attached bookmark, clear printing, nice cover and an excellent short new Forward to this edition by the series of most all of Mises's books editor Bettina Bien Greaves, mean that this will be the best reference for years and many readings to come. Oh, it also fixed a flaw in the typesetting that I had noticed (a transposed line) in the earlier edition that I had previously read.
I won't review this book separately here, since I just wrote my review after reading an older edition a few days ago. See it here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
But I will say that the Forward by Bettina Bien Greaves is definitely worth checking out and clarified one particular (semi-unclear) statement by Mises in the book and confirmed another's meaning. He used the phrase "smash Nazism" and she put his meaning in context. She also confirmed for me that when he used the term "United Nations" he meant the "war allies" or "allied countries" during WWII, NOT the international organization of nations that has an HQ on the East River in NYC, and was formed AFTER this book was published.
Also love her summation quote of Mises: "Etatism [Statism] is the occupational disease of rulers, warriors, and civil servants. Governments become liberal [limited] only when forced to by the citizens" (p 69).
Liberty Fund creates some of the best value classic books around and this one is a good example.
Acid free paper, attached bookmark, clear printing, nice cover and an excellent short new Forward to this edition by the series of most all of Mises's books editor Bettina Bien Greaves, mean that this will be the best reference for years and many readings to come. Oh, it also fixed a flaw in the typesetting that I had noticed (a transposed line) in the earlier edition that I had previously read.
I won't review this book separately here, since I just wrote my review after reading an older edition a few days ago. See it here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
But I will say that the Forward by Bettina Bien Greaves is definitely worth checking out and clarified one particular (semi-unclear) statement by Mises in the book and confirmed another's meaning. He used the phrase "smash Nazism" and she put his meaning in context. She also confirmed for me that when he used the term "United Nations" he meant the "war allies" or "allied countries" during WWII, NOT the international organization of nations that has an HQ on the East River in NYC, and was formed AFTER this book was published.
Also love her summation quote of Mises: "Etatism [Statism] is the occupational disease of rulers, warriors, and civil servants. Governments become liberal [limited] only when forced to by the citizens" (p 69).
January 4, 2021
Updated 24 March 2017
Very timely, especially considering the book came out in 1944, during WWII.
I read this book originally about 1979 or 1980 and loved it.
Just read it again, at the urging of Jeff Tucker, over the last year and a half. No regrets in spending the time needed to reread at all. In fact, I am very glad I did.
The book is about the rise of Nationalism in general with special, but not exclusive, focus on Nazism in particular. But it is NOT your typical book about Hitler and the Nazis, that is for sure.
For example, the book is divided into four major sections:
I. The Collapse of German Liberalism (classical liberalism that is, not your current statist American conception of "liberalism")
II. Nationalism
III. Nazism
IV. The Future of Western Civilization
Gee, starting with classical liberalism in Germany, how odd. Was there even any? Well, there were some really great classical liberal thinkers from Germany, such as Friedrich Schiller and Johann Wolfgang Goethe! But it is true that the support classical liberal ideas gained among the German people was always fairly thin and virtually snuffed out before the 20th Century. And what took it's place was it's virtual opposite: militarism.
In addition to militarism in Germany, came the rise over all of Europe of the ideas of nationalism, etatism (statism), interventionism, protectionism, autarky, social democracy (one of the socialist ideology implementations), racism, polylogism, economic depression, and planning (by that Mises means Government coercive planning, NOT everyone making their own plans, coordinated by the voluntary transactions and institutions of the marketplace). Though he does not dwell too much on the US, Mises notes how far the US succumbed to these ideas too. He is certainly right, objectively speaking.
One of the key points of the book is how these various ideas work together and sometimes in contention, to overrun the classical liberal ideas of peace, private property, harmony and freedom. All these ideas are still with us today. Our recent presidential elections (2016 & 2020!) had most of the bad ideas in full hype mode, in contrast to the little time and energy devoted to classical liberal ideas - not an auspicious indicator for good ideas to prevail over the statist ideas.
Let's just take one of the main ideas that both major 2016 Presidential candidates agreed on, and President Trump made a major focus of his campaign: protectionism. Mises devotes much discussion of the background, workings, and consequences of this policy and he clearly demonstrates how protectionism leads to virtually nothing but deprivation (a poorer state of affairs) and war.
With headlines like this today (when this review was orig. written in Nov. 2016):
"China: We’ll block iPhone sales if Trump imposes tariffs - All-out trade war promised if president-elect follows through on campaign promises."
anyone can see pretty vividly how such a policy could start to impact major US companies and citizens. Combining that with military threats and bluster over far-away (newly created) islands in the South China Sea, the connection between the ideology of nationalism, protectionism and war can be more easily made. Mises explains these connections from the devastating perspective of WWII (the book was written in the early 40s and published in 1944).
My recommendation is for anyone interested:
in peace,
in free markets,
in the harmony of human interests,
in a better world,
to read this book.
By doing so, you will gain an appreciation for the history and ideas that created their opposite effects too - two world wars, the popularity of military dictators (or any "strong man" to lead government) and other pernicious effects that are still with us. But more than that, you will know the alternative - the peace, prosperity and human thriving that private property and free and unhampered markets can bring.
Very timely, especially considering the book came out in 1944, during WWII.
I read this book originally about 1979 or 1980 and loved it.
Just read it again, at the urging of Jeff Tucker, over the last year and a half. No regrets in spending the time needed to reread at all. In fact, I am very glad I did.
The book is about the rise of Nationalism in general with special, but not exclusive, focus on Nazism in particular. But it is NOT your typical book about Hitler and the Nazis, that is for sure.
For example, the book is divided into four major sections:
I. The Collapse of German Liberalism (classical liberalism that is, not your current statist American conception of "liberalism")
II. Nationalism
III. Nazism
IV. The Future of Western Civilization
Gee, starting with classical liberalism in Germany, how odd. Was there even any? Well, there were some really great classical liberal thinkers from Germany, such as Friedrich Schiller and Johann Wolfgang Goethe! But it is true that the support classical liberal ideas gained among the German people was always fairly thin and virtually snuffed out before the 20th Century. And what took it's place was it's virtual opposite: militarism.
In addition to militarism in Germany, came the rise over all of Europe of the ideas of nationalism, etatism (statism), interventionism, protectionism, autarky, social democracy (one of the socialist ideology implementations), racism, polylogism, economic depression, and planning (by that Mises means Government coercive planning, NOT everyone making their own plans, coordinated by the voluntary transactions and institutions of the marketplace). Though he does not dwell too much on the US, Mises notes how far the US succumbed to these ideas too. He is certainly right, objectively speaking.
One of the key points of the book is how these various ideas work together and sometimes in contention, to overrun the classical liberal ideas of peace, private property, harmony and freedom. All these ideas are still with us today. Our recent presidential elections (2016 & 2020!) had most of the bad ideas in full hype mode, in contrast to the little time and energy devoted to classical liberal ideas - not an auspicious indicator for good ideas to prevail over the statist ideas.
Let's just take one of the main ideas that both major 2016 Presidential candidates agreed on, and President Trump made a major focus of his campaign: protectionism. Mises devotes much discussion of the background, workings, and consequences of this policy and he clearly demonstrates how protectionism leads to virtually nothing but deprivation (a poorer state of affairs) and war.
With headlines like this today (when this review was orig. written in Nov. 2016):
"China: We’ll block iPhone sales if Trump imposes tariffs - All-out trade war promised if president-elect follows through on campaign promises."
anyone can see pretty vividly how such a policy could start to impact major US companies and citizens. Combining that with military threats and bluster over far-away (newly created) islands in the South China Sea, the connection between the ideology of nationalism, protectionism and war can be more easily made. Mises explains these connections from the devastating perspective of WWII (the book was written in the early 40s and published in 1944).
My recommendation is for anyone interested:
in peace,
in free markets,
in the harmony of human interests,
in a better world,
to read this book.
By doing so, you will gain an appreciation for the history and ideas that created their opposite effects too - two world wars, the popularity of military dictators (or any "strong man" to lead government) and other pernicious effects that are still with us. But more than that, you will know the alternative - the peace, prosperity and human thriving that private property and free and unhampered markets can bring.
September 3, 2012
This is a comparatively weak work in the Mises oeuvre. It is not a book about economics, it is a history book covering the ideological changes in Germany that resulted in Nazism. There are a bit more polemics in this book, by Mises standards, compared to his other works, so at times it is difficult to tell how much of what he is saying is historical fact, and how much is his own interpretation.
More importantly, Mises makes his case against Nazism both more clearly and more concisely in other works. Anyone with a familiarity of his "socialism of the German pattern vs. socialism of the Russian pattern" dichotomy will find much repetition in this book.
But, perhaps it was written for a specific audience at a specific period of time. While the first few chapters are of great interest to anyone in any time period, the majority of the book just feels to me as though it no longer applies to anything other than academic history.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good book. But while much of Mises' work is of pressing importance today, this book stands out as being academic history. So I recommend this one only to those who are diehard Mises fans, or those with an interest in WWII history. Others may safely pass this one by.
More importantly, Mises makes his case against Nazism both more clearly and more concisely in other works. Anyone with a familiarity of his "socialism of the German pattern vs. socialism of the Russian pattern" dichotomy will find much repetition in this book.
But, perhaps it was written for a specific audience at a specific period of time. While the first few chapters are of great interest to anyone in any time period, the majority of the book just feels to me as though it no longer applies to anything other than academic history.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good book. But while much of Mises' work is of pressing importance today, this book stands out as being academic history. So I recommend this one only to those who are diehard Mises fans, or those with an interest in WWII history. Others may safely pass this one by.
September 30, 2013
This book is of paramount value for any political science scholars or anyone who is interested in such field.
There was no intent to fully grasp every doctrines illuminated by Mises in this book when I first read it. But it was manageable to synthesize some key points and added my own evaluations:
I. two ideological trends:
In the Western history of last five hundred years, there are two distinctive ideological trends.
Enlightenment initiated first the trend of individualism: freedom, the rights of man, and self-determination.
"This individualistic trend resulted in the fall of autocreatic government, the establishment of democracy, the evolution of capitalism, technical improvements, and an unprecedented rise in standards of living. It substituted enlightenment for old superstitions, scientific methods of research for inveterate prejudices. It was an epoch of great artistic and literary achievements, the age of immortal musicians, painters, writers, and philosophers. And it brushed away slavery, serfdom, torture, inquisition, and other remnants of the dark ages."
Hegelian philosophors initiated the second trend, the trend toward state omnipotence.
"Men now seem eager to vest all powers in governments, i.e., in the apparatus of social compulsion and coercion. They aim at totalitarianism, that is, conditions in which all human affairs are managed by governments. They hail every step toward more government interference as progress toward a more perfect world; they are confident that the governments will transform the earth into a paradise."
II. Totalitarian and its logic to war
This book effectively illuminate the topic of the later, etatism or national socialism in a broad context of international relations. In particular, the confrontation of totalitarianism with international division of labor yields significant consequences. "Economic considerations are pushing every totalitarian government toward world domination." There are surprising resemblance of political nature between Soviet government, Nazis' Deutsches Reich and Japanese Empire during WWII. These totalitarian regimes all wanted to rule the world. For instance, Soviet union does not contain any reference to Russia, and it was the goal of Lenin to make it the nucleus of a world government.
Thus, etatism and totalitarianism prevented peaceful cooperation of nations and led to. But the real paradox in WWII is that a return to liberalism could not open the way toward peaceful cooperation of nations. Historical antagonism had engendered hatreds and manipulated public's minds which can vanish only in centuries. Adoption of laissez faire policy under such conditions would tantamount to an unconditional surrender to the totalitarian nations. Thus, the only hope to a sustainable world peace is for totalitarian nations to abandon etatism tendency.
However, Mises didn't anticipate the emergence of nuclear weapons which effectively prevent large scale total wars between totalitarian states in the later history.
In totalitarian states, Mises concluded that public opinion hs espoused a set of dogmas which there is hardly any freedom to attack. At the same time, totalitarian government's methods of violence or threat for its protection reveals its inner weakness, the weakness of its doctrine and ideology that can not stand the trial of logic and reason, and thus they must keep persecuting skeptics.
It is futile to advance historical or geographical reasons in support of political ambitions which cannot stand the criticism of democratic principles. Democratic government can safeguard peace and international cooperation because it does not aim at the oppression of other peoples. If some people pretend that history or geography gives them the right to subjugate other races, nations, or people, there can be no peace.
"Inherent destiny" give totalitarian regimes reasons to justify their ambitions and aggression. Although we can erase our memories, but it is not the task of history to kindle new conflicts by reviving hatreds long since dead and by searching the archives for pretexts or justifications of new conflicts. The purpose of living at the moment is not to revenge crimes committed centuries ago by kings and conquerors, but we need to build a new and better world order. But in most cases, such relevance to age-old antagonism became the excuse or justification for current government to wage a new conflict.
As Mises concluded: "Neither destiny nor history nor geography nor anthropology must hinder us from choosing those methods of political organization which can make for durable peace, international cooperation, and economic prosperity."
III. Why Liberalism no longer works in our time? & How Marxism facilitates totalitarian regime?
Realization of liberalism is impossible in our time, because people lack the mental ability to absorb the principles of sound economics. Most men are too dull to follow complicated chains of reasoning. In other words, liberalism failed because the intellectual capacities of the immense majority were insufficient for the task of comprehension.
Even in Marxis doctrine, Marx assumed both that socialism best suits the interests of the proletariat and the proletarians will comprehend it. In reality, take China for example, the average peasants hardly understood socialism. In fact, recent Marxians have abandoned these metaphysical illusions. They no longer hope that a single pattern of socialism can meet with the comprehension and approval from majority, and that their own ideal will be supported by the whole proletariat. In stead, these Marxians are now convinced that only an elite class has the intellectual power to understand the blessings of genuine socialism. They thought that this elite class has the sacred duty to seize power by violent action, to exterminate all adversaries, to establish the socialist millennium and to maintain the regime with government's total control. Thus, regimes under Lenin, Stalin and Hilter had prefect agreements and similar procedures. They differ only in respect to the question of who the elite is.
Liberals repel Marxism, for they reject coercion and oppression. They believe that dictatorship will result in endless internal conflict, wars and revolutions. Stable government requires the free consent of those ruled. Tyranny, even the tyranny of benevolent despots, cannot bring lasting peace and prosperity.
However, I am not completely convinced by that.
IV. Recommendations for International Politics
1. Durable international peace is only possible under perfect capitalism and market economy, because there will be no economic causes of war.
My question is: there are often other causes of war that Mises omitted without explanations.
2.Free mobility of labor tends toward an equalization of the productivity of labor and thereby of wage rates all over the world.
My question is: Has Mises considered the cultural infusion and alienation impacts on labor mobility?
3. Protectionism and autarky 1)mean discrimination against foreign labor and capital; 2) cause a policy of conquest for economic reasons. Thus, if a government hinders the most productive use of its country's resources, it hurts the interests of all other nations.
4. Socialism world government will face great oppositions from workers and labors, for labor in comparatively underpopulated countries is unlikely to relinquish its inherited privileges.
5. Federal government can work only under a free market economy.
Thus, Mises's essential conclusion is as follow:
Our civilization is based on the international division of labor. It can not survive under autarky. Protectionism and autarky will lead to disintegration and pasteurization. Such conditions expedite aggression of totalitarian states.
There was no intent to fully grasp every doctrines illuminated by Mises in this book when I first read it. But it was manageable to synthesize some key points and added my own evaluations:
I. two ideological trends:
In the Western history of last five hundred years, there are two distinctive ideological trends.
Enlightenment initiated first the trend of individualism: freedom, the rights of man, and self-determination.
"This individualistic trend resulted in the fall of autocreatic government, the establishment of democracy, the evolution of capitalism, technical improvements, and an unprecedented rise in standards of living. It substituted enlightenment for old superstitions, scientific methods of research for inveterate prejudices. It was an epoch of great artistic and literary achievements, the age of immortal musicians, painters, writers, and philosophers. And it brushed away slavery, serfdom, torture, inquisition, and other remnants of the dark ages."
Hegelian philosophors initiated the second trend, the trend toward state omnipotence.
"Men now seem eager to vest all powers in governments, i.e., in the apparatus of social compulsion and coercion. They aim at totalitarianism, that is, conditions in which all human affairs are managed by governments. They hail every step toward more government interference as progress toward a more perfect world; they are confident that the governments will transform the earth into a paradise."
II. Totalitarian and its logic to war
This book effectively illuminate the topic of the later, etatism or national socialism in a broad context of international relations. In particular, the confrontation of totalitarianism with international division of labor yields significant consequences. "Economic considerations are pushing every totalitarian government toward world domination." There are surprising resemblance of political nature between Soviet government, Nazis' Deutsches Reich and Japanese Empire during WWII. These totalitarian regimes all wanted to rule the world. For instance, Soviet union does not contain any reference to Russia, and it was the goal of Lenin to make it the nucleus of a world government.
Thus, etatism and totalitarianism prevented peaceful cooperation of nations and led to. But the real paradox in WWII is that a return to liberalism could not open the way toward peaceful cooperation of nations. Historical antagonism had engendered hatreds and manipulated public's minds which can vanish only in centuries. Adoption of laissez faire policy under such conditions would tantamount to an unconditional surrender to the totalitarian nations. Thus, the only hope to a sustainable world peace is for totalitarian nations to abandon etatism tendency.
However, Mises didn't anticipate the emergence of nuclear weapons which effectively prevent large scale total wars between totalitarian states in the later history.
In totalitarian states, Mises concluded that public opinion hs espoused a set of dogmas which there is hardly any freedom to attack. At the same time, totalitarian government's methods of violence or threat for its protection reveals its inner weakness, the weakness of its doctrine and ideology that can not stand the trial of logic and reason, and thus they must keep persecuting skeptics.
It is futile to advance historical or geographical reasons in support of political ambitions which cannot stand the criticism of democratic principles. Democratic government can safeguard peace and international cooperation because it does not aim at the oppression of other peoples. If some people pretend that history or geography gives them the right to subjugate other races, nations, or people, there can be no peace.
"Inherent destiny" give totalitarian regimes reasons to justify their ambitions and aggression. Although we can erase our memories, but it is not the task of history to kindle new conflicts by reviving hatreds long since dead and by searching the archives for pretexts or justifications of new conflicts. The purpose of living at the moment is not to revenge crimes committed centuries ago by kings and conquerors, but we need to build a new and better world order. But in most cases, such relevance to age-old antagonism became the excuse or justification for current government to wage a new conflict.
As Mises concluded: "Neither destiny nor history nor geography nor anthropology must hinder us from choosing those methods of political organization which can make for durable peace, international cooperation, and economic prosperity."
III. Why Liberalism no longer works in our time? & How Marxism facilitates totalitarian regime?
Realization of liberalism is impossible in our time, because people lack the mental ability to absorb the principles of sound economics. Most men are too dull to follow complicated chains of reasoning. In other words, liberalism failed because the intellectual capacities of the immense majority were insufficient for the task of comprehension.
Even in Marxis doctrine, Marx assumed both that socialism best suits the interests of the proletariat and the proletarians will comprehend it. In reality, take China for example, the average peasants hardly understood socialism. In fact, recent Marxians have abandoned these metaphysical illusions. They no longer hope that a single pattern of socialism can meet with the comprehension and approval from majority, and that their own ideal will be supported by the whole proletariat. In stead, these Marxians are now convinced that only an elite class has the intellectual power to understand the blessings of genuine socialism. They thought that this elite class has the sacred duty to seize power by violent action, to exterminate all adversaries, to establish the socialist millennium and to maintain the regime with government's total control. Thus, regimes under Lenin, Stalin and Hilter had prefect agreements and similar procedures. They differ only in respect to the question of who the elite is.
Liberals repel Marxism, for they reject coercion and oppression. They believe that dictatorship will result in endless internal conflict, wars and revolutions. Stable government requires the free consent of those ruled. Tyranny, even the tyranny of benevolent despots, cannot bring lasting peace and prosperity.
However, I am not completely convinced by that.
IV. Recommendations for International Politics
1. Durable international peace is only possible under perfect capitalism and market economy, because there will be no economic causes of war.
My question is: there are often other causes of war that Mises omitted without explanations.
2.Free mobility of labor tends toward an equalization of the productivity of labor and thereby of wage rates all over the world.
My question is: Has Mises considered the cultural infusion and alienation impacts on labor mobility?
3. Protectionism and autarky 1)mean discrimination against foreign labor and capital; 2) cause a policy of conquest for economic reasons. Thus, if a government hinders the most productive use of its country's resources, it hurts the interests of all other nations.
4. Socialism world government will face great oppositions from workers and labors, for labor in comparatively underpopulated countries is unlikely to relinquish its inherited privileges.
5. Federal government can work only under a free market economy.
Thus, Mises's essential conclusion is as follow:
Our civilization is based on the international division of labor. It can not survive under autarky. Protectionism and autarky will lead to disintegration and pasteurization. Such conditions expedite aggression of totalitarian states.
December 7, 2015
Ludwin Von Mises wrote Omnipotent Government in 1944 at the last days of WWII. Mises describes the philosophical grounds of the Nazi movement. A book rich in history background and a though provoking plan for the future.
In the first part Mises explains the German Liberalism during the middle of the XIX when the ideas of the classical Liberalism were partially adopted in Germany. According to Mises:
"At about the middle of the nineteenth century those Germans interested in political issues were united in their adherence to liberalism. Yet the German nation did not succeed in shaking off the yoke of absolutism and in establishing democracy and parliamentary government."
Mises explains the history of Germany from the late XVIII to the early XX with a different point of view from the dominant Socialist Historians. Overall he shows how and why a powerful-educated German society fell into Nazism.
"The questions to be answered are not: Why did the bankers and the rich entrepreneurs and capitalists desert liberalism? Why did the professors, the doctors, and the lawyers not erect barricades? We must rather ask: Why did the German nation return to the Reichstag members who did not abolish absolutism? Why was the army, formed for a great part of men who voted the socialist or the Catholic ticket, unconditionally loyal to its commanders? Why could the antiliberal parties, foremost among them the Social Democrats, collect many millions of votes while the groups which remained faithful to the principles of liberalism lost more and more popular support? Why did the millions of socialist voters who indulged in revolutionary babble acquiesce in the rule of princes and courts?"
For Mises the German Liberals were unable to protect the principles and ideas that help them succeed. They saw Socialism and Nazism as temporary setbacks and never recognize the deep roots of Etatism. Soon Etatism armed with a strong military evolved into nationalism.
"As soon as liberalism reached Germany and Italy the problem of the extent of the state and its boundaries was raised. It solution seemed easy. The nation is the community of all people speaking the same language; the state's frontiers should coincide with the linguistic demarcations."
"The principle of nationality is an outcome of the interpretation which people in Central and Eastern Europe, who never fully grasped the meaning of liberal ideas, gave to the principle of self-determination. It is a distortion, not a perfection, of liberal thought."
The nationalism originally define as unity of language evolved to unity of race. The idea that Germany was the strongest among European nations contrasted with the defeat after WWI and the unacceptable conditions of the Versailles Treaty. It fueled the legend of "the stab in the back" followed by the total failure of the Weimar Republic setting the conditions to the advent of Nazism. The party sold itself as the enemy of the communist to the liberals and as saver of the poor from the bourgeois. But overall a saver of the German Nationalism, nationalism now defined by race with a common enemy, Jews.
Mises' conclusion can be read two ways. Considering the era when The Omnipotent Government was published he recognize the improbability of a liberal world, necessary to discard aggression from other countries, plus the risk of government to close their borders establishing autarkic states and starting aggression against their neighbors to eliminate its dependency.
"But will all men rightly understand their own interests? What if they do not? This is the weak point in the liberal plea for a free world of peaceful coöperation. The realization of the liberal plan is impossible because—at least for our time—people lack the mental ability to absorb the principles of sound economics. Most men are too dull to follow complicated chains of reasoning. Liberalism failed because the intellectual capacities of the immense majority were insufficient for the task of comprehension."
But sixty years later we can read his conclusion as a kind of prophecy of how humanity is condemned to live with the risk of war supporting strong armies as long as the different flavors of etatism are not replaced by liberalism, where goods and people move freely anywhere in the world.
Is capitalism an all or nothing global condition for peace? Are global coalitions and governments the only defense to totalitarian neighbors?
My rating 4 out of 5.
September 27, 2017
Von Mises' great achievement with this book was to outline the economic conditions of war and totalitarianism. He argues very plausibly that faulty economic reasoning lies at the heart of both. In a system of free trade and migration, nations meet each others as trading partners to cooperate with, not as competitors for natural resources. The ensuring international division of labor is to the benefit of everyone. This system, however, is still not realized because of the prevalence of the mercantilist myth that trade between nations harms the net importer, and the conclusion that some nations draw from this: The dream of autarky. A nation that cannot be self-sufficient with its current resources, like Germany, can only be autark by conquering others, and therein lies the secret to the infamous bellicosity of the Nazis. The return to autarky under a lower standard of living is rightly dismissed by von Mises, as our current population numbers couldn't be sustained if the international division of labor were to be abolished entirely. If you're still sitting on the fence when it comes to the benefits of international trade, Omnipotent Government may be the book for you.
There is a lot more to this book. Of particular interest to fans of von Mises will be his view on secessionism, namely that all regions should be allowed to secede and join other nations, so that no minority will ever be forced to live under a state that would harm it. With this, he treaded close to the anarchocapitalist idea, as Rothbard himself once pointed out. He also draws attention to the importance of linguistic divisions, for example in shaping national identities, and along the way completely destroys the pretensions of national socialism to have been about race and genetics. The antisemitism of the Nazis was inconsistent and incoherent, founded on racialist ideas and yet practically executed by discriminating against members of a specific religion with no regard for their physical characteristics, or sometimes by arbitrarily declaring something or someone to be Jewish. Here is one of von Mises' excellent quotes in this context:
For a work by von Mises, this book is heavy on historic data and narratives. He often seems to clash with Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. The two supplement each other perfectly, though. Both are among the most brilliant political thinkers of the 20th century, and both excelled at different subjects while being competent in all the humanities. Interestingly, the two were also personal friends, despite their manifold ideological differences.
There is a lot more to this book. Of particular interest to fans of von Mises will be his view on secessionism, namely that all regions should be allowed to secede and join other nations, so that no minority will ever be forced to live under a state that would harm it. With this, he treaded close to the anarchocapitalist idea, as Rothbard himself once pointed out. He also draws attention to the importance of linguistic divisions, for example in shaping national identities, and along the way completely destroys the pretensions of national socialism to have been about race and genetics. The antisemitism of the Nazis was inconsistent and incoherent, founded on racialist ideas and yet practically executed by discriminating against members of a specific religion with no regard for their physical characteristics, or sometimes by arbitrarily declaring something or someone to be Jewish. Here is one of von Mises' excellent quotes in this context:
The laws promulgated by the Nazis for discrimination against Jews and the offspring of Jews have nothing at all to do with racial considerations proper. A law discriminating against people of a certain race would first have to enumerate with biological and physiological exactitude the characteristic features of the race concerned. It would then have to decree the legal procedure and proper formalities by which the presence or absence of these characteristics could be duly established for every individual. The validly executed final decisions of such procedures would then have to form the basis of the discrimination in each case. The Nazis have chosen a different way. They say, it is true, that they want to discriminate not against people professing the Jewish religion but against people belonging to the Jewish race. Yet they define the members of the Jewish race as people professing the Jewish religion or descended from people professing the Jewish religion. The characteristic legal feature of the Jewish race is, in the so-called racial legislation of Nuremberg, the membership of the individual concerned or of his ancestors in the religious community of Judaism. If a law pretends that it tends toward a discrimination against the shortsighted but defines shortsightedness as the quality of being bald, people using the generally accepted terminology would not call it a law to the disadvantage of the shortsighted but of the bald. If Americans want to discriminate against Negroes, they do not go to the archives in order to study the racial affiliation of the people concerned; they search the individual’s body for traces of Negro descent. Negroes and whites differ in racial—i.e., bodily—features; but it is impossible to tell a Jewish German from a non-Jewish one by any racial characteristic.
For a work by von Mises, this book is heavy on historic data and narratives. He often seems to clash with Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. The two supplement each other perfectly, though. Both are among the most brilliant political thinkers of the 20th century, and both excelled at different subjects while being competent in all the humanities. Interestingly, the two were also personal friends, despite their manifold ideological differences.
March 30, 2021
An interesting book. Essentially, Germany, in the first half of the nineteenth century, was culturally liberal and moving towards democracy, laissez-faire, free trade, and pacifism. It was the age of Kant, Schiller, Beethoven, and Goethe. But the Kaiser, wishing to retain his absolute power and avoid having to get the consent of a legislature, attacked the middle class, whom he associated with these ideas. He attacked it by siding with workers for higher wages, which drove up manufacturing costs and hurt Germany in international trade. The higher wages also drove up costs for consumers. The workers, faced with higher prices, were happy because their wages were higher, and because they could not see the connection. The Kaiser was happy because the workers were more obedient than the middle class, and did not want to interfere with his rule.
German industry, in order to compete in international trade, had to lower prices outside Germany. They did this by forming monopolies and cartels which raised prices in Germany. With the high profits from domestic sales, German companies could sell their goods for minimal or no profits on the international market.
Germany had a larger population that required importation of food and raw materials in order to sustain it and manufacturing. This meant that Germany had to sell manufactured goods on the international market to buy food. The German government, under the Kaiser, the Weimar Republic, and the Nazis, adhered to the old mercantilistic fallacies and desired to keep money within the Reich by putting high duties on imports, which raised the price of food for consumers.
Making matters worse, other European nations were also enacting trade barriers, thus stifling international trade and increasing mistrust between the nations.
Faced with these economic problems and political unrest, the German government, instead of going to laissez-faire, instituted more government programs to solve these problems, and as time passed, yet more programs to solve the problems created by the newer programs. These government programs and agencies continued to multiply until the Nazis instituted zwangswirtschaft, "the compelled economy," in which capitalists continued to "own" their own businesses in name only and were told what to buy, who to buy it from, the price, wages and labor conditions, and who to sell their products to, and at what price. A limited amount of profits were permitted, but any extra profits had to be used to purchase government bonds. Luxuries were not allowed. Hoarding money was high treason. The capitalists continued to run their factories and businesses in the hope that they would regain full ownership and control when the Nazis eventually would lose power. Meanwhile, they could not get approval to replace worn tooling and equipment. The Nazis decided the way to avoid importing food would be to invade Poland and the Ukraine.
German professors, teachers, and intellectuals of the time considered laissez-faire, free trade, democracy, and liberalism to be obsolete, and non-german. They were under the influence of an intellectual tradition that combined the planned economy theories of the Frenchmen St. Simon and Comte with the dialectictal philosophy of Hegel, and also were influenced by Marx.
To avoid having to answer or solve problems and contradictions in their theories, the Marxists and Nazis resorted to polylogism. Polylogism is the idea that deductive logic is not universal across the human race, but rather that different groups of men have different logic. Marx held that different economic classes had different logic, and therefore any logical holes or fallacies in his theories did not have to be explained, other than to dismiss the questioner as bourgeoise or a traitor. Hitler modified the polylogism of Marx into the theory that different races used different logic. Hence Einstein was not wrong because he was bourgeois, he was wrong because he was Jewish. To the rest of the world, this is recognized as a form of the logical fallacy of argument ad hominem.
Mises distinguishes between nationalism and chauvinism. Chauvinism is the belief that one's country is the best. Nationalism is the belief that one's country is also beset by evil and subhuman foreigners and traitors. This belief was not exclusive to Germany. It prevailed throughout eastern and central Europe, and was exacerbated by the fact that each nationality claimed borders at the maximum extent of the nation's borders in the Middle Ages. Hence, there was not an undisputed border east of France. Some regions were claimed by three or four different nations, each ready to go to war at any time. Furthermore, because of these shifts of national borders and because of migrations before the rise of nationalism, every country in eastern and central Europe had minorities within their borders. Therefore, Germans persecuted Czechs and Poles. Poles persecuted Germans, Lithuanians, Slovaks, and Ukrainians. Czechs persecuted Germans, etc.
German nationalism included the belief in the superiority and invincibility of its armed forces. German nationalism was disproven by losing World War I, but the "stabbed in the back" myth allowed nationalism to persist.
That "stabbed in the back" myth also led the German nationalists to hate and persecute the Jews, because many of the leaders of the revolt against the Kaiser were Jewish socialists. The Nazis, opposed to capitalism, liberalism, democracy, and communism, claimed all were Jewish ideas. The Nazi anti-semitism was not based on any science or strongly held belief, but was based on the propaganda need for a scapegoat for the government's failures. He points out that the Nazis never actually made a scientific list of Aryan or Jewish traits or other ways to evaluate if a person was a Jew. They merely used birth records established by synagogues. So a German who converted to Judaism was then a member of the Jewish race. A person with substantial Jewish ancestry whose ancestors left that religion before the earliest surviving records was German if he spoke German. Also, the Germans sought alliances with Italy and Japan, and also with Islamic semites of the Near East. Antisemitism also helped the Nazis early on. France had long threatened to invade if Germany built up its army, but when the Nazis started doing that, the French were silent because the French politicians did not want to be perceived as helping the Jews.
Mises goes on to consider what the allies needed to do after the war in order to avoid a third world war. His prescription was free trade, democracy, and liberalism, which would increase the standard of living for Europeans and improve international relations. Eastern Europe should be consolidated into one centralized state from the Baltic Sea to Greece to avoid minority conflicts and border wars. However, he was not optimistic that the European trends of protective tariffs and other trade barriers would come down. Nor was he optimistic that the European habits of nationalistic state-worship would be abandoned, despite its manifold failures. He was against allowing immigration from the Axis countries into the victorious allied countries because the immigrants would likely bring their etatist doctrines with them.
German industry, in order to compete in international trade, had to lower prices outside Germany. They did this by forming monopolies and cartels which raised prices in Germany. With the high profits from domestic sales, German companies could sell their goods for minimal or no profits on the international market.
Germany had a larger population that required importation of food and raw materials in order to sustain it and manufacturing. This meant that Germany had to sell manufactured goods on the international market to buy food. The German government, under the Kaiser, the Weimar Republic, and the Nazis, adhered to the old mercantilistic fallacies and desired to keep money within the Reich by putting high duties on imports, which raised the price of food for consumers.
Making matters worse, other European nations were also enacting trade barriers, thus stifling international trade and increasing mistrust between the nations.
Faced with these economic problems and political unrest, the German government, instead of going to laissez-faire, instituted more government programs to solve these problems, and as time passed, yet more programs to solve the problems created by the newer programs. These government programs and agencies continued to multiply until the Nazis instituted zwangswirtschaft, "the compelled economy," in which capitalists continued to "own" their own businesses in name only and were told what to buy, who to buy it from, the price, wages and labor conditions, and who to sell their products to, and at what price. A limited amount of profits were permitted, but any extra profits had to be used to purchase government bonds. Luxuries were not allowed. Hoarding money was high treason. The capitalists continued to run their factories and businesses in the hope that they would regain full ownership and control when the Nazis eventually would lose power. Meanwhile, they could not get approval to replace worn tooling and equipment. The Nazis decided the way to avoid importing food would be to invade Poland and the Ukraine.
German professors, teachers, and intellectuals of the time considered laissez-faire, free trade, democracy, and liberalism to be obsolete, and non-german. They were under the influence of an intellectual tradition that combined the planned economy theories of the Frenchmen St. Simon and Comte with the dialectictal philosophy of Hegel, and also were influenced by Marx.
To avoid having to answer or solve problems and contradictions in their theories, the Marxists and Nazis resorted to polylogism. Polylogism is the idea that deductive logic is not universal across the human race, but rather that different groups of men have different logic. Marx held that different economic classes had different logic, and therefore any logical holes or fallacies in his theories did not have to be explained, other than to dismiss the questioner as bourgeoise or a traitor. Hitler modified the polylogism of Marx into the theory that different races used different logic. Hence Einstein was not wrong because he was bourgeois, he was wrong because he was Jewish. To the rest of the world, this is recognized as a form of the logical fallacy of argument ad hominem.
Mises distinguishes between nationalism and chauvinism. Chauvinism is the belief that one's country is the best. Nationalism is the belief that one's country is also beset by evil and subhuman foreigners and traitors. This belief was not exclusive to Germany. It prevailed throughout eastern and central Europe, and was exacerbated by the fact that each nationality claimed borders at the maximum extent of the nation's borders in the Middle Ages. Hence, there was not an undisputed border east of France. Some regions were claimed by three or four different nations, each ready to go to war at any time. Furthermore, because of these shifts of national borders and because of migrations before the rise of nationalism, every country in eastern and central Europe had minorities within their borders. Therefore, Germans persecuted Czechs and Poles. Poles persecuted Germans, Lithuanians, Slovaks, and Ukrainians. Czechs persecuted Germans, etc.
German nationalism included the belief in the superiority and invincibility of its armed forces. German nationalism was disproven by losing World War I, but the "stabbed in the back" myth allowed nationalism to persist.
That "stabbed in the back" myth also led the German nationalists to hate and persecute the Jews, because many of the leaders of the revolt against the Kaiser were Jewish socialists. The Nazis, opposed to capitalism, liberalism, democracy, and communism, claimed all were Jewish ideas. The Nazi anti-semitism was not based on any science or strongly held belief, but was based on the propaganda need for a scapegoat for the government's failures. He points out that the Nazis never actually made a scientific list of Aryan or Jewish traits or other ways to evaluate if a person was a Jew. They merely used birth records established by synagogues. So a German who converted to Judaism was then a member of the Jewish race. A person with substantial Jewish ancestry whose ancestors left that religion before the earliest surviving records was German if he spoke German. Also, the Germans sought alliances with Italy and Japan, and also with Islamic semites of the Near East. Antisemitism also helped the Nazis early on. France had long threatened to invade if Germany built up its army, but when the Nazis started doing that, the French were silent because the French politicians did not want to be perceived as helping the Jews.
Mises goes on to consider what the allies needed to do after the war in order to avoid a third world war. His prescription was free trade, democracy, and liberalism, which would increase the standard of living for Europeans and improve international relations. Eastern Europe should be consolidated into one centralized state from the Baltic Sea to Greece to avoid minority conflicts and border wars. However, he was not optimistic that the European trends of protective tariffs and other trade barriers would come down. Nor was he optimistic that the European habits of nationalistic state-worship would be abandoned, despite its manifold failures. He was against allowing immigration from the Axis countries into the victorious allied countries because the immigrants would likely bring their etatist doctrines with them.
July 21, 2023
Mises kann auch Dogmatismus
Ludwig von Mises „Omnipotent Goverment“ ist so ziemlich das dogmatische Werk, was ich bisher von Mises gelesen habe. Mises erklärt uns, dass wirklich alles kollektive schlecht sei, weil es marktwirtschaftlich unterliege. Und weil freie Marktwirtschaft für Mises eine Form der Demokratie ist, ist Demokratie für Mises auch ein gutes Herrschaftssystem. Aus damaliger Sicht mag das sicherlich Sinn machen, aber mit etwas Abstand betrachtet ist seine hier präsentierte Ansicht falsch.
Der Mensch ist gar nicht zu dem Maß an Aufklärung, das es bräuchte, um Liberalismus durchzusetzen, in der Lage (etwas, was Mises am Ende des Buches tatsächlich sogar eingesteht) und die marktwirtschaftliche Entwicklung ist nicht alles für eine Gesellschaft.
Sehr gut ist die Analyse von Mises über das System der Nationalsozialisten und warum sie tatsächlich echte Sozialisten waren. Mises vollzieht die Analyse ohne jegliche historische Quelle, sondern beruft sich auf das, was er aus Deutschland damals mitbekommen und erlebt hat. Diese deckt sich dennoch fast 1:1 mit dem heutigen wissenschaftlichen Stand. Daher kann man hier getrost auch auf andere, aktuelle Bücher dazu zurückgreifen.
Ludwig von Mises „Omnipotent Goverment“ ist so ziemlich das dogmatische Werk, was ich bisher von Mises gelesen habe. Mises erklärt uns, dass wirklich alles kollektive schlecht sei, weil es marktwirtschaftlich unterliege. Und weil freie Marktwirtschaft für Mises eine Form der Demokratie ist, ist Demokratie für Mises auch ein gutes Herrschaftssystem. Aus damaliger Sicht mag das sicherlich Sinn machen, aber mit etwas Abstand betrachtet ist seine hier präsentierte Ansicht falsch.
Der Mensch ist gar nicht zu dem Maß an Aufklärung, das es bräuchte, um Liberalismus durchzusetzen, in der Lage (etwas, was Mises am Ende des Buches tatsächlich sogar eingesteht) und die marktwirtschaftliche Entwicklung ist nicht alles für eine Gesellschaft.
Sehr gut ist die Analyse von Mises über das System der Nationalsozialisten und warum sie tatsächlich echte Sozialisten waren. Mises vollzieht die Analyse ohne jegliche historische Quelle, sondern beruft sich auf das, was er aus Deutschland damals mitbekommen und erlebt hat. Diese deckt sich dennoch fast 1:1 mit dem heutigen wissenschaftlichen Stand. Daher kann man hier getrost auch auf andere, aktuelle Bücher dazu zurückgreifen.
March 28, 2019
This book totally changed my views on the reasons of WWI and WWII, gave a great deal of information about nationalism, imperialism, history of Germany. I also strongly liked Mises idea of the Eastern Democratic Union. I think it's a great project but unfortunately it's unlikely to become reality because of the stupidity of most Eastern European politicians.
August 8, 2016
Great quote from this book: "No human cooperation and no lasting peace are conceivable if men put loyalty to any particular group above loyalty to humanity, moral law, and the principle of every individual’s moral responsibility and autonomy.”
May 29, 2021
Written in 1944 with allies about to win and with the coming post war problems being very much on Von Mises mind.
The 18th century brought the rise of libertarian thinking in philosophy and fed into the 19th century industrial revolution.
This became tempered by the rise in socialism and communism particularly in Germany. The move towards etatism ie a strong central governmemt and autarky which is total self sufficiency which Von Mises argues only leads to national chauvinism and wars which indeed it did.
Capitalism and a laissez faire market on the other allows and efficient use of capital anywhere in the world and removes overbearing government intervention on economic affairs.
He uses historic examples to dismiss etatism as unworkable as it always needs minority scapegoats to galvanise a people such as a hatred of jews.
Von Mises supports capitalism.
The 18th century brought the rise of libertarian thinking in philosophy and fed into the 19th century industrial revolution.
This became tempered by the rise in socialism and communism particularly in Germany. The move towards etatism ie a strong central governmemt and autarky which is total self sufficiency which Von Mises argues only leads to national chauvinism and wars which indeed it did.
Capitalism and a laissez faire market on the other allows and efficient use of capital anywhere in the world and removes overbearing government intervention on economic affairs.
He uses historic examples to dismiss etatism as unworkable as it always needs minority scapegoats to galvanise a people such as a hatred of jews.
Von Mises supports capitalism.
December 23, 2021
Like almost everything Ludwig von Mises writes, this is a highly logical and methodical evaluation of the past and present state of society and what it means for the future of man. It defines and critiques various political and economic systems, showing how totalitarianism, in its various states, inevitably fails, but liberal democracies have their vulnerabilities too. His thesis is that the total state and total war are anything but inevitable; borders open to trade and migration break down the power of the state and the possibility of war. Written at the height of the Second World War, this offers the interesting perspective of the time, but it also anticipates the global geopolitical landscape of the rest of the 20th century.
January 3, 2022
"He who, in the face of the tremendous catastrophe whose consequences cannot yet be completely seen, still believes that there are some doctrines, institutions, or policies beyond criticism, has not grasped the meaning of the portents. Let the example of Germany stand as a warning to us...Where the universities become bodyguards and the scholars are eager to range themselves in a 'scientific front,' the gates are open for the entry of barbarism."
May 16, 2019
Интересна и полезна книга, която може да се използва като изходна точка за по-задълбочено четене по някои въпроси (етатизъм, интервенционизъм, либерлна мисъл, малко икономика). (все пак странно защо авторът не знае нищо за Ньойския договор, (което, признавам си, радикално развали впечатленията ми от него, както и още едно беумно изказване по отношение на турското иго съвсем в края на книгата.)
August 15, 2020
É o tipo de livro que sei que vou reler em breve. Preciso de uma base melhor de estudo, mas gostei.
Mises faz um resgate histórico desde a Prússia, fala como ela se desenvolveu e como a Alemanha se tornou a Alemanha.
Conta a origem dos pensamentos que estavam dominando a Europa (liberalismo, socialismo e etatismo, que para ele vai virar o nacional socialismo).
Mises faz um resgate histórico desde a Prússia, fala como ela se desenvolveu e como a Alemanha se tornou a Alemanha.
Conta a origem dos pensamentos que estavam dominando a Europa (liberalismo, socialismo e etatismo, que para ele vai virar o nacional socialismo).
May 13, 2022
Ein höchst interessantes Buch, das die Ursachen und die Folgen der Weltkriege sowie kleinerer Konflikte aus Mises‘ Sicht analysiert und eine sehr überzeugende ökonomische Perspektive einführt.
Ein wirklich kämpferisches Buch.
Ein wirklich kämpferisches Buch.
December 18, 2016
a bit outdated and on the positivist end, this book gave me good insight on the liberal doctrine backed by logic flawless a times. some arguments are still very recent. recommended reading.
January 3, 2019
One of the most lucid analysis on the collapse of the liberal order and the rise of totalitarianism.
February 14, 2020
“He who has ears, let him hear”
-Matthew 11:15
-Matthew 11:15
July 25, 2020
Review coming soon.
January 25, 2023
Абсолютна класика на либертарианската мисъл. Задължителна.
October 15, 2019
Must read for reformers of any kind
Read
July 29, 2011Surprisingly for a work by von Mises, this book is mostly a history of 19th and early 20th century Germany explaining the eventual rise of the Nazis. The sections on economics were comparatively short and chiefly dedicated to the thesis that economic nationalism and the strive for autarky must inevitably lead to war and conflict, apropos of the adage that if good don't cross borders, armies will. Mises makes a number of good points in the book, pointing out that the national socialists were indeed socialists and not capitalists of any sort of stripe and that the ideology of statism inevitably propels the most bloodthirsty groups into power because it is precisely the bloodthirsty who are prepared to start killing people when they reach the point where their ideologies inexorably call for it. Mises was however mistaken in his estimation that the Germans would always remain an aggressor nation after the War and that democratic states would need to form a single super-state for their protection after the war ended.
August 24, 2011
Many in America are falling prey to the same lies that ensnared early 20th century Europe. The weak point in our system of government is that it requires a base level of understanding of the principles of sound economics. Those who advocate class warfare, and mass unionization of industry are successful only because of a declining understanding on the part of the masses they manipulate. Ludwig von Mises’ Omnipotent Government helps readers maintain that understanding.
Read my complete review of this book over at What Would The Founders Think?
Read my complete review of this book over at What Would The Founders Think?
August 3, 2012
This is a very good book for people who are not familiar with Mises and/or economics in general. This book is history book above all- covering mostly Germany in the mid-19th century to the time he wrote it (WWII). He not only accurately predicts the downfall of Hitler, he also shows why any such regime is doomed to failure, by touching more upon the economic and epistemological arguments he more thoroughly discusses in some of his larger works, such as Socialism and Human Action. I feel this book's discussion of interventionism and etatism is extremely relevant today, as it goes to far to explain why the US is still in an economic slump (I won't use the term "recession," because according to most in the economic profession, that ended long ago).
Read
August 3, 2011A beautiful writing on the true causes of the rise to power of Adolf Hilter. I've read a few books on the causes of WWII and Hitler and the explanation provided in this book is one of the best accounts I have ever read. If you are interested in WWII, economics, human nature, the general mindset of an advanced "cultured" society like the 19th to early 20th century Germans then this book should be your departure point. Don't stop at Mein Kampf, or any other book supposing the answers to your questions. The cost of entrance to this book is a small sum compared to the understanding you will reach after thumbing through any random 10 pages.
February 20, 2010
This book was absolutely fascinating. While I couldn't completely get behind some of his utilitarian arguments, the book as a whole was passionate, enlightening, and helped me to understand so much more than merely what Nazism was all about. It has helped me to understand where Nazism came from.
Read
September 23, 2010Omnipotent Government by Ludwig Von Mises (2008)
December 21, 2016
Essential economic dissection of the totalitarian mindset.
September 4, 2022
An important book. Can be read together with Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. A lot of important information about Germany from before Bismark to the Nazi regime.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews