Marx was right about capitalism
Hoppe has explained how in his theory of history and class analysis. His main mistake was his understanding of exploitation, which was based on a flawed understanding of the labor theory of value. As Hoppe argues, drawing on Rothbardian libertarian and Austrian insights, the only meaningful exploitation is aggression against private property. Once you understand exploitation in this light, a Marxian style class analysis and understanding of history makes sense.
And Marx was also right about some of his views about capitalism. In the comments section on a recent Mises post, , left-libertarian Charles Johnson :
The term 鈥渃apitalism鈥� was introduced by anti-capitalists but not by Marx. Its most notable early appearance is in Louis Blanc鈥檚 Organisation du Travail (1840), published while Marx was still a grad student in Berlin.
Fun fact: Marx himself actually hardly ever uses the word 鈥� 鈥渃apitalism鈥� (Kapitalismus) appears all of about 2 or 3 times in the whole three volumes of Das Kapital, and hardly anywhere else in all of his work. But he does talk about 鈥渃apitalists鈥� and the 鈥渃apitalistic mode of production鈥� all over the place, and when later Marxist writers took up the term 鈥渃apitalism鈥� from Blanc, Proudhon, and other early adopters (mostly French), it was fairly straightforward to treat the term as more or less equivalent in meaning to Marx鈥檚 鈥渃apitalistic mode of production鈥� (i.e. a mode of production based on concentrated absentee ownership of capital and the hiring of employees to work it).
None of these folks, incidentally, understood the term to mean 鈥渁 free market in land and means of production.鈥� Some (Blanc, Marx) believed that a free market in land and the means of production would inevitably tend to produce capitalistic patterns of ownership and control. Others (Proudhon, Warren, Tucker) dissented, and argued explicitly that a free market in land and the means of production could possibly, or even would naturally tend to, undermine capitalistic patterns of ownership and control (in the sense that large-scale inequalities of wealth would tend to dissipate, absolute poverty would largely disappear, and the working class would become the owning class, no longer subject to perpetual rent or debt, and no longer dependent on relationships with absentee owners of capital in order to make a living); hence (they held) if you were serious about being an anti-capitalist, then you ought to be serious about freeing markets and abolishing the state. On this one, I side with the Anarchists.
I side with Marx, not the 鈥淎narchists,鈥� here: in their belief 鈥渢hat a free market in land and the means of production would inevitably tend to produce capitalistic patterns of ownership and control.鈥� I believe that if you respect private property rights (which the (good) left-libertarians do) then you will end up with a productive, advanced industrialized and 鈥渃apitalist鈥� society with differences in wealth, widespread use of firms, concentration of capitalism, employers and employees and employment, and inequalities in income. And there is nothing wrong with these features, assuming they do not arise due to state intervention or property theft. This does not mean that the capitalist order that would characterize a key aspect of the economy of a free society would be exactly like the one we see today. There may well be more self-employment, more localism, more self-sufficiency, and at the same time even more international trade, more billionaires, more wealth disparities (who can say?), more specialization and division of labor, and even larger 鈥渃ompanies鈥� (formerly known as 鈥渃orporations鈥�) and multi-national enterprises (MNE鈥檚; well as nation-states would not exist, maybe they would be called multi-country firms, or multi-continent-firms) than we see now.
A couple of related points: even to the extent some current property holdings have arisen by unlibertarian acts in the past, as Rothbard explains:
It might be charged that our theory of justice in property titles is deficient because in the real world most landed (and even other) property has a past history so tangled that it becomes impossible to identify who or what has committed coercion and therefore who the current just owner may be. But the point of the 鈥渉omestead principle鈥� is that if we don鈥檛 know what crimes have been committed in acquiring the property in the past, or if we don鈥檛 know the victims or their heirs, then the current owner becomes the legitimate and just owner on homestead grounds. In short, if Jones owns a piece of land at the present time, and we don鈥檛 know what crimes were committed to arrive at the current title, then Jones, as the current owner, becomes as fully legitimate a property owner of this land as he does over his own person. Overthrow of existing property title only becomes legitimate if the victims or their heirs can present an authenticated, demonstrable, and specific claim to the property. Failing such conditions, existing landowners possess a fully moral right to their property. (See my post .)
Also, note that Johnson mentions that the Anarchists he sides with think that in a free market the 鈥渨orking class鈥� would 鈥渘o longer dependent on relationships with absentee owners of capital in order to make a living.鈥� The left-libertarians variously criticize several phenomenon, sometimes lumped together. I think they should be treated separately:
