CONCLUSION

I
Liberals eighteenth century had full confidence in the perfectibility of man. They
argued that all men are created equal and are endowed with the ability to
understand the meaning of complicated deductions and therefore understand the
economic doctrines and social philosophy, and that only in a free market economy
can be found in complete harmony the well understood interests (ie interests in the
long term) of individuals and groups, so that they become reality the liberal utopia.
Humanity is on the eve of a lasting prosperity and eternal peace because henceforth
reason will prevail.
That optimism was based solely on the assumption that the peoples of all races,
nations and regions are intelligent enough to understand the problems of social
cooperation. They should not doubt it happened. They were convinced that nothing
could stop the progress of enlightenment and dissemination of sound thinking. This
kind of optimism was Lincoln when he said that "you can not fool everyone all the
time." Economic theories that the liberal doctrine is based are irrefutable. For over
one hundred and fifty years failed efforts made to prove the falsity of the teachings
of one of the major precursors of totalitarianism and Nazism, Carlyle, called
"sinister science."
All of these self-styled economists were unable to refute the theory of foreign trade
of Ricardo and the doctrines concerning the effects of government interference in
the market economy. Nobody could refute the demonstration that in a socialist
system economic calculation is impossible. They could not refute the
demonstration that in a market economy there is no conflict between interests well
understood. Now, all men understand their true interests? And if you do not

understand? Such is the weakness of the liberal plea for a free world in which
peaceful cooperation prevail. The realization of the liberal plan is impossible,
because at least in our time people would lack the mental capacity to assimilate the
principles of the real economy. Most men are too obtuse to follow complicated
reasoning inferences. Liberalism failed because the intellectual capacity of the vast
majority was insufficient to the task of understanding the full extent. a change can
not be expected in the immediate future.
Men can not see sometimes even the most simple and obvious facts. Nothing
should be easier to realize victory or defeat on the battlefield. But millions of
Germans are firmly convinced that the allies were not the victors in World War I,
but was Germany. No German nationalist has ever recognized that the German
army was defeated in the Mame in 1914 and 1918. If that happens with the
Germans, how can we expect that the Indians, worshipers of the cow, understand
the theories of Ricardo and Bentham? In a democratic world, to the realization of
the socialist plans depend on that most recognize your convenience. Leaving aside
for a moment of scruples concerning the possibility of realization of socialism.
Suppose that the Socialists are right in their appreciation of socialist planning.
Marx, imbued with the mysticism Weltgeist Hegel was convinced that in the
evolution of human affairs operating factors pushing the proletariat, which is the
vast majority, towards the realization of socialism, of course your kind of
socialism. implicitly assumed that socialism is the system that best expresses the
interests of the proletariat, and the proletariat would understand. Franz
Oppenheimer, a professor at the University of Frankfurt, where Marxists
dominated time, once said: "Individuals are often wrong to look after their own
interests; a class, eventually never errs "[135].

Recent Marxists have abandoned these metaphysical illusions. They have had to
face the fact that while socialism is in many countries the creed of the vast
majority, there is no unanimity regarding the kind of socialism that should be
adopted. They have found that there are many kinds of socialism and many parties
that fought bitterly. no longer expect that a single model of socialism find the
approval of the majority or your own ideal is supported by the entire proletariat.
They are convinced that only an elite has intellectual capacity to appreciate the
benefits of genuine socialism. They conclude that called -the elite vanguard of the
proletariat, not the mass- has the sacred duty to seize power by violence,
exterminate opponents and establish the socialist millennium. In a matter of
procedure there is perfect agreement between Lenin and Werner Sombart, between
Stalin and Hitler. They differ only about who form the elite. Liberals can not accept
this solution. They do not believe that a minority, even if the true elite of humanity,
can reduce to silence forever the majority.
They do not believe that humanity can be saved by coercion and oppression.
Foresee that dictatorships lead to endless conflicts, wars and revolutions. A stable
government requires the free consent of the governed. Nor even the tyranny of
despots benvolos- can not bring lasting peace and prosperity. If men are not able
to understand what is best for them, there is no remedy possible. Liberalism is
impracticable because most men do not have sufficient illustration to understand
what it means. In the reasoning of the old liberals it had a psychological error.
They exaggerated the brainpower of the average men and the ability of the elite to
make sensible ideas to the less thoughtful of his fellow citizens. II The essential
points of current international problems can be condensed as follows: Lasting
peace is only possible under perfect capitalism, which so far has not attempted and
will not fully realized. In such a world, the Jefferson, unhampered market

economy, the field of government activity is limited to protect the life, health and
property of individuals against violent or fraudulent aggression. Law, public
administration and the judges treated the same way the natives and foreigners.
There can be no conflict; They are missing the economic causes of war. Free
mobility of labor tends toward equal labor productivity and therefore wage rates
throughout the world. Workers relatively sparsely populated countries that want to
preserve their standard of living through barriers to immigration can not but hurt
workers relatively overpopulated countries. (Also, they will eventually hurt
themselves).
Government intervention in the economy and the activity of trade unions jointly up
domestic production costs, thus reducing the competitiveness of domestic
industries. And even in the short term they would no longer achieve their ends if
they were not complemented by immigration barriers, protection of domestic
production and in terms of export industries, by monopoly. Since any dependence
on foreign trade must restrict government powers of control over economic life,
interventionism necessarily aims at autarky. Socialism, if it is not done on a global
scale, is imperfect if the socialist country relies on imports and therefore should
produce items for sale on the market. No matter which countries they should sell
and buy are socialist or not.
Socialism should also aim at autarky. Protectionism and autarky mean
discrimination against foreign labor and foreign capital. Not only reduce the
productivity of human effort and therefore the standard of living of all countries,
but create international conflicts. There are countries that lack adequate natural
resources can not feed and clothe the population with its own resources. These
countries can only search for autarky embarking on a policy of conquest.
Bellicosity and lust of aggression are they the result of their adherence to the statist

principles. If a national government hinders the most productive use of the

country's resources, harms other countries. The economic backwardness of a
country with rich natural resources provided penalizes the countries whose fate
could be improved with more efficient exploitation of its natural wealth. Statism
seeks equality of individual income within the country. But on the other hand, it
results in the perpetuation of inequalities produced throughout history, between
rich and poor nations. The same considerations that drive the masses of a country
towards a policy of income equality push the peoples of relatively overpopulated
countries to a policy of aggression against relatively unpopulated countries. They
are not willing to bear their relative poverty forever simply because their fathers
were not clever enough to appropriate areas better endowed by nature.
What say the "progressive" in relation to the internal affairs which traditional ideas
of freedom are nothing but a fraud with regard to the poor, and that true freedom
means income- equality, it also proclaimed spokesmen of nations poorly endowed
with natural resources (have not nations) regarding international relations. In the
eyes of German nationalists has no more than freedom: Nahrungsfreiheit (freedom
to import foodstuffs), ie a state of affairs in his country could produce within its
borders food substances and raw materials it needs to enjoy the same standard of
living as the most favored of other nations. Such is their idea of freedom and
equality. They call themselves revolutionaries fighting for their essential rights
against the vested interests of a group of reactionary nations. Also a world socialist
government could abolish historical inequalities between citizens and citizens
relatively overpopulated areas relatively unpopulated areas. However, the same
forces that thwarted the attempts of the old liberals to remove barriers to the free
movement of labor, of consumer goods and capital would be violently opposed to

this kind of world socialist administration. It is unlikely that the relatively

unpopulated country worker renounce its inherited privileges.
It is not likely to accept a policy for a long period of transition would lower their
standard of living and improve not only the material situation of poor countries.
The western worker socialism expects an immediate improvement of their own
situation and vigorously oppose any plan to establish a democratic system of world
government in which their votes would be much less than the vast majority of poor
countries. A federal government can only operate in a free market economy.
Statism requires a strictly centralized government if there is no trade barriers that
isolate some other members. Current plans for world federation, or a federation of
Western democracies, are therefore illusory.
The people who refuse to abandon statism can only escape the curse of economic
nationalism giving all power to a unified world or a union of democratic nations
supranational government. But unfortunately the vested interests of powerful
lobbies opposed to surrendering national sovereignty. It is useless to surrender to
dreams. State control of the economy engenders conflicts for which no peaceful
solution. It was easy to prevent unarmed men and products crossing borders; It is
much more difficult to prevent the passing armies. Socialists and other statists
could dismiss or silence the voices warning of economists. But they could not
ignore and silence the roar reduce the canyon or the bursting of bombs. All speech
advocates of the omnipotence of the State can not override the fact that no more
than a system that can bring lasting peace: free market economy. State control
leads to economic nationalism, and this, in turn, conflict.