This file is a short single-author polemical essay by Ludwig von Mises, originally a response to a 1957 questionnaire. Its scope is broad despite its brevity: Mises links postwar interventionism, inflation, anti-capitalist morality, decolonization, and Cold War ideology to one central diagnosis—the abandonment of classical liberalism understood as private property, market coordination, and economic freedom.
Mises’s main thesis is that modern history is intelligible as the decline of liberalism and the return of doctrines of conflict: class against class, nation against nation, race against race. Against Marxian and nationalist assumptions, he argues that the market economy harmonizes “rightly understood” long-run interests through private property and the division of labor.
It is the essence of this history, the only fact that matters.
Capitalism, in Mises’s account, is not rule by “big business” but consumer sovereignty. Large-scale enterprise exists because it serves mass demand; the ordinary buyer, not the planner, directs production by buying and abstaining from buying.
The characteristic principle of capitalism is mass production for the satisfaction of the wants of the masses. Industry serves, first of all the consumers, the much-talked-about common man.
This is also his answer to moral critics of capitalism. Those who denounce “materialism” while wanting to help the poor misunderstand the means by which poverty is relieved. For Mises, higher output is not ethically trivial: it is the condition for lower infant mortality, reduced famine, and rising living standards.
Economics shows that no other thinkable system of society's economic organization could attain the degree of productivity which capitalism attains.
The essay’s central conceptual move is its attack on “moderate” interventionism. Mises denies that there is a stable third way between capitalism and socialism. Each interference with prices, wages, interest, profits, or investment distorts market coordination; when the result disappoints its own advocates, they add another intervention. Thus reformism becomes gradual socialization.
Interventionism cannot be considered a lasting system of society's economic organization. It is a method of realizing socialism by installment.
He makes the point starkly by reducing economic order to a question of command: either factors of production follow consumer demand through markets or they follow coercive political direction.
A concrete factor of production—for instance a specific piece of steel—can either be used according to the orders of the consumers or according to the orders of the police. There is nothing in between.
Mises then applies this logic to money and the business cycle. Credit expansion can manufacture a temporary boom, but only by falsifying market signals; depression follows not from capitalism as such but from monetary intervention. His demand for sound money is therefore not technical but constitutional: without it, interventionism continually escapes its failures through inflation.
But the boom artificially created by credit expansion cannot last. It must end in a general depression of trade, an economic crisis.
The essay’s geopolitical section extends the same argument to “underdeveloped” countries. Mises attributes Western prosperity not to exploitation but to legal institutions securing property, judicial independence, capital accumulation, and investment. Anti-capitalist doctrines, he argues, led new nations to reject the very institutions that made Western development possible.
What was lacking and is still lacking in the East is the spirit of freedom, which generated that great concept of the individual's rights that no one must infringe upon.
The closing section defines the role of dissenters. Since public opinion often mislabels interventionist failure as capitalist failure, Mises fears that crisis will drive societies toward Soviet-style planning unless genuine liberalism is intellectually recovered.
These people will not see that what failed was not capitalism, not the system of the unhampered market economy, but interventionism.
The work remains relevant as a compact statement of Mises’s mature liberalism: private property as the legal foundation of civilization, consumer sovereignty as the meaning of economic democracy, sound money as a barrier against political manipulation, and interventionism as an unstable path toward socialism. Its polemical force lies in refusing compromise categories: for Mises, economic freedom is not one policy preference among others but the institutional condition of prosperity, peace, and civilization.
This work was divided into 9 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 9 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian