David M. Hart

Augustin Thierry, “The Emancipation of the Bourgeoisie” (1853)

Thierry, a historian, chronicles a 600-year struggle for emancipation of the “inferior and oppressed classes” into a free and independent bourgeoisie, literally the inhabitants of the free towns and cities of Europe. Two forces were at work. One from the north was the Gallo-Frankish system of municipal, communal government; the other from the south was the Roman notion of city governance by consuls within a Roman legal framework of natural law. The two combined and created a unique system of city governance which acknowledged the right of resistance to unjust rule, equality under the law for all inhabitants of the city, and the dignity of labor. Out of the city charters evolved the idea of constitutions which limited the power of the rulers and guaranteed the rights of the citizens.

Roderick T. Long, “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Class” (1998)

There are libertarian movements that can be seen as socialist, capitalist, and populist. All of these groups can profit from an understanding of class in which political differences are viewed as foundational vis-a-vis economic ones. Such an understanding of class, Smithian in nature, is superior to Marx’s. The ruling class should be seen as including both state actors and economic actors outside the state, with each of these subgroups jockeying for power with the other.

Murray N. Rothbard, “The Anatomy of the State” (1965)

The state is not beneficial, Rothbard emphasizes, but exploitative. It is not the expression of the will or the servant of the interests of the people (though majoritarianism is itself unjust) but an instrument of class domination. The state attempts to secure and maintain control over the use of force in order to exploit its subjects. Democratic rhetoric, for instance, like that of the divine right of kings, serves to mask the character of the state as an instrument of class rule and to mobilize support for state policies. The state seeks self-preservation and self-expansion, notably through war.

Ludwig von Mises, “On Castes, Classes, and Group Interests” (1945)

The classical liberal economist Mises was reluctant to use the word “class” because he thought it was a thoroughly Marxist term. Instead he used alternative words to express the same idea, speaking, for instance, of the “clash of group interests” and the emergence of a “new caste system.” He fits into the classical liberal tradition of thinking about class because the key aspect in his mind was a group’s use of its access to state power as a means of acquiring privileges at the expense of others. In his words, vested interests “can be welded together into a group with solidarity of interests (a class) only when (political) privilege intervenes.” In the mid-twentieth century that “group with solidarity of interests” was made up of industrial producers who controlled state policy in most western countries.

William Leggett, “The Lordlings of the Paper Dynasty” (1834)

The Jacksonian democrat Leggett mocked the “scrip nobility” and “chartered libertines” who had emerged in America after the War of 1812 and lived by seeking government monopoly bank charters, loans and deals to launch canal projects, and interest earned from government loans and debt. He objected to their opposition to ordinary working people, those who worked with their own hands, forming associations and joining political parties to protect their own interests. He reminded them that there was no hereditary nobility in America and that they might well end up as poor as the ordinary working people they now disdained.

Richard Cobden, “England Is a Perfect Paradise for the Aristocracy” (1845–49)

The English cotton manufacturer and politician Cobden brilliantly used class analysis to get the protectionist corn laws repealed in 1846. He argued that tariffs and restrictions on imported grain benefited the class of aristocratic land owners at the expense of the class of middle and industrious English people and used his rhetorical skills to rip away “the transparent veil of mystification” which hid how this was accomplished. He also was able to split the landowning class and use threats of further political upheavals to intimidate those who refused to reform the unequal system of taxation, whom he mockingly called “the Noodles and Doodles of the aristocracy.”

Richard Overton, “Monopolists as Frogs and Vermin” (1641)

The English Leveller Richard Overton uses biblical references like plagues of frogs and “Diabolical Parasites” to criticize those who have government-issued monopolies for the sale of goods like soap, playing cards, butter, salt, and tobacco which they use to exploit ordinary consumers. He wittily appeals to Parliament for help in putting an end to “the Tyranny of these insulting Projectors.”

Benjamin R. Tucker, “The Four Monopolies: Money, Land, Tariffs, and Patents” (1888)

The American individualist anarchist Tucker argues that Marxist or State Socialism made a serious error in pursuing the principle of “Authority,” that is “the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice.” His preferred philosophy was that “all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished.” In order to do this, Tucker argued that the “four monopolies” which protected the interests of certain classes of people should be got rid of: the monopolies of money, land, tariffs, and patents.

William Graham Sumner, “Democracy and Plutocracy” (Undated)

Sumner distinguishes between capital which is acquired and used “industrially” and capital which is used “politically.” By politically, Sumner means the purchase of political privileges by plutocrats (owners of capital) though such things as lobbying politicians; funding party organizations, primaries, and conventions to get one’s own way; and bribing legislatures to grant artificial monopolies and other privileges. He concludes that the system of plutocracy is “the most sordid and debasing form of political energy known to us.”

Lysander Spooner, No Treason. No. VI. The Constitution of No Authority (1870)

Spooner in his inimitable style asks who exactly are the people who rule over us and how are they, a minority, able to rule over us, the majority? His answer is that behind the facade of Kings in Europe and Presidents in America, the real rulers are the “class of money-lenders” who lend money to governments to pay for their police and armies. The governments in turn reward their supporters with monopolies, tariffs, and unequal taxes of various kinds.