The UN Will Soon Control Food Distribution In America with Devastating Results

The UN Will Soon Control Food Distribution In America with Devastating Results

A string of coincidences occurred, yesterday, to produce some undeniable conclusions which could very well have very dire consequences for millions of Americans.

Using Food As a Weapon

Since 2011, I have noted that it is likely that at some critical juncture, Obama will use food as a weapon against an uncooperative population. My previous conclusion was based largely on the content of Executive Order (EO) 13603.

Coupled with this knowledge, The Common Sense Show has learned the following approximately 5 months ago:

Jade Helm is back and it is back and it is back  with a vengeance. Jade Helm 15 has morphed into Unconventional Warfare Exercise 16 (UWEX 16).

UWEX 16 is about fighting a civil war against rogue American troops who will, presumably, not go along with the imposition of tyranny under the banner of the UN flag with the complicit support of foreign troops.

There is a new twist to Jade Helm 16 (i.e. UWEX 16).

I have learned from reliable sources that Jade Helm 16 is also about controlling the shipment of all food. If one thinks this sounds outrageous, stay tuned, because the circumstantial evidence clearly points in this direction.

My investigation was initiated when I received the following email:

To the staff of The Common sense show:

My cousin is deployed in Army Spec. Ops at Ft. Bragg. He is going to be expected to take part in guerrilla warfare drills against rogue military forces. After arriving at Ft. Bragg, he was still permitted to leave the base. We live in Texas and drove to meet him. When we went to lunch. he had all of use leave our cell phones in the car and we walked a block to eat dinner.  He said that they were beginning to receive briefings about taking on rogue military units in a guerrilla war scenario.  He assumes they are American military units, but they were not told that when he was presented with their newly created training specs.

He has a role in this exercise, but I will not reveal the nature, as we do not identify him. He said he is being moved from Ft. Bragg to another base that has not yet been identified. He suspects that it is in the area because their deployment gear remains the same. He told us that he fears the drill could go live for many reasons…

Since the beginning of 2016, I have received several confirmations that indeed  UWEX 16 is in part about controlling the distribution of food as well as protecting against a guerrilla attack upon food distribution centers which will be controlled by Wal-Mart and Sams Club under the auspices of DHS.

In November’s 2014, the controversy surrounding the $36 reduction in food stamp entitlements continued to settle in, reports covering the past several months, regarding the government spending over $80 million to protect its own buildings from food stamp rioters, continues to concern those who are following the rapid increases in food prices across the planet.

Additionally, and presently, one million of the nation’s poorest people will be cut off SNAP (formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) over the course of 2016, due to the return in many areas of a three-month limit on SNAP benefits for unemployed adults aged 18-49 who aren’t disabled or raising minor children. The new federal regulations call for individuals to lose their food assistance benefits after three months regardless of how hard they are looking for work.  The impact will mostly be felt in the 22 states that are adopting the new federal guidelines to the letter of the law.

In recent weeks, EBT has been in the news again when recipient EBT card holders could not access food because their cards were not functioning properly. Many have seen this for what it is, a BETA test to disrupt EBT cards leading to martial law because of the resulting food riots in yet another false flag attack.

I have learned from reliable sources that the food riots being practiced for in Jade Helm 16 (UWEX 16) are related to EBT cards as well as other variables. I have also learned from confidential sources that this same drill is practicing for the control of food distribution (i.e. using food as a weapon of compliance). 

Obama’s EO 13603, released in 2011,  clearly speaks to these goals.

With the stroke of his pen, Obama has total and absolute control over all food where his EO 13603 states:

e)  “Food resources” means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption.  “Food resources” also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.

(f)  “Food resource facilities” means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer…”

This unconstitutional EO is particularly disturbing in that it clearly states that the government has control over anything that is “capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals…”

I first wrote about this in the fall of 2015. I wrote about it again in February of this year. However, there is new information that unexpectedly came to me from two different sources which continues to add to this mystery.

Insider Source Reveals that the UN Will Control Food Distribution

Yesterday, I was contacted by one of my most reliable sources. In the course of our conversation, he revealed that the United Nations is in the process of being allowed to control several key communications facilities, to UN control, in an attempt to manage the martial law that is coming our way. In the course of our conversation, my source was called away with a promise to contact me later in the same day. In the interim, I had a very revealing conversation.

John Moore and Paul Martin

Paul Martin called me late yesterday afternoon with information that our mutual friend and colleague, John Moore, is stating that UN forces are being housed at Buckley Air Base in Aurora, Colorado, and that they are being kept segregated from the domestic forces stationed at the base.

Late last night, I heard back from my source and he confirmed that Buckley is one of the facilities that will be given over to the UN when domestic unrest unfolds in this country. I asked him why Buckley? He stated that the base has unique command and control communications features that will be needed to coordinate the movement of martial law troops and the control of resources. This is not the first time that Buckley Air Base has been in my wheel house.

In late Jule of 2014, Steve Quayle posted a Q alert on his website regarding the presence of Russian soldiers who have been spotted in the Aurora Mall area (near Exposition and Sable Blvd located in Aurora, Colorado which is an eastern suburb of Denver). I grew up give five minutes from the base and have sources that were able to confirm Steve’s report. By the way the Aurora Mall area is where the movie theater is located in which the infamous Batman shooting took place. Also, there are Russians, in large numbers in Colorado. The majority of the Russians in Colorado are housed at Ft.Carson, just south of Colorado Springs nearly 80 miles away from the Aurora Mall. Based upon what I have learned, these Russians are not representing the Russian military, they are part of a United Nations contingent and they are being trained for their role in the upcoming domestic riots and civil insurrection.

Operation Mountain Guardian was a disaster drill and a Continuity of Government exercise.

There are also reportedly Russians under the Denver International Airport (DIA), 20 miles to the north of the mall and they have been there since Operation Mountain Guardian which was a disaster drill held in Denver in 2011. The underground structures, located beneath DIA are part of the Continuity of Government program. Many federal administrative programs have been transferred to Denver from Washington DC (i.e. CIA) in case of a devastating attack upon the Capital.

Second, I am aware that there has been a contingency of Russian soldiers living in Aurora who are affiliated with Buckley Air Base which is located five miles west of the Aurora mall. The Russians have been in Colorado since at least 2011 which was the date that corresponds to Operation Mountain Guardian. One can Google Operation Mountain Guardian (OMG-2011) on the search engine of the Common Sense Show where I have written multiple analyses. In short, OMG was about transporting Denver school children from their schools to Sports Authority Field in Denver and holding the children until the parents showed up (to the FEMA camp). The parents, in this case were played by crisis actors. Also at OMG, they practiced food distribution, or the withholding of food.

The “stationing” of Russian soldiers at Buckley Air Base is significant because the base is known for its top secret command and control grid related to the space based platforms satellite surveillance system. The knowledge of this program is not very well-guarded, but the operation details are impossible to penetrate as I have tried for sometime to develop confidential sources in regard to the base and its clandestine mission. The fact that the Russians are in the area, should be concerning to all since we are on the edge of war with Russian over Syria, Iran and Ukraine. Please note the following pictures:

The secrecy surrounding the base has to do with these “golf balls”, which are pictured immediately above. These devices are not weather monitoring devices, communication enablers as advertised. The golf balls have been the source of several cover stories put forth by the Air Force, none of which, makes any sense. The only other place that we see these structures, that I am aware of, is at Pine Gap. The last sentence should get your attention!

These structures are among our nation’s top secrets and the fact that the Russians are within a short jog should be concerning. Buckley AFB is part of the Air Force Space Command.

I would also admonish all to ignore any source which states that they know the true mission of this base. I have known people on the inside of this base and nobody is talking. However, we can say for certain that this base, with its communications capabilities will give whomever controls Buckley unbridled access to all communications which is what would be desired in a martial law scenario.

Here are the officially listed operations associated with this mystery base:
Headquarters, Colorado Air National Guard 
2nd Space Warning Squadron 
8th Space Warning Squadron 
566th Information Operations Squadron 
Detachment 45, Air Force Technical Applications Center 
Detachment 801, Air Force Office of Special Investigations 
Aerospace Data Facility 
Navy Marine Corps Reserve Center 
Combined Task Force 
Air Force Auditing Agency 
Colorado Army National Guard 
Civil Air Patrol

I am certain that the Russians are concerned about the three highlighted functions of the base listed above. I am convinced that when domestic trouble commences, this base will serve as command and control for the imposition of martial law. And when we hear, see and read about multiple reports of UN vehicles being transported around the country, we should consider this to be the pre-positioning of assets designed to enforce the takeover of key facilities such as Buckley.

There are more facts that I covered last night which serve to bolster this conclusion supporting a UN takeover.

Walmart and Sam’s Club

It has long been established that Walmart has long ago adopted military-style distribution strategies. It was thought at one time that Walmart would be doing their patriotic duty in a time of war. That is no longer my operating hypothesis. Walmart is part of the plot to control the distribution of crticial assets in times of domestic unrest. In short, and in cooperation with FEMA and DHS, Walmart has the largest distribution processing centers in the world. Their three main product areas are food, clothes (called fashion) and medicine. In light of the Walmart closings, without proper justification in 2015, and the subsequent reopenings, one would assume that this was part of the reason for Walmart’s anomalous behavior in the Summer of 2015.

MWPVL did an in-depth study of Walmart’s distribution centers and the conclusions are staggering as to what they can do and what they are up to. If one was to want to control food and medicine distribution and create an artificial shortage designed to get the needy to turn themselves into a FEMA camp to obtain critical resources, Walmart is your place. Here is a list of Walmart distribution centers across America.

More support for the idea that the military/DHS will use a private contractor to control the use and release of critical resources (i.e. food and medicine) comes from a quartermaster report entitled Distribution and Supply Chain Management: Educating the Army Officer A Monograph by Lieutenant Colonel Mark E. Solseth U.S. Army, Quartermaster.

This very lengthy analysis described the Army’s transition from a mass-based logistical system to a distribution-based system which matches Walmart and Sams Club. It also discussed supply chain management from both a military and commercial perspective. The dots are connecting in a very disturbing manner.

Conclusion

There is no need for hyperbola or an in-depth analysis. The facts are clear. The United Nations has been handed the keys to the command and control centers. The United Nations will decide who eats and who starves and they have the perfect bait to lure people to FEMA camps, which they rehearsed doing in 2011.

Based upon the existing documentation, it is difficult for me to draw any other conclusion. If there alternative interpretations of the same facts, please leave them in the comments section of this article.

Governments want efficient technicians, not human beings

Governments want efficient technicians, not human beings

My open leader to the united nations and countries of our world and its people 

“Governments want efficient technicians, not human beings, because human beings become dangerous to governments – and to organized religions as well. That is why governments and religious organizations seek to control education.”

The government of the United States murders more innocent people than any other organization on the planet. If that would stop, so would so-called terrorism. The US has cheated and murdered peoples of foreign lands for generations now claiming that the country those people live in have resources or something else that the US deems critical to our national security. What that means is, because we want what doesn't belong to us, we're going to get all we want for a price we want to pay whether we have to cheat, steal, or murder to get it and if anyone resist, they must be terrorists... people we will destroy if we have to. We generally don't cut off people's heads, but what we do, ends or destroys their lives just as effectively, if not as dramatically. How about telling the truth about what's going on, for if we can't find a way to do that, things will never get any better. What is required here is a little more truth, honor, dignity, compassion, courage, and love

“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."

Here is the issue of our times 

Civil disobedience. As soon as you say the topic is civil disobedience, you are saying our problem is civil disobedience. That is not our problem.... Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is the numbers of people all over the world who have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. And our problem is that scene in All Quiet on the Western Front where the schoolboys march off dutifully in a line to war. Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world, in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem. We recognize this for Nazi Germany. We know that the problem there was obedience, that the people obeyed Hitler. People obeyed; that was wrong. They should have challenged, and they should have resisted; and if we were only there, we would have showed them. Even in Stalin's Russia we can understand that; people are obedient, all these herdlike people.

But America is different. That is what we've all been brought up on. From the time we are this high and I still hear it resounding in Mr. Frankel's statement-you tick off, one, two, three, four, five lovely things .~ about America that we don't want disturbed very much. But if we have learned anything in the past ten years, it is that these lovely things about America were never lovely. We have been expansionist and aggressive and mean to other people from the beginning. And we've been aggressive and mean to people in this country, and we've allocated the wealth of this country in a very unjust way. We've never had justice in the courts for the poor people, for black people, for radicals. Now how can we boast that America is a very special place? It is not that special. It really isn't.

Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.” You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed. When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.

To meet the challenges of our times

"I don't know how to save the world. I don't have the answers or The Answer. I hold no secret knowledge as to how to fix the mistakes of generations past and present. I only know that without compassion and respect for all Earth's inhabitants, none of us will survive - nor will we deserve to.

We believe that to meet the challenges of our times, human beings will have to develop a greater sense of universal responsibility. Each of us must learn to work not just for one self, one's own family or one's nation, but for the benefit of all humankind. Universal responsibility is the key to human survival. It is the best foundation for world peace.

Pease forward this to as many of your contacts that you can and ask them to support this cause and to forward it to their contacts as well.

Thanks for your support if you would like to make a donation please do so by going to our gofundme/urbansurvivalpacks or contact me personally Joseph F Barber founder  @ 760 643 6134 to make a Contribution to the  family assistance campaign  or the Veterans project by contacting  :Suzanne Button Manager , contact the project @ 442-251-6553



People who believe in the sanctity of life

https://digg.com/u/Docbarber
THE FAMILY ASSISTANCE CAMPAIGN

Sponsored by Tradesmen Company@Joseph Barber Master carpenter Builder / Tradesmen






To protect our independence, We take no government funds

“You gotta remember, establishment, it’s just a name for evil. The monster doesn’t care whether it kills all the students or whether there’s a revolution. It’s not thinking logically, it’s out of control.”—John Lennon (1969)

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX LIVE OUTSIDE THE CAGE

Pro Deo et Constitutione –
Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilans Fortis
Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber
twitter.com/Tradesmenservic

tradesmen.blogspot.com

facebook.com/JosephBarberMastercarpenterBuilder

josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com

twitter.com/toptradesmen

facebook.com/lawfulrebelion

facebook.com/JosephBarberMastercarpenterBuilder

the-family-assistants-campaign.blogspot.com

plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom

https://www.gofundme.com/URBAN-SURVIVAL-PACKS



Militant nonviolent resistance works.

Peaceful, prolonged protests work.

Mass movements with huge numbers of participants work.
Yes, America, it is possible to use occupations and civil disobedience to oppose government policies, counter injustice and bring about change outside the confines of the ballot box.
https://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/2016/12/power-to-people-john-lennons-legacy.html

https://www.facebook.com/notes/joseph-f-barber/this-is-my-doctrine/10151167151454984/

Nazis Were Not Marxists, but They Were Socialists

Nazis Were Not Marxists, but They Were Socialists

The abject practical failure of the Marxist revolutionaries in the post-WWI period had done much harm to their image as the vanguard of social progress.

The explanation for this failure in the writings of Mises, Max Weber, and Boris Brutzkus had led many economists to revise their views about the suitable scope of government within society. But others remained unrepentant advocates of the total state. They merely rejected the specifically egalitarian agenda of the socialists.

The uncontested leader of this group was Werner Sombart, the greatest star among the interwar economists in Germany. Sombart had started his career popularizing Marxism in academic circles with his 1896 book Sozialismus und soziale Bewegung im 19. Jahrhundert (Socialism and Social Action in the Nineteenth Century).1Later editions testified to Sombart’s increasing estrangement with his initial Marxist ideals. The tenth edition, which appeared under a new title in 1924, featured an outright demolition of Marxist socialism.2 Sombart had turned back to the mainstream Schmollerite socialism, which advocated the total state without an egalitarian agenda.3

Sombart’s intellectual qualities had gained him a place of preeminence. Where most Marxist intellectuals held dogmatically to the tenets of Marx and Engels, Sombart sought to analyze and develop their doctrines with a critical mind in quest of objectivity. This made his work the perfect target for a thorough criticism of the intellectual current of anti-Marxist socialism, and Mises provided such a criticism in an article with the title “Antimarxismus” (Anti-Marxism).4

Already in his article on price controls, Mises had pointed out that the shortcomings of interventionism did not result from the egalitarian agenda that some governments pursued, but from the very nature of government intervention itself, namely, the infringement of private property rights. Socialism and interventionism were destructive economic systems whether explicitly egalitarian or not. They would be unsuitable forms of social organization even if they pursued some other ideal of distribution—even meritocracy. There might be certain superficial similarities between a free society and a non-egalitarian one controlled by a total state, but these two would still be essentially different:

On the surface the social ideal of etatism does not differ from the social order of capitalism. Etatism does not seek to overthrow the traditional legal order and formally convert all private property in production to public property. . . . But in substance all enterprises are to become government operations. Under this practice, the owners will keep their names and trademarks on the property and the right to an “appropriate” income or one “befitting their ranks.” Every business becomes an office and every occupation a civil service. . . . Prices are set by government, and government determines what is to be produced, how it is to be produced, and in what quantities. There is no speculation, no “extraordinary” profits, no losses. There is no innovation, except for that ordered by government. Government guides and supervises everything.5

Mises showed that the error in the idea of the omnipotent state has nothing to do with the state’s particular agenda. The government is not omnipotent if its goal is to improve “collective life” (as opposed to that of mere aggregates of individuals). But neither is it omnipotent if it seeks to enhance the welfare of the totality of individual citizens. In both cases, government intervention is counterproductive. It follows that the time-honored and seemingly significant distinction between individualism and collectivism is of only secondary importance. The primary distinction is between policies that work and policies that do not work, which leads in turn to the distinction between a social order based on private property (which works) and those social orders that depend on infringements of private property rights (and do not work). It is therefore beside the point whether individuals or collectives run the economy—provided only that the property rights of all individual members of the collectives are preserved. It also follows that the size of the firmis of no importance. As long as private property is respected, the buying decisions of the consumers reward only those companies that offer the best products. If these companies are larger than others, so be it.6

Mises emphasized this fact against the doctrines of Dietzel, Karl Pribram, and Spann, which had a great influence on interwar political thought in Germany and, after World War II, in the wider western world. Dietzel and Pribram sided with individualism, whereas Spann championed collectivism, but they all agreed that these were the ultimate categories and that all political points of view derived from them.7 Mises disagreed.

He argued that there was a point of view that was derived from neither individualism nor collectivism, namely, the utilitarian method of social analysis.8 He had already proved how successful this method was in analyzing the static and dynamic problems of social “wholes” such as language communities, and he emphasized that the analysis of such wholes is the very point of theoretical social science.9 It was fallacious to believe that individual action could be understood out of its wider social context, just as it was false that the proper understanding of social wholes required that the social analysis itself be holistic.

The utilitarian method alone was a truly scientific one because it traced all social phenomena back to facts of experience:

The utilitarian social doctrine does not engage in metaphysics, but takes as its point of departure the established fact that all living beings affirm their will to live and grow. The higher productivity of labor performed in division of labor, when compared with isolated action, is ever more uniting individuals to association. Society is division and association of labor.10

Each person seeks to enhance his welfare, and cooperative labor is more productive than isolated labor. Therefore, insofar as the growth of a person’s welfare presupposes greater quantities of material goods, the person can best attain his ends by engaging in a division of labor. This is how society comes into being.

All elements in this economic explanation of society are ascertainable facts. In contrast, the doctrines of individualism and collectivism do not lend themselves to any such causal explanation of the origin of society because they are based on postulates rather than on analysis of fact. And Mises proceeded to show that the same criticism also applied to the Marxist theory of proletarian class struggle. He did not deny that human history featured many group conflicts and that they often had great importance for the course of events. Rather, he argued that the fashionable struggle theories—of which the Marxist theory of class struggle was but one particular instance—purported to be much more than they really were. Group conflicts were not, and could not possibly be, the basic elements of human life. The real question was how any group could come into existence in the first place. One first had to explain the formation of groups before one could explain the struggle between them. But all struggle theorists, Marx included, failed on this front.

The reason for this negligence is not difficult to detect. It is impossible to demonstrate a principle of association that exists within a collective group only, and that is inoperative beyond it. If war and strife are the driving forces of all social development, why should this be true for classes, races, and nations only, and not for war among all individuals? If we take this warfare sociology to its logical conclusion we arrive at no social doctrine at all, but at “a theory of unsociability.”11

Mises pointed out that Marx’s theory of class struggle even failed to give an empirical account of its most basic concept. What is a “class” in the Marxist sense? Marx had never defined it. “And it is significant that the posthumous manuscript of the third volume of Das Kapital halts abruptly at the very place that was to deal with classes.” Mises went on:

Since his death more than forty years have passed, and the class struggle has become the cornerstone of modern German sociology. And yet we continue to await its scientific definition and delineation. No less vague are the concepts of class interests, class condition, and class war, and the ideas on the relationship between conditions, class interests, and class ideology.12

Werner Sombart, along with the great majority of German sociologists of whom he was the undisputed leader, had adopted the Marxist view that proletarian class struggle was the ultimate driving force in modern societies. He was now an opponent of Marxist ideology, but his analyses still remained Marxian. He merely refrained from drawing all the practical conclusions, which Marx and the Marxists had consistently deduced, from the theory of class struggle. He did not and could not provide an alternative to the Marxist scenario of social evolution. His only objection came in the form of a postulate: things should not happen as they would happen according to the theory of class struggle, therefore government should resist such developments. Yet with this admission, Sombart and the bulk of the German sociologists had again left the realm of science and entered that of religion and ethics. Sombart in fact championed a return to medieval forms of social organization—the guilds—just as Keynes in England proposed “a return, it may be said, towards medieval conceptions of separate autonomies.”13 Similarly, the few theorists who had thoroughly criticized Marx’s concept of class struggle, like Othmar Spann, marveled at the alleged blessings of national socialism in the middle ages.

Mises concluded:

for every scientific thinker the objectionable point of Marxism is its theory, which seems to cause no offence to the Anti-Marxist. . . . The Anti-Marxist merely objects to the political symptoms of the Marxian system, not to its scientific content. He regrets the harm done by Marxian policies to the German people, but is blind to the harm done to German intellectual life by the platitudes and deficiencies of Marxian problems and solutions. Above all, he fails to perceive that political and economic troubles are consequences of this intellectual calamity. He does not appreciate the importance of science for everyday living, and, under the influence of Marxism, believes that “real” power instead of ideas is shaping history.14

“Anti-Marxism” caused outrage among the Marxists. What was Mises’s sin? First, he had dared criticize the great master with a penetrating analysis of the incurable shortcomings of Marx’s theory of class struggle. Second, he had again contended that from an economic point of view Marxist socialism was not essentially different from the various new brands of national socialism that had begun to spring up in the 1920s, mostly in reaction against Marxist movements. Thus a fraction of Italian socialists, who rejected the teachings of Marx and called themselves “Fascists,” rose to power under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. There was also a movement of non-Marxist “National Socialists” in Germany. The father of this movement was Friedrich Naumann who, by a strange coincidence, later came to be regarded as the godfather of twentieth-century German liberalism.15 The leader of the National Socialists from the 1920s until their bitter end was, of course, Adolf Hitler.

Marxist socialists vociferously object to being classified under the same heading that includes Fascist Socialists and National Socialists. But as Mises showed, all distinctions between these groups are on the surface. Economically, they are united.

Excerpted with minor revision from Mises: Last Knight of Liberalism.

—

1.Before Sombart’s appearance, the German universities received Marx’s writings very critically. In the United States, too, the rise of Marxism encountered the same reservations in academic circles until, some forty-five years after Sombart, Joseph Schumpeter popularized Marx as an important thinker in his Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (New York: Harper & Row, 1942).

2.Werner Sombart, Der proletarische Sozialismus (“Marxismus”), 10th ed., 2 vols. (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1924).

3.Here is the most favorable thing Mises had to say about Sombart: “He was highly gifted, but at no time did he endeavor to think and work seriously. … And yet, it was more stimulating to talk to Sombart than to most other professors. At least he was not stupid and obtuse.” Mises, Erinnerungen (Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag, 1978), p. 68; Notes and Recollections (Spring Mills, Penn.: Libertarian Press, 1978), p. 103.

4.Mises, “Antimarxismus,” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 21 (1925) reprinted in Mises, Kritik des Interventionismus, pp. 91–122; translated as “Anti-Marxism,” in A Critique of Interventionism, pp. 107–38.

5.Mises, Kritik des Interventionismus, pp. 124f.; A Critique of Interventionism, pp. 140f.

6.Keynes was convinced that, in attacking and criticizing individualism, he had destroyed the case for laissez-faire. See John Maynard Keynes, The End of Laissez-Faire (London: Hogarth Press, 1926), pp. 39f. The postulate of a dichotomy between individualism and collectivism led Keynes to anticipate the now-famous Coasean view on the problem of optimal social organization. Thus Keynes surmised that the “ideal size for the unit of control and organization lies somewhere between the individual and the modern State” (ibid., p. 41). The Coasean theory is best expressed in Ronald Coase, The Firm, the Market, and the Law (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).

7.Heinrich Dietzel, “Individualismus,” Handwörterbuch der Staaswissenschaften, 4th ed. (1923), vol. 5; Alfred Pribram, Die Entstehung der individualistischen Sozialphilosophie (Leipzig: Hirschfeld, 1912); Othmar Spann, Der Wahre Staat (Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer, 1921).

8.Mises, Kritik des Interventionismus, pp. 95f., 111. He stated:
In the final analysis, there is no conflict of interest between society and the individual, as everyone can pursue his interests more efficiently in society than in isolation. The sacrifices the individual makes to society are merely temporary, surrendering a small advantage in order to attain a greater one. This is the essence of the often cited doctrine of the harmony of interests. (A Critique of Interventionism, pp. 112f.)

9.“What society is, how it originates, how it changes—these alone can be the problems which scientific sociology sets itself.” Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1981). To be perfectly clear, Mises believed that the positive analysis of the emergence and transformation of social wholes had to rely on methodological individualism. Based on this analysis, one could apply the utilitarian method, that is, raise the question whether any given policy was suitable to attain its goals. Othmar Spann rejected not only individualism as a political orientation, but also as a methodological device.

10.Mises, Kritik des Interventionismus, p. 96; A Critique of Interventionism, p. 112.

11.Mises, Kritik des Interventionismus, p. 100; A Critique of Interventionism, p. 116. Mises quotes here Paul Barth, Die Philosophie der Geschichte als Soziologie, 3rd ed. (Leipzig: Reisland, 1922), p. 260.

12.Mises, Kritik des Interventionismus, pp. 101f.; A Critique of Interventionism, pp. 117f.

13.Keynes, The End of Laissez-Faire, pp. 42f.

14.Mises, Kritik des Interventionismus, p. 121; A Critique of Interventionism, p. 137.

15.See Ralph Raico, Die Partei der Freiheit (Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius, 1999), chap. 6.

The Best of Jörg Guido Hülsmann

Jörg Guido Hülsmann is senior fellow of the Mises Institute and author of and . He teaches in France, at Université d'Angers.

Previous article by Jörg Guido Hülsmann: Charity Needs Markets

A Cancer on the Papacy?

Trump Is Right About ‘Flipping’