From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy: A Tale of Moral and Economic Folly and Decay by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy: A Tale of Moral and Economic Folly and Decay Reviews

• 
  Amin

  تز اصلی کتاب، قابل تامل و رادیکال است. گذار از آریستوکراسی به پادشاهی و سپس به دموکراسی، به لحاظ اداره جامعه و حکومتداری لزوما نمی تواند پیشرفت تاریخی محسوب شود. اگر آن دوران ها دوران فئودالیته یا استبداد شاهنشاهی بوده اند، دموکراسی فعلی نیز دوران قدرتمند شدن دولت - به زعم نویسنده - و فسادهای مرتبط با آن است. فسادهایی که ناشی از محدود شدن قدرت در دستان دولتی ها و اعضای پارلمان، بدون نظارت و پاسخگویی کافی است و به نظرم تا اینجای داستان، همه ما مثالهایی از ناکارآمد بودن این شیوه دموکراسی پارلمانی و سواستفاده از قدرت سیاسی در ذهن داریم
  
  اما در واقعیت، نوع نگاه نویسنده عمیقا اقتصادی و معطوف به نگاه نئولیبرالی است که ورود دولت به بازار را خطرناک و محدود کننده نوآوری و توانایی بشر میداند. یعنی ضعفهای سیستم فعلی در تجارت و مخصوصا قضاوت، جای را برای نویسنده باز می کند تا مزایای سیستم اشرافی گری در متنوع بودن اربابان برای رعیت و اهمیت این غیرمتمرکز بودن قدرت را برشمرد. گرچه نمی توان باور کرد که آن سیستم آریستوکراتیک و رعیت دیدن مردم شکل ایده آل است و نویسنده هم چنین ادعایی ندارد، اما نقد اصلی بر سیستم فعلی است که انگار دشمن مالکیت فردی و رقابت هستند و جامعه را به سمت دیکتاتوری دموکراسی و دولت پیش می برند
  
  بدیهی است سوالات اساسی در این نگاه نئولیبرال پیش می آید مبنی بر راه حلی برای اقشار ضعیف تر جامعه، و پاسخ نویسنده نگاه فاشیستی مستتر در بحث را به خوبی نمایان می کند که "اما بعد از همه اینها باید گفت ثروتمندی و فقر دلیل خود را دارند: ثروتمندان اغلب از لحاظ شخصیتی باهوش و کوشا هستند و فقرا کندذهن و تنبل هستند. احتمال چندانی نمیرود که این گروه از انسانهای کندذهن و تنبل حتی اگر اکثریت را نیز تشکیل دهند، به صورتی سیستماتیک نسبت به تامین و متمول کردن خود با هزینه اقلیت توانا و افراد پرانرژی پیش دستی کنند" مقایسه کنید این حرف را با حرف کسانی دیگر مانند هایک - و طرفداران پروپاقرص وطنی مانند غنی نژاد - که فاشیسم و نازیسم و سوسیالیسم را یکی می دانستند، چون همه در دخالت دولت در بازار مشترکند، و حال تفسیر یکی از طرفداران سرسخت فون میزس را از نظام رقابت آزاد می بینیم
  
  به نظرم ایده ها وقتی راه به پیشنهاد راه حل می یابند، لایه های عمیق تر خود را نشان می دهند. من با نویسنده همدل هستم در توجه بیشتر به معایب سیاسی سیستم های دموکراتیک فعلی. اما دو تفسیر شخصی ام از این قرار است که اول، برای جوامع در حال توسعه، چنین گذاری به نظام های دموکراتیک گاهی غیرقابل اجتناب است و برای دشمنان دموکراسی چنین نقدهایی نمی تواند بهانه ای برای فرار از گام گذاردن به شیوه های مردم مدارانه فراهم آورد. چرا که اگر دموکراسی را نقد می کنیم، راه حل ما می بایست ارزش افزوده ای به میزان مشارکت مردم، پاسخ گویی افراد در قدرت و نظارت مستقیم بر عملکرد آنها فراهم آورد
  و دوم اینکه با رویکرد پوپری بیشتر می توان موافق بود در مقایسه با چنین نگاهی که قدرت آریستوکراسی را افزایش می دهد (و معایب آن را هم در واقعیت دیده ایم و هم در کتابی همچو "چرا ملتها شکست می خورند") آنجا که پوپر می گوید باید تلاش کنیم تا افرادی به قدرت برسند که شایستگی و تجربه سیاستمداری را دارند، اما مهمتر از آن این است که سازوکاری داشته باشیم که در مواقع لزوم بتواند سیاستمدار ناشایسته را به راحتی از تخت قدرت به زیر بکشد. و این مکانیسم، حلقه گمشده دموکراسی ها یا دیکتاتوری های فعلی است
• 
  Amin

  جای تاسف دارد که انتشارات دنیای اقتصاد، این کتاب را با چنین ترجمه افتضاح و ویراستاری ضعیف روانه بازار می کند. وقتی ناشرانی که در ظاهر بصورت تخصصی کتاب چاپ می کنند، چنین نتایج اسفناکی از خود بجای می گذارند، دیگر به ناشران عمومی خرده ای نمی توان گرفت
  
  مترجم، در حالی که بدیهی است بخشهای زیادی از متن را نفهمیده و ترجمه های گاه خنده داری دارد، به خودش اجازه داده که در بخشهایی که به نظرش متن پیچیده بوده - و البته برای کسی که متن را نفهمیده طبیعی است - در پرانتز تفسیر خودش را هم به خورد خواننده بدهد. میدانم باور کردنی نیست، اما واقعی است که در وسط متن توضیحی از مترجم می بینیم که خوش بختانه اشاره کرده که اینها حرفهای مترجم است. البته مترجم های قدیمی تر دست به این کار می زدند، همچو هاشم رضی، اما حداقل از پانوشت استفاده می کردند
  
  برای نمونه، سواد و فهم مترجم را در متن زیر ببینید و استفاده اش از کلمات "ویژگی های اقلیمی" و "خصائص عینی اشراف" که مخصوصا دومی تاسف آور است
  
  As violent inheritance disputes, monarchical wars are characterized by limited territorial objectives. They are not ideologically motivated quarrels but disputes over tangible properties
  
  ترجمه:
  "خشونت جنگ های شاهنشاهی به مثابه نزاع های ارثی، به ویژگی های اقلیمی محدود میشد. نزاع ها انگیزه های ایدئولوژیک نداشت، بلک�� به خصائص عینی اشراف بازمی گشت"
  
  بدیهی است مجبور شدم به سراغ متن اصلی بروم و تجربه استفاده از کالای داخلی و پرداخت حق ناشر و مترجم و ناشر الکترونیک! این بار هم با شکست مواجه شد
• 
  JoséMaría BlancoWhite

  A synthesis of a thousand years of history from a philosophical and economic perspective, for the general reader. The purpose of this short essay is precisely purported in the title, no more no less. And the addendum to the title A tale of Moral and Economic Folly and Decay is very well suited. Great books are -to me- those whose authors are capable of synthesizing a lot of ideas or information into as few words as possible and making it all intelligible to the average intelligent reader. Here is one instance.
  
  The conclusions that surface from the passing of one chapter to the next are not -at all- the ones that the immense majortity of the civilized world would be accustomed to; but do not run away: this is not some outlandish theory from a nutty philosoper or economist. On the contrary, this is rational, and quite common sense, thinking meeting historical facts as we all know them. Philosophy and economics are intertwined with history in an articulate and masterly way.
  
  The state of Democracy today is where all that history/evolution pointed to. Therefore the need for this brief summary. Check out for yourself if Mr. Hoppe's conclusions are correct or not. I very much agree with him: we are back to servitude. Look around you. The future is not the subject of this book, but prospects look grim if the policies are not reverted. Mr. Hoppe welcomes the possible emergence in the near future of mini-States, in the likes of new Switzerlands, Luxemburgs, Singapurs, etc, but mind you: not as a solution that can take away power from the plutocratic democratic states we live in, but at least to have the states compete with each other and maybe pay a little more attention to the servile state in which they have left us with their policies, so-called progressive but really degressive.
  
  Aristocrats, monarchs, democrats. You thought there was an evolution there? you are being fooled.
• 
  Mostafa

  دیدگاه‌های هوپ به عنوان یک آنارکوکاپیتالیست قابل تامل و جنجالی است و شاید چندان مورد پسند اندیشمندانی که در قالب وضع موجود و جریان اصلی می‌اندیشند نباشد. می‌شود در بسیاری از موارد با او موافق بود و می‌شود در بسیاری از موارد نیز با او مخالفت و جدل کرد.
  نمی‌دانم هوپ سخت‌نویس است (که البته با توجه به کتاب قبلی‌اش، "سوسیالیسم و سرمایه‌داری"، بعید می‌دانم!) یا مترجم سخت‌ و ناخوب ترجمه کرده است!
• 
  Owen

  This is more or less a condensed version of "Democracy, the God that Failed" which was equally overrated yet insightful nonetheless.
  This book would never convince someone who wasn't already a libertarian of some stripe. His citations are always other libertarians. Nevertheless, his description of democratic governance as a "competition in the production of bads" isn't easily cast aside.
  However correct Hoppe and other monarchist libertarians may be in their critiques of society, it seems that the state of North Korea is a good example of an absolutist monarchy at work.
  Admittedly it is a former communist state. Admittedly it the state plays an enormous role in governing society. I don't need his defenders to point that out.
  However, the state is a hereditary monarchy, with ownership passing from father to son. So surely, the Kim dynasty should have already done the rational thing and liberalized its economy in order to encourage those to migrate to it.
  What we see is the opposite. Instead of making itself a great example of statecraft, it has isolated itself and stopped anybody from leaving. Can Hoppe or anybody who agrees with him think of a suitable candidate for an absolutist monarchy?
  
  Hoppe refers to small states such as Liechtenstein as great examples of a rational monarchy that is driven by competition for subjects. However, what is to stop it going either way?
  
  Hoppe provides a great critique of the weaknesses of democracy and how it has historically been harmful for economies (he destroys universal suffrage quite well), nevertheless his alternative seems good on a small scale at best, and a horrific nightmare at worst.
• 
  David

  A very deep, pithy, logical and analytical little monograph, which essentially is a condensed version of his famous critique of democracy ("Democracy, the God That Failed"). He discusses, in typical Hoppe fashion (which is to say, extremely logical and erudite) the pros and cons of the feudal system, monarchy, and especially democracy (I don't recall that he found any benefits to democracy, actually; It is probably the worst of all systems so far).
  One thing I appreciate about Hoppe---whether in a small book like this, or most of his larger works---is his copious use of footnotes, which offer so many opportunities for further research and follow-up. (And, he places the footnotes at the bottom of the page, and not at the end of the book, like some editors annoyingly do).
  FYI, to kill two birds with one stone, a person interested in this book could simply purchase his other book, "A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline," which contains this, and another longer essay that details, essentially, the evolution of man's standard of living, i.e. from Neolithic times to the Industrial Age, how man's social and technological innovations and discoveries enabled him to move past mere subsistence survival, and finally achieve the ability to practice capital-accumulation, which gave rise to the relative riches and wealth of today.
• 
  Daniel Moss

  Read this along with: Income Tax: Root of all Evil & The Rise and Fall of Society and you'll see very quickly why the solutions that are being proposed these days quite simply can't work because they quite literally caused the problem.
• 
  Juan Campos Alonso

  My first ever approach to anarchocapitalism. Some ideas seemed like a nonsense to me. Other conclusions also triggered me and my beliefs but did not seem as a total craze. That is maybe why I found it thrilling, although I was tempted to quit its reading few times. Warning: the author often presents his own oppinion as if it was a fact.
  
  It is not a reading for everyone but all in all, it was great to see him tackling the Status Quo, although I don't mostly agree with his conservative and superlibertatian view of private property.
  
  Bonus: given the summarized nature if this short essay and the credentials of the author, I would like to dive a bit deeper on this doctrine and and read other works from the author like "The Myth of National Defense".
• 
  Dan Coats

  Very quick read and serves as a great primer to Hoppean political theory.
• 
  Mucius Scaevola

  Useful.
• 
  Ryan

  This a long essay covering the same material as Hoppe's best work, Democracy: The God that Failed. In order to shorten it, little justification is given for his assertions, and for someone who isn't already a Rothbardian/Hoppean/Anarcho-Capitalist, it may be hard to accept these assertions without justification. However, it does accurately summarize the AC perspective on politics, although it doesn't go into enough detail on how to get from the status quo (large democratic states) to this end state. The audiobook is decent but I'd prefer it be read by Hoppe himself.
  
  
• 
  JJ

  Hans-Hermann Hoppe one of the great libertarian scholars who left his native country of Germany for the United States in order to study under one of the greatest intellectuals of our time, Murray N. Rothbard (The Enemy of the State) from the Austrian School of Economics. Hoppe is a master of theoretical history. He tells us in the introduction to From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy: it is no my purpose here to engage in a standard history, i.e., history as it is written by historians, but to offer a logical or sociological reconstruction of history, informed by actual historical events, but motivated more fundamentally by theoretical – philosophical and economic – concerns. In his essay, Hoppe thinks that in economic life, the Industrial Revolution enabled mankind to achieve an unprecedented level of prosperity. In government, though, matters are entirely different, and here Hoppe is a firm opponent of progressive orthodoxy. Hoppe demonstrates the evolution of the state from the natural aristocracy through monarchy to the corrupt and irresponsible ways of democracy. In Bastiat’s words, under democracy the state becomes the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else. Every person and his personal property come within reach of and are up for grabs by everyone else. In Hoppe’s words, theoretically speaking, the transition from monarchy to democracy involves no more (or less) than the replacement of a permanent, hereditary monopoly “owner” – the king – by temporary and interchangeable “caretakers” ��� by presidents, prime ministers, and members of parliament. Both, kings and presidents, will produce “bads”, i.e., they tax and they legislate. Yet a king, because he “owns” the monopoly and may sell and bequeath his realm to a successor of his choosing, his heir, will care about the repercussions of his actions on capital values. As the owner of the capital stock on his territory, the king will be comparatively future-oriented. In order to preserve or enhance the value of his property, his exploitation will be comparatively moderate and calculating. In contrast, a temporary and interchangeable democratic caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office his permitted to use it to his own advantage. He owns its current use but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. Instead, it makes exploitation shortsighted, present-oriented, and uncalculating, i.e., carried out with no or little regard for the value of the capital stock. In short, it promotes capital consumption. Hoppe is not an advocating monarchy over democracy but provides ample evidence that democracy in the end will impoverish society and make life increasingly unpleasant. An amazing short read for any lover of liberty and Austrian Economics who like Rothbard sees “The State” for what it really is: “A gang of thieves, writ large”
• 
  Kade

  Not great. Hoppe makes excellent points as to why Monarchy is superior to Democracy, but completely mischaracterizes Aristocracy as a Utopian pre-monarchical "natural order," rather than the stepping stone between Monarchy and Democracy that it actually is. He doesn't recognize that man's "natural order" is a state of sin, chaos, and misery. His "history" seems limited to northwestern Europe, and his theory to explain the political changes doesn't hold water. In reality, Monarchy was debased into Aristocracy when kings felt the responsibility of their position was to much for one man, and began pawning authority and its concurrent responsibility off on advisers. This pattern continued with each successive level pawning off authority/responsibility on those below, until the utter debasement of Democracy was reached, where all authority/responsibility is theoretically pawned off to the lowest level, "the people." This can be easily seen by examining the history of any historical democracy.
• 
  Robert

  This book makes for a good introduction to Hoppe's work. It's basically the same content that you will find in his book A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline. However I would say this book is more similar to the second part, 'the decline'. This book/essay was good enough that it got me wanting to read more of Hoppe's work.
• 
  Gianluca Cameron

  A good critique of capitalism's interaction with democracy but this guy is:
  
  1) Way too optimistic about human nature
  
  2) Way too enamoured with the idea that hierarchies correspond to worth/productivity
• 
  William Schrecengost

  Good and interesting. It's pretty much just a summary of his other book on Democracy. He covers a basic ideological history of monarchy and democracy. He showed well the hidden reign of the bureaucrats and businessmen via purchase of politicians.
• 
  Sam Dunn

  Worth reading.
• 
  Henrik

  Fantastic short book/essay that twist the standard perspective of progress of government. Hoppe is a well-known critic of democracy, in this book arguing that even monarchy is less pernicious.
• 
  Bryce Eickholt

  It's basically an essay summarizing and clearifying things in Democracy: The God That Failed. It's short. Read both together.
• 
  Viktor Krap

  A pretty good example of the term "intellectual dishonesty".
• 
  Jay

  The kind of deep logical political philosophy I like to contemplate, but I don't know if I'm buying what Hoppe is selling. It all fits a little too nicely into how Hoppe imagines our current situation, i.e towards the end it starts to seem like an exercise in reverse engineering a desired narrative.
• 
  Daniel

  A misguided attribution of decentralization's virtues to feudalism