War and the Austrian School: Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek (original) (raw)

War and the Austrian School: Modern Austrian economists take on aggressive wars

The Economics of Peace and Security Journal, 2012

The Austrian school of economics increasingly has become identified with antiwar groups. This is not due to religious or political views. Rather, the antiwar viewpoints of the Austrians come from the fundamental tenets of economics as expressed by the school's founders and refined for 140 years. This article applies post-world war II Austrian thought to the subject of war.

War and the Market

The Global South, 2009

The essay examines the place of war in the work of the original theoreticians of neo-liberalism. The reigning dogmas proclaim that the free market and economic competition offer a way in which irrational and destructive violence between states can be transmuted into rational and productive forms from which all parties stand to benefit. Von Mises and Hayek, however, show clearly that the destruction that war brings has its place in the market system, freeing up natural resources and even labor. It is above all the wasteful and irrational social orders outside of

Is War A Hayekian Spontaneous Institution

Peace & Change, 2002

In his later works, the economist and philosopher, Friedrich Hayek, presented an attractive theory of social evolution that emphasized tacitly accepted expectations and rules of conduct. Hayeks main interest was in exploring the weaknesses of rationalist policies, especially how they affected the market economy, which in his mind presented the greatest potential for both the exploitation of knowledge and the advancement of peace. Yet Hayek did not explicitly apply his theory to the problem of war. This paper provides an outline of his theory and argues that it relates well to understanding wars nature and origins as well as the limitations faced by attempts to control or abolish war. This article applies the methodological framework of Friedrich Hayeks theory of spontaneous cultural evolution to war. Hayek does not explicitly do this in his writings, but I will argue that his theory offers a highly adaptable and useful method with which to explore the origins and nature of war.

War and Economic Development in the Studies of Friedrich List and Enrico Barone

History of Economics Review, 2018

Friedrich List and Enrico Barone play a significant role in German and Italian economic literature. Both focus their economic arguments on the concept of war and they have some elements in common. The central point of the paper is the essential role played by war in economic development (viewed as a succession of stages). It is argued that List developed this theory, influencing the German Historical School. It is then put forward that Barone, despite adhering to Prussian military thinking on the one hand, and marginalist economics on the other, expressed a vision of the relation between war and economic development which was partially similar to that of List. The article aims to pinpoint those similarities, focusing on evaluating and comparing elements related to the connection between economic development and war in their studies.

War and Capitalism: Some Important Theories and a Number of Relevant Facts

Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review, 2015

The first thing worth noting about "war and capitalism" are the important intellectual traditions referring to the relations between these two terms, which operate in radically opposing ways. However, the main intellectual currents since the Enlightenment have posited an essential antipathy between these two concepts. Economic links were supposed to inhibit social conflicts and promote reciprocal dependencies, thus civilizing customs and promoting peace, both internally and among different sovereign entities. These ideas are coherent with world-visions with many ramifications, but often expressed under the form of an "oughtto-be", not regarding real facts. An example is the work of Adam Smith, who argued that colonial trade was potentially a peaceful activity, good for all parties involved, whereas he simultaneously recognized that economic reality strayed considerably from such a rosy picture. The exact reasons for that remained somewhat vague, although Smith tended to blame monopolies and the mingling of trade with the exercise of sovereignty, as opposed to a peaceinducing model of open competition. This cluster of issues is treated here via the revision of the correspondent ideas by a number of important social theorists, including Adam Smith,

Imperialism and the Logic of War Making

2008

ommentaries on war stretching back more than two millennia to the Pelo- ponnesian War have enshrouded the fundamental causes of war in an almost impenetrable fog of myths, fallacies, and outright lies. In most studies, war is generally portrayed as the inevitable outcome of either complex historical forces or accidental events generally beyond the human combatants' understanding or control. Fortunately, we can draw on a science of human action—praxeology—that is applicable to all purposeful activities. Although economics is the most developed branch of this science, its basic principles can also be applied to the analysis of violent action, including warfare. Murray Rothbard wrote: "The rest of praxeology (besides economics) is an unexplored area. Attempts have been made to formulate a logical theory of war and violent action, and violence in the form of government has been treated by political philosophy and by praxeology in tracing the effects of violent intervention in ...