Mises a Social-Darwinian?

[Troi]

Hi,

In “Socialism” Mises strongly chides the Social-Darwinian conceptions. http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1060&chapter=103997&layout=html&Itemid=27

But I read that in ´“The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality” there shall be a passage where he says that a citizen who isn’t economically successful shall be aware of his own inferiority.

Does anybody know about this passage and could supply the context?

Yours.

[measles]

I think there is a difference between economic and social Darwinism. Social Darwinism was used to argue that members of Western Civilization were more evolved and therefore superior to members of “less-civilized” societies. In a free society, there are bound to be poor people and rich people, and I’m not sure that Mises argue that economic inferiority is equal to moral inferiority.

[Dynamix]

@Troi

he says that a citizen who isn’t economically successful shall be aware of his own inferiority.

I haven’t read the book, so, like you, I don’t know if he said that or not. Reading between the lines, he seems to be (allegedly) saying, “A citizen who isn’t economically successful shall suffer for his own inferiority.”

But that’s a positive statement (and it still is even if we don’t paraphrase the original), and it seems to be true more often than not. We may have had cause for concern if he said, “A citizen who isn’t economically successful should suffer for his own inferiority.”–there we might disapprove of Mises on ethical grounds (which I think is what you’re saying is at stake). Personally, I would assume that, if he did say that, he meant that the relative material suffering of under-skilled individuals that is likely under capitalism (and is also likely under different forms of collectivism, but that isn’t the point here) acts as an incentive for the individual to be more active in satisfying the commercial desires of others. I would also assume, because he didn’t explicity express one way or the other, that he felt pity toward those who suffered economically rathern than contempt. After all, who wouldn’t?

Er, I mean, besides Rand. [:P]

[earlgrey]

@Mises

It is quite another thing under capitalism. Here everybody’s station in life depends on his own doing. Everybody whose ambitions have not been fully gratified knows very well that he has missed chances, that he has been tried and found wanting by his fellowman. If his wife upbraids him: “Why do you make only eighty dollars a week? If you were as smart as your former pal, Paul, you would be a foreman and I would enjoy a better life,” he becomes conscious of his own inferiority and feels humiliated.

[kaxahdan]

In this book Mises exposes comprehensive analyses as to why people tend to loathe capitalism.

The citation above is from p. 9, when Mises is comparing typical economic woes in a society based on caste and status, with that under capitalism.

In the former, individuals can ascribe adverse fate to conditions beyond their control. If they are slaves, they are so because of some kind of “superhuman powers” that predetermined ranks. In the latter, people cannot put the blame on such factors beyond control.

Capitalism, says Mises, pitilessly reveals the gulf between what a man is and achieves and what he thinks of his own abilities and achievements, and to some people this is not a happy feature.

[Troi]

Thanks for the clarifications offered in the previous posts.