Epilogue: A Better World Is Possible

In a word, the progress of a science is blocked because erroneous methodological principles prevail.
– CARL MENGER

The development of humankind is not preprogramed. It does not follow a predetermined path, as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wanted their readers to believe. It is rather the ideas (or theories) that guide people’s actions; this is a statement that is logical, a statement that cannot be refuted by logical means. And because it is true, it also explains why all those who strive for power over their fellow men and women—be they feudal lords, kings, emperors, tsars, dictators, democratic government representatives, or oligarchs—want to gain sovereignty over ideas: the one who determines which ideas are considered true and right and which do not possesses true power over his fellow human beings.

Today, above all, it is the state that has a particular power of influence over opinion, and in this way, it tries to expand its position of power. Meanwhile, most people do not take offence at it anymore. For them, the state is something good: it is an employer, educator, lawyer, judge, patron, environmentalist, reliable debtor, punctual pension payer, guarantor of stable money and sufficient credit, fighter against injustice and guardian of fair pay, patron of health and old-age provision, and much more. Yes, for many people the state can no longer be imagined without what is generally regarded as a “good life.”

Democratic socialism, as the dominant ideology of the modern state, has done a thorough job. It has not only reshaped the spectrum of people’s opinions and values, but it has also clouded the imagination of many people. Who still thinks today that most people and their families, their friends, their community, and their fellow citizens would be much better off if the state did not exist? That without this state there would be fewer economic crises and wars in the world? Probably very few. Many people also do not understand where the unthinking acceptance of the state actually leads: into bondage, into serfdom.

The fact that this logical consequence of the state’s actions can largely be concealed to this day is primarily due to one cause: the social and economic sciences are at war with a priori theory. That is because, in order to gain knowledge, they follow the scientific method. They formulate hypotheses (conditional statements, “If A, then B”) and then test their truth content on the basis of observational data. This, however, is a procedure that for a number of reasons cannot be applied meaningfully in the social and economic sciences and that furthermore politicizes and corrupts the social and economic sciences.

The scientific method, which in recent decades has been applied more and more strongly and uninhibitedly in economics, has cultivated skepticism and relativism—according to principles such as: “There is no truth, everything can be doubted” and “All knowledge is only relative, never universally true.” This has contributed to the a priori rejection of knowledge in today’s social and economic sciences: they ignore or reject the insight that there are irrevocable laws in the field of human action that can be fathomed and justified by logical thinking.

From the point of view of social scientists and economists, the economy and society have thus been degraded to something like an experimental laboratory or field of experimentation. No matter how peculiar theories may be, people can still claim, with reference to universally accepted science, that the truth of these theories can ultimately only be established by trial and error, by a practical test. And if a theory sounds politically promising, they will want to put it into practice—and no sociologists and economists will be able to raise serious objections to it unless they want to be labeled unscientific, antiprogressive and narrow-minded.

It is not surprising that political forces use the opportunity to harness social and economic science for their own purposes. Above all, political parties and governments use taxpayers’ money to promote and pay for those scientists who formulate and disseminate politically acceptable theories and who demand a practical test for their theory with reference to well-founded science. It is not surprising that the state, as a source of work and income for science, is adulated, idealized, and glorified by privileged scientists. However, the problem addressed by this is actually much bigger, as Murray N. Rothbard made clear:

[S]ince the early origins of the State, its rulers have always turned, as a necessary bolster to their rule, to an alliance with society’s class of intellectuals. The masses do not create their own abstract ideas, or indeed think through these ideas independently; they follow passively the ideas adopted and promulgated by the body of intellectuals, who become the effective “opinion moulders” in society. And since it is precisely a moulding of opinion on behalf of the rulers that the State almost desperately needs, this forms a firm basis for the age-old alliance of the intellectuals and the ruling classes of the State. The alliance is based on a quid pro quo: on the one hand, the intellectuals spread among the masses the idea that the State and its rulers are wise, good, sometimes divine, and at the very least inevitable and better than any conceivable alternatives. In return for this panoply of ideology, the State incorporates the intellectuals as part of the ruling elite, granting them power, status, prestige, and material security. Furthermore, intellectuals are needed to staff the bureaucracy and to “plan” the economy and society.127

A world currency and a world state, which were discussed in the previous chapters, are only possible through ideas that are regarded by the public as right and good. Therefore, in order for the hope for a better world to be justified, in order for the way not to lead into a world state via a world currency, enlightenment is necessary—just as Immanuel Kant once formulated it:

Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-inflicted immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s mind without another’s guidance. This immaturity is self-inflicted if the cause of it lies not in the lack of understanding, but in the resolution and courage to make use of it without another’s guidance. Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own mind! is the motto of the Enlightenment.128

Applied to economics, Kant’s enlightenment concept can be put into practice as follows: with unbiased logical thinking, we come to the conclusion that economics is not an empirical science, but an a priori science of action.129 Economics does not gain its theories through “testing,” but through strict action-logical thinking. And strict action-logical thinking is also the testing authority that is able to conclusively judge the correctness or falsity of theory; experience cannot do that.

Understanding and practicing economics in this way will destroy the foundations of the driving force of democratic socialism, which for decades has been working toward establishing a world state with its own world currency and has already made considerable progress along this path. The reference to bad experiences, undesirable developments, and crises will not be able to deprive democratic socialism of its power and overcome it. This can only be achieved by insight into the better ideas, by the struggle of arguments of reason. This book is meant as a contribution to help the better ideas prevail.

• 127Rothbard, For a New Liberty, p. 67.
• 128Immanuel Kant, “Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?,” Berlinische Monatsschrift, 1783, p. 516.
• 129For an overview of the arguments see Thorsten Polleit, “Kritik der ökonomischen Erkenntnis,”
  Ludwig von Mises Institut Deutschland, Feb. 22, 2019, https://www.misesde.org/2019/02/kritik-der-oekonomischen-erkenntnis/.