![](\"http:\/\/davidmhart.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/ClassStructureSchematic-450.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Libertarian Class Analysis: An Historical Survey<\/a><\/p>\n (M)en placed in society \u2026 are divided into two classes, *Ceux qui pillent,\u2014et Ceux qui sont pill\u00e9s* (those who pillage and those who are pillaged); and we must consider with some care what this division, the correctness of which has not been disputed, implies. James Mill, \u201cThe State of the Nation,\u201d *The London Review,* (1835).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This monograph is a continuation of a project I have been working on for many years, most recently for example the anthology of texts I co-edited: Social Class and State Power: Exploring an Alternative Radical Tradition<\/em>, ed. David M. Hart, Gary Chartier, Ross Miller Kenyon, and Roderick T. Long (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), and a paper I gave at the Libertarian Scholars Conference on \u201cPlunderers, Parasites, and Plutocrats: Some Reflections on the Rise and Fall and Rise and Fall of Classical Liberal Class Analysis\u201d – paper<\/a>.<\/p>\n My hope is to write a book on the history of classical liberal (libertarian) thinking about the nature of state power and the groups of people (\u201cclasses\u201d) who win or lose out by having access to this power.<\/p>\n The approach I have taken is to show, firstly the persistence of thinking about class by proto-liberals, classical liberals (CL), radical individualists, and modern day libertarians over several centuries. I believe such thinking is a core component of the broader CL tradition which has for too long been downplayed or outright ignored.<\/p>\n Secondly, to let these thinkers speak in their own words I have quoted the original language alongside my own translation in most cases. This is also to demonstrate the considerable diversity of terms used to describe the class of the exploited and the exploited and what the former does to the latter. Thus I precede each section on a particular thinker with a list of the terms and language they used in their theory of class. This diversity of language is both a plus and a minus for the CL tradition – a plus because it shows the creativity of these thinkers in coming up with often hard-hitting and amusing epithets (often referring to some predatory animal!); and a minus because it meant that to a large degree these CLs did not speak with a common voice in making their case against the exploitation of one class of people by another.<\/p>\n The table of contents of this draft version of the monograph is the following:<\/p>\n Introduction: Two Competing Traditions of thinking about Class – CL and Marxist<\/strong><\/p>\n Some Common Theoretical Aspects of Classical Liberal Class Analysis<\/strong> The History of CLCA (I): Some Different Perspectives on Class<\/strong> The History of CLCA (II) – Before WW2<\/strong><\/p>\n The Pre-history of CLCA The Enlightenment English Radicals and Republicans<\/p>\n American Radicals and Republicans<\/p>\n The Philosophic Radicals and the Benthamites The Classical Political Economists: The English School The French Political Economists and the Paris School The Sociological School The History of CLCA (III) – The Post-WW2 Renaissance of CLCA<\/strong> Other Approaches similar to CLCA Marxists who are “Bringing the State Back In”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Libertarian Class Analysis: An Historical Survey (M)en placed in society \u2026 are divided into two classes, *Ceux qui pillent,\u2014et Ceux qui sont pill\u00e9s* (those who pillage and those who are pillaged); and we must consider with some care what this division, the correctness of which has not been disputed, implies. The first class, *Ceux qui … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_import_markdown_pro_load_document_selector":0,"_import_markdown_pro_submit_text_textarea":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[78],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-802","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/davidmhart.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/802","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/davidmhart.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/davidmhart.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/davidmhart.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/davidmhart.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=802"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/davidmhart.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/802\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":203643,"href":"http:\/\/davidmhart.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/802\/revisions\/203643"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/davidmhart.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=802"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/davidmhart.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=802"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/davidmhart.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=802"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nThe first class, *Ceux qui pillent*, are the small number. They are the ruling Few. The second class, *Ceux qui sont pill\u00e9s*, are the great number. They are the subject Many.<\/p>\n
\nThe Central Role played by Organised Coercion
\nThe Shared Structural Framework for CLCA
\nThe Diversity of Terminology about Class
\nThe Rulers vs. the Ruled
\nThe Unproductive vs. the Productive
\nThe Evolution of Class Society
\nThe End of Class Rule?<\/p>\n
\nThe View from Below
\nSlaves vs. Slave-owners
\nTax-payers vs Tax-receivers\/consumers
\nThe “Industrious Classes”<\/p>\n
\n\u00c9tienne de La Bo\u00e9tie (1530\u20131563)
\nLevellers Richard Overton (1631\u20131664) and William Walwyn (1600\u20131681)
\n18th Century Commonwealthmen: John Trenchard (1662\u20131723) and Thomas Gordon (1692\u20131750)<\/p>\n
\nAdam Smith (1723\u20131790)
\nAdam Ferguson (1723\u20131797)
\nTurgot (1727\u20131781)
\nJohn Millar (1735\u20131801)<\/p>\n
\nWilliam Cobbett (1763\u20131835)
\nJohn Wade (1788\u20131875)
\nJeremey Bentham (1748\u20131832)
\nJames Mill (1773\u20131836)<\/p>\n
\nJohn Stuart Mill (1806\u20131873)
\nRichard Cobden (1804\u20131869)<\/p>\n
\nJean-Baptiste Say (1767\u20131832)
\nBenjamin Constant (1767\u20131830)
\nCharles Comte (1782\u20131837), Charles Dunoyer (1786\u20131862), and Augustin Thierry (1795\u20131856)
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Bastiat (1801\u20131850)
\nAmbroise Cl\u00e9ment (1805\u201386)
\nGustave de Molinari (1819\u20131912)<\/p>\n
\nHerbert Spencer (1820\u20131903)
\nGustave de Molinari (1819\u20131912)
\nWilliam Graham Sumner (1840\u20131910)
\nVilfredo Pareto (1848\u20131923)<\/p>\n
\nLudwig von Mises, Murray N. Rothbard, and the Circle Bastiat
\nPost-Circle Bastiat – the Libertarian Scholars Conferences
\nOther Works on CLCA by CLs and Libertarians<\/p>\n
\nPublic Choice and Rent-Seeking
\nRational Choice and Predatory Rulers
\nMancur Olson and State Banditry
\nAngelo Codevilla on the Ruling Class vs. the Country Class<\/p>\n