Changes

[[Joseph Schumpeter]], perhaps the most relevant economist of the [[Austrian School]] in the post-[[Cold War]] era and an anti-[[Marxist]] who refutes [[socialism]] using Marxist's own terminology, pointed out the susceptibility and weakness of the middle class, or bourgeoisie, in defending its own interests both domestically and in the area of foreign relations:

[[Joseph Schumpeter]], perhaps the most relevant economist of the [[Austrian School]] in the post-[[Cold War]] era and an anti-[[Marxist]] who refutes [[socialism]] using Marxist's own terminology, pointed out the susceptibility and weakness of the middle class, or bourgeoisie, in defending its own interests both domestically and in the area of foreign relations:

{{quotebox|"the bourgeois class is ill equipped to face the problems, both domestic and international, that have normally to be faced by a country of any importance.  The bourgeois themselves feel this in spite of all the phraseology that seems to deny it, and so do the masses. Within a protecting framework not made of bourgeois material, the bourgeoisie may be successful, not only in the political defensive but also in the offensive, especially as an opposition. For a time it felt so safe as to be able to afford the luxury of attacking the protective frame itself; such bourgeois opposition as there was in [[imperial Germany]] illustrates this to perfection. But without protection by some nonbourgeois group, the bourgeoisie is politically helpless and unable not only to lead its nation but even to take care of its particular class interest. Which amounts to saying that it needs a master."<ref>Schumpeter, [file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/ReviewofSchumpeter.pdf ''Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy,'' p. 138.</ref>}}

{{quotebox|"the bourgeois class is ill equipped to face the problems, both domestic and international, that have normally to be faced by a country of any importance.  The bourgeois themselves feel this in spite of all the phraseology that seems to deny it, and so do the masses. Within a protecting framework not made of bourgeois material, the bourgeoisie may be successful, not only in the political defensive but also in the offensive, especially as an opposition. For a time it felt so safe as to be able to afford the luxury of attacking the protective frame itself; such bourgeois opposition as there was in [[imperial Germany]] illustrates this to perfection. But without protection by some nonbourgeois group, the bourgeoisie is politically helpless and unable not only to lead its nation but even to take care of its particular class interest. Which amounts to saying that it needs a master."<ref>Schumpeter, [https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjp5rm80InqAhXaKs0KHQ5TDBQQFjAAegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Feet.pixel-online.org%2Ffiles%2Fetranslation%2Foriginal%2FSchumpeter%2C%2520Capitalism%2C%2520Socialism%2520and%2520Democracy.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1l4jYgc8FRzCDkod76yL-K ''Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy,'' p. 138.</ref>}}

==See also==

==See also==