A Little Learn about Marxism

What drives the direction of history?

Hi everyone I know I have a very diverse audience here I was having a little private email exhange about Marx and an economist that is a libertarian hero, Ludwig von Mises.

At the beginning of the pandemic of BS I was actually writing a book which took the form of a series of essays explaining in simple terms Mises’ critique of Marx. I put it aside to work on the pharma stuff because I just didn’t think it was as important. Why study Marx when the world is on fire? Well, maybe because it’s ideas like those of Marx that are setting it on fire? Maybe that’s not a good enough reason. I used to walk around the block to catch a breath of fresh air during writing the piece (very naughty during lockdown when only leaving for essential reasons was allowed in Scotland) and I would think to myself “why am I writing this?” and I finally I came to the conclusion that I was doing it because it was interesting and that was a good enough reason. I hope you’ll find it interesting too.

—

Marx “Polylogism”

You and I are at the local pub when we find ourselves thrust into a rousing debate with our neighbours regarding the vicious state of the world and how we ought to put it right. We say free the markets and spontaneous order will do the talking. They say socialism is the only way forward. As our third pints dwindle to their last dregs, it begins to look like it will be a while before we get away to the bar for another round. Onlookers turn from their tables to shoot us sympathetic looks when one of our interlocutors, frothing at the mouth, accuses me of bad faith, and you of nefarious motives.

I rouse myself hysterically to our defence, banging the table with my right hand while I adjure him not to make things personal. You back me up, insisting: “No, no! It’s not like that, mate—we’re just pointing out the facts!!”

His partner sniggers upon hearing this, replying with a grunt, “Nonsense, comrade! There’s no such thing as the disinterested search for truth.”

“Yes, citizen,” asserts the first, training his attention on me, “You’re just saying that because you’re middle class.”

Mises criticized Marx for failing to refute his critics but instead declaring that their reasoning was “bourgeoise.”

While Marx did not explicitly say, “Workers have one kind of logic and bourgeoise people have another kind of logic,” he did say that in different eras the laws that govern the relations between workers and the means of production change, and therefore so do the laws of history. Therefore, whatever logic may hold true in one era will not necessarily hold in another one. The obvious “in” here should be to say “well give me an example of the logic from serf times or slavery times and contrast it with the logic of today.”

Of course a Marxist today may say, “You wouldn’t understand! You’re middle class!” but to simply assert an opponent is middle class is not to demonstrate that their claims are false. If Marx was to criticize Mises he might say “You prove my point too readily, Herr Mises! This exactly what I mean - your critique of me in your Bourgeoise book Theory and History thoroughlly demonstrates that you are so stuck in your own capitalist logic, that to even understand what I am saying about how the means of production and class relations shape history is beyond your understanding!”

While I would say while Marx polylogism was not so crude as Mises makes it out today, he also said that towards the end of a historical era people defect from the ruling class to the oppressed class, for example most of the “Liberals” that opposed aristocracy were laded themselves! And of course Marx and Engels were of Bourgeois backgrounds - they were on the right side of history according to Marx!

Marx believed that it’s the stage of development of the means of production that move history rather than the ideas of the era. (See my presentation on Marx’ Theory of History.) This presents the sharp contrast between he and Mises. who argued that means of production come out of people’s ideas in the first place. Mises really believes that ideas shape history, so getting  the exact logic of capitalism and socialism is of critical importance. Whether people understand how these systems work or not really matters. If enough people believe in the right ideas they will shape society in the fashion of those ideas. If they don’t then they will surely drive society off a cliff.

For Marx, whatever ideas are in your head are only really a product of the superstructure of the society you are in anyway, and not of much relevance. So it’s pointless hairsplitting to get the point exactly correct is a waste of time, who cares? Ideas don't even determine the course of history! It's the developmental stage of the means of production that determine the course of history. If it wasn't for the current stage in history, you wouldn’t even have those ideas in the first place! In the meantime world is still turning why you reason away thinking you’re putting it to right. You’re not! The purpose of a philsopher is not to understand history but to shape it, in the Marxist view. Therefore get to it! Criticize the ruling class for exploiting people so the world can evolve inexhorably in the direction of socialism.

I would say the takeaway difference between Marx and Mises is just this. Whether tools or ideas shape the course of history. In fact, I was going to title my book something like “Tools or Ideas? Marx and Mises go Head to Hammer and Sickle” what do you think?

If you are an ambitious, independent-minded freedom lover and would like support reaching your personal and professional goald you may be interested in my Freedom Warrior Program.

If you like this content please support it with a volunatry contribution at www.7pharmamyths.com or get paid subscription to my substack!