1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13617/marxism-vs-the-majority/

Marxism vs. the Majority

August 18, 2010 by

Marx and Engels, two men of unquestionable bourgeois background, hatched the class ideology of the proletarian class. They believed their adversaries could only be either bourgeois idiots or proletarian traitors. FULL ARTICLE by Ludwig von Mises

{ 60 comments }

Ohhh Henry August 18, 2010 at 9:39 am

As the Marxians do not admit that differences of opinion can be settled by discussion and persuasion or decided by majority vote, no solution is open but civil war.

It’s a little bit more subtle now. In the USA and Canada most of the Marxists (the large majority of politicians, journalists and academics) will not admit to being Marxists, even to themselves. Nevertheless they implement as many points of the Manifesto as possible. Except for the union-indoctrinated parts of the Democratic Party (in the USA) and the New Democratic Party (in Canada) this Marxism is probably not due to any direct influence of Marx himself but either because these goals are virtually administered in the drinking water to young North Americans, or else because the urge to seize and hold power and money naturally leads to such policies.

These crypto-Marxists are just as intolerant of dissent and it is leading to civil war. You can see this in the increasing militarization of the police and the growing calls to put all youths into “national service”. I note that two of the most prominent people who have called for “national service” have been Obama who is said to have attended Marxist indoctrination university seminars and Justin Trudeau in Canada who was raised on Marxism literally on the knee of his father’s hero, Fidel Castro.

proofrock August 18, 2010 at 10:08 am

Never read anything so dumb. You are great, you are no. 1 … Enjoy the Glory.

Troy August 18, 2010 at 4:03 pm

Wow…hyperbole much! I’ll admit that Henry’s commentary could be lacking in focus and he makes some questionable assertions. However, if you have not read anything so “dumb”, you don’t read much. Look at contradiction’s post below.

Maybe it has to do with your frustration J. Alfred?

One thing that could be drawn as a general point is that while “true Marx” may not be known to the current “proletariat”, the notions of egalitarian wealth redistribution (fomenting class warfare) and the evils of unfettered “capitalism” have certainly been “administered in the drinking water” by those having Marxist or statist designs. This as opposed to directly instigating civil war as Mises indicates.

It’s like what Khruschev said…

Raynor August 18, 2010 at 9:57 am

If those people fawn over labour unions or pro-labour regulation, then they aren’t really Marxists.

mpolzkill August 18, 2010 at 10:00 am

No true Scotsman, eh? I like the term “Marxoid”. John McCain is a Marxoid.

Raynor August 18, 2010 at 10:21 am

Marx was of the persuasion that attempts to improve the conditions of the worker within the framework of capitalism were misguided and futile, and that such intervention impeded the advent socialism. In short, he wanted the labour unions to abandon their current strategy for revolutionary tactics. So no, ignorant social democrats are not Marxists.

“No true Scotsman, eh?”

Hey! Well what do you know? You have something in common with Trotskyists I used to lurk around. To them, denying that a cat is not really a dog means you’re invoking the good old Scotsman.

“I like the term “Marxoid”. John McCain is a Marxoid.”

Good one Dane Cook.

mpolzkill August 18, 2010 at 10:32 am

“Good one Dane Cook”

Thanks. Here’s my ultra-quick rundown on “Marxism” today: The ultra rich and powerful took a look at Marx’s plans for dictatorship and said, “say, the poor never get around to doing much of anything at all, why don’t *we* adopt old Karl’s planks?” Now, John McCain is a complete moron, he could never be a Marxist, he’s a “status quoist”, and the regime here since about 1933 has been this Marxoid corporatist abortion you see starting to really crack. The old cartoon on my name/link/background here says a million words.

And I too think that that fallacy is misused and overused. I used it a bit “tounge-in-cheek”.

mpolzkill August 18, 2010 at 10:52 pm

tongue

Raynor August 18, 2010 at 10:38 am

All in good fun laddy.

historian August 18, 2010 at 11:39 am

First, what Marx said that “the ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.” Under feudalism, the ruling ideas was differents, under slavery, the ruling ideas was differents. Understood?

“He was enthusiastic about the Paris revolution of June 1848, in which a small minority of Parisians rebelled against the government supported by a parliament elected under universal manhood suffrage.” – Parliament elected under universal suffrage? Misrepresentation of History. Forgot that in “golden age” od liberalism (Mises’s own words), right to suffrage was restricted? Workers conquered politics rights only in mids of 19th century and for mean of much struggle. In somes countries, only in 20th century, in Austria, for example, in 1907, when hundreds of thousands of workers it manifested in streets of Vienna (Mises oppose to struggle of workers, calling manifestations of “terror”).

On Paris Commune, that was the only communist experiment in history, but also was more progressive democracy in History. Representatives with revocable mandates at any time.

Old Mexican August 18, 2010 at 12:41 pm

Re: Historian,

First, what Marx said that [sic] “the ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.” Under feudalism, the ruling ideas was differents [sic], under slavery, the ruling ideas was differents [sic]. Understood?

No. “Under slavery”? What age was that?

Parliament elected under universal suffrage? Misrepresentation of History. Forgot that in “golden age” od [sic] liberalism (Mises’s own words), right to suffrage was restricted?

Are you asking, or are you saying? Because Mises is talking about France, and he is being accurate when describing universal manhood suffrage. This is post-Napoleonic France.

On Paris Commune, that was the only communist experiment in history, but also was more progressive democracy in History.

Was that a good thing, or a bad thing?

historian August 18, 2010 at 1:37 pm

“No. “Under slavery”? What age was that?”
How so? Slavery never existed in history?

On the France, after Napoleonic Age, was established a constitutional monarchy, but of censitary suffrage.

If you not considers good a form government whose mandate can be revoked at any time, so stay with your representative democracy, where the Parliament approves Acts without reading text.

Old Mexican August 18, 2010 at 5:11 pm

Re: History,

How so? Slavery never existed in history?

Are we going to play this game, “historian”? I didn’t ask “What AGE was that” to imply there has been no slavery. That was a moronic reply. I am asking, seriously: WHAT age is “The Slavery Age”?

On the France, after Napoleonic Age, was established a constitutional monarchy, but of censitary suffrage.

Mises is talking about the parlamentary election of 1848 which happened right before the so-called “proletarian revolution.” He was correct. You were wrong.

If you not considers [sic] good a form government whose mandate can be revoked at any time, so stay with your representative democracy, where the Parliament approves Acts without reading text.

The rule of the mob (i.e. Democracy) can only be revoked by another mob. I don’t see where the advantage lies, except maybe Democracy is the perfect environment for the cheat, the demagogue and the mountebank.

Old Mexican August 18, 2010 at 12:44 pm

“If a man expresses opinions at variance with the ideology of a definite class, that is because he does not belong to the class concerned. There is no need to refute his ideas by discursive reasoning. It is enough to unmask his background and class affiliation. This settles the matter.

Hence the current flinging of the word “racist” at every dissenter, like chimps flinging excrement.

contradiction August 18, 2010 at 1:57 pm

Mises was constradictory in all. Wrote a book to argue that anticapitalistcs man is a failed and jealous that believe that the capitalism is blamed for their failure. In “Theory and History” sais that founding fathers of marxism (Marx and Engels) was bourgeois, therefore had no reasons to grudge nobody.

mr taco August 18, 2010 at 3:52 pm

you provided nothing that contradicts his axioms so i will be waiting

Old Mexican August 18, 2010 at 5:13 pm

Re: Contradiction,

Relying on Babelfish too much, are we??

Sione August 18, 2010 at 4:52 pm

why many incoherent submissions what get posted grammar bad?

sohard to know understand what means exactly eh

how come do?

Sione

michael August 18, 2010 at 9:25 pm

Lots of people here ESL (English is their second language).

Lots of others ADD.

Others just don’t bother to proof their submissions.

Mrhuh August 18, 2010 at 7:09 pm

“Mises was constradictory in all. Wrote a book to argue that anticapitalistcs man is a failed and jealous that believe that the capitalism is blamed for their failure. In “Theory and History” sais that founding fathers of marxism (Marx and Engels) was bourgeois, therefore had no reasons to grudge nobody.”

Actually Marx was merely born bourgeois, born into wealth. Having done nothing to earn and extremely spendthrift with his money. Constantly in fear of his creditors which is one reason he despised capitalism and claimed it was exploiting the working masses, even though he himself almost never held down an actual job himself.

newson August 18, 2010 at 7:32 pm

marx never even paid his own family domestic, Lenchen. he knew all about exploitation.

Marx August 18, 2010 at 8:44 pm

Do not write nonsense about the life of Marx. Marx was journalist, but their ideas disagreed the concerns of newspaper owners, he was fired. This is the “freedom press” capitalist. In France, he edited a newspaper, but was censured by “freedom press” of liberal government (and with support of “liberal-democrat” Tocqueville).

Inquisitor August 18, 2010 at 11:51 pm

He was bourgeois. Get over it.

Russ the Apostate August 19, 2010 at 1:54 pm

Then he eventually moved to England, where he was supported by Friedrich Engels, who worked for the textile mill that his father owned stock in. So, according to his own theory, Marx spent his later years supported by the exploited labor of textile workers!

Yes August 19, 2010 at 5:07 pm

But not means that in England, was employee by some enterprise. Their ideas disagreed the concerns of bosses. Unfortunately, this is “capitalist freedom”: if their ideas disagree the concerns of bosses, you is not accepted in job neither.

Russ the Apostate August 19, 2010 at 7:19 pm

“if their ideas disagree the concerns of bosses, you is not accepted in job neither.”

No; if what you do is useless to society, then your job is not accepted by capitalism. Marx was (and is) useless to society.

biographer August 18, 2010 at 8:51 pm

Writing on Biographies, What you explain on Mises advocate “minimum state”, but working has public worker while lived in Austria and received lifetime pension.

Inquisitor August 18, 2010 at 11:53 pm

What needs “explain” exactly, hm? Mises – unlike Marx – was not so utterly stupid (or dishonest) as to advocate a philosophy that claimed his class background determined his intellectual leanings. For Marx it is a spurious hole in his system. Mises was for a minimal state. Not no state. So… where’s the contradiction or problem implied here?

Mises August 19, 2010 at 12:54 pm

Mises was so stupid (or dishonest) that not understand or misrepresented by dishonesty the written of Marx.

Marx does not said “that class background determined his intellectual leanings”. Marx said that “the ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.” I.e., ruling ideas, behaviors… of different ages, are differents. As explained above, in Antiquity the ruling ideas was differents, in Middle Age the ruling ideas was differents, in modern period the ruling ideas was differents, and the presenty age. Are differents stages, differents historic periods, each age with differents ruling class, with ideas, differents ruling ideas, moral and behaviors.

Jon Leckie August 19, 2010 at 1:13 pm

God it’s like arguing with a fossil. Marx is irrelevant. He was wrong. He contributed nothing to the world of ideas or of blood and stone. Millions and millions have been killed in his name. Knowing Marx is only of value to understanding the history of the 20th century. That’s it.

mpolzkill August 19, 2010 at 1:23 pm

Well I don’t like him either, Jon, but if he’s irrelevant why are we living under a system based on his ideas?

Elwin August 19, 2010 at 3:09 pm

Because they are the ideas of this age’s ruling class, derived from its class ideology, which shows its members how to act in order to benefit their class.

Oddly enough, that class turned out to be bureaucrats, not factory workers.

mpolzkill August 20, 2010 at 2:38 am

I like that formulation, Elwin, but where do George Soros and Warren Buffet and the Rockefeller machine fit in?

Jon Leckie August 20, 2010 at 4:32 am

I don’t know mpolzkill, I don’t agree that our system is based on his ideas – Marx didn’t invent collectivism, but he did pervert the notions of justice and decency that are used to support it. I’d suggest that it’s that perversion that has been entrenched in the education system and the media for the last 100 years, combined with modern technology that has allowed Leviathan to rise. The state has always wanted to expand, right? But it’s only moden technology that has given it the awful reach that it has today. Nothing to do with Marx the Fraud.

And I don’t trust this whole idea of “ruling classes” either (although I’m pretty sure Elwin’s tongue was in his cheek). There’s no Borg, no global committee for corporatist control that meets twice a month and takes minutes. The growth of the state is organic, it’s a natural process, it’s in the nature of the state to expand. And it’s perfectly natural for private interests to form strong and corrupting relationships with the government. You don’t need an agent directing society in this direction. It’s just a natural product of avoiding personal responsiblity and looking to the friggin’ government to take care of everything. As government grows, private influences will attempt to engage and control it for their own ends. The answer is not more government, less private actors, but more private actors competing free of government interference.

The protagonist on this page reminds me of stories of those old Japanese soldiers running around deserted Pacific islands 30, 40, 50 years after WW2 ended, still watching for the Allies. Marxism is finished. It’s dead. It’s only interest is historical. It has nothing to offer the future.

mpolzkill August 20, 2010 at 8:26 am

“How to get rid of the communists in the government? Easy. Just abolish the jobs.” – Frank Chodorov

I guess I’d have to write a book to explain it, but fortunately I don’t have to if you read that “People’s Pottage” I was telling you about. Of course there’s not a borg, it’s a mindset, one to me best described as a Marxoid one.

Of course there’s a ruling class, they’re the ones who live materially better than we do despite only ever doing productive work rarely and by chance. There isn’t anything natural about the size of this class beginning to suffocate us with its weight and insane stupidity, there’s never been one so large and a population in history so utterly befuddled by it. Of course it took an unnatural effort to make this so. In your country for instance, you don’t think the Fabian Society worked like demons? Maybe you’re fooled by the fact that they didn’t win elections.

In short again, the ultra wealthy largely adopted Marx’s tenets in order to solidify power and better pacify the masses. The whole thing has morphed to be sure, making a straight Marxist like this unfortunate soul here seem quaint. If he were a dogmatic Darwinist he would seem quaint, but by this you would deny Darwin’s influence on biology?

Jon Leckie August 21, 2010 at 5:45 am

I’ll check out the book, thanks mpolzkill. Great last line on your reply too (even there’s a billion times more truth in The Origin of Species than the Manifesto!), it’s a good line.

How many? August 19, 2010 at 3:35 pm

How many was killed in name of their ideology? How many was killed in “gold age of liberalism” (using words of Mises referindo-se to 19th century). No be marxist experiment in 20th. Only existed a marxist experiment in History, was in Paris, 1871. Could say how many was killed in this experiment? The name of dictatorship of Commune? Commenting on this experiment (one only truly socialist in History) how many liberals kills during the massacre to Commune?

Old Mexican August 19, 2010 at 5:06 pm

Re: How Many?

How many was killed in name of their ideology?

In the name of Marxism? Around 120 million, in the 20th Century alone.

In the name of Classical liberalism: ZERO.

Gil August 20, 2010 at 2:43 am

Classical Liberalism can cause no deaths because if someone dies they only have themselves to blame.

Old Mexican August 19, 2010 at 5:03 pm

Yous likes to says “differents” a lots….

Inquisitor August 19, 2010 at 6:09 pm

And how, in turn are these ideas formed and propagated, hm?

newson August 19, 2010 at 12:58 am

tu quoque fallacy.

Zero? August 19, 2010 at 7:07 pm

How many only during the massacre to Paris Commune (one only marxist experiment of History), in name of liberalism? According to sources more modests, 20.000 killed in SEVEN DAYS, i.e., 1 attack of 11 september for day. How many original inhabitants of United States was exterminated in name of liberalism? This account you not calculate.
On the 120 millions, are not truly socialists. Was revolutionary processes that have degenerated. The one only socialist experiment happened in History was Paris Commune, that was massacred in name of liberal ideology.

Pot Pot August 19, 2010 at 8:42 pm

How dare my glorious Marxist experiment be overlooked.

supported by Reagan August 19, 2010 at 10:28 pm

Until the Murray Newton Rothbard, wrote that Pol-Pot, in Cambodia, was supported by United States, including critizices the administration REAGAN (LIBERAL and supported by AUSTRIAN LIBERALS, as Hayek) for “continued aid and support to Pol Pot in Cambodia”.

Broken English August 19, 2010 at 10:50 pm

Reagan not liberal. He neo-con.

supported by Reagan August 19, 2010 at 11:19 pm

What liberals as Hayek (AUSTRIAN SCHOOL) and Freedman supported Reagan?

Ronald Reagan August 20, 2010 at 4:29 am

I’ll make an afterlife confession: I was no Austrian. Pol Pot passes on his regards.

mpolzkill August 20, 2010 at 2:49 am

Pol Pot, there is no fighting a Commie, or a social democrat, or a conservative, or a “classical liberal” in this way. No demonstration of historical failure or disaster has any meaning to the true believer. The people who were carrying their banner in the past weren’t really genuine, or they were stabbed in the back, or most everyone else was just too dumb or evil to see or follow the one true way. They will get it right in the future.

Gil August 20, 2010 at 3:07 am

It’s not a crime not kill a Communist under Classical Liberalism.

response August 19, 2010 at 7:11 pm

By media of communication, because are undertaken by bourgeoisie.

Dave August 20, 2010 at 1:38 am

Ohh Henry’s comment comparing the US and Canadian [left wing] politicians and journalists as crypto marxist is spot on.

Current August 20, 2010 at 6:04 am

The Mises institute website needs some IP bans on people who use sockpuppetry. This thread is unreadable.

Franklin August 20, 2010 at 12:06 pm

Agreed! Sounds less like an early learner of English and more like bad translation software.
Man, much more may make me miss Michael.

mpolzkill August 20, 2010 at 12:19 pm

May the Gods of alliteration smite you for that one, Franklin.

Franklin August 20, 2010 at 12:33 pm

Heh, sometimes my silliness get the best of me.
BTW, I can’t say you didn’t forewarn. Super guffaws for the Ron Paul satire, especially the Ron Paul is a Secret Muslim, almost coughed up my java, but at 3:20 on…. quite hideous. Still turns the stomach. ‘course, we’ve only Ron to blame.

mpolzkill August 20, 2010 at 12:44 pm

Haha, glad you like it, but he definitely went too strong even for me at 3:20 on (I guess it’s impossible to give a warning like this. May as well say, “DANGER!!! Don’t lookI Boobs after the 3:20 mark!!!”).

This is it for clever Paul fans (check out the not-so-clever ones on the forum) who missed the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT6ywTZ-_8c

“we’ve only Ron to blame”

Righty right right, I’m sure you’ve seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1h1lWhOG1Q

newson August 22, 2010 at 6:19 am

that ron paul and chomsky video, and the other chapters, deserve a place on your website.

mpolzkill August 22, 2010 at 1:56 pm

Oh, I thought I’d lost my three or four fans and I’d abandoned my site (plus YouTube became such a cesspool). I guess I would maintain it if I thought even one person still liked it. Which Chomsky video was that, Newson?

- – - – -

“thanks mpolzkill. Great last line on your reply too”

No problem, and thank you, Jon.

newson August 22, 2010 at 6:47 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAudbmD7oW8&feature=related

actually it’s a series combining ron paul and chomsky. nwo, and all that.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: