An Austrian guide to the Communist Manifesto

Miscellaneous General
1

Well I just read the Communist Manifesto and… Well here’s some of my various thoughts

First part, totally nonjudgmental simply reflecting on the way the book is written/set up

Pros (Simply in terms of making it effective to spread its intended concepts as well as making it an interesting book)

  1. Short, defiantly a one hour read.

  2. Very straight to the point, no fooling about simply talks about the basic materialist view of history then economic principals, then on to comparing comparing the communist party to other movements most of which are now long dead.

  3. Appealing to people’s emotions, plays upon basic feelings and emotions of most people reading it.

  4. Strong, certain, and determined language

I can defiantly see why this would be appealing to any individual uneducated in economics/philosophy

Cons (Same criteria as the above pros)

  1. Gives absolutely no description of a communist society and only vaguely about the way in which Marxist theory states will be the next stage in societal evolution.

  2. Absolute document credibility destroying epic flaw about why communism must be the final stage in societal evolution. The only reason that it ever gives is that all societal shifts are dictated by class conflict but this doesn’t say why a communist society must or will evolve, simply why it will probably happen, not why it is an inevitability.

  3. Boring read overall, even with the pros above I was starting to fall asleep in the last 5 or so pages, this is coming from someone who HAS READ THE ENTIRETY OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. This is possibly because after about page 12 I decided that this was the bullshit that I have been warned of for so long.

  4. Extremely belligerent violent and uncaring about any “non proletarian” writing style that lumps all of society that has ever existed in basically 4 groups (proletarian, bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, and aristocracy). He goes so far as to say that a more or less everlasting aspect of bourgeois life involves each spouse is almost constantly having affairs with other members of bourgeois society

  5. Rather simplified view of history and society (which is pretty much why the entire philosophy goes so sour)

  6. Fails to give any real moral backing, I can basically sum up the entire thing with “All of history has been leading to communism and life will improve for the proletariat under communism and although it doesn’t matter whether you join us or not you should so long as you are a proletarian”

Now addressing the actual fallacies I will simply state exactly those found therein, I know everyone here has heard about a million arguments against socialism and Marxism on all counts but this is coming straight from the mouth of the beast as it were.

  1. An absolute despising of the division of labor. I honestly can’t understand this at all, he continually lashes out at the division of labor in all counts, never giving any reason why other than the implied “IT CAUSES TEH INEQUALITAH AND IS THEREFORE EVVIILLLL!!!” although It’s absolutely impossible for man to live above subsistence level without a huge division of labor.

  2. The most pervasive economic view throughout the entirety of the text is the perception of wage work as “wage slavery”. This is a universal law in the eyes of Marx, according to the manifesto there can be no consensual work in between classes, only exploitation and slavery.

  3. Profits which are not directly divided up and given to those who have a direct part in manufacturing the product are evil and coercive because it is stealing from those who actually gave value to the produce (AKA, Labor Theory of Value)

  4. As I said before it lumps everyone together directly into classes, as far as I can tell classes each have their own logical systems and freedoms (The term “bourgeois freedom” is used alot in talking about pretty much all freedoms that we know today because proletarian freedom appears to be non existent). It seems to be impossible to act outside the interest of your class. Class mobility is referenced briefly but it basically just says that somehow that class changing individual basically evolves.

  5. Capitalism is directly destructive, one of the reason why in the end there will be only the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is that inevitably capitalism is destructive and begins to either make individuals incredibly rich or incredibly poor, all those in the middle class who are petty bourgeois or somewhere in between will be dragged down into the proletariat as civilization begins to drag itself down into the abyss due to the destructive over productive forces of the free market. In this way the proletariat Only when the state is dominated by the proletariat and seizes control of the means of production will there begin to be real societal progress.

So to sum the concepts up:

The manifesto is based off of two things, the first being 5 year old kid economics (or hell, really just economics slightly less capitalist than modern day liberals) that revolve around the evil capitalist who is destroying society and the second being the ultimate form of collectivism, lumping everyone into classes. As far as I can tell the manifesto is openly either nihilist or existentialist based upon class. Communism is sold mainly through democratic ideals, not those of dictatorship, don’t mark Marx wrong on that score. However, let’s be perfectly honest, the Manifesto doesn’t give a damn about all of society, only the proletariat, neither does it express ANY type of freedom or individually whatsoever, it is the ultimate collectivist piece.

These are my basic thoughts, if you’re ever arguing with a Marxist who is faithful to the manifesto don’t give him an inch, this thing is an absolute monstrosity and nearly all arguments are posed against it are perfectly valid, there is a very good reason why many socialists are no where near strict Marxists and have been moving toward market socialism. I find it appalling that such a worthless document has been so pivotal in human affairs, fear not libertarians! Rothbard’s text obliterates this thing easily in both rationality and especially in readability.

To conclude, I’ve always thought that Mises was harsh with his words, but if this glorious manifesto which is so often talked about is anything to go by, his words in human action were absolutely spot on:

“The essence of Marxian philosophy is this: We are right because we are the spokesmen of the rising proletarian class. Discursive reasoning cannot invalidate our teachings, for they are inspired by the supreme power that determines the destiny of mankind. Our adversaries are wrong because they lack the intuition that guides our minds. It is, of course, not their fault that on account of their class affiliation they are not equipped with the genuine proletarian logic and are blinded by ideologies. The unfathomable decrees of history that have elected us have doomed them. The future is ours.”

-Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action

I’m sorry about the lenght of this document. Lol it’s probably about the lenght of the manifesto

2

That’s Marxism though. No explanation of how post-capitalist, post-socialist society would look, just an explanation that it’s inevitable.

3

“The Communist Manifesto” as explained by Robert LeFevre.

http://mises.org/media/1173

4

That explains it all! Marx was an envious playa hata.

Just think, the genocides of the 20th century maybe could have been avoided if Marx had been smart enough to shave. Idiot.

5

IIRC he did some immoral things to his maid.

6

I wrote a critique of the Communist Manifesto a while back. If anyone’s interested in reading it I’d be happy to post it (I don’t really remember of what I wrote though, just me critizing the entire thing step by step, and on his various planks of how to accomplish communism).

7

In all seriousness, I suspect that “playa hate” has been a major anti-libertarian factor throughout history. For one thing, bureaucrats generally strike me as stereotypical betas.

8

Totally agree. It’s almost odd the way people tend to overlook the enormous impact sex (and one’s success therein) has on human behavior, beliefs, and attitudes. When really, this shouldn’t surprise anyone. We are animals, and as such came pre-loaded with survive-and-reproduce instincts. If we didn’t (more precisely if our ancestors didn’t), we wouldn’t exist.

As a result, people who cannot get laid tend to be neurotic; this is probably part cause and part effect. I suspect this can lead to great works of genius (Freud’s “sublimation”) or to nihilistic destructive and/or self-destructive tendencies, depending on the individual “loser”'s character and intelligence.

Would somebody with a healthy and happy love/sex life write The Communist Manifesto? I have my doubts. Such individuals are too busy enjoying their generally pleasant lives and/or raising their families. There’s not enough “uneasiness” (to use a Mises term) to drive them to such an endeavor.

As preoccupied as Freud was with his own ridiculous issues, the sex thing in general is something he really nailed.*

  • Pun acknowledged but not intended.
9

AJ,

Would somebody with a healthy and happy love/sex life write Human Action? I have my doubts. Such individuals are too busy enjoying their generally pleasant lives and/or raising their families.

Seriously, you have pretty much said that all great works (anything outside of raw talent) come from people who have an unhealthy love life.

10

This is a good point, but I think I just failed to elaborate.

There are two things here:

  1. I did not meant to suggest that an unhappy love life is the only thing that leads to great works, just that it is something that can lead to great works (or great destruction).

  2. This still leaves the question of “would a happy person write The Communist Manifesto”, since, if you assume that sentence came from the idea in (1) (which is understandable), it’s invalid because the logic of this is the converse of my point in (1). What I actually meant with that question was a reference to the content of the Manfesto, in particular the bitterness on display in that book. I did not mean it as a logical conclusion from (1), but as a separate point.

Human Action, by contrast, did not strike me as even remotely bitter.

11

Yeah, it’s all a bit convoluted and speculative, but discussions of human motivations usually are (though this does not mean that one cannot procure some understanding/enlightenment from such discussion).

Ah, complex phenomena.

12

That’s right! Who needs the love of the glorious proletariat when they have a girlfriend… And who needs a girlfriend when they have the wonders of Austrian economics and praxeology to keep them company? [:D]

Also, food for thought. Would someone with a happy sex/love life sit around on the internet on a forum talking about free market economics? [;)]

But to put this all into perspective, just because you’re not getting any doesn’t mean that you will right an amazing work, nor vice versa. I think you have a point though, Marx was not a loving man, as far as I can tell he was pretty much a belligerent and idealistic asshole for his entire life.

This sounds kind of stupid but I find that when reading someone’s actual words you begin to understand their general mode of thinking. For example when I read something of Rand’s I find it to be very powerful, passionate, principled, and idealistic. Mises I find to be cool headed, rational, and exceedingly logical, Nietzsche tends to be cold, slightly contemptuous, but none the less with important but fairly obvious insights which come when one looks through fallacy.

When I read Marx’s stuff I just see belligerence, angry self assertion, harsh logic based upon fallacies which are never explored or given any but the most rudimentary of explanations, and above all an excess of coldness and uncaring. He talks about freedom and property and casts them aside like they were nothing, he talks about revolutions and mass theft without any real enthusiasm, just… A kind of cruel contempt.

I might just be wanting to vilify Marx based upon what I think of his theory, but I’d be interested to hear from someone who read the manifesto and didn’t agree to at least some of what I said.

13

Yes, people overlook the sexual aspects for many reasons - mostly cognitive dissonance. The very act of not overlooking it leads to discomfort, because people have impressions of themselves that are not accurate with reality, hence the dissonance when reality and their self-image collide. It’s in highly sexually repressed cultures where we get things like adulterers being stoned. I suppose this derives from male jealousy, which itself derives pretty directly from the inability to get laid with relative ease.

Certainly many a marauder enlisted in raiding parties to get a slice of the unwilling nookie. If you can easily get sex already, you’re not necessarily going to want to risk your life for it. Unless you love violence. Which itself could for many be the result of repressed lust and failure with women.

Well, anyone at any level sexual activity can write great works or terrible ones, I’m sure. But is there something specifically about communism or Marxism that appeals to the sexual frustrated? I don’t know, but the whole “class” framing of society always struck me as weird and artificial. I don’t know enough about history to know how much social status played into hookups back in the 19th century. Anyone know? Lilburne? Laughing Man?

14

That was Mike writing, not me. However, there is some pop-psychology support for this idea: see the chapter on sublimation in Napoleon Hill’s Think and Grow Rich. And some would say, although I myself am not prepared to open this most formidable can of worms, that everything men do is consciously or unconsciously an attempt (at least “by their genes”) to get more action.

15

I think many posters are college students with enough free time to engage in both types of…human action [6]

I’ve never heard anyone mention this before so explicitly, but I totally always notice this. A few paragraphs into an experienced writer’s very carefully considered writing and I get pretty strong (but vague) glimpses into their character. After reading a whole book by someone I usually feel totally steeped in that person’s personality, which can be good or bad but is always a little strange.

However, there is one thing that has always struck me about the LvMI forums: there is so much coolheadedness. It’s almost uncanny. I’ve been on so many different forums, even science, math, and Japanese language study forums, and there are always more vicious flame wars than on here - a political forum no less! Communists always seem angry, vindictive, etc. We have a few blowhards here, but most of them seem to have a natural bent toward truth-seeking and an open mind (even if they forget it from time to time).

Howard Katz has an unique theory about how leftist = Christianity (particularly pre-Reformation), and how the party of love (the left) always turns into the party of hate (the right), like the National Socialists in Germany did. He contends that those who are taught to always be full of love end up suppressing all their natural urges toward hate, until after some years they are brimming cauldrons of hate just waiting to be triggered. I myself don’t agree that it’s impossible to suppress negative feelings, but I agree that few people know how to.

He basically says that the phenomena of leftist paternalism (welfare state) is passive-aggressive behavior writ large with the help of the State. When the aggressive side comes out, a whole lotta people die!