Anyone ever come across this claim by a Marxist?: Praxeology is bourgeoisie because Ludwig von Mises was an aristocrat? So what does that make Marxism, bourgeoisie as well since Marx was bourgeoisie?
No. Clearly you haven’t read Marx and you just don’t understand him, probably because you are a capitalist pig.
Indeed.
Pretty sure Mises covers that in Human Action under polylogism.
Wouldn`t that make praxeology aristocratic?
I hear it every day. That’s when you know you’ve won.
Marx was part of the bourgeoisie class, no?
The thing I love most about the Austrian school is that people are viewed as people, and not classes of people, ie methodological individualism.
Well Marx’s followers got around this by saying the intellectual transcends the class warfare and able to see it in all its facets, kind of like a spirit hovering over us. I think Kaul Kautsky was the one who said this.
Then Mises transcends his aristocracy as well.
I am always eternally curious about marxism (since it is so curious) and I would just ask, isn’t it impossible for anyone to transcend class warfare but for the fact that that someone is the culmination of philosophy (since philosophy is the fullest development of spirit?).
So Mises couldn’t transcend class war because he wasn’t the culmination of the spirit?
I for one don’t see why they would argue against anyone. Since everything is an historical inevitability.
Historical materialism means there is no free will to change your actions. Ethics is also a part of the capitalist superstructure, so the rightness or wrongness of Mises saying anything is moot.
I agree with Lenin when he told Emma Goldman (as many Soviet-apologists did) that “free speech is a bourgeois notion.” Then bourgeois or not; the right thing for them to do is to be quiet I guess.
Do you mean to say that individuals are the collimation of the factors of production?
Good point. Another contradiction of Marxism.
Absolutely, the good is whatever advances the revolution, the bad whatever prevents it.
Does historical materialism suggest that the world is pre-determined?
In hegelianism (as far as I can understand it) philosophy is the culmination of history and the ultimate end point of spirit (the latter meaning mind/being/reality). When being finally realizes or understands itself (in the guise of the thinking man?) then philosophy is reached.
But in marxian hegelianism I suppose spirit can very much be translated into factors of production. In whatever sense, what I mean is that individuals that are objectively correct are the ones who have reached the culmination of spirit or perhaps for marx,the same thing, the proletarian mind-set: the proletarian sees everything objectively as opposed to the bourgeois. So I’m not sure one can say that Mises “knew” anything if one was a marxist. Also perhaps marx knew stuff yet came from the bourgeois because in hegelianism every system save the last one is contradictory so who better to expose capitalism than a bourgeois himself?
I’m not sure if your average marxist actually thinks like this though, they seem to have a concern for the poor which really doesn’t seem (to me) to be the whole point of marxism. The point of marxism is to usher in a new utopian age because all things are ultimately leading you there not to “help the poor”.
Absolutely right but Marx himself diverted from Hegelianism in predicting the future events and in terms of what motivated history. To Hegel it was the will or spirit but to Marx it was the factors of production.
Exactly.
Yes, class consciousness and the ability to will nature to their desires.
And to this I turn to Alexander Gray:
‘But beyond this, there are those who believe in Marx without having read him-perhaps who believe in Marx just because they have not read him. It is probably a safe surmise that to-day the third Volume of Capital is even less read than that single chapter which has conferred immortality on the prophet Obadiah, and when read, is read with as little comprehension. Just as, according to some and to judge from their practice, a good Christian need not read his Bible, so a good Marxian does not need to read his Marx: he knows it is there. Thus,for the great body of the faithful, Marx has become the inspired author of a body of Sorelian myths, which sum up, and fit in with, their general view of life, which clarify and illumine their daily strivings, which rationalise and crystallise their instincts. And these people, quite rightly, are not concerned with the metaphysical refinements of a theory of value. They accept the fact of, exploitation’ which has been proved by Marx, whom the doubter can read if he can and if he so chooses-by Marx who had read so many books that the list of hisreferences runs to pages and pages of close type. Moreover’ increasing misery’ means’ increasing misery,’ neither more nor less; and in a world where we all feel so much less fortunate than we think we ought to be, it is comforting to be told that we are right, and to know who is responsible for our unhappiness. This is what Marx <lid, and here lies the secret of his influence. To consider -whether Marx was’ right’ or , wrong’; to dredge Volumes I and III of Capital for inconsistencies or logical flaws, to ’ refute’ the Marxian system is, in the last resort, sheer waste of time; for when we consort with Marx we are no longer in the world of reason or logic.’ - The Socialist Tradition
Yes.
That apple must be a vegetable because it came from the orange stand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie
And you Che Guevarra boy don’t you have Global warming denier to lynch or something?
Easy hoss, Giant_Joe isn’t a socialist.
Yes. Indeed Mises was pretty poor after about 1940 and even before that he wasn’t very wealthy, Marx was richer than Mises.