Why I abandoned marxism.

Miscellaneous General
1

Hi

I was a symphatizer/activist (but not a member) of Lutte Ouvrière, a french leninist-trotskyst party, I called myself a “marxist” and “trotskyst”. I really believed that the future of humanity was communism, the end of private property and the killing of every enemy of the proletariat. 1 month ago I’d have said you were all bourgeois and you should be all put to death during the revolution.

I’ve been in contact with Lutte Ouvrière for about 3 years. It’s a really closed organization, in the pure leninist tradition, you must be a “professional activist” (these are Lenin’s words) to become a member : you must be fully devoted to the revolution. That’s why it takes so long before you become “integrated” into the party.

During those 3 years, I’ve read books that LO’s activists gave me, usually books about revolts/revolutions and then theoretical books about marxism, trotskysm… I’ve gone on “trip” around France to compaign : we have flyers and discussed with people about how bad is capitalism, how richs are too rich, how we should organize to overthrow the bourgeoisie, etc. I also went on training course that were about marxism, the russian revolution, trotskysm, leninism etc.

And then I’ve read some stuff about the labour theory of value during a training course in a text by Lenin. And it seemed weird, well, the LTV always seemed very weird to me, even though my college economists teachers believe in it (they suck), and everybody in LO believe in it. So I read “Value, Price and Profit” by Marx, and it seemed not to be very… coherent and well-thought… “The price of commodities are the quantity of labout embodied in them. Well, ok, demand and supplies can change prices, but that’s not important.” WTF ?

When I came back home, I looked on the web some critics of LTV. I’ve found the book “Karl Marx and the close of his system”. I’ve read some parts of it, like the one that deals with the “tendency of profits to decline”, and I was shocked. Bohem-Bawerk was right, it doesn’t make sense.

So I ordered the book on amazon, I also ordered the book The Economic Theory of the Leisure Class by Bukharin. To keep it short : I’ve been completly convinced by the former, and the latter doesn’t make any f***cking sense.

So I’ve made some research about Bohem-Bawerk and the autrichian school of economics. So I came here. And now I don’t believe anymore that capitalism suck, I rather believe that the problem is the lack of enough capitalism.

(I post this because someone told me it’s always interesting to hear about how people became autrichian :p)

2

Intellectual honesty is a great thing.

3

These are always my favorite posts!

I’m always surprised by believers in the labor theory of value - does it really take someone a long time to figure out that they don’t value things in accordance with how long it took someone to make it? Value is inherently subjective.

Anyway, bravo!

4

The first time a Lutte Ouvrière activist told me about the labour theory of value, I had read about it before, and I told her “Well… what about supply and demand ? What about the market ?”

She answered me : “Yeah, it can change the price, but at the root of value, there’s work. Where could it come from if it doesn’t come from work ?”

So I answered “Yeah, that’s right.” without really making research about it. I certainly thought “If they say the LTV is true, if Marx, Lenin and Trotsky said so, it must be right. They were all revolutionary “proletarian”, they’re on the side of the poor, on my side, so that’s must be true.”

Marxism/communism is similar to religion, but a religion in which gods were human, but dead for decades. (Marx, Trotsky…)

EDIT : Oh, and to answer your question, I think everybody know that they don’t value things according to the labour that was needed for this thing to be produced.

But the marxists say that it’s a law of economics, it’s something that is not subjective, but objective. Even if you don’t think a car that is sold 20,000€ has a value of 20,000€, if you wouldn’t pay more than 10,000€ for it, well its value is still 20,000€ because it represents the quantity of labour embodied in it. It doesn’t make any sense.

5

You can really dismantle Marxism in just a few steps. Labour theory of value being one of them.

If you have not read them yet, try Principles of Economics by Carl Menger (the foundation), and Theory & History by Mises.

6

Here you go

7

Hey.. welcome!

You should check out Hans-Hermann Hoppe. He used to be a Marxist too. I myself was going down the Chomsky route.

Anyway: Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis - Hoppe

“I want to do the following in this paper: First to present the theses that constitute the hard core of the Marxist theory of history. I claim that all of them are essentially correct. Then I will show how these true theses are derived in Marxism from a false starting point. Finally, I will demonstrate how Austrianism in the Mises-Rothbard tradition can give a correct but categorically different explanation of their validity.”

What are your thoughts on this, worth giving to some friends - get some responses?

8

I’m going to read a looott of books ! I’ve ordered “Economics in one lesson”, “Economics for real people”, “Human action” and “Socialism” (by Mises) 3 days ago :slight_smile:

Thanks for the links, it’s certainly worth giving to my friends BUT they don’t speak english. French people suck terribly at english and any foreign language, I have to find texts in french if I want to give them.

And I can’t give these texts to Lutte Ouvrière activists, seriously, they’re too close-minded and will say that they have been written by bourgeois defending the capitalist class and won’t bother reading it.

9

You might be able to find some texts in French by Frederic Bastiat or others because they actually were French.

It must be exciting and dissapointing for you at the same time to realize that you have, in a way, wasted time with the LO and socialist mis-understandings.

10

Andrew Cain: Here you go

Layano, welcome.

Posts like yours provide reason to be optimistic, to hold out hope that the failed, bankrupt, economic theories of Marx and the merry band of socialists may crumble. The Mises Institute saved and preserved the Austrian literature from vanishing from the face of the Earth. Now, this literature is available on this website for free download (have you found the “Literature” tab?). I suggest you begin immersing yourself in it. Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Hoppe to name only a few. There is so much to read it would take a lifetime to absorb. AC’s list is the place to start.

From AC’s thread, maybe you can send some of those yellow t-shirts to your former fellow travelers.

11

Hey that’s very exciting. Not much dissapointing… I’ve learnt a lot of things during these 3 years, they make me like reading actually. But what piss me off is that I participated in conveying bullshit. For 3 years. Damn it.

Yeah I know there are hundred of book to read, I’ve already started :slight_smile: As I said, I read Bohem-Bawerk book “Marx and the close of his system”, I’ve read some articles on the blogs, I’ve watched about a dozen of Mises Institute lecture, I’ve read the mises.org and liberaux.org forums :slight_smile: And I ordered 4 books about autrichian economy :slight_smile:

I also need nice T-shirts. x)

Thanks a lot to the Mises Institute for saving all those books and ideas ! Now it’s my turn to spread these ideas :wink:

12

Great!

I suggest you read them in the order you listed, so you should read Economics in One Lesson first, then Economics for Real People, and once you get a good understanding of these two texts I suggest you move on to Human Action and Socialism. Honestly, the study of Human Action alone could take you years. I know I’ve been constantly returning to it ever since I got it.

13

Once again, you see how austrian economics and most important, liberalism, is found by people that is really worried about society and future. Amazing story, I used to be a “light socialist” some time, then I figure it’s very easy to be a socialist with other people’s money. Capitalism is not a imposition, it’s a natural thing, and there is its beauty. Welcome Layano!

14

If you keep in touch with your comunist friends, try to show them your opinion!!!

15

It wouldn’t have any effect to try to explain them austrian stuff. They’re mind-locked, they’ve been really endoctrinated, it is really like a religion. When I doubted about something that Marx or Engels wrote, they frowned at me and really seemed not to like anyone to disagree with anything. And I could also noticed that the young activists, who were about my age, feared of asking questions. lol.

The youngest member is about 30 and have spent 10 years fighting for his ideas, he was the leader of a strike 6 months ago, he’s responsible of the local union, he was candidate at every election for the last 5 years etc.

And they’re all like this.

I think I’m hopeful not to be close-minded, and also very lucky to speak english (or I couldn’t have read Bohem-Bawerk’s book :p), and still young (I’m 20) and also not to be too implicated in the party’s life (like I don’t write the flyers, I’ve never been candidate for the elections etc.) so could walk away from them more easily I guess…

16

Yep, I used to call myself a “Marxist” of sorts at one point too (also a “socialist” and later “neoconservative”), though never of any Leninist streak. I think there is still some things of value in some Marxist stuff - like autonomism - but they’re needles in a haystack of cultish stupidity.

17

Hello! And I’m glad to see the huge intellectual leaps which you have recently taken.

I would really appreciate it is you could do me a favor and tell me what exactly your answers to the following questions would have been when you were a Marxist.

  1. How do you account for Marx and Engel’s bourgeois heritage and wealthy lifestyles, indeed Engels made his money off of factory labor

  2. Why is it that those nations which have historically been most susceptible to actual communist uprisings are poor agrarian societies, not wealthy industrialized societies?

  3. Living standards for modern capitalistic nations have increased steadily over the decades and the middle class has not dissapeared like Marx said it was a century and a half ago?

  4. Why is it that people simply acting freely is a bad thing?

  5. Why is it that communism is currently so weak?

  6. Why is Marxism so absolutely out of fashion in the economics profession?

  7. How is it that members of the bourgeoisie could be good and the proletariat evil if they dont support the revolution and members of the bourgoisie good if they do support the revolution

18

I approached Marxism from a theoretical side, I read many of those dreary essays by Mao (and even Lenin and Stalin), and Marx original political and economic writings. I find the central part of Das Kapital to be the most compelling logically, but the political and economic contradictions in Marxism were just too glaring to make much sense out of his writings.

I would say Mao was the most interesting, since an insight into Maoism, especially On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People and On New Democracy , are extremely useful in understanding the modern left’s intellectual and internal theoretic system. Whatever they call it, the majority of the ‘new left’ presently ensconced in power are Maoists of one sort or another, with ones like Chomsky still being left in the Cultural Revolution.

19

I’m very glad to have you here with us, my friend. It’s always a blessing when another searching soul finds the light of truth.

Is it just me, or are there hardly any libertarians who were raised like that from birth? For example, I was raised in a very neoconservative environment for most of my life before finding my own way to libertarianism. It seems like libertarians are made, not born. I wonder what that says about our beliefs? Something good, I’d wager, considering the vast number of “converts” (for lack of a better term) we gather from all points across the political spectrum.

20

What I’d have answered to those questions 1 month ago :

  1. How do you account for Marx and Engel’s bourgeois heritage and wealthy lifestyles, indeed Engels made his money off of factory labor
    You can be a bourgeois and defend the poors. Actually, wealth and knowledge is needed to come up with a system as powerful as marxism, so no poor guy could have written Dad Kapital for exemple, because poor were too busy trying to survive.
    (In fact, most [all] of LO come from the petite-bourgeois, are sons of ingeneer, teachers etc.)

  2. Why is it that those nations which have historically been most susceptible to actual communist uprisings are poor agrarian societies, not wealthy industrialized societies?
    Because we had no luck :frowning: A communist party is needed for a revolution to happen. If there’s no communist revolutionnary (bolchevik) party, then it can’t happen because there will be nobody to take the power. So our goal now is to build strong leninists parties all around the world to take the power when the proletariat will revolt.

  3. Living standards for modern capitalistic nations have increased steadily over the decades and the middle class has not dissapeared like Marx said it was a century and a half ago?
    The middle class is dissapearing with the crisis. (2 months ago I had a debate with a communist who told me that the number of petit-bourgeois was decreasing, I didn’t believe so…) And if the standard of living has raised in capitalist countries, that’s because of imperialism. (read Lenine’s Impérialisme, Stade suprême du capitalisme.)

  4. Why is it that people simply acting freely is a bad thing?
    Because that causes poverty all over the world, and crisis that will lead capitalism to its end. (but we’ll have to help it falling with a revolution)

  5. Why is it that communism is currently so weak?
    Because people are brain-washed and have no hope in future.

  6. Why is Marxism so absolutely out of fashion in the economics profession?
    Because they’re bourgeois. (and in France, it’s not old fashioned, half my teachers are marxists…)

  7. How is it that members of the bourgeoisie could be good and the proletariat evil if they dont support the revolution and members of the bourgoisie good if they do support the revolution
    Because communism is a good thing. So if you’re a bourgeois and don’t like it, you’re an ennemy of the proletariat. BUT if you’re a worker and don’t believe in communism, then it’s not your fault, that’s because you’ve been brainwashed by bourgeois media and politicians.

That’s not exactly the way I’d have answered, but I have some difficulty now to take these answers seriously. Damn I was stupid.