What kind of man was Ludwig von Mises?

[hugolp]

It's ironic that you dismiss Mises because his writing simply serves the purpose of the capitalist class, which prevents you from actually reading his logical destruction of Marxian class analysis itself.  Marx was more clever than I give him credit for.  He couldn't attack the ideas of the liberal economists themselves, so he had to attack the very idea of logic itself.  His class analysis says that human logic is different for every class in society and therefore it's pointless to read works by the "capitalist class" because their logic can only serve their needs.  That way proponents of Marxian class analysis never have to actually defend their point of view or read any critiques of it.  It's invalid by the very definition.  Which, by-the-way, shares a trait with most of the fundamental Religions....

Yes, marxism has a lot of the components of cults, thats why it works so well on some people.

Btw, the most ironic part is that Marx said that the buorgeois class had a different logic, but he himself was a buorgeios, therefore (according to that line of thinking) the workers should not listen to Marx. Its the limit of irony a buorgeios telling the workers not to listen to any other buorgeios but himself.

[1715128799]

1715128799

[1715128799]

1715128799

[1715128799]

1715128799

[The Script]

Btw, the most ironic part is that Marx said that the buorgeois class had a different logic, but he himself was a buorgeios, therefore (according to that line of thinking) the workers should not listen to Marx. Its the limit of irony a buorgeios telling the workers not to listen to any other buorgeios but himself.

Exactly.  Mises talks about this in Human Action.  Also, Engles was a bourgeois and paid Marx a handsome salary to write articles.  This is because Marx refused to do manual labor, he'd rather starve (and came close a couple times).  It's interesting to see how much Marx got paid to write his Communist theories.  His stipends put him in the top 5% or so for income when he lived in Britain and in France.

[MatthewLM]

Neither the Marxians nor the racists nor the supporters of any other brand of polylogism ever went further than to declare that the logical structure of mind is different with various classes, races, or nations. They never ventured to demonstrate precisely in what the logic of the proletarians differs from the logic of the bourgeois, or in what the logic of the Aryans differs from the logic of the non-Aryans, or the logic of the Germans from the logic of the French or the British. In the eyes of the Marxians the Ricardian theory of comparative cost is spurious because Ricardo was a bourgeois. The German racists condemn the same theory because Ricardo was a Jew, and the German nationalists because he was an Englishman. Some German professors advanced all these three arguments together against the validity of Ricardo’s teachings. However, it is not enough to reject a theory wholesale by unmasking the background of its author. What is wanted is first to expound a system of logic different from that applied by the criticised author. Then it would be necessary to examine the contested theory point by point and to show where in its reasoning inferences are made which—although correct from the point of view of its author’s logic—are invalid from the point of view of the proletarian, Aryan, or German logic. And finally. it should be explained what kind of conclusions the replace- ment of the author’s vicious inferences by the correct inferences of the critic’s own logic must lead to. As everybody knows, this never has been and never can be attempted by anybody.

From Human Action.