Mises, Ludwig von. Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

122 DETERMINISM AND MATERIALISM

They supported the union movement whose striving

after higher wages Marx despised as useless.

They

asked for all those measures of government interference

with business which Marx branded petty-bourgeois

nonsense. They opposed technological improvement, in

earlier days by destroying new machines, later by union

pressure and compulsion in favor of feather-bedding.

Syndicalism—appropriation of the enterprises by the

workers employed in them—is a program that the work-

ers developed spontaneously. But socialism was brought

to the masses by intellectuals of bourgeois background.

Dining and wining together in the luxurious London

homes and country seats of late Victorian "society," la-

dies and gentlemen in fashionable evening clothes con-

cocted schemes for converting the British proletarians

to the socialist creed.

The Ideological Impregnation of Thought

From the supposed irreconcilable conflict of class in-

terests Marx deduces his doctrine of the ideological im-

pregnation of thought. In a class society man is inher-

ently unfit to conceive theories which are a substantially

true description of reality. As his class affiliation, his

social being, determines his thoughts, the products of

his intellectual effort are ideologically tainted and dis-

torted. They are not truth, but ideologies. An ideology

in the Marxian sense of the term is a false doctrine

which, however, precisely on account of its falsity,

6. Marx, Value, Price and Profit, ed. E. Marx Aveling (Chicago,

Charles H. Kerr

Co. Cooperative), pp. 125-6. See below p. 137.

DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM 123

serves the interests of the class from which its author

stems.

We may omit here dealing with many aspects of this

ideology doctrine. We need not disprove anew the doc-

trine of polylogism, according to which the logical

structure of mind differs in the members of various

classes.

We may furthermore admit that the main con-

cern of a thinker is exclusively to promote the interests

of his class even if these clash with his interests as an

individual. We may finally abstain from questioning the

dogma that there is no such thing as the disinterested

search for truth and knowledge and that all human in-

quiry is exclusively guided by the practical purpose of

providing mental tools for successful action. The ide-

ology doctrine would remain untenable even if all the

irrefutable objections that can be raised from the point

of view of these three aspects could be rejected.

Whatever one may think of the adequacy of the prag-

matist definition of truth, it is obvious that at least one

of the characteristic marks of a true theory is that action

based on it succeeds it attaining the expected result. In

this sense truth works, while untruth does not work.

Precisely if we assume, in agreement with the Marxians,

that the end of theorizing is always success in action,

the question must be raised why and how an ideological

(that is, in the Marxian sense, a false) theory should be

more useful to a class than a correct theory? There is no

doubt that the study of mechanics was motivated, at

least to some extent, by practical considerations. Peo-

ple wanted to make use of the theorems of mechanics to

Mises, Human Action, pp.

72-91.

124 DETERMINISM AND MATERIALISM

solve various problems of engineering. It was precisely

the pursuit of these practical results that impelled them

to search for a correct, not for a merely ideological

(false) science of mechanics. No matter how one looks

at it, there is no way in which a false theory can serve

a man or a class or the whole of mankind better than a

correct theory. How did Marx come to teach such a

doctrine?

To answer this question we must remember the mo-

tive that impelled Marx to all his literary ventures. He

was driven by one passion—to fight for the adoption of

socialism. But he was fully aware of his inability to op-

pose any tenable objection to the economists' devastat-

ing criticism of all socialist plans. He was convinced

that the system of economic doctrine developed by the

Classical economists was impregnable, and remained

unaware of the serious doubts which essential theorems

of this system had already raised in some minds. Like

his contemporary John Stuart Mill he believed "there is

nothing in the laws of value which remains for the

present or any future writer to clear up; the theory of

the subject is complete."

When in 1871 the writings of

Carl Menger and William Stanley Jevons inaugurated

a new epoch of economic studies, Marx's career as a

writer on economic problems had already come to a

virtual end. The first volume of Das Kapital had been

published in 1867; the manuscript of the following vol-

umes was well along. There is no indication that Marx

ever grasped the meaning of the new theory. Marx's

economic teachings are essentially a garbled rehash of

Mill, Principles of Political Economy, Bk. Ill, ch. 1, § 1.

DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM 125

the theories of Adam Smith and, first of all, of Ricardo.

Smith and Ricardo had not had any opportunity to re-

fute socialist doctrines, as these were advanced only

after their death. So Marx let them alone. But he vented

his full indignation upon their successors who had tried

to analyze the socialist schemes critically. He ridiculed

them, calling them "vulgar economists" and "sycophants

of the bourgeoisie." And as it was imperative for him to

defame them, he contrived his ideology scheme.

These "vulgar economists" are, because of their bour-

geois background, constitutionally unfit to discover

truth. What their reasoning produces can only be ideo-

logical, that is, as Marx employed the term "ideology,"

a distortion of truth serving the class interests of the

bourgeoisie. There is no need to refute their chains of

argument by discursive reasoning and critical analysis.

It is enough to unmask their bourgeois background and

thereby the necessarily "ideological" character of their

doctrines. They are wrong because they are bourgeois.

No proletarian must attach any importance to their

speculations.

To conceal the fact that this scheme was invented ex-

pressly to discredit the economists, it was necessary to

elevate it to the dignity of a general epistemological law

valid for all ages and for all branches of knowledge.

Thus the ideology doctrine became the nucleus of

Marxian epistemology. Marx and all his disciples con-

centrated their efforts upon the justification and ex-

emplification of this makeshift. They did not shrink

from any absurdity. They interpreted all philosophical

systems, physical and biological theories, all literature,

126 DETERMINISM AND MATERIALISM

music, and art from the "ideological" point of view. But,

of course, they were not consistent enough to assign to

their own doctrines merely ideological character. The

Marxian tenets, they implied, are not ideologies. They

are a foretaste of the knowledge of the future classless

society which, freed from the fetters of class conflicts,

will be in a position to conceive pure knowledge, un-

tainted by ideological blemishes.

Thus we can understand the thymological motives

that led Marx to his ideology doctrine. Yet this does not

answer the question why an ideological distortion of

truth should be more advantageous to the interests of

a class than a correct doctrine. Marx never ventured to

explain this, probably aware that any attempt to would

entangle him in an inextricable jumble of absurdities

and contradictions.

There is no need to emphasize the ridiculousness of

contending that an ideological physical, chemical, or

therapeutical doctrine could be more advantageous for

any class or individual than a correct one. One may pass

over in silence the declarations of the Marxians con-

cerning the ideological character of the theories devel-

oped by the bourgeois Mendel, Hertz, Planck, Heisen-

berg, and Einstein. It is sufficient to scrutinize the al-

leged ideological character of bourgeois economics.

As Marx saw it, their bourgeois background impelled

the Classical economists to develop a system from

which a justification of the unfair claims of the capital-

ist exploiters must logically follow. (In this he contra-

dicts himself, as he drew from the same system just the

opposite conclusions.) These theorems of the Classical

DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM 127

economists from which the apparent justification of cap-

italism could be deduced were the theorems which

Marx attacked most furiously: that the scarcity of the

material factors of production on which man's well-

being depends is an inevitable, nature-given condition

of human existence; that no system of society's eco-

nomic organization could create a state of abundance

in which to everybody could be given according to his

needs;

that the recurrence of periods of economic de-

pressions is not inherent in the very operation of an un-

hampered market economy but, on the contrary, the

necessary outcome of government's interfering with

business with the spurious aim of lowering the rate of

interest and making business boom by inflation and

credit expansion. But, we must ask, of what use, from

the very Marxian point of view, could such a justifica-

tion of capitalism be for the capitalists? They them-

selves did not need any justification for a system which

—according to Marx—while wronging the workers was

beneficial to themselves. They did not need to quiet

their own consciences since, again according to Marx,

every class is remorseless in the pursuit of its own

self-

ish class interests.

Neither is it, from the point of view of the Marxian

doctrine, permissible to assume that the service which

the ideological theory, originating from a "false con-

sciousness" and therefore distorting the true state of af-

fairs,

rendered to the exploiting class was to beguile the

exploited class and to make it pliable and subservient,

and thereby to preserve or at least to prolong the unfair

system of exploitation. For, according to Marx, the

128 DETERMINISM AND MATERIALISM

duration of a definite system of production relations

does not depend on any spiritual factors. It is exclu-

sively determined by the state of the material produc-

tive forces. If the material productive forces change,

the production relations (i.e., the property relations)

and the whole ideological superstructure must change

too.

This transformation cannot be accelerated by any

human effort. For as Marx said, "no social formation

ever disappears before all the productive forces are de-

veloped for which it is broad enough, and new higher

production relations never appear before the material

conditions of their existence have been hatched out in

the womb of the old society/'

This is by no means merely an incidental observation

of Marx. It is one of the essential points of his doctrine.

It is the theorem on which he based his claim to call his

own doctrine scientific socialism as distinguished from

the merely Utopian socialism of his predecessors. The

characteristic mark of the Utopian socialists, as he saw

it,

was that they believed that the realization of social-

ism depends on spiritual and intellectual factors. You

have to convince people that socialism is better than

capitalism and then they will substitute socialism for

capitalism. In Marx's eyes this Utopian creed was ab-

surd. The coming of socialism in no way depends on the

thoughts and wills of men; it is an outgrowth of the de-

velopment of the material productive forces. When the

time is fulfilled and capitalism has reached its maturity,

socialism will come. It can appear neither earlier nor

Marx, Zur Kritik der politischen Oekonomie, p. xii (see above

pp.

107

f.).

DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM 129

later. The bourgeois may contrive the most cleverly

elaborated ideologies—in vain; they cannot delay the

day of the breakdown of capitalism.

Perhaps some people, intent upon salvaging the

Marxian "ideology" concept, would argue this way: The

capitalists are ashamed of their role in society. They

feel guilty at being "robber barons, usurers, and ex-

ploiters" and pocketing profits. They need a class ide-

ology in order to restore their self-assertion. But why

should they blush? There is, from the point of view of

the Marxian doctrine, nothing in their conduct to be

ashamed of. Capitalism, in the Marxian view, is an in-

dispensable stage in the historical evolution of mankind.

It is a necessary link in the succession of events which

finally results in the bliss of socialism. The capitalists,

in being capitalists, are merely tools of history. They

execute what, according to the preordained plan for

mankind's evolution, must be done. They comply with

the eternal laws which are independent of the human

will. They cannot help acting the way they do. They do

not need any ideology, any "false consciousness," to tell

them that they are right. They are right in the light of

the Marxian doctrine. If Marx had been consistent, he

would have exhorted the workers: Don't blame the cap-

italists; in "exploiting" you they do what is best for your-

selves; they are paving the way for socialism.

However one may turn the matter, one cannot dis-

cover any reason why an ideological distortion of truth

should be more useful to the bourgeoisie than a correct

theory.

130 DETERMINISM AND MATERIALISM

5. The Conflict of Ideologies

Class consciousness, says Marx, produces class ideolo-

gies.

The class ideology provides the class with an inter-

pretation of reality and at the same time teaches the

members how to act in order to benefit their class. The

content of the class ideology is uniquely determined by

the historical stage of the development of the material

productive forces and by the role the class concerned

plays in this stage of history. The ideology is not an

arbitrary brain child. It is the reflection of the thinker's

material class condition as mirrored in his head. It is

therefore not an individual phenomenon conditional

upon the thinker's fancy. It is enjoined upon the mind

by reality, i.e., by the class situation of the man who

thinks. It is consequently identical with all members of

the class. Of course, not every class comrade is an au-

thor and publishes what he has thought. But all writers

belonging to the class conceive the same ideas and all

other members of the class approve of them. There is

no room left in Marxism for the assumption that the

various members of the same class could seriously dis-

agree in ideology. There exists for all members of the

class only one ideology.

If a man expresses opinions at variance with the ide-

ology of a definite class, that is because he does not be-

long to the class concerned. There is no need to refute

his ideas by discursive reasoning. It is enough to un-

mask his background and class affiliation. This settles

the matter.

DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM 131

But if a man whose proletarian background and

membership in the workers' class cannot be contested

diverges from the correct Marxian creed, he is a traitor.

It is impossible to assume that he could be sincere in

his rejection of Marxism. As a proletarian he must nec-

essarily think like a proletarian. An inner voice tells him

in an unmistakable way what the correct proletarian

ideology is. He is dishonest in overriding this voice and

publicly professing unorthodox opinions. He is a rogue,

a Judas, a snake in the grass. In fighting such a betrayer

all means are permissible.

Marx and Engels, two men of unquestionable bour-

geois background, hatched out the class ideology of the

proletarian class. They never ventured to discuss their

doctrine with dissenters as scientists, for instance, dis-

cuss the pros and cons of the doctrines of Lamarck, Dar-

win,

Mendel, and Weismann. As they saw it, their ad-

versaries could only be either bourgeois idiots

or pro-

letarian traitors. As soon as a socialist deviated an inch

from the orthodox creed, Marx and Engels attacked him

furiously, ridiculed and insulted him, represented him

as a scoundrel and a wicked and corrupt monster. After

Engels' death the office of supreme arbiter of what is

and what is not correct Marxism devolved upon Karl

Kautsky. In 1917 it passed into the hands of Lenin and

became a function of the chief of the Soviet govern-

ment. While Marx, Engels, and Kautsky had to content

themselves with assassinating the character of their op-

E.g., "bourgeois stupidity" (about Bentham, Das Kapital, 1,

574),

"bourgeois cretinism" (about Destutt de Tracy, ibid., 2, 465),

and so on.