Summary: Lecture 5, Marxism Unmasked. Marxism and The Manipulation of Man.

Marxism has benefited from the lack of criticism that is due to any philosophy that  aims at deconstructing a standing social order to establishes an entirely new social-economic environment. After Marx's death, Eugen con Höhm-Bawerk published a critique of Marx's economic theory, but it did not gain the traction needed, presumably because Marx himself was not as well known then as he is now. Marx's philosophy became popular because people were familiar with slogans, terms, etc., used by Marx. These cliches were, however, used in a way foreign to the Marxian system. Like Darwin's claim that humans are late chimps or Nietzche's Superman, Marxian claims became something other than what they are within their system. But, by and large, even these misunderstood Marxian ideas have gone unopposed.

Engels was responsible for simplifying and spreading Marx's doctrines to the masses. For example, during his speech at Marx's grave, Engles said, "Marx discovered the law of mankind's historical evolution...that men must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing before they can pursue politics, science, art, religion, and the like." And to oppose Marxism meant to oppose that men must eat before doing philosophy. When anyone is critical of Marx, they are not saying one can worry about the problems in philosophy on an empty stomach. The proper critique of Marxism is precisely an attack on the doctrine of historical evolution. Dialectical materialism is the idea that man's productive activity determines history's progression. The term "material productive forces" embodies this idea. The material productive forces explain a given time's "superstructure" or the social-economic and socio-political atmosphere. When it is said that Marxism aims to change the system, the claim is that one must change the material productive forces to change unsatisfactory social and economic conditions. However, upon closer inspection, one sees that this doesn't mean improving the production mechanism but their ownership.

There are plenty of historical examples of governments dealing with socialist policy and the tendency for governments and even religion (Christianity, for example) to appropriate for themselves the power associated with socialist policy. For example, in 19th century Prussia, the church was a cabinet of government. One can understand this relationship in Hegel's Philosophy of Right. The unification of the church's social influence and the state's power is evident in Prussia, Italy, and Russia. Governments are interested in socialism not necessarily because Marx was correct but because any socialist structure justifies an ever-growing power granted to politicians. History gives testament to the difference between being anti-Marxist and pro-economic freedom.

Materialism grounds the Marxist premise of material productive forces. Materialism is the metaphysical position that all reality is composed of and can be explained by material things and their interactions. Before psychoanalysis theory, for example, a materialist perspective would motivate a physician to seek an organic explanation for a person's suicide. If this were the case, one could conclude that the structure of a person's brain correlates to the person's actions. Freud and Breuer's theories were not materialistic. They aimed to explain a person's actions from other than the material composition of a person's brain. Freud did not intend to answer the questions of materialism or its connection to socialism. He admitted ignorance of socialist ideology, unlike Albert Einstein [1879-1955], who said, "I don't know anything about economics, but socialism is good."

Auguste Compte played a role in advancing Marxism. Compte said, "... [I] have discovered Truth. Therefore, there is no longer any need for freedom of thought or freedom of the press. I want to rule and to organize the whole country." The terms organize and social engineering have note-worthy histories. But their use in the eighteenth century led to the ultimate position that ideas needed planners. The position was conveniently helpful for those who believed they had the right ideas about social matters. The claim is that nothing in society occurs "automatically." The term automatically is usually associated with market economics. For example, the word automatically is used when economists describe the relationship between supply, demand, and price.

It should be noted, however, that "automatically" doesn't mean without human consciousness or divorced from human action and choice in the market. Those who advocate for planning are selling a false dichotomy. It is not "plan or no plan." The question is, "whose plan?" Understanding the consequences of this false dichotomy means realizing that those with power also had great ideas to be implemented. A plan needing realization means the need for a population of NPC [a term alien to Mises's language but widely used today to refer to non-player characters]. To achieve the great plan means using the police force and education. Socialism needs political might and a theory of behaviorism. Behaviorism is a notion quite familiar to Marxist writers who often make use of Ivan Pavlov's work. The theory here considers humans, at least those not in power, to be no different than animals. Humans are subject to the laws of conditioning used to train animals. People need to become educated or conditioned to believe in the grand plan. The interesting question is, who are the people and the conditioners? The only answer provided by Marxists is the same one Marx gave. "The whole idea of this philosophy is that we must accept what Karl Marx told us because he had the great gift- he was entrusted by providence, the material productive forces, with discovering the law of historical evolution."

The reason why anyone claims to be happy in a socialist nation is that they are part of a third generation unable to examine the contradictions inherent in the philosophy of historical materialism. Marxism requires not only political force but also manipulation to achieve its end. That end is incompatible with human freedom because human freedom does not work well with the premise that man is like any other animal. Marxism has been widely successful not in its aims but in its spread. It has not brought about equality or economic freedom, yet it is spreading. The only solution is to communicate in new ways. A population uninterested in philosophy will hardly see the problems created by the philosophies they accept and live by without further ado. New ways of exposing the contradictions and nonsensical aims of flawed philosophies like Marxism must be available to everyone. But we must also find new ways to help people care about these issues. The deficiency in American thinking is the lax attitude toward philosophy and books and the belief that these things are unimportant.

This summary was written by Omar Moreno, directly describing the lecture presented by Ludwig von Mises, published in the collection titled "Marxism Unmasked." All quotes are taken from the fifth lecture, and the work can be found through the Mises Institute using the following link: https://mises.org/library/marxism-unmasked-delusion-destruction