What do Marxists and racists have in common? What can economics tell us about these systems - and why is economics unpopular with supporters of both sets of ideas? Ludwig Mises not only answers these questions in part of his book Human behavior. Extremely interesting chapter Economics and revolt against reasonhere you will find in a six-part series, in the second part Logical aspects of polylogism we will learn more about the erroneous polylogism that unites Marxists and racists. The book was written in the 40s, so the author projects his experience with the Nazi regime into the text. The source is a Czech translation, which he published in 2006 Liberal Institute. Translated by Josef Šíma and team.
Marxist polylogism argues that the logical structure of the mind differs between members of different social classes. Racial polylogism differs from Marxist only in thatthat he attributes a special logical structure to each race and claims that all members of a given race are endowed with the same logical structure, regardless of social class affiliation.
At this point, there is no need to criticize the concepts of social class and race in which these doctrines use them. We do not have to ask the Marxists when and how a proletarian who successfully ranks among the bourgeoisie will turn his porcelain mind into a bourgeois. It is completely useless to ask racists to explain what type of logic belongs to people who are not racially pure. There are much more serious criticisms.
Jew, English and Bourgeois
Neither Marxists, nor racists, nor proponents of any other type of polylogism have come beyond claiming that the logical structure of the mind differs between classes, races, and nations. They never tried to prove exactly, in what way the logic of the proletarians differs from the logic of the bourgeoisie or in what way the logic of the Aryans differs from the logic of the non - Aryan or the logic of the Germans from the logic of the French or the British. In the eyes of Marxists, Ricardo's theory of comparative costs is wrong, because Ricardo was a bourgeois. German the racist disproves the same theory because Ricardo was a Jew, and a German nationalist because he was English.
Some German professors have raised all three arguments against the validity of Ricardo's theory at once. However, it is not enough to reject the whole theory on the basis of revealing the origin of its author. First, it is necessary to explain a system of logic that differs from that used by the criticized author. Then it would be necessary to examine the theory in question point by point and to show where the conclusions of thought are made which, although valid from the point of view of the author's logic, do not apply from the point of view of proletarian, Aryan or German logic. Finally, it should be explained what types of conclusions must lead to the replacement of the author's erroneous deductions with the correct deductions of the critic's own logic. How everyone knows no one has tried this and he can't try.
Who is the arbitrator?
And then here's the problem of that there is disagreement among people belonging to the same class, race or nation over basic problems. Unfortunately, the Nazis say, there are Germans who do not think in the right German way. However, if a German does not always think as he should, but can think in the same way as a person equipped with non-German logic, who decides which ideas are really German and which non-German?
Professor Franz Oppenheimer says:
"An individual often makes mistakes in providing for his interests; the class is never wrong in the long run."
This would indicate the infallibility of a majority vote. However, the Nazis rejected the decision by majority vote as non-German. Marxists like to talk about the democratic principles of majority voting. However, whenever there is a break in bread, they prefer a minority government - provided that it is their government own parties. Let's remember how Lenin by force he dissolved the Constituent Assembly, which was elected on the basis of his own government universal suffrage adults, for the reason that only one-fifth its members were the Bolsheviks.
A consistent proponent of polylogism would have to argue that ideas are correct because their author is a member of the right class, nation, or race. However, consistency is not one of their virtues. Marxists will so calmly call it a "proletarian thinker" anyone who approves of their doctrines. They despise all others as class enemies or social traitors. Hitler was even so honestto admit that the only way to separate true Germans from half-breeds and foreigners is to formulate a truly German program and see who supports it.
Dark-haired man, whose bodily features in no way fit the prototype of the blonde Aryan superior race, took the gift of revealing the only doctrine that corresponds to the German mind and to exclude from the Germans all those who did not accept this doctrine, whatever their bodily features. No further proof of the insincerity of the whole doctrine is needed.