Mises sees ideologies – sets of ideas – as guiding people’s actions such that they extend or curtail the growth of the division of labour. But people can participate in an extended division of labour while still holding to an ideology of violence which must run counter to, and undermine, peaceful cooperation. Many who joined this extended order by moving into urban areas remained strangers to the ideas which made wider specialisation and exchange possible:
“One cannot make a social philosophy one’s own as easily as a new costume. It must be earned – earned with the effort of thought.”
Hence in history there appear periods in which the division of labour is extended and others in which it regresses: “More menacing than the barbarians storming the walls from without are the seeming citizens within – those who are citizens in gesture, but not in thought.” – Hayek too excoriates those “non-domesticated barbarians in our midst” who “refuse to accept” the “acquired discipline” of a world-wide division of labour while “they still claim all its benefits”.
– Sudha Shenoy, Towards a Theoretical Framework for British and International Economic History: Early modern England, a case study, p283. Don’t be confused by the title – not a dicky bird so far about post-Black Death cesspit management – this is an overview of Austrian economics. And a rather good one at that.
I think that this is putting it too highly; those, like the 12,500,000 or so Labour voters at the UK’s last General Election do not ‘refuse to accept’ anything, they just exist to take or let be taken. It is a bit like zebra on the Serengeti bemoaning the lions. The lions see the herbivores as fresh meat, to be devoured whenever possible. The lion however, can only eat meat, it is not possible for it to survive by grass-eating, but the socialist chooses bare-fanged savagery (however dressed-up) as his lifestyle choice, and despises those who engage in voluntary co-operation. And at least, unlike socialists, the lions and zebras can form a system in balance, just as with weasels and rabbits. It is the number of rabbits that determines the weasel population, not the other way around. The socialists reduce wealth, and leave nothing in return, but hunger, hatred and bones.
Yes Mr Ed – people who vote for Mr Corbyn and co know exactly what they are doing (they are voting for savagery. “eat the rich” – with “the rich” turning out to be anyone who opposes them). Nor do they have the excuse of the lions – as you say they do not have to savage other people, this is what they WANT to do. Ironically they talk about “exploitation” (the Marxist claptrap of the Labour Theory of Value and so on) when it is they who actually want to exploit other people.
As for Ludwig Von Mises – he thought about both about people inside society (the agitators of “the masses” – urging “the masses” to rob, rape and murder) and people from outside the nation – remember Mises was a Central European the history of Islamic (and Mongol – and other) raiding, is the history of Central and Eastern Europe over many hundred of years. “Open the city gates the migrants are nice people” are words that lead to laughter from those who know much about the history of Eastern and South Eastern Europe over the last thousand years.
Hungary is an obvious example. Before they converted to Christianity the Magyars were savage raiders all over Central Europe. Later they became a civilised and orderly Kingdom (so their savagery was clearly not genetic, like lions, – it was cultural). Sadly their Kingdom was smashed by the Mongols, and recovery was undermined by centuries of war between the Ottoman Empire (so beloved by modern “liberal” academics and media types – whose view of it is quite mistaken) and the Austrian Hapsburgs (the family that Ludwig Von Mises served). A conflict of formal wars and informal raiding that went on in South East Europe from the 14th century to the 19th century.
Hungary did not achieve real autonomy as a Kingdom again till after the war between the Hapsburgs and Prussia in 1866. And then the Kingdom of Hungary was brief – collapsing after the horror of First World War into the savage hands of Bela Kun and his fellow Marxists. It is impossible to fully understand anti-Semitism in Central Europe without understand that many of these Marxists were from Jewish families. Although they were NOT Jewish themselves (they were Marxists – atheists) and most Jews did NOT support them, in the popular mind the pitiless threat to civilisation that these activists represented (the threat to utterly exterminate European civilisation) was associated with “the Jews”. This is why when someone from a Jewish family (well Jewish a few generations ago) such as Mr George Soros starts subsidising the far left in places such as Hungary all the old paranoia is woken up again. Indeed Mr Soros, or rather the forces that this old (and most likely senile) man is funding, specifically target pro Islamic migrant organisations for their funding.
Pro Islamic migrant organisations in countries such as Hungary which suffered from Islamic raiding (and attempts at conquest) for hundreds of years! If Mr Soros was deliberately trying to stir up anti Semitism in Eastern and Central Europe he would act exactly as he is acting – as Ludwig Von Mises (himself from a Jewish family) could have explained to him. But, alas, I do not believe they ever met.
Of course Mr Soros did meet Karl Popper – and the late Sir Karl Popper could have explained to him that backing Islamic conquest from without, and backing Marxist subversion from within (for Mr Soros does that as well – for example some of his organisations are involved in the “Gun Control” protests in the United States today, Clinched Fist salutes and so on) is exactly the way to make the paranoia against “the Jews” seem real. The old stereotype of the billionaire Jew funding both Marxists and Islamists – whilst mouthing “liberal” slogans. Nothing could play into the hands of anti-Semites (such as the “Alt Right”) more. “Paranoid people do not need evidence” – perhaps not, but giving evidence (actually doing the things that wealthy Jews are accused of doing) drags more people into the paranoia.
Ironically modern Marxists do not like Jews – as Jewish “over achievement” is considered a sin against Social Justice equality (the Nazis made the same complaint against “the Jews” – the achievements of Jewish people were considered crimes by the Nazis) – even Karl Marx (himself from a Jewish family) declared that businessmen were “inwardly circumcised Jews” and he was not paying businessmen a compliment, the anti-Semitism of the modern left is far more extreme. And, of course, the Islamists (like Muhammed) want to utterly crush the Jews.
How much of the above to “liberals” such as Mr Soros know? Most likely very little – as someone can be very good at making money and an utter cretin in all other aspects of thought.
Duckduckgoing I found this:
It appears to me that he is referring to the goods as “inwardly circumcised Jews” and not the capitalists. Still not complimentary.
Patrick,
My foray into the original German gave me this wording:
which I would agree, from my basic and rusty German of many decades ago, is a literal translation of Marx’s text. ‘sind’ (they are) is the verb governed by ‘alle Waren’ (all goods), so he is referring to ‘goods’ and not ‘capitalists’ as being the ones with 10% off, as it were.
Since that doesn’t make sense (even by Marx’s standards) it may be a typo or a manuscript error, and the natural reading of it would be that that he was saying that all goods are in faith and truth money, and perhaps there is a ‘for’ missing in terms of the inwardly circumcised ones (how sexist, btw), they are (the goods) ‘in addition’ (zu dem) a wondrous (not ‘wonderful’) means of making money from money for the inwardly circumcised, if that was his gist. By which he meant (I presume) that people who act like ‘the Jews’ of his stereotype but who are not Jewish, are the ones with the wondrous means.
Therefore, Jews are not capitalists with a wondrous means of making money from money, as they are actually circumcised, so they can’t be inwardly circumcised, or can they be both in his mind? It’s all so weird that it is all the more worrying that this ever got taken seriously at all.
I wonder how much time has been devoted to analysing this passage over the years. Perhaps Mr Corbyn, who presumably had read his Marx, or Ed Miliband, who, AIUI, was often read Marx at breakfast by his father, could tell us?
Thank you Patrick and Mr Ed.
The mystery deepens and, I must confess, I am baffled.
An “inwardly circumcised Jew” in one who is not merely outwardly (in the flesh) circumcised – i.e., a Jew in appearances – but one who lives life and serves principles according to Jewish precepts. Calling someone an inwardly circumcised Jew means they are true to the ideals they claim.
bobby b
Thanks for that, sorry if I have misunderstood the ramblings of Herr Marx, I thought that it was a term of abuse for those who behaved like the stereotype he was trying to advance, with those who were ‘outwardly circumcised’ being regarded as ‘in category ex officio as it were’. Perhaps he wasn’t directing his venom at the non-Jewish ‘exploiters’ after all, but it’s a bit late to tell Lenin, Hitler and Mao that.
I can see the sense of your explanation, it would give a bit of leeway to make exceptions for the ‘Comrades’.
My head hurts.
I always read that line as him saying three things about goods: 1) they are money, 2) as money, they have a distinct and noble core irrespective of their random outward appearances, and 3) they enable profit.
Of course, not speaking German, I have had to rely on translations.
Looking to my last comment, I see that I left part of it out, and it should be included.
The above section should read “2) as money, they have a distinct and noble core irrespective of their random outward appearances and the true capitalist recognizes this core, and . . . “