In a recent controversy over ideological indoctrination at the Smithsonian museum, one member of staff mockingly said, “I didn’t realize all my colleagues were Marxists.” The implication is that their critics are using the label “Marxist” to denote any historical interpretations with which they disagree. The museum’s staff insist that their only goal is to offer an “inclusive” portrayal of history.
Similarly, many who support diversity, equity, and inclusiveness do not necessarily see themselves as neo-Marxists, even though they promote the tenets of cultural Marxism. Rather, they are motivated by the very human sentiments described by Ludwig von Mises:
. . .dream-aspirations and dreams of vengeance which have been so deeply embedded in the human soul from time immemorial. It promises a Paradise on earth, a Land of Heart’s Desire full of happiness and enjoyment, and – sweeter still to the losers in life’s game – humiliation of all who are stronger and better than the multitude. Logic and reasoning, which might show the absurdity of such dreams of bliss and revenge, are to be thrust aside.
DEI ideologues are, of course, entitled to reject political labels that they feel do not accurately reflect their principles. The term “socialist” should not just be a general label to describe any ideological enemy, just as “capitalism” should not be used to denote fraud and corruption. Words used in this way would be of little analytical value, and every political debate would soon be mired in definitional trench warfare.
It would, therefore, be pointless to get trapped in semantic disputes about who is a real Marxist. Many people hold one or more principles with which Marxists would agree, without being Marxists. For example, Mises’s point that Marxists “[deny] that Logic is universally valid for all mankind and for all ages” is a widespread belief. Many deem it plausible that each class, culture, or race, follows a “logic” unique to itself. Polylogism is a foundational Marxist doctrine, but not all polylogists are Marxists.
The Nazis, too, were racial polylogists but no one would mistake them for Marxists—on the contrary, communists were their dread enemies, and they fought brutal street battles for years despite sharing many socialist beliefs in common. In a well-known example,
On Feb. 11, 1927, the Nazi Party meeting turned into a violent brawl between the two groups. Beer glasses, chairs and tables flew through the hall, and severely injured people were left lying covered with blood on the floor. Despite the injuries, it was a triumph for Goebbels, whose thugs beat up about 200 communists and drove them from the hall.
Debate continues over whether Nazis were really “socialists”—a term they used to describe themselves, but which “true socialists” reject as spurious. Much depends on what one sees as the test of a “true socialist.” Nazis rejected Marxist notions of class struggle and internationalist slogans about uniting the workers of the world. They dissolved the trade unions and prohibited collective bargaining by workers’ representatives, arguing that, “Differences in class and wealth must be strictly subordinated to the good of the German people (Volk) as a whole.”
To self-described socialists like Scott Sehon, the Nazis do not count as socialists. However, as David Gordon points out in his response, we must look beyond the label and substantively evaluate the relevant policies:
Sehon is right that the word ‘socialist’ does not by itself tell us much, but unfortunately it does not occur to him to investigate what the Nazis meant by this word and why they used it.
Mises defines socialism as “the socialization of the means of production with its corollary, the centralized control of the whole of production by one social or, more accurately, state organ.” But if North Korea is almost the only country in the world that will admit to being socialist by that definition, then the word “socialist” would serve little purpose in understanding the contemporary world.
Therefore, while anyone is entitled to object to being described as a Marxist, that does not override the influence of the Marxist ideas they promote. It is not necessary to invent new words for all iterations of political movements, or we would never get beyond redefining words. Rarely are two political movements the same in all material respects. Understanding political trends is not just a semantic problem.
It is important to avoid getting mired in definitional trench warfare. In Omnipotent Government, Mises described the Nazis’ economic system as “socialism in the outward guise of capitalism.” He was not impressed by the fact that formal ownership of the means of production remained in private hands.
Market exchange is only a sham. All the prices, wages, and interest rates are fixed by the central authority. They are prices, wages, and interest rates in appearance only; in reality they are merely determinations of quantity relations in the government’s orders. The government, not the consumers, directs production. This is socialism in the outward guise of capitalism. Some labels of capitalistic market economy are retained but they mean something entirely different from what they mean in a genuine market economy.
The word “socialist” remains rhetorically effective in warning about the threat posed to liberty. In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek focused more on political reality than definitional rigor, observing that “socialism has come to mean chiefly the extensive redistribution of incomes through taxation and the institutions of the welfare state” rather than being confined to a more formal definition as “nationalization of the means of production and the central economic planning which this made possible and necessary.”
The important issue is not the taxonomy of threats to liberty, but how to identify and address those threats. Mises warned that because Marxist ideology enjoys “complete acceptance” in the general population, it is accepted by many who would never describe themselves as Marxists. It would be impossible to fight socialism if we confined our attention to card-carrying members of communist parties and avowed followers of Marx and Engels.
The magnitude and persistence of its success is commonly underestimated. This is due to the habit of applying the term Marxist exclusively to formal members of one or other of the self-styled Marxist parties, who are pledged to uphold word for word the doctrines of Marx and Engels. . .
But if we include under the term “Marxist” all who have accepted the basic Marxian principles – that class conditions thought, that Socialism is inevitable, and that research into the being and working of the socialist community is unscientific – we shall find very few non-Marxists in Europe east of the Rhine, and even in Western Europe and the United States many more supporters than opponents of Marxism.
Ideas and policies must be evaluated on their own merits, not by classification and labeling. We can, and should, oppose Marxist doctrines even if the people advancing them deny being Marxists. Mises observed:
Of course, not Marxists alone, but most of those who emphatically declare themselves anti-Marxists, think entirely on Marxist lines and have adopted Marx’s arbitrary, unconfirmed and easily refutable dogmas. If and when they come into power, they govern and work entirely in the socialist spirit.
The real threat comes from their policies, no matter how benign their stated intentions. In The Road to Serfdom Hayek observed that many people thought socialism could not possibly be as bad as he warned. After all, English socialists were not followers of Marx and Engels, nor did they agree with Stalin’s brutal methods. In England, “six years of socialist government [had] not produced anything resembling a totalitarian state” so it did not seem as if there was much to worry about. Hayek’s response to the nonchalant socialists was:
But those who argue that this has disproved the thesis of The Road to Serfdom have really missed one of its main points: that the most important change which extensive government control produces is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people.
By the character of the people he was referring, for example, to their “political ideals” and their “attitude toward authority.” People become accustomed to being controlled by their political overlords. They forget what it means to live free, and become increasingly unlikely to object to the schemes of “the unscrupulous and uninhibited” politicians whom Hayek identified as the ringleaders in “a society tending toward totalitarianism.”
