AGAINST MARXISM: A THOROUGH META-ANALYSIS

Also available on YouTube, BitChute, and Odysee.

by Michael DuQaine 

Marxism is a common perspective and philosophy. I will not be examining here why this is so. There will be no appealing to motives, or speculating about conspiracies. Instead, I will explain my own motives for rejecting Communism, in as much detail and with as much precision as possible.

Firstly, there are many errors in the reasoning commonly used by Marxists, not only in form but also in content. Secondly, the linguistics used within the field varies from person to person, which only creates confusion. Thirdly, Marxists tend to cut off all critical discussion, regardless of who is giving the critique or what critique is given. Fourthly, Marxism is functionally and technically speaking, anti-science.

1. Flaws in Reasoning 

When attempting to convince others of the correctness of one's stance, it is important to uphold certain standards in reasoning. The least of these is a logically sound and internally consistent line of reasoning in support of one's stance. At most it is ideal to have sufficient evidence to prove a claim beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. the scientific method).

Stephen Toulmin, the British philosopher, came up with a six-element model of what makes a good argument.

The claim is the first element, this is the stance being proven. The grounding is the element which supports the claim. The warrant is the element which connects the grounding to the claim. Backing is whatever extra evidence supports the warrant. A qualifier exists as an element of good argumentation because there may be circumstances under which a claim may be true and others where it may be untrue. A rebuttal is an addressal of criticism.

The arguments put forward by Marx were weak at the time they were constructed; dialectical materialism was outdated even before it was put into print, with the invention of the telegraph in 1843. But even assuming that Marx's arguments were not outdated by science, his own arguments fail to meet a basic criteria of validity. For example, in the Kommunist Manifesto (1848) Marx posits that there are only two classes of people; he begins his philosophy with unproven axioms, which also happen to be simplified caricatures of reality. Axioms are those claims which are taken as absolute and as such serve best when they are proven first and acted upon after being proven. A caste system of only two groups of people is so simplistic that the only viable use for it is for those outside a  system to pit those inside a system against each other. In other words, it is a crude tool of polarisation.

Observation shows us that there are many groups and classifications of people, so the Marxist axiom falls flat on its face at the first hurdle, and this is the founding perspective of all those calling themselves Marxists. Furthermore Marx never even properly defines these two classes, nor does he ever back up his claim with evidence (not even in later works, such as Das Kapital or Critique of the Gotha Program).

For the sake of argument, let us assume that there are only two classes of people in any given industrialized society. Marx proposes violent revolution of one class to overthrow the other, and he asserts that peaceful change is not only impossible but aids the elites he desires overthrown. This is yet another set of axioms without any grounds or backing, and no warrants.

These are totally disconnected leaps in logic which are presented as the foundational principles of the philosophy.

But what about other Marxists who have expanded Marx's vision? All Marxists show the same failings: Kropotkin struggled with understanding causal functions in descriptions of the world, and so proposed that everything would simply fall into place once the establishment was overthrown; Lukacs failed to link the collapse of structure to the collapse of law; Engels was more focused on his brand of anthropology than any flaws in reasoning; Stalin and Lenin just didn't care about reality and thought quite literally "might makes right," although I will say that Stalin came across as more legitimately caring in his writings.

Other, more recent Marxists have bravely tried to update the philosophy through alternative interpretations, but have only muddied the waters of linguistics in doing so. If your Marxism is only of sex, sexuality, or "gender," then it has little to do with Marxism, and so calling it "Marxism" is not a useful way to communicate your ideas. But more on this point in a short while.

The issue of Marxists running with unproven axioms and failing to correct flaws in their reasoning makes them not only worthless to speak to, but also frequently insufferable to interact with. It has also caused violent movements and organizations to arise, causing large amounts of damage to private and public property. Marxism is too simplistic to be true or useful and Marxists are too simple and fanatical to change their minds.

2. Linguistics

Marxism and Marxists have two primary issues when it comes to linguistics: firstly, that they use terms in ways not common to the rest of the populace, and, secondly, that they use words in novel ways which confuse not only outsiders but insiders as well.

The word "idealism" holds a particular meaning in the minds of everyone outside of the Marxist community. Idealism is the holding of an ideal, whether realistic or unrealistic. Yet to Marxists it means something entirely different.

The Marxian definition of idealism essentially boils down to the notion that ideals are not physical objects and therefore cannot exist in any form; in essence it is a term used to refer to anyone Marxists disagree with. The especially hilarious aspect of the Marxist insistence on using terms designed to insult is that they are so hyper-focused on attacking others that they never bother to pay attention to the fact that they are more representative of the intended targets of their insults than those they insult. But that is a point for another section.

On January 24th 2022, a Youtube user by the name of Ryan Chapman uploaded a video explaining the importance of standardized language for discourse to be effective. If you and I are using the same term in a different manner, then we will in essence be holding two different discussions in the same communicative locality. Marxism provides multiple definitions for "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat," ignoring Marx's own failure to adequately define them. For Marcuse, the bourgeoisie is the wealthiest part of society, which also seeks to impose its will on the population. For the Marxist Black Liberation movements, the bourgeoisie is White people. For Feminists the bourgeoisie is men.

Assume that a Feminist and a Black activist are set to discuss which policies the Left should accept. The Feminist demands that the bourgeoisie be subjugated. The black activist agrees, then adds that they also need to pay back the Black community for the lynchings that took place after slavery ended. The feminist looks confused, then says the Black activist should pay reparations to women for the crimes men have perpetrated against women.

Before I get lost in this farce, which has undoubtedly happened at least 50 times in the past decade, I am going to say that it should suffice that any conflict of terminological use is problematic from the get-go. And, yes, I am aware of intersectionality, and that form of Marxism requires its own article to refute properly.

Standardized language exists for a reason. As a people, it is necessary for fluid communications. It is necessary for understanding and for conflict resolution. To breakdown language is to attempt to influence and control others manipulatively.

3. Censorship and Communication Avoidance

Marxism's universalist nature necessitates the establishment of a new ethnos; which is to say that Marxism cannot function without a people unified by creed and culture. 

In order for someone to be convinced of an idea, it is generally best to communicate with that person so as to help them understand the idea better. Communication also establishes camaraderie among even those who disagree. It also serves the purpose of clarifying for the sake of improving both comprehension as well as the functionality of a system.

If a system allows for great change and for great discourse, it can more easily eliminate flaws in itself and prevent other flaws from arising. Oftentimes this occurs through reinterpretation, for which I must applaud the Neo-Marxists as their work is both important and vital to the continued survival of Marxism as a philosophy in general. Of course Neo-Marxists rarely call themselves this.

The Marxian tendency to shut down discussion does not grant faith that the movement, or ideas, are sturdy enough to build a functional worldview on. That is to say, a comprehensive and consistent view with which one successfully interacts with the world. Marxism presents too simplistic a worldview for it to be practical. It quite literally establishes two castes and forces all those in one caste to be pitted against all those in the other caste. Even a reinterpretation cannot solve the oversimplicity of this perspective. But pointing this out is off limits.

No camaraderie, no good faith anti-tribalism, no truly Marxist behavior has arisen from those who hold the worldview of Marx. It has only been divisive to the nation and to people as a whole. Thusly only a small pool of individuals can maintain Marxism, and that pool is consistently shrinking.

If the philosophy is so irredeemable that you can't even exclude the parts that are clearly flawed in your reinterpretation, what's the point in using the philosophy at all? Why not simply move on to a new philosophy?

4. Marxism Opposes Science

Numerous scientific studies have shown the human tendency towards competition. Marxism necessarily requires the rejection of these studies in its propounding of what it deems to be "human nature." In doing so, Marxists are forced to actually reject material science, which should be troubling to Marxists, as dialectical materialism is supposed to be highly important to them.

Entire fields of study would essentially be invalidated if Marxists had their way. Biological anthropological studies, as well as primatological perspectives, would need to be banned or amended out of all recognition under a Marxist regime. Not to mention the science of economics, as well as any study of neurochemistry showing humans have endogenous chemical systems that reward them for success of any sort.

The question of how to deal with man's naturally competitive nature is to this day unaddressed by Marxism and Marxists, with the exception of Muammar Gaddafi in his Green Book, whose blend of Marxism and traditional Islam resembled something much more akin to a form of fascism than Marxism. Regardless, I think it fits quite nicely, and should be read by any Marxist looking to reform Marxism or provide their own reinterpretation.

The utter breakdown of the Marxist dualist dialectic is the paradoxical outcome of Marxism. By insisting on such simplistic terms and worldviews, it has restricted itself merely to the realm of philosophy, and has therefore abandoned science. It has thus restricted itself into a singular form for all time.

There are many other issues with Marxism, but these are the four I have chosen to write about for this article.