My Great Refusal of Marxism

"We live in a Newtonian world of Einsteinian physics ruled by Frankenstein logic." - David Russell

***

The Great Refusal of Marxism
Addendum: Perhaps this is better titled "My Great Refusal of Marxism"

Marxism is presumptuous, contradictory, romanticised, ironic, simplistic and demeans the value of humanity. Unsurprisingly, it sounds a lot like religion, since Marxism itself is like a religion.

It is presumptuous because it claims people are suffering from false consciousness, yet it seeks to impose its form of consciousness on them, and then claims this is the true consciousness.

All systems and ideologies are riddled with contradictions except for Marxism; if you benefit from another ideology, you will support it because of vested interests. If you don't, your support must come from false consciousness, or you must be deluded or coopted in some way (now I understand why they sent Soviet dissidents for electroshock therapy, it was because they were insane in being unable to appreciate the truth of Communism). As we know, ad hominem attacks are to be avoided - you evaluate ideologies on their merits, or lack thereof, and not because of your social position. And this strange assumption of its own infallibility cannot be justified.

Marxism is also contradictory. It posits that human nature is good and that we would be able to live happily in a Socialist/Communist Utopia. It also says that history is a history of class struggle which will never end untill everyone is in the same class. But then if human nature is good, why would the Bourgeoisie oppress the Proletariat? And if it's not good why would suffering not cease when Socialist/Communist Utopia is reached?

National ties are false yet somehow we must believe in a worldwide fellowship of workers.

It is romanticised, with dodgy theories about the halcyon past, our Gattungswesen, ('species being') and alienation. This is divorced from historicity, reality and human nature.

Marx said that factory workers are unhappy because they have no connection with the product of their work, and so are alienated from themselves, their work and each other. They cannot apply their humanity to engage in creative work (creative in the sense of palpably creating something).

This is bullshit. Does anyone imagine that fishermen and farmers are very happy (deceptive and disingenuous motivational stories aside)? Do they not want to work in factories? Even in the case of artisans, the only potters and craftsmen who sit happily in their workshops making everything themselves and eschewing the benefits of specialization are those paid to show tourists what the imagined handicrafts industry is like (the Granny of Chinese lore who ground the iron rod into a needle probably let her grandchildren starve due to her stupidity). Why does rural-urban migration exist? This is what happens when you sit in the British Library and write rubbish, instead of working on a farm from dusk to dawn for peanuts.

Supposedly we are working more and more, yet in many ways we are working less and less (eg Household conveniences, more efficient modes of transport). Do office workers really work more and harder than the farmers, fishermen and artisans of old?

It accuses capitalism of over-production, yet the reality is that wants become needs, and anyway wants unlimited: people never have enough. As such you can't have 'overproduction'.

It is simplistic because, besides the many problems outlined above, it also naively divides people into Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. The Bourgeoisie are always exploiters, and the Proletariat are always the exploited. People are essentialised into one of these categories.

Marxism throws out accusations of 'exploitation' willy-nilly, and somehow everything follows. Yet the assumption of 'exploitation' is never questioned; it flows from a simplistic understanding of economic theory. 'Exploitation' occurs through the appropriation of 'surplus value', but 'value' is a theoretical concept which cannot actually be measured. Just as both producers and consumers enjoy producer and consumer surplus respectively, so do workers enjoy economic rent, and anyway profit, interest and rent do need to be paid (if any Marxist disagrees, just ask to borrow $10,000 from him for 10 years and repay the real value of his money to him at the end; if any Marxist student disagrees, just ask her to organise dozens of hall activities without giving her ECA points). There is also no concept of employers being exploited - exploitation need not be one way, especially with trade unions (but then, these are also claimed by some to be instruments of exploitation, so).

It is ironic because it claims that Capitalism creates an illusory enemy so it can repress and control the Proletariat, the better to exploit them. Yet this enemy is never mentioned. As for itself, Capitalism is Marxism's illusory enemy.

Marxism demeans the value of humanity by second-guessing the choices that informed adults make, and calls them exploitation; whereas right wingers believe we can never blame anyone else for our choices, left wingers believe we are never to blame for our choices. The abrogation of personal responsibility and the denial of the significance of individual choices is insulting in the extreme.

Marxist paradise is like Heaven - neither will ever come because the religion is false. Instead you stay in hell - it is better for everyone to be poor than for some to be rich and others reasonably endowed. Not only is this beggaring they neighbor, it is also cutting off your nose to spite your face.

NB: Although a few Neo-Marxist elements are addressed above, critiquing Neo-Marxist arguments requires more nuanced and involved analysis than I am prepared to go into at this stage.