Immanent Criticism of Marxism

As Karl Marx said, "I am not a Marxist." 

Marxism is, simultaneously, the greatest obstacle to any real proletarian movement to overturn the existing order, and the means by which we can overcome this obstacle.

I'd even go so far as to say that Marxism is, in its way, a greater obstacle than the bourgeoisie itself (which it serves).  This seems counter-intuitive, and it is - even to me! - because Marxist movements are so small and almost powerless that it seems like they wouldn't make any difference.  Yet, again and again, every time a real proletarian movement arises to overturn the existing order, the Marxists suddenly appear and immediately defeat the real movement, either by destroying it completely, dismissing it as somehow impure or not "true," absorbing it, redirecting it, distracting it, confusing it, dividing it, or some combination of the above.  By neutralizing every potential movement for change, the Marxists always end up serving and reinforcing the status quo.  Thus the Marxists serve as a kind of immune system, protecting the functioning of the system by neutralizing all free radicals.  Of course, that's not what the Marxists think that they're doing, or feel that they're doing, subjectively - but that is what they are doing, objectively.  

The bourgeoisie itself is obviously more powerful than the Marxists, but it is dissolute, and ultimately self-destructive.  As the old saying goes, they'll sell you the rope to hang them.  They don't even realize what a great ally they have in the Marxists who are defending them.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Capitalism is Ending

Image
  Sorry, Ray Kurzweil , there will be no singularity.  As much as Moore’s Law has become a cliche, it has also become a cliche to point out that exponential growth has no "knee" - that is to say, that an exponential growth curve has no inflection point.  It goes up faster and faster, so that not only is the value rising but the derivative of the value is also rising (that is, the rate of increase is itself increasing) yet at any given point it is still a gradual increase.  Growth that gets indefinitely huger as it approaches a specific point of time, a limit known as a singularity, is not exponential growth but rather hyperbolic growth .  There’s no evidence that technology is growing hyperbolically; it is “only” growing exponentially.  Gordon Moore himself has stated that he doesn't believe in the singularity, or even in the continuation of Moore's Law.   (And Moore's Law is starting to fail, anyway ... )  But it hardly matters;...
Read more

Against Curtis Yarvin, a.k.a. Mencius Moldbug

Image
  CURTIS YARVIN IS A POSTMODERNIST  "They Hate Us For Our Freedom"   Since 2007, there has been a tiny, marginal movement on the internet, or several overlapping movements, started by a person named Curtis Yarvin, better known by his assumed name, "Mencius Moldbug."  (I'll use that name; it's less obscure.)  Spreading out from Silicon Valley, where it first became trendy, the movement(s) have been known by various names.  Moldbug originally called his political philosophy "formalism" - at that time, he was advocating for the government being run in the style of a corporation - especially a Silicon Valley startup - with a powerful CEO.  But that never caught on, and he abandoned it in favor of "neo-cameralism."  But this turned out not to capture anyone's imagination either, and so other names appeared: the Dark Enlightenment, neo-monarchism, and most famous of all, the "NeoReactionary movement" - NRx for short.  Are all thes...
Read more

Lenin the Moralist

  "Unprincipled practical politics are the most impractical politics."  - V. I. Lenin  It will probably cause me to lose friends all across the political spectrum when I say that the problem with Lenin was that he was too moral.  Deal with it.  Moreover, modern-day soi-disant Leninists are even more moralistic than he was - and therefore, all the more romantic and delusional, and their analyses all the more pointless. I do not mean to imply that Lenin was not responsible for the deaths of many people - he was.  Nor am I saying that Lenin did not commit enough atrocities - that he was not violent enough, not ruthless enough, too timid to accomplish his goals, or anything of the like.  No, no, no.  My point is that Lenin's ideology diverted sharply from Marx's critique of political economy, and in part this was because he tried to reinterpret Marxism into a kind of moral campaign, when Marx had intended nothing of the kind - and, by the way, Lenin...
Read more