the hypocrisy of “Orthodox Marxism”

In a philosophy built on the concept of society evolving and material conditions determining social conditions, Marxism remains unchanged. It’s interesting to see Marxists remain so stagnant in their values, systems, and beliefs, contrary to the constant evolution their philosophy espouses. Applying the same logic and values drafted up before the civil war, in a new world where we have artificial intelligences, smartphones, and satellites, is absurd. Part of the tendency to be orthodox,  is because for many Marxists politicking is a social endeavor, rather than an actual movement for change. They don’t quite care about whether or not the ideology fits into the modern world, because reality doesn’t concern them. As an ideology built by non-workers, it doesn’t concern itself – and can’t – with the current troubles of workers. For an ideology built on placing the workers above everyone else, it seems that it has yet to take off with any actual workers for this reason. 

Part of the reason I think that nazism is regarded as a bogeyman in the west, while Marxism is just seen as a science project for liberals wanting to feel avant garde, is because Marxism doesn’t need to be taken seriously. Nazism won in a democratic country, while Marxism never has (besides in the micro state of San Marino). The people in Marxist circles for the most part aren’t interested in implementing actual change and are impotent to do so. Upper middle class liberals that go to college and want to feel “rebellious” is not a prime demographic. The problems that concern them, such as drug legalization and transgender rights, do not concern the working people of America. Their counterparts on the “far-right,” who embrace nationalization, proletarian values, and are predominantly working class whites impacted by the ravages of neoliberalism, have far more revolutionary potential. The problem with what national socialism has to offer is that it doesn’t understand dialectics, and thus can’t meaningfully confront – or even understand – the source of proletarian problems. In that way, Marxists still have one advantage, even if it’s never realized and only theoretical. While fascists seek to deal with the social problems of their times, Marx understood that only in changing material conditions could we ever truly change social conditions. As long as the underlying material conditions of society aren’t changed, social changes created via reactionary legislation just leads to more injury, as people are still pushed into the same behavioral patterns that are now criminalized.

Make no mistake, acknowledging that material conditions determine social conditions has largely been ditched by the “left” as well. This is in part because liberalism believes in the primacy of the individual, to the point that it’s the individual that changes the world, rather than material conditions. By changing the individual, liberals seek to change the world, and in pursuing this, are no better than the fascists are in subjecting people to unnatural social conditions. Both ideologies serve out propaganda and temporary cures, rather than look at the source of the peoples’ problems, because they’re unable to do so dialectically. It’s a hard concept to embrace for anyone, that the world determines who you are, but it’s easier to say it this way: how does the world not determine who you are? If genetics determine 60% of your personality and your environment determines the other 40%, which part of you is divorced from material reality? Even your thoughts, on the off chance that they are completely novel, are based in materialism and your mind’s interactions with the world around you. In situations where you are the first person to think something, chances are you’ll never be the last unless no one else experiences the material and social conditions that you do.

Classical Marxism, at its core, is collectivist because it sees the impact that any given individual has as minimal. Even our thoughts are constructed by the material conditions of our society, because it’s those conditions that determine the social conditions that give us the knowledge and beliefs to base our worldview off of. At the end of the day, the world doesn’t revolve around the individual. Rather, the individual revolves around the world. Seeing ourselves as extensions of the material, in our thoughts, interests, and beliefs, empowers people to be more self-aware about their place in society. More than that, it allows for us to have meta-cognition, where we understand our thought processes because we understand the sources and the incentives. To reject the primacy of the individual, to reject liberalism and fascist idealism, is to return to Marxism. 

However, the rejection of the liberalization of Marxism, seen in paleocommunism and class reductionism, is amusing. By ignoring the changes in modern society, paleocommunists cannot introduce any new and more relevant solutions. Class reductionism, similarly, can’t even acknowledge the cultural calamities that afflict different groups in America. In reducing what you can acknowledge, by returning to your roots, you’re not doing yourself any favors politically. Conservatism in any sphere is always on the defensive, defending crumbling foundations and inevitably yielding ground as the world changes around it. Paleocommunists, in retreating from what failed in the past, rather than learning from it and creating anything new, are cowards. Class reductionists, in retreating from the social topics that irritate the lumpenproletarian liberals in their circles, are cowards. Meaningful politics isn’t won by retreating from issues too controversial to approach, but creating logical solutions and standing by them. Cowardliness in this regard is exactly what the bourgeois would want from any potential opponents.

The ability to stand by views that aren’t fashionable, that bring you disdain and consequences, is the barometer for who actually believes and means what they say. The white proletarians on the “far-right,” who wind up imprisoned over meaningless things, are recognized by the FBI as worthy opponents. These people are on a short leash because the government recognizes what desperate people with nothing to lose would do if given a long leash. Meanwhile, the faux-Marxist lumpenproletarians, who wind up with leeway in liberal cities to burn buildings, attack people, and set up autonomous zones, are seen as a controlled forest fire. They’re given a long leash, to allow for plausible deniability, and are bread crumbed along to certain conclusions by the liberal mainstream media. At the end of the day, the treatment of different dissident groups by the government shows you which ones they’re more afraid of ideologically and politically. Suffice to say, the modern Marxist is a liberal puppet at best, who parrots old talking points that have been deemed safe to say in his community. This gets back to the main point though: no one seems to understand that not only do material conditions matter the most, but they change. Parroting politically correct views and toeing the party line inevitably lead to losing sight of new problems on the horizon, as you align with the entrenched interests of society who don’t feel the new pains.

For all the groups that espouse Marxism, few understand that dialectical materialism mandates things change as time progresses. Marxism is outdated in many respects, as well as the socialist successors that tried to implement it. The true socialist of today isn’t Stalinist or democratic socialist or Titoist or Maoist but someone who hasn’t give up the fight to find something better. We’re approaching the point in history where socialism cannot only work but also outproduce capitalism in an ethical fashion. In the coming age, when the dreams of past socialists and communists can finally come to fruition, don’t settle on the half-baked ideas and beliefs of those that came before us. Use your neocortex and plot out your own beliefs and rationale, using the new information and technologies available to you. The socialist movement doesn’t need anymore parrots, it needs brains.