The contradictions of Marxism are manifest. Firstly, Karl Marx was Jewish by descent and birth. He wrote vile and virulent Utopian propaganda. His "final solution", to his Jewish "problem" was cultural assimilation and communal distribution. He left his religion aside, yet quickly filled the Nietzschean vacuum with a resurrection of "The" better world.

"In the Preface to the Hebrew edition of Totem in Taboo, in 1930, Freud described himself as - “as completely estranged from the religion of my fathers". But he went on - I quote again “If asked, ‘What is left to you that is Jewish?’ I would have to reply, ‘A very great deal and probably the essence.’” In the 1974 Massey Lectures Series, George Steiner takes Freud as meaning abandoning his cultural-historical background for a future of "intellectual pursuit", and, "high moral seriousness". If Karl was alive today I wonder if he would still justify, "high moral seriousness" with the millions murdered in the name of his name?

Dispelling the myths and justifying the claims is how you conduct the affairs of your intellect while under the spell of Marxism. Resist with our faculties and institutions. We should be teaching tolerance and universal acceptance towards improving our existing culture. Fraught with freedoms and burden by responsibilities, we are our own oppressors, slaves to our own master mentalities.

This is not the side of the debate I would like to argue from. Worse yet is the messianic fervour from which self-proclaimed Marxists recruit. Dispelling the myths is a bipartisan goal (of the Freudian subconsciousness), of which, two parties who couldn't be further from the truth.

Secondly, a systematic and biased (nonpartisan) appraisal of Marxist thinkers would be in order to summarize my position as a trusted public voice, philosopher and entrepreneur. I will save my critique of carnage until the conclusion.

On Adorno, Benjamin, Marcuse, Camus, and Vygotsky

The list is exhausting, so I focus on the following four; Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse and Lev Vygotsky.

Theodor W. Adorno. What a mind. What a fascinating individual. I make the claim right here. Right now, that Theodor Adorno would not be a Marxist if he was born today. He was way too smart for that. Walter Benjamin issued a challenge for someone to write a book made up entirely of quotes. The planksip® blog has The Quote Book, with a data-driven structure and interesting navigation, available for free. The final farewell of Walter Benjamin's life was written by the words of Albert Camus when he said, "the only true philosophical question is that of suicide." Was Herbert Marcuse, an anti-Marxist in Marxist clothes? Leszek Kołakowski thinks so. He reminds me of a hippy with a cause. They like me! They really like me!! Lev Vygotsky was a Soviet psychologist who worked on and partially completed a new psychology called, "cultural-historical psychology". Vygotsky is the illegitimate and unknown intellectual brother of Freud, James and Wundt. Did they even know who he was? Most people don't.

Regression is Mean: A responsion to Herbert Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance

First of all we have to acknowledge that Marcuse’s essay on Repressive Tolerance was written in 1965. Anti-war and civil-rights demonstrations, social revolution, and the rise of feminism were the catalysts for societal strife of the day. One man, Herbert Marcuse, emerged from this time as the "Father of the new-left".

I abandoned this responsion in light of watching the 2017 Nobel Prize ceremony. It is apparent that there are much more reliable means of establishing truths than dialectical acrobatics.

I may come back to this but for now it seems appropriate to move on to more more important conversations.

Fouls a Foot

Fouls is an interesting word! As a noun relating to Veterinarian pathology, fouls refer to foot rot. Being the language animals that we are, Karl Marx flipped the Hegelian mindset and metaphysical universe from head-to-toe. Upright and marching to the cadence of a Marxist theology a fouls afoot, beyond the word-play of Being and Nothingness proponents cried anathema. Blackhat banter of the Marcusean variety limits tolerance in the name of "progress".

John Locke calls this fateful marriage between consumption and awareness a placating recipe for evil (et el). John Locke's essay on Tolerance Dates of death between John and Karl differ by 179 years. Hardly a Lockean commentary on Marx, forensic investigations on timelines are redundant, however un-sequential. Consequentiality erupts! See the pattern emerge! Logic, reduced to tendencies of time, points of "progress". I am not proposing a departure from the dialectic. I am proposing an alternate dialectic of presupposition versus presupposition. Conclusions of this sort pit people against one another. Vectors of thought akin to the nature of the human species is my presupposition. Beyond good and evil, the axiomatic discourse should (ethics) be pluralistic with an eclectic backdrop of opposition. From presupposition to predisposition. To inquire is Define. Ask, without begging, and you shall receive. What is the opposite of...? Ask your neighbour. Ask one thousand people. Ask the world.

We now have the ability to collect vast amounts of real-time data of billions of individuals, yet we waste this potentiality on the predictive analytics of consumerism. Our value system must change if capitalism is to survive. The market must be made aware of the liberating forces behind these autonomous potentialities.

The track record this ideology left behind is far from exemplary and acknowledged as such by supporters and sympathizers. Sadly, this is the only convergence of agreement in the conversation. Gaddafi[1], Pasha[2], Kim Il Sung[3], Ho Chi Minh[4], Pol Pot[5], Saddam Hussein[6], Yahya Khan[7], Tojo Hideki[8], Vladimir Lenin[9], Hirohito[10], Chiang Kai-Shek[11], Adolf Hitler[12], Joseph Stalin[13].

I take this one step further than Hagel, comparing it not to a circle but to a möbius. Running counterpoint to the external before returning to introspection. I think it was Martin Heidegger that said philosophy is like an inward circling process falling in on itself. This circle, as with the möbius, is stable. I prefer the möbius because of the potentiality for outside perspective. Ideas matter! Bad ideas kill people!!

The Metaphysics of Marxism

In other posts, I apply the concept of Metaphysics and Marxism to the historical lense of the Aquinas-Leibniz paradox. Is metaphysics or Marxism practical? Sure! As an official opposition and ephemeral perspective. Structure wise it is abhorrent and reprehensible to construction information silos around these motes of madness. Bird’s eye and a parallel perspective proudly postulate, “Never shall the two meet”.

  1. A 42-year regime that engaged in state-sanctioned terrorism and initiated or provoked war throughout the Middle East and Africa. The people of Libia live within a frightened sense of instability. ↩︎

  2. 1.1 million to 2.5 million killed. Search, "Armenian genocide". ↩︎

  3. 1.6 million killed in North Korea. ↩︎

  4. Some estimate 200,000 to 900,000 killed under the Ho Chi Minh's land reform "policies" of North Vietnam in the 1950's. ↩︎

  5. 1.7 million to 2.4 million killed. Search, "Cambodian genocide". ↩︎

  6. Weapons of Mass Destruction? No. Saddam Hussein. 2 million deaths. Yes. Kurdish genocide. Yes. ↩︎

  7. 2 million to 12 million killed. Search, "Bangladesh genocide". ↩︎

  8. 4 million killed. Search, "WWII civilian genocide". ↩︎

  9. 4 million killed. Search, "Russian Civil War". ↩︎

  10. 6 million killed. Search, "Nanking Massacre". ↩︎

  11. 10 million killed. Search, "228 Massacre". ↩︎

  12. 17 million to 20 million killed. Start by searching, "Death Fugue by Paul Celan" ↩︎

  13. 40 million to 62 million killed. Search, "The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn" ↩︎