Refuting Marxism once and for all

Many people have written both in favor of Marxism and against Marxism. As a=
 child in the former Soviet Union, I adopted it as gospel. At this point I =
seek to refute Marxism once and for all.

Marx used the concept of the dialectic, which he got from German philosophe=
r Hegel. According to Hegel, a force =E2=80=93 a thesis =E2=80=93 is met wi=
th its opposite =E2=80=93 an antithesis. The two forces struggle among one =
another to create a synthesis: A mix of the two. This synthesis is then met=
 with another antithesis. According to Hegel, this process lead human histo=
ry to spiritual betterment of humanity.

Marx took the dialectic and =E2=80=9Cinverted=E2=80=9D it. He said instead =
that this process lead to material betterment of humanity, and that communi=
sm was going to be an inevitable result.

Dialectic is a useful concept, and one that has applications in all sorts o=
f pursuits. However there is absolutely nothing inevitable about it working=
 for any kind of betterment. Sometimes one force conquers the other. Someti=
mes there is an ongoing conflict with no resolution. Sometimes the forces c=
ombine to give one another their worst traits.

Marx was a historian, and he should have studied his history better. No dia=
lectic was accomplished when Vandals sacked Rome. No dialectic was accompli=
shed when the Spanish conquered the Incans, whose agriculture, architecture=
 and infrastructure was vastly superior to their own. No dialectic is being=
 accomplished now in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. And=
 in the contemporary dialectic between America and Islam, so far the result=
s have been mostly destructive. Muslim men have been coming to places like =
Oslo and Sydney and gang-raping Western girls and teaching young men in dis=
advantaged communities to be even worse to women than they had been before.=
 Marxist scholars in academia do not get the results of this. The people wh=
o fund them do.

To believe in such a thing as historical inevitability is ridiculous. We ha=
ve seen all sorts of orders rising, falling and changing for all sorts of r=
easons. In a world of 7 billion people, each possessing capacity for choice=
, nothing at all is inevitable. World changes, all the time, in all sorts o=
f directions and for all sorts of reasons. That has always been the case; t=
hat will always be the case.

Nor is it in any way correct that history is driven by class struggles. His=
tory is not driven by any such thing. History is driven by choices that peo=
ple make. That always has been the case. It always will be the case.  Not e=
very place had classes or anything like classes. There were no classes amon=
g Australian aborigines. As for America, it is intended to be a classless s=
ociety in which anyone can rise - or fall - as far as their efforts would t=
ake them. Such ideas may have been credible in 19th century Europe, where b=
osses and their employers rarely mixed. It is not at all the case in places=
 where there are no rigid class lines, where there is social mobility, or w=
here employers and workers are working closely with one another.

Marx also claimed that religion was "opium for the masses." This is complet=
ely untrue. The Christian and Muslim religions started from "the masses" an=
d then converted  both the rulers and the ruled. Maybe some of the rulers w=
ere using some claims of St. Paul - such as that slaves should be obedient =
to the masters - to justify exploitative conduct; but that was never the in=
tent or the founding of the religion.

He also claimed that people, if freed from their chains, would start a revo=
lution and overthrow capitalism. The behavior of American people completely=
 refutes the claim. Not only did they not agitate for a Communist revolutio=
n, but they lead the charge against Communism even when many among the elit=
es were warming toward it. These people did not see Communism as a way towa=
rd liberation; they saw Communism as a way toward having to give away their=
 liberty and follow the state. What some people in the "elites" believe peo=
ple to be, and what people actually are, can differ greatly.

Another famous claim was that workers should control the means of productio=
n. What Marx failed to understand is that, at least in America, most of the=
 people who are in control of the means of production started out as worker=
s and then worked their way up. They were not a part of a "propertied class=
." They were people who for the most part started from little and then beca=
me wealthy through their own efforts. His argument was credible in places w=
here dynasties ruled; it is not credible in places that seek to accomplish =
equal opportunity.

What Marx was right about was affirming the interests of the worker. At tha=
t time workers were treated like trash, and Marx's idea of propertied class=
es exploiting the working classes was credible. In much of the world =E2=80=
=93 particularly in the Western countries - business has since then learned=
 its lesson. When I worked in the corporate world, I did not feel exploited=
. I was being paid right, and I was being treated right. I have maintained =
good relations with a number of my former managers and employers, and none =
of them have been treating me as someone lower than themselves.

I do not reject Marxism, as did for example Ayn Rand, because it is not cap=
italism or democracy. I reject it because of its own glaring intellectual e=
rrors. Not everything in history is dialectical; and even in situations of =
dialectic there is nothing inevitable about it working for any kind of good=
.

Just that something has been a part of Marxism does not necessarily make it=
 wrong. Similarly, =E2=80=9Canything that Hitler or Nazis did=E2=80=9D is n=
ot a workable definition of evil. Hitler was a fitness buff and a vegetaria=
n, but that does not mean that every fitness buff and a vegetarian is going=
 to kill 50 million people. Nazis built the Autobahn, but that does not mea=
n that Eisenhower was a Hitler for building the Interstate. That Marx used =
the dialectic wrongfully does not mean that the idea of the dialectic is us=
eless. The idea of it leading inevitably toward the betterment of humanity,=
 however, is completely useless, and very obviously wrong.

Now I have heard it said by some people that the dialectic is a superior fo=
rm of cognition to logic. I no more believe that than do I believe the peop=
le who think that logic is the higher function or that emotions are a lower=
 function or that religion and spirituality is a delusion. It is a form of =
cognition. It is a useful form of cognition. But it is just that: A form of=
 cognition =E2=80=93 one that can go right, wrong, or in any number of ways=
.

To say that all history is driven by the dialectic, and that it has one or =
another inevitable result, is ridiculous. History is driven by choices that=
 people make. When you have 7 billion people on the planet, each capable of=
 choice, absolutely nothing is inevitable at all. Some idiot could come to =
power and blow up the planet. A major power could impose its ways upon ever=
yone, or another major power could try to fight it =E2=80=93 something that=
 of course is happening already. Christians, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists o=
r New Agers may have a success in converting everyone to their religion. An=
ything can happen.

It is very much rightful to affirm the interests of the worker. However usi=
ng a ridiculous ideology is not the right way to go about doing that. Use t=
he Biblical Golden Rule. Use rational reasons =E2=80=93 that workers are wo=
rking at least as hard as their bosses and should be treated and compensate=
d appropriately. Use simple compassion. Do not discredit yourself by adopti=
ng an ideology that is absolutely wrong.

I do not understand for one moment why so many people, many of them intelli=
gent and many of them ethical and compassionate, bought into Marxism. Maybe=
 they had rightfully had it with those in capitalism who thought that busin=
ess was the only root of prosperity and that science or labor or education =
wasn't. Maybe they did not like the way in which workers were being treated=
. Maybe they took objection to =E2=80=9Ctraditional=E2=80=9D roles of women=
. All these attitudes are totally understandable. But why did they not see =
just how wrong Marx's central contention was?

The countries that did adopt Marxism did not end up treating workers better=
 than did the countries that didn't. Instead Marxism was used to impose tot=
alitarianism. Whereas capitalist democracies, although after very much stru=
ggle, ended up improving conditions for their workers and by so doing saved=
 capitalism and democracy.

At this time in history, the interest in Marxism has increased. The America=
n Dream has not been working for many people, and many in business have gon=
e back to bad habits that business had had before. I caution them against d=
oing such a thing. You re-create the conditions that preceded Marxism, you =
will be met with something like Marxism. Similarly the people who want to r=
e-create 1950s will re-create the conditions that lead to 1960s and will be=
 met with something like 1960s further down the road.

Personally, Marx and I have a lot in common. We are both nerdy overbearing =
Jews, and it takes one to know one. Marx had legitimate insights, but what =
he did with them was wrong. He created a terrible ideology. And many people=
 died or suffered as a result.

It is legitimate to seek improvements in the lives of workers, women, etc. =
But it has to be done in the right way rather than the wrong way. Do not do=
 it according to an obviously wrong ideology. Do it with rational arguments=
. Do it with arguments toward compassion. Do it with the actual Christian v=
alue that is the Golden Rule.

Any number of my former bosses have treated me according to Golden Rule, an=
d I have maintained with them solid friendships. We see the same done with =
many businesses in America, both large and small. These people have learned=
 their lessons from history, and they have made the correct improvements in=
 their behavior. These improvements are partly credited to the efforts of l=
iberals and partly to intelligence on the part of business itself. It is es=
sential that business maintain these improvements if the world be spared a =
resurgence of Marxist ideology.