A Refutation of Marx by P. Michael Amedeoo

Prologue.

After much haste, I have concluded with the dialectical refutation of Marxist thought, down to the theory. These refutations pertain not to praxis, but theory and paradox. We may now bury Marx beneath the pile of corpses, of all manner of innocent victims of communism, to breath his final breathe as history's most foolish killer.

A Refutation of Marx.

I would concede on many of the notions posited by Carlyle, though my fatal disagreement lies in the manner in which history is told. I believe history to be largely impersonal, and while I most certainly adhere zealously to the Carlylean ideas of great men, heroes really, driving history, I must say I disagree with the exposition of their personal lives as a means to attribute to their philosophy. I believe the great man is distinct from his philosophy: the womanizing, New York playboy billionaire Donald John Trump, is equally the stalwart, conservative, and moral president of the United States; or the heroic Napoleon Bonaparte, admired even by his adversaries, and yet a sexual deviant. Thus, it is evident that personal lives contribute a negligible product to the philosophies of these great men. Rather, we are instead to fixate on the grand forces lead by these great men, their grand courts, great armies, theatrelike politics. History is an opera, and must be exposed similarly as the clash of philosophies, great men, grand armies, and political entities. Of course, I oppose the Marxists, and denounce their silly ideas, and their foolishness as a contingent. They believe people behave as a hive mind, as opposed to peoples being aimless and directionless, lest united by a hero, and the accompanying philosophy. People do not act without leadership, just as the serfs rarely revolted against their estates, as there had been no reason to without a leader.

The Servile Wars would have never occured without the leaders at their helm, steering the movement. They believe in material, I believe in philosophy; they believe in class, I believe in heroes; they believe in universal rational faculty, I believe in exclusive rational faculty. This is a sufficient summarization. The Marxists are operating on a presupposition that all peoples are immutably equal and fundamentally blank slates at birth, as opposed the philosopher, who recognizes innate irreason behind the actions of the many, who serve in the interest of themselves as the sacrosanct, and their immediate survival and vanity, without overpowered reason. Some people are meant to be ruled, not that they ought to be stifled, as the Marxist would cry, rather, that people will fall into their natural state, lest inhibited by hereditary factors, such as in a feudal system. So while the Marxist proposes the end of history derived from the abolition of class: the alleged progenator of struggle. I instead espouse the abolition of impediments, as I embrace the natural order: hierarchy, family, tradition, and liberty. It is impossible to construct a classless society, as most psychologically crave leadership, insatiably so. There is a reason civilization was birthed in the anarchy of the Neolithic, and the Marxist would deny this, as the primitive peoples are somehow virtuous in their egality, an erroneous notion, as even the most primitive peoples crave leadership, and cultivate just that: leadership. I think the idea to end history, as the Marxist pursues in their futile abolition of class oscillates between the frivolous and foolish. There is no end to strife, and certainly not one which is derived from the paradoxical stateless society, which would require a state to establish and prolong, lest mankind revert back into warlords, princes, manorial landholders, and other such practices. An a unsustainable idea, which is reprehensibly authoritarian. I would argue the best means to eliminate such strife would be found and attained within the free markets, and the libertarian society, in which all manner of gain is entirely contingent upon the ability to work, to save, to sacrifice, and to compete: true virtue. Of course, this model should not exist without a reference for tradition: what binds society. Family: what builds society. And hierarchy: which leads society into a greater future, unburdened by prior strife. My proclamation is not the end of history, but a anew, dominated by freedom and market, which subjugates man, incomprehensibly so.