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. And you can clearly see that these masses, these people, they are these rather silly masses who are not thinkers, who are banal and dumb. We don't need to invent these terms such as "false consciousness", and perhaps we may simply acknowledge the truth many dread that perhaps most people are not blank slates, but are genuinely dull and skittish. Every strike, every revolution, every law, every notion of forces, every mutiny, every riot, baboons: all lead by the few commanding the many... at what point do we accept the truth? Even Lenin himself when he witnessed the stupidity of the masses had to concede and cope with vanguardism. And keep in mind, the Marxists love to cope and say it is some kind of mere culture, but I feel the fact that even primitive tribes, even the most egalitarian, behave this way, even baboons behave this way, and every last historical motion is commanded by leaders is the most telling that this is humanity, and some are natural rulers who defend these banal egotists. Man is ruled by intelligent sovereigns who impose their ideas upon banal, impotent, dumb masses, who may accept it as culture. Any matter of repression of any kind is the liability of the sovereigns, and collectives are not responsible for anything on their own, as they are too intellectually deficient. It is the personal will of the sovereign who creates culture and defends culture, commanding forces, and imposing a will they believe will be of some civilizational prosperity, continuity, or otherwise, with exceptions for leaders, such as President Noriega, who are merely corrupt and nothing more. The masses are not guilty of anything in particular, and their culture will change upon a reformer sovereign beginning his rule, as the next generation is then influenced by this new sovereign. All matters of history are the matters of sovereigns clashing, whether formally (courts) or informally (war), in their ideas of morality, prosperity, and continuity. Morality exists objectively, but many sovereigns are not moral in their policies, because they may be Buddhists, or Hindus, or Muslims, or Hellenists, as opposed to truly Christian, and following the objective morality. Otherwise, morality is distinct from these matters beyond its ability to influence a sovereign. Everyone is different, and so most people are unintelligent people who are not these malicious actors as these Marxists would say, and largely do nothing beyond their laboring positions. And over the generations, reforms take hold when reformer sovereigns begin their rule and thus change culture. And so, yes, intersection is true... because everyone is shaped by everything in their life as individuals, and the local conclusion of intersection is individualism. Morality is defined only by God, and any moral failure of the regime is the product of sovereigns. Why is "inclusion" such a moral imperative? Certainly, all are equal in spirit to Jesus Christ, and good will must be excercised upon all people, but why is this earhly inclusion so good? Is it not right that people may have a preference for their own kind? Their own tongue? Or otherwise preferring a nation of their own? Why is this wrong? The Marxists will spout on abou colonialism (which really is not this civilization killer, as any dysfunction is the liability of the sovereign head of state), but the fact of the matter is that such an argument is a non-sequitur, as it does not answer the "why?" in any way which is not derived from emotionalism. All morality which exists is exclusively derived from Christ, and this is obvious, as any other moral statements can be deconstructed with a mere "why?" or "so?". The point of the matter is that any dysfunction or immorality of the civilization is squarely the liability of the sovereign, including repression, which is best repaired by upholding the human rights to pursue God, and manipulating culture if necessary. The masses, as obvious by the motions of history, are egotistical, banal, skittish, and dull, as obvious by the fact that every tribe, every war, every revolution, every populist force is all at the helm of a leader imposing his ideas in the name of continuity or morality. And because of this, any dysfunction among the civilization, whether economic, whether civil, whether moral, it is all the liability of a tyrant. Tyrants are deposed by any means of politics or wars, because the masses are so banal and impotent, and they cannot defend themselves. Of course, markets are the best means of economic allocation, this is the truth as substantiated by many writers, such as Hayek, Friedman, Sowell, and otherwise. Of course, the masses do exist as a free people, a chaotic and atomized force which labors about, and the best means of maintaining well-being is through the best living standards and meritocracy of laissez-faire economics, which are beneficial to all parties involved, provided it remains socially conservative, or otherwise compliant with human nature so as not to incur this criminal burst which occurs when the family unit breaks down, depriving offspring of what they require due to man being a type of organism. It is right that people are not guilty as collectives, and individuals are only guilty for what they do themselves. Indeed, as collectives are mere bodies of individuals, who are guilty on their own, regardless of culture.

Indeed, it is so that man is chaotic, egotistical, and quite skittish without leadership. There has never been any mass movement without the command and enchantment of sovereigns, or otherwise known as the hero as king. It is verifiable in the fact that collectives are merely groups of individuals with their own personal agency and such, but fundamentally skittish and egotistical, which is why these matters of politics are done via populism, or otherwise known as the soft enchantment by a sovereign, whether corrupt or benevolent, who have brought this view, and enchanted others with simple things, simple promises. But ultimately, it is the sovereigns who drive civilization, whether through command of forces, political maneuvering, or the enchantment of a dull many. Even these riots, mass crime, this is not an example of collective consciousness, as the Marxist would say, rather, chaos and fear manifest, however, many great scholars have argued that even these bursts of aimless destruction are equally led, most particularly in the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, in which, through the chaos, leadership emerged in two, but one of the greater being Raz Simone, this malevolent tyrant who saw what sovereigns had seen: stewardship. This is because man is, within the nature of most, frightful and meek, but in the presence of a sovereign, capitulate fully to their will. There is no "realization" in the Marxist sense, because the masses are just dull, they are not intellectuals, nor latently so, but are egotists, enchanted only by sovereigns. Democracy, in this nature, is synonymous to kraterocracy, not benevolent governance. Even among the Hadza, there is leadership apparent, though de facto, it is prestige, and there are disputes and conflicts within the people. Now, is nature and the alignment to the natural order, the mere deference? I do not believe so. It is thus that, in the context of the banal, nature-driven masses, then natural realism is the prime deference, however, in matters of kings and theologians, there is much to do, such as clashing on about the nature of Christ, or the best model of governance to bring about prosperity and longevity. It is known. Even primitive peoples exist in hierarchy. So many tribes have strongmen for leaders, kings, elders, priests, and even in the most primitive scenarios such as the Hadza, even they are beholden to their prestiged leaders. This "alienation" Marx spoke of, is amoral at best. Even tribal people have dead-end jobs, like farming and pastoralism. In fact, the boredom and such is a sign of unintelligence, that they do not understand necessity, nor morality, nor anything beyond their miniscule personal lives, as they are not latent philosophers. And furthermore, no "Revolution" would emerge, because people are too rivalrous, egotistical, and such. And if the Marxists were correct, they wouldn't need to "socialize" people, per se. In fact, their socialization is what I would call "enchantment", because, with every populist movement, they rely on the simple promises to feed into simple minds, and this requires some kind of leader, or a cabal of intelligent people. The Marxist utopia could never exist without totalitarianism, as they are fighting against the nature of mankind. The socialist state is fundamentally at eternal war with human nature, which is why the Marxists states always fail. Why would work ever be fulfilling? It is frustrating, it is hard, no matter physically or mentally, and we cannot expect this fulfillment, and the farmers are only happier because physical activity is so mentally beneficial, but even the farmers frustrate and anger, and live monotonously. In intentional communities, everyone wants to be there, and is ideologically invested in some way, like in Freetown Christiania, so obviously it is going to work because they want it to work, as there is no war on human nature. Although even Freetown Christiania has leaders, and the people there are largely unintelligent, but are enchanted, though voluntary, but voluntary is not equivalent to scholarly reason, and is more about an enchanted enthusiast. They are more like a movement of enchanted peoples living together. They are still human by nature, and so any attack on the settlement would be met with chaos, fear, and brutality, not collective action, as that only occurs when an intelligent leader enchants and commands.Once enough people are not migrants to Christiania, and are born into it, then you shall see the war on human nature begin, unless of course, they retain the culture of the settlement. However, if their culture conflicts with human nature, it will be ruinous. Like promiscuity, or any kind of destruction of the family unit, it is untenable. This is obvious, as Thomas Sowell had pointed out, that fatherlessness and motherlessness lead to decay, the most obvious example being America's black population. The systemic racism argument has been debunked, most obviously by American Asians and African migrants (like Nigerians), who have disproportionately low crime rates, less divorce, and less homosexuality.