Man is clearly not collective. Man is social, certainly, but this is an "is", and not an ought "ought", and yet man is not collective, in the sense there is still theft, conflict, disputes, and crime in these so-called collective peoples. Mankind has a nature that is evident in history, which is that mankind is always with leaders, and that history is always a manner of sovereigns guiding civilization according to their ideas, and shaping the world around them, no matter what the axioms are, good or evil. The riot is simply the expression of man's pure egotism, as they achieve nothing unless organized, like the LA riots, while other riots are simply just man expressing his ego and acquiring material luxuries through force. But if acquiring material luxury through force is just, then why not slaughter and kill anyone who obstructs your acquisition? Why submit to a collective? Why not lead an army to enslave the world in a Utopia of Me, where all are enslaved to the Ego. Why is this wrong? And for alienation? Work is never fulfilling anyhow, no matter where it is, labor is always hard and nobody wants to do it, so what is this expectation that there is fulfillment? Maybe in mere physical activity, but no matter what, there is labor, and it must be done. To "socialize" man is to do no better than ideologically indoctrinate him beyond his baser nature. How does the Marxist know man is supposed to live in this manner of socialization, when humanity, throughout history, never behaves this way? And in fact, it is laissez-faire economics which has created the most benefit. And why not die? Who is to say that death is not the highest liberation, and we are all under false consciousness that life is somehow good, or that material is good? If man's nature is infinitely malleable, then perhaps he is to die! Perhaps we must MORTICIZE humanity, not socialize him! Of course, this is silly, but the Marxist cannot answer, for only in God is there answers. In a broader elaboration on material: Why value material? Why not value death? And if material must be valued, then why ought it be in collectives? Why not the Revolution of Me and Utopia of Me, which see all enslaved before one egoists? Why is that wrong? He is his own class, and demands liberation, and a desire to repress and destroy all who deprive him of material! But why is material so good? Everyone wants a car, a house, a flat screen, but how does the Marxist know that the desire for material is actually false consciousness, and death is true consciousness? Suicide and murder are liberation, and the true consciousness is to morticize humanity! How does the Marxist know? Why is peace so good? Why should humanity exist? It makes no sense. If man is reducible to materialism, then violent, individual acquisition and pure Darwinism and enslavement is supreme for material acquisition. Why should it be in classes? Why not the Class of Me? What makes Marxism any different from Mazdakism, or Sufism, or Islam in general? Marxism requires this elaborate socialization and collectivization, and yet this doesn't even work, and is not conducive to quality economics. I mean this more ontologically, as they all make claims they are unable to substantiate, unlike with Christianity, which is uniquely focused on evidence and history, so while they are different, they make dubious claims which are not moral, though Islam is more coherent than Marxism. Even if man was communal at some point in prehistory, so what? Human sacrifice and ritual warfare were equally practiced, albeit not universally, just as pure communalism was most definitely not practiced universally, as evident by the Maasai, who derive status and wealth from their cows, and the ownership of such. So what if some were communal? Man is fallen anyhow, and negates no sin, there was most certainly still conflict, theft, and corruption, so why elevate communalism to such virtue above these things? Collectivism is also immoral, per the Orthodox teachings on property rights and mutualism. So why not be corrupt? Who not slaughter? Why are these so bad? This goes back to my point, morticize humanity, because one may easily, and arbitrarily, elevate dying and ritual death to the ultimate virtue under this communist model, and so, everyone should die, because death is seen as a virtue, arbitrarily. In this regard, who is to say class consciousness is not death! So obscured by the hegemony of life! Because the Marxist lacks any coherent reason, and his assumptions are all arbitrary. Why is community higher than death? No reason, of course. Why should humanity exist? Why survive? Why? Simply asserting a Camus-esque argument means nothing, as it is circular, and does not answer the question of "why should?" and "why not?", as it exposes an ontology indistinguishable from pure egoistic, violent nihilism. Saying "we should live" and "we should die" have no difference between them, ontologically. Why is one any better or worse? Why is living so good? Who said these are valuable? Who said anything was valuable? Why should we listen to that? Of course, all of these answers are better answered in God, and in apologetics. Alienation? All work is unfulfilling. It is work. What else would it be beyond a job obligated for function? Not every tribal man wants to fetch water. Is all work not in such a manner? People doing the jobs which must be done. Of course, Marx never worked, and so this is quite dubious. Not to say that he must, but that this claim is largely baseless. If someone feels estranged, why is this wrong? All work is hard, and it all must be done, as everything comes from somewhere. And if this is a mere redundancy for "exploitation", the problem is not the markets, but the state control of them. Exploitation? A problem of humans being sinful, as this would equally occur under socialism, albeit more industrialized by the state. Class inequality? Why is this wrong, first? But second, if this is just a redundancy for "exploitation", then it is answered, as exploitation is a human problem, and does not dissapear with socialism. Furthermore, it isn't like there is not a massive inequality between the general-secretary and the proles. Even in "successful" communism like Catalonia, there was still a distinction between the leaders and the led, and there were still problems, and foreseeably, these would have continued into the future if the Spanish Civil War had not ended as it had. And furthermore, if class consciousness is about broad material acquisition, then laissez-faire economics are superior in every way imaginable, seeing as how socialism has only led to stagnation and furthered poverty. So what if class consciousness is capitalist? Of course, why is class consciousness even good? And of course, the ills of capitalism, as a caricature, are actually better attributed to state forces. And so the telos ought to be the regulation of sinfulness, not positive actions, such as markets, but the products, and of the behaviors, while excluding the quite ridiculous idea of the abolition of the markets. Ridiculous in the sense that one would have a socialist problem of stagnation.