Marxism in 2021

Fortunately, Marxism is a thing of the past, right? Has it returned like trends tend to do? Then why don't we recognize it? And how can the fight for equality, which solely comes from genuinely good intentions, ever have a negative aspect?

Arend Nijdam    28 August 2021
  • 2021
  • politics
  • Marxism
  • social justice

Chapters

  1. Inequality!
  2. Marxism; the oppressed against the oppressors
  3. The good life
  4. Intersectionality
  5. Social justice
  6. Identity in the Age of Postmodernism
  7. Intersectionality + Postmodernism = Infinite Classes (a Marxist's Wet Dream)
  8. The benefits of the victim role
  9. Intersectionality factors and creativity
  10. What's the problem with all this?
  11. Achieving Social Justice is impossible
  12. Our downfall
  13. The Marxist's purpose driven methods
  14. So, now what?
  15. "You're just scared..."

Inequality!

People's circumstances are not equal. Some are rich, healthy and born in the Netherlands, others are poor, disabled and born in Africa. Sometimes there is a group to blame for this inequality between groups, sometimes there isn't.

People are equal, but not all have the same circumstances. One is an employer, the other is employed; not all inequality is inherently bad. Most inequalities in our society are not caused by bad intentions, but can be reasonably explained. Hierarchies are everywhere. The Marxist, however, says that these relationships are inherently bad, and that they need to be fixed.

I'd give someone I just met a fair amount of basic respect, as time goes by and I get to know  this person, this amount of respect increases or decreases. Respect too, has nothing to do with equality.

Marxism; the oppressed against the oppressors

Marxism promises a society without classes, states or money. It promises a society without poverty, without dishonesty, without corruption.

In real life, however, everything is organized into hierarchies consisting of different levels, and everything and everyone is oppressed by the level above. In other words: everyone is in a class and each class is by definition a "victim of the capitalist system", with the ultimate oppressor at the top, and of course the ultimate victim at the bottom. The working class itself is also not one entity, but can be divided into a hierarchy with each person at his own level. Everyone has something or someone above them that they need to stand up to.

Because of this, if you look for it, you will always find "oppression". The idea that someone has become successful in a capitalist system without oppressing others does not exist. Marxism mainly focuses on economic fairness: poor is by definition oppressed, rich(er) is by definition the capitalist oppressor.

The fundamental assumption is that all inequality results from unequal treatment. All aspects in our society such as race, nationality, taxes, benefits, work, health care, must be brought under control with tailor-made rules, in order to achieve equality of outcome.

What needs to happen to achieve the Marxist Utopia is: the working class must rise up against the capitalist oppressors. The Marxist says; 'The people against the elite', but in practice it is 'everyone against everyone'.

The good life

In our current western world we have never had it this good. Western Europe hasn't experienced a war in 80 years, nobody knows what real actual oppression looks like anymore. We have so few problems that from this luxurious position we focus on issues that we wouldn't have noticed otherwise. We are spoiled and decadent. Out of boredom we argue about trivial issues, make up problems, and the sins of our ancestors are dug up.

For decades politicians only talked about our rights. What other rights we should have, how important they are, how they should be protected etc. We are simply not mature enough to handle duties, or responsibility.

This good life has given us the delusion that we are special. We take the good that we have for granted. We contemplate about ourselves more than ever, 'myself' is what's the most important after all. We all think we are a prince or princess who somehow ended up in the wrong family.

Our rights are the only thing we care about. This individual egocentrism is exactly where Marxist ideology gets stuck; we want the promise of the Marxist Utopia, but only if it makes me richer, and only if I don't have to give up my rights for it. The average Marxist partisan does not realize that he himself is also positioned halfway the hierarchy, and that there are people below him whom he oppresses, and who will demand justice from him.

Everything in our life is our right, including the rights of the classes in which we have placed ourselves. This way of thinking has become part of our identity. If someone doubts these ideas, then this person insults us to the core of our identity.

Our luxuriously protected life has made our emotions very sensitive, we burst into tears when someone has a different opinion than us. The emotional pain that come from these insults is again a great injustice, a form of oppression, a never ending cycle.

Intersectionality

Intersectionality is an analytical framework to find out, in social situations, what the norm is, and therefore also what the oppsite if this norm is. This takes into account, for example, the norm regarding political views, physical fitness, wealth, but really every variable you can think of. Thus, is argued, intersectionality shows different forms of privilege and discrimination. Conclusions though, are generalizing: the norm is privileged, and someone who deviates from the norm is unlikely to not be oppressed.

We cannot escape these oppressor-dynamics. The more aspects you can be classified into, the more oppressed you are. Someone who is poor, gay, colored, female, and disabled has many victim points. Someone who is white, male, heterosexual, and rich meets the norm and has no victim points. This person even has a share in the blame for all inequality.

The focus is on group identity, so actual individual situations are not taken into consideration. The call for justice only has theoretical oppression as an argument.

When you divide someone into, say, eight classes (and eight variables are very easy to come up with), you are well on your way to an individual level. It therefore brings great division among people, in all levels of society.

The more you deviate from the norm, according to your intersectionality, the greater your right for justice is (read: financial compensation). Logically this justice is initially demanded from the biggest oppressor, this is the sheep with the most wool after all . Then to the second greatest oppressor, then to the next, and so on.

So it is beneficial, and tempting, to identify yourself with as many minority classes as possible ... you can hold up your hand more often.

It is therefore also safest to place yourself, by means of a complex intersectionality, at the bottom of society. No justice is hauled there.

If you, with a minority intersectionality, place yourself above people with an average intersectionality, this is seen as fair, and brave. Of course, ironically, putting yourself above someone else is actually still not equality at all.

Social justice

Achieving justice for a specific class or group is called "Social Justice". Everyone is different, so everyone needs a different form of justice, right? Tailor-made justice for everyone. Should my skepticism not be clear here: what a terrible plan.

How many kinds of justice are there? Doesn't the law in our courtrooms apply to everyone equally without exception? Isn't Lady Justice blind?

Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution states that everyone in the Netherlands is treated equally in equal cases. Furthermore, Article 1 states that discrimination, on any ground whatsoever, is prohibited. Discrimination is illigal here, just like it is in many other western countries.

There is only one justice, and it cannot be divided into types. Justice is something divine. Justice is pure. Justice is the same for everyone. If anyone wants to add to or take away from justice, it is no longer justice.

  1. If something is not completely just, we'd call that injustice
  2. When there is a need for an extra word in front of justice, then it's not completely just
  3. Social Justice is, by definition: injustice

Identity in the Age of Postmodernism

What am I, why am I, how am I, who am I? Am I just part of a group, or am I an individual? Your personal definition of your own identity is shaped by your education, your environment, your thoughts, your choices, and also on the basis of which philosophies are popular in your time. Examples are; logical reasoning, moralism, empiricism, existentialism.

Postmodernism has been emerging since the mid-20th century. It began an era of civil rights, it celebrates diversity, and conveys the idea that the unique individual (a complex intersectionality outside of the norm) is the ultimate experience of universal development.

Postmodernism rebels against its predecessor; modernism. The beliefs in 'the great stories', in 'the Truth', in ideologies have disappeared. Good and evil, religion, ethics, social economic systems, norms and values, reason, science, art, family: everything is up for discussion and is challenged.

Wars and conflicts of the past century have undermined faith in rationality and humanism, history has nothing to teach us. Everything is relative, you have your truth, I have mine, there is no absolute. Everyone lives in their own universe, no one has anything say about it, not even your parents. 'Sense' has lost its self-evidence. The concepts of 'self' or 'individual' have been relegated to mere social constructions.

Many postmodernists are riotous pleasure seekers. With their passion for their unlimited individual autonomy, no achievement motivation, no self-control, and an unabashed desire for the Marxist equality, they undermine the very foundation of our Western society.

Intersectionality + Postmodernism = Infinite Classes (a Marxist's Wet Dream)

The Western good life, our rights as the highest priority, our feelings, participation medals, and philosophical extravagance gives us a postmodern epidemic of narcissism.

For victims there is always attention in the form of compassion, we recognize how hard it is for them and we stand up for them. And that's how it should be with legitimate victims. However, a self-proclaimed victim wants this kind of attention too. A good under-dog story also has something romantic, we don't easily ask questions about sad stories.

Nowadays everyone has the opportunity to put themselves in the spotlight, what can I do to turn even more attention my way? How do I present myself more uniquely than someone else?

Since even postmodern science no longer has the truth, there is plenty of room for creativity. Make up your own mind about who, what, and how you are. It doesn't matter if you come up with something that's completely abnormal, it just indicates that you are probably on the right track. Because you have to determine your own identity primarily on the basis of self-invented standards and wisdom. When others criticize or question your beautiful self-development process, you ban these people from your life. After all: you have the right not to be offended.

Twisting the truth for attention and pity is already part of the narcissist's nature, so: let's emphasize and invent some intersectionality factors!

I admit, that's a lot of words to say that if you fabricate what you are, you are automatically a minority.

The benefits of the victim role

  • You feel you have a right for justice, you're expecting this from your society
  • You are safe from others who seek justice
  • You get attention in the form of compassion
  • you are not the bad guy
  • You get less criticism
  • You can't do anything about your circumstances, you have no responsibility
  • You have the right to complain
  • You have the right to feel sad all the time
  • Others want to help you, and they'll do what you ask
  • Others think you are brave and strong because of everything you have to endure
  • It gives an emotional life purpose, one emotion alternates the other, it feels different every time, it is never boring
  • You no longer feel anger, your sadness surpasses all

Intersectionality factors and creativity

Is your great-great grandmother of African descent? Clearly, you are one-sixteenth African. On the basis of Marxist philosophy, one race gets more victim points than others. If you can get away with it, it'll be better to say you're a member of an oppressed race, even though your appearance may not represent that very well anymore. Any bit of victim DNA is welcome in our effort to present ourselves as anything but an oppressor.

In addition to your actual origin and DNA, it is of course more important how you feel about this. After all, everyone has their own truth and their own science. You shouldn't be told what you are. Just decide what your sex or race is based on your gut feelings that you happen to have today.

Clearly, women are oppressed by men. Even if a man goes out of his way to live honestly and treat everyone equal, a man is, by definition, a vicious oppressor. Fortunately, the idea of ​​gender is no longer binary, but more of a spectrum. Examine yourself and find out what you are, than give it a name. The less "man" you are the better.

A few years back, Facebook had 71 (?) gender choices. Because new genders were invented every day, they gave up maintaining this option list and changed it to an open field. If only one choice would be missing, they'd insult another group of people ... and people daily invent new places on the spectrum daily.

With a binary gender model you logically arrive at four types of sexual orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual. People examine themselves and present themselves as one of these. But as previously mentioned, a binary gender model is obsolete, it is now a spectrum. With an infinite number of genders you have an infinite number of sexual orientations, squared.

Too young or too old to work, vote, go to the pub, demonstrate, have an opinion on a particular subject, and so on. Age has alway been a sensitive subject. Decide for yourself what your age is... as long as you feel comfortable.

Everything is fluid, every day is different, you and your feelings are different every day. You might be a man one day, a woman the next, somewhere in between after that...

"1+1=3" is no longer incorrect: that's now called: "thinking outside off the box". It's progression, it's brave. Science is dead, it has been murdered, we stood by and watched it happen.

Your identity? Just make something up.

What's the problem with all this?

Everyone can do whatever they want, right? If someone thinks they're a helicopter... well I think that's sort of strange myself, but as long as it doesn't bother me, you should leave that person alone, right? This behavior of individuals does not affect my life, does it? It won't affect my living and working environment, the education of my children, or the laws of the country in which I live?

The idea is that equality proves itself through diversity. For example, according to this idea, if a company isn't unfair in their hiring process, then their workforce is an acurate representation of the people in its nation. Suppose that 15% of the Dutch population has a dark skin color, then logically 15% of the company staff must also be dark. In practice you will not find this representation of people at any company. Only men work in road works, while women work disproportionately more in the care sector. In IT mainly men, in primary education mainly women, etc.

It's clear that Dutch companies have a major discrimination problem. Clearly, the average corporate culture has a sexist, racist, homophobic overtone! More and more people want these "problems" to be dealt with. More and more people are voting for parties that have diversity as their highest priority. These parties want to measure, control and enforce diversity in the workplace.

The idea of regulations such as gender and race quotas have already been implemented in Brazilian and Canadian governments. Soon you will find these kinds of regulations in policy and legislation in your own country.

This already affects politics, and eventually this will affect laws and regulations: this will affect your life and this is your problem. This will affect everyone.

Achieving Social Justice is impossible

Many "problems" of the self-diagnosed victims are actually non-issues, and stem from a narcissistic attempt at seeking attention. In most cases it concerns individuals who are best helped in the long term by ignoring them. Reacting to their demand for justice implies that they're right and encourages their irrational nagging. Of course they do get this attention, of course they do get this help. In the end, real "help" can only come in one way: legislation for the benefit of a minority at the expense of all others.

The most specific exceptions are made for the smallest minorities, it feels good, it feels like justice. Making exceptions in legislation is never without discriminating other groups. Social justice isn't justice at all. It requires that one group or person have more rights than others, or worse: that the rights of one persone or group are taken and given to another.

Seeing equality as a sacred goal, and wanting to achieve it by randomly grouping people, labeling the victims and the guilty is impossible to do fairly. Determining the reparations, who pays what, who receives what, is impossible to do fairly. Thinking you can get that job done is arrogant and stupid. Who determines the regulations? How is it determined how many victim points you have collected and how much the capitalist society has to make up for you? Once one group gets its exception under the guise of justice, the next group wants it too, and the next, etc. It's too complex. Each case is different and must be considered separately. Since the classes are infinite, there is an infinite amount of injustice to be solved.

Questions of which the exact facts can no longer be found;

  • Which group is the victim?
  • Who belongs to this group?
  • Which group is the oppressor?
  • Who belongs to this group?
  • What exactly is the injustice?
  • When was that?
  • How long did this injustice last?
  • How much money must be paid? (It's never not about money)
  • Who from the oppressor group pays how much?
  • Who from the victim group receives how much?

It's impossible to answer all questions accurately, so we fill in what feels right. The group that shouts the loudest is served first.

And the cry is loud, because in the end they are victims of the capitalist system, and those others who are successful within that capitalist system must be the perpetrators. And wrongs must be righted. The oppressed of Capitalism are of course not going to start a business themselves, do something with their lives with the risk of becoming successful. Who wants to be the bad guy anyway? They are too lazy and too convinced of their victimhood to take responsibility for their own lives. No, the solution to our misfortune must come from the government.

As impossible as the task of tackling all injustices may be, the government is only too happy to do its best. The class division cannot be complex enough for Marxist politicians. The finer the intersectionality, the greater the conflict of the class struggle, the more injustice the government has to resolve, the more power this government needs to operate.

The bureaucracy involved in this impossible task will grow to be unmanageable, unwieldy, and impersonal. The costs of the civil service will be a deep bottomless pit, the bill is for the people.

No Social Justice problem can be solved with new legislation without opening a new can of worms. Circular processes with an exponentially growing pile of problems.

Our downfall

When a government makes policy based on social justice, things can only go wrong. Writing and enforcing Social Justice policy is too big of a task, too complex, too expensive, and inherently unfair. It'll set groups of people up against eachother, making them even more angry than they are now.

Social Justice only has one possible outcome and that is the downfall of Western Society. 

The Marxist though, claims to have a solution for all these aforementioned hassles. His solution promises absolute equality for all, will resolve and prevent all present and future injustice. It promises that the government will solve everything without us having to worry. And also, this solution promises all this to happen fast: now.

This solution is called; "Communism" ... ta-da! Yes, the word has fallen.

"Communism... oh, then we don't have to worry because that will certainly never happen to us again!" - the average western person

If only people would indeed learn from the past... unfortunately, the human race naturally suffers from a kind of chronic amnesia. Our memory of communism is superficial, we remember the dead, but no longer what caused it. We don't know what the people thought, what philosophy was popular, what kind of politicians they voted for and why. "The Nazis of 1930 were bad because they were bad...". That Nazis were born like normal people, and that you have to learn how to be Nazi doesn't even cross our minds.

We don't realize that China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela  are still communist today. Especially when it comes to; human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, wealth, self-expression, everything that is so important to Social Justice advocates, has actually deteriorated in these countries.

Communism is responsible for more than 100 million deaths, and this number continues to rise today. No one with governmental power cares.

We now have had 80 years of peace in western Europe, we can't even imagine a (civil) war, or a fully collapsed economy. It is precisely for this reason that we must continue to look at the Holocaust, Soviet Union, Cambodia, North Korea, current day Venezuela (!), study how those situations could have developed, and recognize its symptoms when this evil tries to appear yet again.

Every "successful" genocide was based on blaming a specific class of people. It starts with leaders and activists telling certain groups to revolt before their oppressive counter-class kills them.

The ideologies, social movements, the focus on us versus them, the demand for more government involvement, the signs of the reemergence of Marxism are visible. The politicians who dare to point out these patterns and signs are structurally ridiculed. It truly baffles me that Western Social Justice advocates fail to recognize the fire they are playing with.

We in the Western World are not interested in politics. But we do vote, for that one gentleman who tries so hard, and looks so friendly on t.v.

The Marxist's purpose driven methods

Do not think that all this is just a natural course of events. At a higher level there is an agenda, and there is conscious control behind it. The most powerfull people on this planet have this power because they are addicted to it, their lives revolve around power. They want more of it, and they know how, and where to get it.

What manipulative stories do they tell to get people to scream for socialism and communism?

Focus on victim vs. perpetrator

The Marxist is a self-proclamed savior of the victims. We ought to be ashamed that rich and poor both still exist at the same time. That women supposedly earn less than men, or that transsexuals are not allowed into girls bathrooms... we must do everything we can to make things right, whatever the costs. Their story touches us in our emotions, in our sense of justice, but lack reason.

Focus on diversity as a solution

The Marxist talks about the need for more diversity, but what actual problem is diversity even suposed to solve? High diversity ratings are fine, low diversity ratings aren't necessarily bad either. Forcing diversity upon, lets say a company's work force, can only be done by actively starting to discriminate, which only causes more conflicts.

Focus on "all together"

Together we tackle racism, poverty, climate change. This gives us the idea that we are one. Everyone who participates is included. Anyone who does not participate, who has a different political opinion, can immediately be accused. However, those who participate must participate 100%, step out of line once and you will be burned at the stake.

Postmodernist rebel against our foundations

The Marxist rebels at the very foundations of our Western society. A society full of "dishonesty" and "habits that hold back progress". Even though something has proven itself time and time again, over thousands of years, that doesn't mean that it isn't oppressive.

Attack on the traditional family structure

The traditional family structure of father, mother, and children is no longer the cornerstone of society. It is no longer without a doubt the best way to raise mentally stable, happy citizens, who will pull their weight in society.

We must be open to alternatives for father and mother, even though there is no data at all that shows this would be any good for the next generation of children.

Attack on our language - political correctness

To prevent himself from offending the frail souls of his voters, the Marxist uses a strictly politically correct choice of words. For everything that the postmodernists in their creativity and relativism had made up, new vocabulary must be constructed. With this the ever so insulting truth can be easily avoided.

  • Illegal Immigrant → Undocumented Immigrant
  • Illegal worker → Undocumented worker
  • Minority → Underrepresented
  • Manpower → Human Resources
  • Mother → Parent who gives birth to children
  • Brother, or sister → child
  • Colored people → people of color
  • Fat → Overweight
  • Ugly → Severe lack of appearance
  • Disabled → Person with a physical disability
  • Suffers from Asthma → Has Asthma
  • Deaf → Has hearing loss
  • Fireman → Firefighter
  • Slum → Economically disadvantaged area
  • Easter → Spring Festival
  • Amen → Amen and awomen (I'm not making this up)

Words that are not neuter, or stereotypical, or make implications about sexual orientation or race, should no longer be used. Also color names, gender indicators, or talking honestly and open about someone's physical condition... it's really no longer allowed.

Language is a means of communication. The more words you have at your disposal, the more precise you can express yourself, the more tactful you can be, the less chance of miscommunication there is.

If only this form of policing on words provided new words to expand our vocabulary. But unfortunately it only forbids words, and we are forced to use alternatives that are less accurate. Our vocabulary is shrinking, it is a deliberate deterioration of our language.

The main reason given for not using certain words anymore is to avoid potentially hurting someone's feelings at all costs. However, you can only completely avoid hurting another person if everyone thinks exactly the same, that's boring, and stupid and it'll never happen. You also have to avoid excluding people, so we have to use "inclusive language". More inclusive communication means by definition; a more general, less precise communication. I don't want to be vague, I want to be as precise as possible when I have something to say.

They forbid words, or change their meaning. Ultimately, no one can reason or argue about the topics that the Marxist doesn't want to have discussed. Many politically correct words do not catch on by natural popular use, but are pushed with propaganda or activism. If they control our language, they control our thoughts.

Social problems run much deeper than speech, silencing people by forbidding certain words will only lead to more struggle, misunderstanding, and now miscommunication.

Diversity as a goal, except when it comes to words or ideas. Political correctness is fascism pretending to be politeness.

Attack on capitalism

Capitalism does have its problems; companies that are sponsored so that they can operate far below the market price for years without any problems until they've starved all their competition. Monopolists who lobby for stricter regulation on their own product so that it's too expensive for small entrepreneurs to compete in the market. There are undoubtedly more issues with late-stage capitalism.

What is also true is that the entire world owes all progress ever to capitalism. All our economic, technological, medical, educational, infrastructural development is due to entrepreneurs who once saw an opportunity, chased it, and became successful.

In a capitalist market, those who dare to take the risk of starting a business are completely free. Employers have a financial incentive (the success of the company) to hire the best people, and thus not to discriminate on insignificant factors.

Those who'd rahter not do not risk investing are free to negotiate with employers about a job. Employees have a financial incentive to do their best work. If the pay or other circumstances  aren't satisfactory, they're free to renegotiate with their current employer, or try somewhere else.

A free market is not unregulated, a free market is a form of regulation. Many problems of capitalism can be traced back to half-baked government meddling. Rules and measures that a government imposes on a market must have the thoughtfulness comparable to that of open-heart surgery. The reasons for interfering must be "life-saving", but often short-term results, that ought to shine a positive light on politicians, have priority (the term of office of the Dutch House of Representatives is four years).

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it stands head and shoulders above all other options.

Focus on globalism

Everything has to be solved together, this applies to the level of countries as well. Countries that do not participate are the black sheep. If people could simply flee from communist countries, that would be a fundamental problem. That is why there are walls around communist countries. When the whole world is communist, there'd be no place to run to. Communism has a better chance of success if there are no countries. One world government.

Propaganda

You will find all these narratives in; advertising, the news, talk shows, movies, kids movies, games, music, politics, science, religion, corporate slogans.

In movies and games, oppressed minorities are brought to the fore without really adding anything to the actual story. Businesses join the call for Social Justice out of fear of losing business (except in countries where advocating for specific Social Justice causes they will lose business). In cartoons you see more and more the focus on certain sexualities, while children should not be concerned with any sexuality at all. Mental gymnasts have taken the position that "Western Mathematics" is used as a tool of power and oppression, this "discussion" is now wasting precious energy in schools. It's not even subtle anymore...

So, now what?

As far as ideas are concerned, the political spectrum from left to right is valuable, I am in favor of encouraging diversity of ideas. I want to hear all ideas, I want everyone to hear all ideas. Only then there will be an oportunity for everyone to distinguish the good and the bad ideas for themselves, most people really are able to. However, when extremely bad ideas are about to be implemented, or are in progress, we need to name them for what they are; stupid and dangerous. Study it, take a stand, because if you don't, you're very likely to unknowingly join them.

"You're just scared..."

Yes, yes I am. Anyone with common sense is afraid of Marxism/ Socialism/ Communism. Please make it clear to me that I'm delusional, and that these people are trustworthy, and in their right mind. Prove to me that this time socialism is going to be done right and that it'll work out this time, because all the evidence shows; it won't.