Why do I write about Marx?

Marxism. Introduction

I dislike Marxism because A: its praxis is atrocious, and B: its theory is nonsense. Marxism is used to divert people's discontent, to justify people's suffering. Marxism is belief in mystical powers known only by the initiated. Marxism is religion.

Man always tried to understand the world. To understand what lies behind what he perceives. To find out why things work the way they do. He found God. And he found the law of gravitation. Marxism as such is no more interesting than any other religion; Marxism is interesting as an example of what people can believe in. Like Christian belief with expounders like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, Marxist belief demonstrates how far man is prepared to elaborate his theories to prove his points.

So without assuming anything I made a fair, honest, impartial, just, neutral, nondiscriminatory, nonpartisan, objective, open-minded, straight, unbigoted inquest into the theories of Marx and Engels, demonstrating it's all bull. Much of my critic is already known. New is, as far as I know, a more detailed exposure of Marxism. I can't say it took genius, rather small-mindedness. Sometimes it is nitpicking; more going into the failures of Marx than the failures of Marxism.
Maybe it is a bit of an exaggeration to say I don't assume anything. I do assume that two plus two makes four. I do assume that Marx means what he says. If you like expressing yourself abstractly, you can say that I assume arithmetics and language.

Marxists got their materialism, their dialectics and dialectical laws. They got their value. It is all nonsense. It does not say anything about the world. It is what Shakespeare said about Sartre: much ado about nothing. (Sartre wrote about Being and Nothingness. Marx also wrote a lot about nothing. Shakespeare wrote Much Ado about Nothing.)

Friedrich Engels wrote his book Anti-Dühring as an answer to a Herr Dühring. As Dühring had his own competing theory of life, the universe and everything, it was important to defeat him. Engels must have had fun demonstrating the contradictions and the nonsense of the Dühring theories; he did have some analyzing ability. Unfortunately he did not apply this ability to Marx's and his own writings.

The problem with Marx is not that he is wrong. Anybody can be wrong. Marx isn't always wrong, sometimes he is even right. His main problem is that most of his writings are nonsense, that they don't say a thing. If you don't believe me, just check it out:

On materialism.
On dialectics.
On dialectical laws.
On Marx's labor dependent value.
On differences between Marxism and religion, if any.
On science.
Conclusion.
On the first part of Marx's Capital Book 1.
On the second part of Marx's Capital Book 1.
On Marx Capital, books 2 and 3.
More on Marxism than on Marx. Comparing communism and Nazism. More similarities than differences.

When referring to Marx's and Engels' texts, I do as a rule give part summaries, not direct quotations. These summaries are set apart. They have a different font. They are a different color. They are left aligned: that is the right side is not straight. They start a bit further to the right. They are like this paragraph.

Man's capacity to believe almost anything he is told is fascinating. I think it is fun exposing nonsense like Marxism. I hope that someone else, besides me, will be interested.

Sources

Many books have been written about Marx and Marxism, most of them favorable.
The one I have found most like mine in scope is K.R. Popper: The Open Society And Its Enemies, Volume 2, Hegel and Marx. A book covering more than mine but not as detailed.
Also Leszek Kolakowski: Main Currents of Marxism. Mostly it covers the history of Marxism, but it also deals with criticism of its theory. I am not the first one to notice that Marx's value is completely arbitrary. I am not the first one to note that his materialism and dialectics don't say a thing.

I have read more books by or about Marx and Engels, however far from all. When I digress into other philosophers and philosophies, my sources are mostly compilations and Internet. Also general books on philosophy, mainly Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. I don't think much has happened since; Gödel and maybe Popper.

© Anders Floderus