RANT: Marx the Prophet with No Blueprint

 

RANT: The Bourgeois Lie of Communism

Let’s get something straight: communism was never created by the working class. From Karl Marx down to the modern "Marxist intellectual" posting from their tenured university offices, the ideology has always been the brainchild of the bourgeois about the working class — never by the working class. These were not factory hands, street sweepers, coal miners, or even trade union foot soldiers. Marx himself, living off Engels’ family wealth, was the archetype of the armchair theorist. They sat in cafes and libraries philosophizing about “the proletariat” like they were specimens — raw materials for their grand political ambitions.

The truth is, communism was a vehicle — a convenient narrative for a new elite to rise and sweep away the old one. And when they got power? Surprise: they acted exactly like the capitalists they claimed to despise. Consolidate power, eliminate rivals, centralize everything, install a bureaucracy so rigid it smothers the spirit — and of course, make damn sure no one beneath them can ever rise above. You can switch out the top hat for the red star; the result is the same — the boot stays on your neck.

You know what’s worse? The hypocrisy. These supposed enemies of corruption are often swimming in it. Look at the Communist Party of China — perpetually in a witch hunt for “corrupt officials” while standing atop a pyramid of quiet privilege, hidden bank accounts, princeling dynasties, and untouchable party cadres. The corruption isn't an aberration of the system — it’s baked into it. Because when you create a political elite that answers only to itself, cloaked in opaque power structures, with no true accountability — what the hell do you think will happen?

They'll say, "But capitalism is corrupt!" — as if that excuses anything. As if their corruption is somehow holy, ideological, or revolutionary in nature. Give me a break.

And then there's the economics. Marx's theories were already creaking when he wrote them, but in today’s hyper-technological, algorithm-driven world? They’re dead. The labor theory of value doesn’t make sense in a world of automation, software, AI, and endless digital reproduction. The old “modes of production” framework fails when the most valuable commodities are now data and attention. Marx couldn’t have foreseen a world where a YouTuber makes more money than a thousand factory workers combined — and yet the communist faithful still quote him like Scripture.

That’s the thing — they treat it like religion. They scoff at capitalism’s “irrational” consumerism, but then cling to a 19th-century political-economic fantasy like it’s divine revelation. As if the Holy Dialectic will one day descend and purify the world. As if history has some inevitable arc that they’re simply meant to ride.

But real people — working people — don’t live in dialectics. They live in reality. They don’t care about seizing the means of production if it means standing in bread lines or being surveilled into oblivion. And they’re not interested in trading one set of rulers for another — especially if the new ones dress it up in revolutionary lingo while living behind compound walls and pretending to be “of the people.”

At the end of the day, both systems — communism and capitalism — have turned into two competing forms of class hierarchy. One is based on ownership of capital, the other on control of the party and bureaucracy. The common man is used, exploited, silenced, surveilled, and lied to in both. But at least capitalism doesn’t pretend it’s your friend.

RANT CONTINUED: Marx the Prophet with No Blueprint — And the Anglo-Fascist Mutation of Socialism

Here’s the dirty little secret no one wants to admit about Karl Marx: he didn’t design a system. He didn’t give us a working model. He didn’t draw up a constitution, an economic protocol, or even a clear set of transitional steps. What Marx offered was not a manual — it was a critique. Observations. A poetic, angry dissection of capitalism's contradictions. But when it came time to explain how exactly communism was meant to function — silence. Or vague utopian mumbling about “the withering away of the state.” Yeah right. The only thing that ever withers in these revolutions is freedom.

Marx was like a political meteorologist shouting “storm’s coming!” — but never designed a single shelter. No system, no mechanism, no roadmap. Just a giant blank space labeled “revolution happens here” — and then suddenly we arrive at a classless utopia. Are you kidding me?

This gaping hole is exactly why every communist system that followed ended up improvising — and improvisation under ideological pressure always ends in blood. Lenin had to fill in the blanks. Stalin weaponized them. Mao rewrote the book entirely. Each one claimed fidelity to Marx’s “vision,” but the truth is, the vision was never complete. Just a mirror held up to capitalism, cracked and warped — with no architecture behind it.

And here’s where it gets even sicker. In the Anglo world — the so-called “liberal democracies” of the West — socialism didn’t arrive via revolution. It crept in, disguised in buzzwords: equity, inclusion, public good, safety. But instead of a worker's paradise, what we got was a bureaucratic surveillance machine. No dictator needed — just a million little unelected administrators with digital leashes wrapped around everyone’s throat.

Look around today: Western socialism didn’t liberate — it mutated. It fused with corporate control, data mining, censorship, media manipulation, and behavioral nudging. This isn’t communism, and it sure as hell isn’t freedom. It’s a hybrid — fascism without the charisma. No marching boots, no iron crosses, just rainbow logos, ESG scores, and banned opinions. A velvet-gloved panopticon where your job, bank account, and medical rights are all tethered to compliance.

And what’s terrifying? This isn’t an accident. The seeds were always there. You can see it in the early splits after the Russian Revolution. Trotsky — radical, fever-dream revolutionary — didn’t just get kicked out. He got ice-picked in exile. His ideas weren’t just disruptive to the state — they were reality-breaking. Dissolution of family, total collectivism, global revolution at all costs — it was too much even for Stalin. Stalin! The guy who starved Ukraine and built the gulags. That should tell you something.

And what Trotsky wanted? It looks suspiciously like the West today: the disintegration of tradition, of the nuclear family, of national identity — all replaced with abstract ideological loyalty. No roots, no lineage, no heritage. Just massified humans to be managed and molded by the Party, the State, or in our case — the System.

So what’s the real legacy of Marx? A ghost. A specter that gave later ideologues just enough intellectual cover to erect new pyramids of power under the illusion of liberation. But instead of chains from profit, we got chains from the “collective good.” Instead of landlords, we got party bosses. Instead of kings, we got unelected tech priests. Always promising paradise. Always delivering a cage.