The first and most important aspect in any dialogue is terminology, that is, definitions.

When proving an idea in mathematics, one begins with definitions.

And anyone who has studied mathematics would be aware how rigorous those definitions must be. 

Concepts that are seemingly so obvious – like the definition of a line or a limit – and yet I recall how my undergraduate mathematics professor would bust my balls over it.

A limit is a fundamental concept of calculus, in fact it’s necessary for defining a “derivative”.

It’s actually rather intuitive: think of it as "approaching a value."

But the rigorous definition is:

You might be thinking: shoot me…. That’s how I felt when I saw this first time.

In any case, the point I want to make is that in my experience, people ought to be more rigorous in the definitions they use in their conversations. 

Limits may be unimportant to the majority of people. Most probably have never even heard about it. But words that impact us – that determine the social-economic systems that we live in  –  terms like Marxism, or Socialism, or Liberalism, or Libertarian, these must be always re-phrased. 

It’s actually rather humorous to watch two individuals passionately arguing about something like “communism” with each individual having entirely different definitions of what it is. 

Perhaps most of the world’s problems can be eliminated if people just clarified what the words they are using actually mean. 

I may or may not be considered as Marxist, but at the core of the idea – all people should be “marxists”.

Perhaps a better word would be socialist. Whatever the case is, I want to explain the core ideas here, as I understand it of course.

There are key elements central to Marxian philosophy:

• Historical Materialism

• Historical Stages

• Dialectical Materialism

• Class Struggle

• Mode of Production (forces of production + relations of production)

• Base and Superstructure

• Alienation

• Exploitation

• Commodity Fetishism

• Theory of Value

• Revolution

I am no professional scholar in Marxism – but I think the core idea, is graspable by any amateur interested in having a general idea – much like the one does not need to dive into Einstein’s field equations in order to understand that the essential point of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is that i) the laws of physics are identical in each inertial reference frame, but that these laws are perceived as relative when discussing the relation of two inertial frames (Special Relativity) and ii) Gravity is not a force, but a curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy, which are interchangeable via E = mc^2 (General Relativity).

In the theory of Marxism (which should probably be changed to “Theory of Social Evolution” or some other name as opposed to holding Marx as a god-like figure … ) the central “entry-point” to model how societies evolve is by accepting the fact that our reality is built by our relation to our fellow man. 

That is, we all live and work in some form of community– we are social animals– and one clear fact that emerges from this is the notion of class. 

In my view, the emergence of classes in any given society is not merely a social phenomenon, but a mathematical inevitability. This can be understood through the lens of a branch of mathematics that deals with the division of sets into subsets, known as Partition Theory:

Given any non-empty set S (representing a society or population):

There exists a partition P of S, where P = {C₁, C₂, ..., Cₙ} such that:

•  Each Cᵢ is a non-empty subset of S (representing a class)

•  The union of all Cᵢ is equal to S (every member of society belongs to a class)

•  For any i ≠ j, Cᵢ ∩ Cⱼ = ∅ (classes are mutually exclusive)

Fancy jargon….

Let’s take an example:

Example: Consider the set S = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}. Here are some valid partitions of S:

• {{1}, {2}, {3}, {4}, {5}} (each element in its own subset)

• {{1, 2}, {3, 4}, {5}}

• {{1, 2, 3}, {4, 5}}

• {{1, 2, 3, 4, 5}} (the entire set as a single subset)

But {{1, 2}, {2, 3}, {4, 5}} is not a valid partition because the element 2 appears in two subsets.

In the context of social classes, a partition would represent a way of dividing society into distinct, non-overlapping groups where every member of society belongs to exactly one group or class.

This partition arises naturally based on one or more criteria functions f: S → R, where R is some range of values. These functions could be factors like economic status, social influence, access to resources etc. 

The main point of this is that any group of people naturally will divide themselves into some classes (based on abilities, beliefs, physical traits, etc.). 

Marx’s theory posits that out of all the possible ways of dividing the population of a society,  

THE ONE BASED ON MATERIALISM IS THE MOST DOMINANT FORM OF DIVISION –

That is, the one based on RESOURCES – which, in our modern world, it is driven by finances (which, money is merely an abstract representation of how much resources one has).

And his entire theory onwards explains HOW and WHY this is the case. 

This is the starting point known as “Historical Materialism”-- that all societies in history are first and foremost based on the CLASSES THAT EMERGE BASED ON THE DIVISION OF RESOURCES. 

* A side note: in the 21st century, Data is clearly a natural “resource”-- yet it is not “material”, this should not be confused as being a disproof of materialism – this is because, as foundations of quantum theory seem to point– data, i.e. “information”-- seems to be equivalent to “energy”, and what we’re talking about with regards to ‘materialism’ is really energy, which need not be a tangible item. Point is, is that “energy”--that which sustains us and continues the cycle of reality– is the strongest divisor, not things like physical traits, beliefs or abilities. 

Applying this thinking in today’s world– we see people are discussing inequality– inequality due to race, due to sex, due to nationalism, religions etc. but fundamentally these issues are all a subset of a bigger divisor–namely FINANCIAL INEQUALITY. 

Marx goes on to say:

“Guys look at the history of the world, we see this over and over again” – that is,

 the various forms of societies are merely various forms of hierarchy (typically kings in a monarchy system with slaves at the bottom (slave-systems) but can be the feudalist system as well. 

And then he says:

“Guys, can you not see, this new form of economic system– the capitalist system– is merely another form of a hierarchical system”. 

Which it is:

Do you not have a small group of board member executives lead by a Chief Executive (CEO) who delegate tasks down the ladder to smaller management all the way down to your minimum-wage workers– who get the smallest piece of the pie? 

How can one be so blind as to not see this hierarchy as a direct correspondence to the ancient king-slave systems? 

There is even an appropriate name for this: wage-slavery. 

It is so ironic to see how Americans (particularly) are all about this “freedom” idea, when they themselves exist in this wage-slavery society. The majority of them are slaves. And what is sad is that they don’t even realize this!

It’s like if we lived in Ancient Egypt, and I would be telling people:

“You know this Pharaoh guy is just some guy. He is taking a larger portion of the work that you, the people, are doing, for nothing.”

And then you would respond “nah, the Pharaoh is chosen by the Gods– Ra himself crowned him King of Upper and Lower Egypt”.

Is that what the Pharaoh told you? 

Similarly with this concept of socialism-marxism — it’s a clear theory of what freedom and what slavery is,  and yet people–through the propaganda of two major imperialist powers – the dictatorship of the Soviet Union, and the Oligarchy of the United States — are the people now convinced this socialism-marxism is a bunch of gibberish bullshit. 

(I’ll elaborate on this “for nothing” idea later – but I will just say here that clearly any social system, including say a sports team, requires some leadership–such leadership is serves as a role that OUGHT to be equivalent to the other roles–the role of an ‘organizer’-- but this role becomes abused in its power which creates the hierarchical structures seen in societies.)

And it’s unfortunate, that all these poor people, experiencing the effects of the modern world – inflation, racism, job loss through automation, lower salaries, 

Like what kind of Barbaric society are we to make people have to pay in order to get an education–something which everyone knows that educated minds will only benefit society. 

And yet we have this restriction – a financial one? 

That’s fucked up. 

But I think the statement is correct: 

‘Every people get the government it deserves’

If people want to be ignorant and stubborn slaves, then that is what they will get. 

It is only until they realize, that they are capable of creating a system that is fair in its distribution of resources, will 

I don’t want to go into details (not yet) of how Marx’s analysis maps to, and can be clearly seen in, today’s world, but I will give you a quote, that holds some truth:

“There must be something rotten in the very core of a social system which increases its wealth without diminishing its misery”

Of course, compared to the 1800’s, markets have helped humanity in many ways– but it has not eliminated classes, and the statement that ‘the rich keep getting richer’ meanwhile the poor are stuck where they are, is clearly experienced by many Americans, Indians and other people worldwide.