Article - An Advaitic Critique of Marxism
https://acharyaprashant.org/en/articles/an-advaitic-critique-of-marxism-acharya-prashant-on-the-pioneer-1_996db5eb5
In todays session AP talked about Marxism that doesn’t just attack its outcomes (like failed states or authoritarian regimes), but digs on its foundational assumptions
These are my notes from the session
Marx’s framework rests heavily on a few key ideas:
- Society is divided into two primary classes: the bourgeoisie (exploiters) and the proletariat (workers).
- History is essentially a continuous conflict between these two.
- This conflict is supposed to inevitably culminate in proletarian revolution.
But here’s where things start getting shaky.
If exploitation is so clear and material conditions are the driving force, then why doesn’t revolution naturally happen? Instead of revolting against bourgeoisie why proletariat are found worshipping them?
This is where Lenin steps in with the concept of false consciousness—arguing that the proletariat is ideologically misled (through religion, culture, etc.), hence “religion is the opium of the masses.”
So instead of rejecting the system, workers end up revering or tolerating it.
But notice what’s happening here:
Marx predicts revolution → it doesn’t happen → Lenin adds a patch: “they’re brainwashed.”
And then comes the idea of a vanguard party—ironically composed of intellectuals (often from bourgeois backgrounds) who will “lead” the proletariat to revolution.
So now:
- The proletariat cannot see clearly.
- Someone else must think for them.
- Revolution becomes less organic, more engineered.
At this point, the theory starts to feel… self-sealing.
Any contradiction (like lack of revolution) is absorbed into the theory itself.
Would like to hear from people here, for the benefit of our reddit community/random readers.