Polylogism: Identifying the Relativist Harness

A man can think more refinedly than another, and it is precisely for this reason that we find logical fallacies in virtually every ideological discourse. That is why I always return to the Misesian concept of polylogism¹ — one of the most timeless tools for unmasking arguments that flee from universal reason.

Ludwig von Mises warned that “mankind needs, above all else, to free itself from subservience to absurd slogans and return to trusting in the soundness of reason.”

Yet modern institutions — universities, courts, media, and even corporations — are increasingly contaminated by puerile discourses, anchored in polylogism and disguised as “irrefutable” rhetoric. These discourses rest on three pillars that operate in quantum superposition: epistemic relativism, tribal homophily, and polylogism proper.

The intent of this post is not to point at fatalism in a demagogic manner and simply say that “institutions are against humanity” as a mere personal opinion. Spending my free time studying critiques of democracy, the welfare state, public education, the media, and left-wing intellectuals — the central agents of power in present-day Brazil — I sought to open space for a blog and disseminate some practical observations which I have no intention of taking pride in.

I believe that with a page on the internet, I can not only align my opinions and leave them in the “voices in my self-stimulating head” — but train that alignment in an attempt to portray objective facts while sustaining the critical argument that all leftist institutions are nothing more than central mechanisms for reproducing statism, cultural infantilization, and the erosion of the natural order based on private property, the family, and legitimate discrimination.²

Reinforcing well-known critiques is not the only way I apply the empiricism of my so delimited mind. Opening space to write texts (through advice) and lines of code as didactic counterpoints was the best way I could think of to align that knowledge with the Hoppean framework.

I do not see the left merely as an economic ideology of redistribution. I see it as a cultural and anthropological project that transforms institutions into tools of social engineering. They act as “re-education agencies” that promote forced egalitarianism, subsidized hedonism, and the dissolution of natural hierarchies, eroding the order based on private property, the family, and legitimate discrimination — all sustained and protected by a relativist harness.

Through these convictions, I will attempt to deconstruct the pillars of those responsible for public ostracism and the infantilization of the individual, which renders him dependent and dissolves the natural foundations of social cooperation (property, family, rational discrimination).

Theories of the Communist Manifesto Are Culturally Rotten

Theories such as social class, labor value, and their contemporary variants are far more toxic than they appear at first glance. They function as nuclear weapons of leftist polylogism: they do not seek to refute ideas with logic or evidence, but to disqualify the interlocutor based on their origin, identity, or “position of privilege.” The result is a minefield where rational debate becomes impossible, replaced by resentment, division, and perpetual victimhood.

Marx defined the proletariat as those who do not own the means of production and survive by selling their labor power. He himself did not fit that description: he came from a family with assets (law practice + vineyards), married “up” in social status, and was financed by a capitalist partner.³

His father, Heinrich Marx (born Herschel Levi), was a successful lawyer in Trier with a comfortable income. The family owned vineyards in the Moselle and lived in upper-middle-class conditions. His ancestors were rabbis, but his father converted to Lutheranism to advance his career (due to anti-Jewish restrictions in Prussia). His mother, Henriette Pressburg, came from a Dutch family of prosperous merchants (connected to the future Philips Electronics).⁴

Marx studied at the universities of Bonn and Berlin, earned a doctorate in philosophy, and never performed manual or wage labor typical of the proletariat. He worked as a journalist and revolutionary intellectual — a trajectory typical of the sons of the educated bourgeoisie.⁵

The Three Pillars of Marxist Polylogism

Before proceeding, it is useful to highlight how Marx’s thinking is sustained by its own epistemological structure, frequently called polylogism (the idea that different classes possess distinct and incommensurable logics or “reasons”).

The three central pillars of this construction are:

Class polylogism — the premise that logic, reason, and science are not universal, but determined by class position. The proletariat supposedly possesses a “superior” or different logic from that of the bourgeoisie, automatically invalidating arguments coming from the “exploiting” class.⁶

Historical materialism as the sole explanatory key — all of human history would be reduced to class struggle and relations of production. Ideas, culture, religion, and law would be mere “superstructures” determined by the economic base. This serves to disqualify any critique that does not fit within this schema.⁷

Dialectics as an immunizing method — contradiction is not a logical error, but the engine of history. Any objection can be absorbed as a “dialectical contradiction” or “false consciousness,” rendering the Marxist system practically irrefutable by conventional rational means.⁸

These three pillars work together to create a closed system: whoever disagrees is not merely wrong, but “trapped in their bourgeois logic” (pillar 1), ignores the laws of history (pillar 2), or fails to grasp the dialectic (pillar 3).

The Three Modern Pillars

The three pillars of Marxist polylogism — class logic, historical materialism as the sole key, and dialectics as an immunizing method — did not remain confined to the economic analysis of class struggle. Throughout the twentieth century, especially following the failure of classical proletarian revolutions in the West, these pillars migrated into the terrain of culture, subjectivity, and ultimately human nature itself. This transposition was particularly effective in converting left-wing intellectuals and activists toward a path of progressive desexualization and increasingly feminized agendas.

What began as a critique of the “economic exploitation” of women under capitalism (via classical Marxist feminism)⁹ evolved, through the Frankfurt School, post-structuralism, and postmodernism, into a radical deconstruction of the very category of biological sex and of sexuality as something anchored in stable ontologies. The result was a profound transformation: many left-wing ideologues abandoned the defense of a materialist “sexual liberation” (in the Engelsian sense or in the sense of the sexual revolution of the 1960s) and embraced in its place an agenda of gender fluidity, the denial of sexual dimorphism as an “oppressive social construction,” and the prioritization of emotionally charged identity agendas, typically associated with what has come to be called the “feminized” — emphasis on vulnerability, sensitive language, collective trauma therapy, and the dissolution of binary boundaries.¹⁰

How the Pillars Operate This Conversion

In practice, the concept of social class is no longer limited to the old Marxist division between bourgeoisie and proletariat. It has evolved into full intersectionality — race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, etc. The class polylogism expanded into a polylogism of gender and sexuality: “bourgeois” or “cis-heteronormative” reason came to be seen as intrinsically contaminated, while the “oppressed logic” (women, LGBTQ+, non-binary identities) gains privileged epistemic status. Disagreeing with this new logic is no longer a rational error, but “symbolic violence” or “patriarchal false consciousness.”

Labor value, in turn, is the central lie asserting that the value of everything comes solely from “socially necessary labor” — creating the farce of surplus value and eternal exploitation. In reality, it is a time bomb against the real economy: it deliberately ignores the fact that value is subjective, defined by the marginal utility of the consumer, and serves only to justify legalized theft by the State and hatred of the entrepreneur. Just as historical materialism, which reduced everything to the economic base, was replaced by a cultural materialism where the “base” became symbolic and discursive power relations. Biological sex, previously seen as material fact, became a mere “superstructure” to be deconstructed in the name of the struggle against “heteropatriarchal capitalism.”

Dialectics functioned as the perfect immunization mechanism: any defense of fixed sexual differences or reproductive sexuality as biological norm can be absorbed as a “necessary contradiction” or “reactionary essentialism,” always superseded by the progressive synthesis of fluidity. That is to say, the contemporary variants are also part of the intersection: far from being limited to classical economic Marxism, they spread like cancer — the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School and Gramsci, neo-Marxism, the postmodernism of Foucault and Derrida with its epistemic relativism, dependency theory, and in Brazil, the most rotten local adaptations: petismo, the MST, and the “academic Marxism” of public universities.

To amplify their power, all of them employ the same polylogism, in quantum superposition with fragmented identities, to infiltrate, corrupt, and dominate every institution.¹¹

This evolution was not an accidental deviation, but a logical consequence of the Marxist epistemological structure when applied beyond economics. By denying the universality of human reason and treating ontological categories (such as male/female, dimorphic sexuality) as contingent historical products, socialist polylogism opened space for radical social constructivism and for the postmodern science that today dominates vast sectors of the academic and activist left.

Avoiding the undue extension of this post’s objective, this introduction will serve as a natural bridge to the next publication: desexualization (the erosion of sexuality as an instinctual, reproductive, and polarized force in favor of a performative, fluid, and de-substantialized version), social constructivism (which substitutes biological ontology with pure social/discursive construction), and postmodern science (which rejects objective metanarratives in favor of language games and micropowers) — representing the apex of this trajectory. They do not liberate the body; they dissolve it into narratives. They do not overcome patriarchy; they replace real ontology with a political ontology where “the personal is political” down to the last chromosome.

Deconstructing the “Logic” of the Pillars

In sum, any fact can be contested when it falls outside a solid logical structure. However, socialist premises go further: they deliberately ignore objective fact, turning debate into something practically impossible. For Marxists, “thoughts are nothing but a disguise for the selfish interests of the social class to which the thinker belongs.” In this context, the concept of ideological homophily arises: discussing something with someone from another “class” (or from outside the protected intersectionality) becomes pointless, since the other is seen not as an interlocutor but as a class enemy. What matters is not refuting the idea with arguments, but unmasking the author — denouncing their social origin, their position of privilege, or their supposed bad faith. As Ludwig von Mises (1994) aptly observed: “Ideologies need not be refuted by discursive reasoning; they must be unmasked by denouncing the class position and social origin of their authors.”

Karl Marx operated with an infantilized mindset. In recent posts, I explained metaphorically how leftism functions with its illusion of intellectual movement, but without ever truly proposing its own ideas. The result is a perpetual trilemma — it is all nothing but rumor, i.e. Trilemma.

I. Propositional Logic Topples Social Class

Marxism self-destructs. It cannot be true for everyone while simultaneously claiming it is only true for a specific class. This violates the principle of non-contradiction: a proposition cannot be true and false at the same time.

Let us understand in practice how Marx’s argumentative logic works:

1. Every argument is only valid if it is aligned with the selfish interests of the thinker’s class (or identity).

   → P → C (Premise → Class/Identity)

2. Any contrary argument is invalid because it comes from another class/identity (polylogism).

   → ~P → ~V (Non-Premise → Non-Valid)

3. The Marxist argument itself is only “true” for the proletarian class (or for the oppressed groups of intersectionality).

   → (P ∧ ~V) is false for anyone outside that class.

Result: the discourse becomes immune to rational refutation, functioning only inside the homophily bubble. Any external criticism is automatically dismissed as “bourgeois class interest.”

II. Subjective Value > Surplus Value

Subjective value as an argument is, on its own, superior to the eternal exploitation supported by the theory of surplus value. It is with great appreciation that I demonstrate (in code) that values are subjective, through the intrinsic definition of the programmer.

def subjective_value(utility_to_consumer):
    return utility_to_consumer  # Real value comes from the buyer's perception

def marxist_value(hours_worked, surplus_value_rate=0.5):
    return hours_worked * (1 + surplus_value_rate)  # "Magical" surplus value

# Practical example
print("Subjective value of an ugly painting:", subjective_value(0))    # → 0 (nobody wants it)
print("Marxist value of the same painting:", marxist_value(100))       # → 150 (even without a buyer)

The code analogy was the way I found to demonstrate how the ideas of subjective value prevail precisely because they are material: labor invested (2–5 minutes of my ~2 years of Python experience), without any attributed value and of no real utility — simply a didactic way of comparing the theories and solving the problem.

The pattern is always the same: permanent victimhood, selective socioeconomic theses, and the segregation of groups into “oppressed” and “privileged.” This moral hierarchy only applies, however, to the offspring protected by intersectionality or to those whom the official discourse classifies as victims. What determines what is “false” or “true” is not logical reasoning, empirical evidence, or practical utility. It is the writer of the code — the programmer of the discourse, the dictator of the narrative. The one who compiles the rules decides who may be criticized and who is shielded.

Imagine if I went around saying I was exploited for investing 2–5 minutes of my ~2 years of Python experience (without being compensated). 😅