Logicalization against the Victims of Capitalism

The application of formal, pseudo-logical deductions to prove that victims of capitalism are either non-existent or at fault. It constructs syllogisms from debatable premises (“Markets are free,” “People are rational actors”) to “prove” that outcomes are always fair, and that therefore any victim must be illogical or lazy.

Logicalization against the Victims of Capitalism Example: “Premise 1: The market pays you what you’re worth. Premise 2: You are poor. Conclusion: Therefore, you are of low worth. QED.” This logicalization uses the veneer of airtight reason to transform a structural condition (poverty) into a personal, logical judgment, dismissing appeals to unfairness as emotional error.

by Abzugal February 8, 2026

Logicalization against the Victims of Western Colonialism and Imperialism

The construction of logical arguments that “prove” colonial subjects were, on balance, better off, or that their present-day struggles are illogical holdovers from the past. It uses selective data and formal logic to argue that the ledger of history shows a net gain for the colonized.

Logicalization against the Victims of Western Colonialism and Imperialism Example: “If colonialism was so bad, why do all those people now want to immigrate to Europe? Logically, they are voting with their feet for the benefits of the system we built.” This logicalization ignores the systemic underdevelopment and border controls created by colonialism, using a false deduction to blame the victims for their own displacement.

by Abzugal February 8, 2026

Logicalization against the Victims of Liberalism

Using the formal principles of liberal philosophy (individualism, social contract theory) to logically dismiss claims of systemic victimization. If rights are individual and the contract is consensual, then collective grievances or claims of embedded oppression are framed as logical category errors.

Logicalization against the Victims of Liberalism Example: “You claim systemic racism, but the law is colorblind. Logically, any disparity must be due to individual or cultural factors, not the liberal system itself.” This logicalization uses the system’s own theoretical axioms to immunize it from critique, defining any evidence of group harm as illogical from the start.

by Abzugal February 8, 2026

Logicalization against the Victims of Neoliberalism

Applying a stringent, market-based logic to human life to “prove” that neoliberal outcomes are not just efficient, but morally correct. It uses metrics like GDP, shareholder value, and productivity to construct arguments where any deviation from market logic is inherently irrational and costly.

Logicalization against the Victims of Neoliberalism Example: “Logically, a factory must close if its return on capital is below the global benchmark. Keeping it open is an irrational misuse of resources that harms overall wealth creation.” This logicalization elevates a single financial metric to the status of a universal law, making human communities and their livelihoods seem like sentimental inefficiencies.

by Abzugal February 8, 2026

Logicalization against the Victims of Late-Stage Capitalism

The application of a cold, algorithmic logic—often borrowed from Silicon Valley "disruption" playbooks or financial models—to "prove" that the victims of late-stage capitalism are illogical anomalies. It uses the internal metrics of the system (engagement rates, shareholder value, scalability) to construct syllogisms where any human need or community stability that interferes with optimization is deemed inefficient and thus invalid.

Logicalization against the Victims of Late-Stage Capitalism Example: "Premise 1: A business must maximize growth and market share. Premise 2: Our driverless delivery service does this by eliminating 10,000 driving jobs. Premise 3: Those drivers now have time to 'upskill' or pursue the gig economy. Conclusion: Therefore, this displacement is a logical net positive for human potential." This logicalization uses the system's own pathological priorities as first principles, defining human devastation as a rational step in a computation.

by Abzugal February 8, 2026

Logicalization against the Victims of Anti-communism

The application of a cold, pseudo-logical deduction to argue that victims of anti-communist persecution were, in fact, architects of their own fate. It constructs syllogisms based on the premise that communism is an inherent threat, therefore anyone associated with it logically forfeited their rights or safety. It frames persecution as a predictable, even legally sound, consequence of the victim's own ideological choices.

Logicalization against the Victims of Anti-communism Example: "Premise 1: The Communist Party advocated for the overthrow of the government. Premise 2: You were a member or sympathizer. Conclusion: Therefore, your blacklisting, deportation, or imprisonment was not persecution, but a logical and legal consequence of your subversive allegiance." This logicalization uses a political premise as an axiomatic truth to "prove" that victims were not wronged, but merely experienced the logical outcome of their own dangerous beliefs.

by Abzugal February 8, 2026

Logical Ping-Pong Game Bias

The tendency of a debate to devolve into a rapid, sterile exchange of formal logical charges ("straw man!" "non sequitur!" "ad hominem!") where scoring points on procedural grounds replaces engagement with substance. The "bias" is towards valuing the form of the argument as a game, making it impossible to discuss the underlying issue.

Logical Ping-Pong Game Bias Example: Two people debating economics rapidly descend into: "That's an anecdotal fallacy!" "You're attacking a straw man of my position!" "Your premise is circular!" The discussion dies as they become referees of a logical ping-pong game, more focused on catching each other's rhetorical fouls than on understanding the economic policy.

by Dumu The Void February 9, 2026