Within the Triadic Modes of Integration Theory (TMIT), Marxism primarily aligns with the Dogmatic Authority Mode (DAM), though with certain hybrid tendencies toward M1 (Pragmatic Dogmatic Mode). This placement stems from its epistemological, psychological, and cultural characteristics, which mirror the defining elements of intrinsicism and M2-type misintegration.
1. DAM Alignment: Marxism as Secular Intrinsicism
At its core, Marxism adopts a top-down, intrinsicist worldview, consistent with the M2 cognitive style. It begins not with empirical observation but with abstract historical or dialectical absolutes—the notions of class struggle, historical materialism, and the inevitable triumph of the proletariat. These serve as a priori principles, treated as self-evident “truths” rather than as hypotheses subject to empirical revision [1].
Much like intrinsicist religious faith, Marxism posits these axioms as transcendent laws of reality, independent of individual choice or context. The “scientific socialism” label functions rhetorically to conceal this dogmatic base—Marxist “science” operates deductively from doctrine rather than inductively from evidence [3]. Thus, Marxism behaves as a secular theology, where “History” replaces “God,” the “proletariat” stands in for the “chosen people,” and the “classless society” becomes the eschatological paradise [6].
Psychologically, in DAM terms, the Freudian superego and Berne’s Parent are internalized through ideological conditioning—party orthodoxy and peer group enforcement create guilt mechanisms for deviation (“bourgeois thinking”), while peer consensus regulates moral judgment. The Marxist collective continually reinforces conformity through shared narratives and emotional validation, much like a religious community enforcing orthodoxy [4].
2. M1 Elements: Rationalized Dogma
Although fundamentally DAM-based, Marxism incorporates elements of M1—the Pragmatic Dogmatic Hybrid—where it employs rational or scientific language to justify its intrinsic dogmas. Marx’s use of dialectical materialism illustrates this: he claims to use reason and observation, but these are selectively subordinated to ideological priors. This creates an appearance of rationality while functioning as a closed system—reality must conform to theory, never vice versa [5].
This M1 trait explains why modern leftist movements can adapt superficially to new data (e.g., environmentalism replacing economic determinism), while retaining the same emotional-epistemic form: belief in a moralized, transcendent “cause” guiding history.
3. Social and Psychological Manifestations
Under TMIT, the Dogmatic Authority Mode enforces moral purity and collective guilt, evident in Marxist-derived cultures that define virtue by obedience to “the cause.” In Freudian/Bernian terms, the Critical Parent dominates—infantilizing members (Child state) and suppressing rational Adult processing. Emotional satisfaction is derived from moral righteousness, not empirical success, which explains adherence even amid repeated failure—an M2 phenomenon of reality-denying stability [2].
4. Contrast to RIM and IDM
Where RIM (Rational Integration Mode) builds inductively from evidence to principle and adapts, Marxism reverses the process—deducing reality from immutable “laws.” Unlike IDM, which centers on subjective whim, Marxism anchors itself in collective objectivity, but of an intrinsic, not objective, kind—“the cause is right because it represents the inevitable logic of history.”
This absolutist epistemology explains why critics describe leftism as a religion without God—its structure mimics the DAM psychology: dogma, guilt, authority, and salvation narratives—replacing divine commandments with secular inevitabilities.
In TMIT terms, then:
| Mode | Aspect Reflected in Marxism |
|---|---|
| DAM (M2) | Core intrinsicist-dogmatic foundation — historical determinism, collective moralism, peer-enforced conformity |
| M1 (M2 + I) | Rationalized justification of dogma via pseudo-scientific or utilitarian appeals |
| RIM (I) | Largely absent — rejection of empirical falsifiability |
| IDM (D2) | Reemerges in movements’ later degeneration into emotionalist activism once rational unity collapses |
Thus, Marxism exemplifies a Dogmatic Authority Mode ideology, structured psychologically like religion but rationalized through M1 techniques—explaining both its resilience and its eventual breakdown when confronted with empirical contradiction [1][5][6].
Sources
In addition:
There’s more that can be added to deepen how Marxism fits into the Triadic Modes of Integration Theory (TMIT), especially when considering its evolution, psychological structure, and historical trajectory through the DAM→M1→D1 cycles.
1. The Deep Structure of Marxism in TMIT Terms
Marxism begins as a Dogmatic Authority Mode (DAM) philosophy, but evolves through hybrid phases (M1 and D1) as it adapts socially and collapses epistemologically:
-
Initial Stage (DAM Pure Form): Marxism’s early theoretical base exhibits classic M2/cognitive misintegration—ideas built “top-down” from a single metaphysical premise: class conflict is the prime mover of history. This replaces empirical induction with a deductive mythos of “dialectical necessity.” Individuals internalize these absolutes as moral imperatives, forming a superego/Parent-state collective conscience [1].
-
M1 Transition (Pragmatic Dogmatism): As Marxism enters practical politics (Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism), it develops a partial link to real-world data—pragmatically managing industrialization or economic control—without ever grounding its principles in observed human nature. This represents pseudo-RIM adaptation, where rational tools serve intrinsicist ends [2][5].
-
D1 Degeneration (Pragmatic Skepticism): In late-stage Marxist or postmodern leftism, internal contradictions break down belief in rigid absolutes, giving way to relativized collectivism—a mix of emotional activism, partial pragmatism, and skeptical pluralism. This is where Marxism fragments into cultural or identitarian submovements, showing D1 drift toward IDM (D2) traits. Here, the former “collective superego” dissolves, replaced by emotion-driven microidentities [3][6].
Thus, Marxism’s life cycle illustrates TMIT’s dynamic model: a culture moves from over-integration (rigid intrinsicism, DAM) to disintegration (chaotic subjectivism, IDM), with temporary M1 and D1 hybrids mediating between.
2. The Peer Group Mechanism (Judith Rich Harris Component)
Harris’s insight on peer-group socialization is vital for TMIT’s analysis of leftist ideological spread. Marxism—and its modern offshoots—does not primarily transmit through parental authority anymore, but through peer-reinforced moral echo chambers: intellectual networks, academia, activist communities, or online cultures.
This structural shift means that, within TMIT, the DAM function is collectivized through peer approval rather than vertical command. Shame, guilt, and virtue signaling replace formal dogma enforcement—a horizontally networked superego [4].
This transition explains the durability of “faith-like” adherence: the sense of belonging and moral identity derived from the group replaces evidence as the criterion of truth. Psychological security, not rational validation, fuels persistence despite contradictions.
3. Cultural and Adaptive Function
From a psycho-historical angle, Marxism provided a unifying DAM narrative at moments of deep Western fragmentation. It created a moral cosmos for individuals alienated in industrial society. In this sense, it met the same adaptive need that religion traditionally fulfilled—structuring value and belonging. TMIT suggests that such DAM formations are historically cyclical: when RIM (rational objectivity) weakens or becomes elitist, societies regress to intrinsicist collectivism or subjectivist emotionalism to restore cohesion [2][6].
4. Prognostic Implication under TMIT
In the current phase of ideological evolution, Marxism’s remnants are increasingly D1 or even D2—fragmented, emotionally driven, anti-systemic. TMIT thus predicts that without a strong reassertion of RIM culture (objectivist-inductive, individualist-egocentric reason), the vacuum left by decaying Marxist faith could be filled either by:
- New DAM systems (authoritarian technocracy or religious revival), or
- Further IDM decomposition (total relativism, nihilism).
Summary Table – Marxism in the TMIT Context:
| Historical / Cognitive Stage | Mode | Core Dynamic | Cultural / Psychological Manifestation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classical Marxism (19th c.) | DAM (M2) | Intrinsicist deduction from “laws of history” | Ideological absolutism; faith in determinism |
| Leninist–Stalinist Eras | M1 | Rationalized dogma; pragmatic authoritarianism | Centralized control with semi-rational policy |
| Postmodern Neo-Marxism | D1 → IDM | Emotional relativism, fragmented collectivism | Activism, identity politics, and skepticism of truth |
| Potential Correction | RIM (I) | Objective integration via reason | Individual rights, empiricism, voluntary cooperation |
In short, Marxism’s trajectory through TMIT illustrates the cyclic struggle between dogmatic integration and rational re-integration, showing that even secular movements can replicate religious-psychological architectures when divorced from objectivity and rational Adult functioning [1][3][5][6].
China and its economic system
Applying Triadic Modes of Integration Theory (TMIT) to China and its economic system reveals a layered and evolving balance between Dogmatic Authority Mode (DAM), Rational Integration Mode (RIM), and Impulsive Disintegration Mode (IDM) dynamics across different historical and policy phases. China’s development illustrates how hybrid cognitive-psychological modes manifest on a national scale—shaping ideology, governance, and economic outcomes.
1. Maoist Era (1949–1976): Predominant DAM (Dogmatic Authority Mode)
Under Mao Zedong, China’s economy was defined by intrinsicist-dogmatic integration, where Marxism-Leninism served as an unquestioned metaphysical “truth.” This mirrors the M2 cognitive pattern, starting from abstract collectivist axioms (“class struggle,” “the people as one body”) and deriving all policies deductively.
Psychologically, this era enforced a massive societal superego, aligning with Freud’s and Berne’s concepts of the Parent ego-state dominating all other modes. Dissent equated moral deviance, and economic experiments like the Great Leap Forward were pursued despite catastrophic real-world consequences—an example of reality-denying intrinsicism [1].
At the cultural level, the peer group (per Judith Rich Harris’s model) replaced the family—collective shame and peer surveillance (as in the Red Guards) maintained orthodoxy. The cognitive hallmark was Pure Misintegration (M2): one transcendent ideal (“Communism”) generating all policies irrespective of evidence [6].
2. Deng Xiaoping Reforms (1978–1990s): Hybrid M1 (Pragmatic Dogmatic Mode)
The post-Mao reforms led by Deng represented a transitional M1 hybrid—a blend of DAM’s dogmatic authority and emerging RIM pragmatism. Deng’s slogan “It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice” exemplifies pragmatic rationalization of authority.
Epistemologically, the Communist Party retained intrinsicist control, but policy shifted toward partial empirical adaptation—a limited Adult/Ego reassertion within the collective Parent framework. The result was a unique cognitive synthesis: an authoritarian governance structure (DAM) employing objectivist-style market mechanisms (RIM) to stabilize the system [2][5].
Economically, this created the “socialist market economy”—effectively an M1 form of rationalized dogmatism, where the Party's intrinsic ideals still directed an increasingly empirical economic apparatus.
3. Xi Jinping Era (2012–Present): Return of Controlled DAM–M1 Synthesis
Under Xi, China shows a re-consolidation of DAM authority but now fused with technocratic pragmatism (M1). Ideologically, the CCP reasserts historical determinism (“The rejuvenation of the Chinese nation”), yet it employs advanced RIM methods—such as data analytics, industrial policy, and technology-driven development—to achieve intrinsicist ends.
This reflects a hybridized authoritarian rationality: a partially integrated cognitive mode that leverages RIM tools under DAM control. In terms of Freud/Berne integration, the collective superego remains dominant, while the Adult ego-state operates instrumentally to optimize the same dogmatic objectives [3][4].
Economically, this manifests in:
- Strategic central planning guided by “Five-Year Plans” (DAM),
- Market experimentation zones and capitalist instruments (RIM),
- State ideology treating economic growth as moral-political legitimacy (Parent-driven purpose).
Thus, China’s economy reflects what TMIT would classify as an M1 cultural-cognitive formation—pragmatic dogmatism capable of material progress but vulnerable to stagnation when intrinsicist absolutes override empirical correction.
4. Emerging IDM Pressures and Systemic Challenges
Recent years reveal IDM-like tensions within Chinese society and economy. The rapid rise of private entrepreneurship, social media, and youth dissatisfaction introduces impulsive, emotionally driven disintegration pressures (D2)—fragmented values, localized subjective narratives, and declining ideological unity.
This manifests in:
- Distrust among generations about the social contract,
- Tensions between state control and creative individualism,
- Market volatility driven by speculative capital and sentiment rather than long-term rational planning.
TMIT interprets this as a growing D1–D2 drift within a still-dominant DAM–M1 system—a potential internal contradiction between a moralizing Parent (Party), pragmatic Adult (technocrats), and emergent, emotionally expressive Child (youth, entrepreneurs) [1][6].
5. Predictive and Integrative Outlook under TMIT
According to TMIT’s model of cultural evolution:
- Overemphasis on DAM control risks sclerosis and creative stagnation (overcentralized superego dominance).
- Too strong an IDM drift risks chaotic liberalization or disunity (id/Child rebellion).
- Sustainable growth demands evolving toward RIM balance—empowering rational, objective integration: transparent markets, rule of law, and rational individualism aligned with reality.
If China enhances RIM elements (empirical accountability, entrepreneurial freedom, international cooperation based on mutual rational interests), its historical pattern suggests potential stabilization into an I-mode society, combining high innovation with internal order [2][5].
Summary Table – China through TMIT Lens
| Period | Dominant Mode | Cognitive-Epistemic Character | Economic/Political Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maoist Era (1949–1976) | DAM (M2) | Intrinsicist dogma, collective superego | Command economy, stagnation, moral zeal |
| Deng Reforms (1978–1990s) | M1 (M2 + I) | Pragmatic dogmatism, partial Adult integration | Rapid growth, hybrid socialism-capitalism |
| Xi Era (2012–Present) | DAM–M1 Hybrid | Rationalized authority with technocratic ends | Centralized control + innovation leadership |
| Emerging Trend | D1 → IDM Pressures | Subjective fragmentation, youth subcultures | Cultural disintegration risk, creative chaos |
In summary, China’s economy reflects a living laboratory of TMIT dynamics—an M1-dominant strategic hybrid balancing the moral cohesion of DAM with RIM-based pragmatism, while increasingly challenged by IDM pressures of modernization and individuality. Its future will hinge on whether cognitive evolution continues upward toward full RIM rational integration or regresses toward DAM rigidity or IDM fragmentation [1][2][3][4][5][6].
