Neo-Marxism, inter-sectionalism, and the future of the American Republic

[Merrill]

I've posted below an excellent analysis of the origins of "woke", activist culture. The commentator is a pretty liberal guy, and does his best to describe accurately the Marxist roots of this culture.

Marx was not an economist or philosopher: he was a kind of theologian, who had a Manichaein view of the world. Everything was reducible to oppressor and oppressed, and it was only through awakening (woke) class-consciousness in the proletariat, that the roots of revolution could grow. Later theorists directed his ideas to the "dominant culture", as that culture was itself deemed oppressive, and kept people in a state of "false-consciousness"

In CRT, the power dynamics of white western society means that white people are the oppressors and non-white people are the oppressed.
In third-wave feminist theory, the power dynamics of western society means that men are the oppressors and women are the oppressed.
In queer theory, the power dynamics mean that heteronormative people are the oppressors, and homosexuals are the oppressed.

but I would take this a bit further and say that another aspect of all of this is that western Christian culture means that Christians are oppressors, or non-Christians are the oppressed.

Many of you are already aware of much of this, but what is perplexing is

1. Woke Neo-Marxists will go to every length to deny the Neo-Marxist foundations of their ideology and opinions. They will proclaim publicly that they are simply "liberal" (which is nonsense: Marxism is opposed to liberalism, as is Fascism) or enlightened, but then publish papers, or make statements in private that are admittedly Marxist. Why?
2. Gay individuals in the US have been recruited under the rainbow banner of inter-sectional Neo-Marxism to advocate for the movement, and to never question its intentions or ultimate goals. Either every gay person is a radical Neo-Marxist, or some are afraid to speak out.

 

[Pommer]

“The ‘system’ needs to work better, for more people!”

Get a job, ya Marxist!

Objectivism as a political philosophy.

 

[Merrill]

“The ‘system’ needs to work better, for more people!”

Get a job, ya Marxist!

Objectivism as a political philosophy.

Objectivism asserts capitalism as an ethos
Marxism asserts socialism as an ethos

neither is correct

 

[Bradskii]

I've posted below an excellent analysis of the origins of "woke", activist culture. The commentator...

Marx considered that a certain section of society was subjugated by another. And thought they should struggle to correct that. In other words, if people are being treated badly then we should all strive to ensure a fair and equitable outcome. Specifically in economic terms.

So if people are being marginalised or their position in society is less that equitable (women, gays, blacks, immigrants etc) then any attempt to correct that is therefore...Marxism? Seriously? It sounds as if it could be better described as Christian to me.

Karl had no time for the opiate of religion. And neither do I. I consider it to be a complete failure. But being Christ-like is something we could all endeavour to be.

And he wasn't a philosopher or economist? Then I wonder what to make of his phd in philosophy and the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts he wrote in 1844. But maybe that was written by Groucho.

 

[Pommer]

Objectivism asserts capitalism as an ethos
Marxism asserts socialism as an ethos

neither is correct

Is this why we can’t have “nice things”? (Think a “just & verdant society”)

 

[Merrill]

Marx considered that a certain section of society was subjugated by another. And thought they should struggle to correct that. In other words, if people are being treated badly then we should all strive to ensure a fair and equitable outcome. Specifically in economic terms.

So if people are being marginalised or their position in society is less that equitable (women, gays, blacks, immigrants etc) then any attempt to correct that is therefore...Marxism? Seriously? It sounds as if it could be better described as Christian to me.

Karl had no time for the opiate of religion. And neither do I. I consider it to be a complete failure. But being Christ-like is something we could all endeavour to be.

And he wasn't a philosopher or economist? Then I wonder what to make of his phd in philosophy and the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts he wrote in 1844. But maybe that was written by Groucho.

I think you hit the nail on the head, and this was obvious for many years, up until recently

Outside of the religion, humanity has no intrinsic, transcendent value. Christ loves us as individual souls, and everything that involves

Marxism, as a materialist and power-driven ideology, views people as cogs in a machine, and instruments of political endeavors. Food for worms.

But hardcore Objectivism views people as individuals protected only by abstract contracts and agreed-upon rights.

But there is no concordance between Marxism and Christianity. There is no "equity" in this world--there is only the ultimate judgment of God in accordance to our faith and how we lived out lives.

 

[Bradskii]

I think you hit the nail on the head, and this was obvious for many years, up until recently

Outside of the religion, humanity has no intrinsic, transcendent value. Christ loves us as individual souls, and everything that involves

Marxism, as a materialist and power-driven ideology, views people as cogs in a machine, and instruments of political endeavors. Food for worms.

But hardcore Objectivism views people as individuals protected only by abstract contracts and agreed-upon rights.

But there is no concordance between Marxism and Christianity. There is no "equity" in this world--there is only the ultimate judgment of God in accordance to our faith and how we lived out lives.

If society can be considered 'the machine' then we are all cogs in it. We all have a part to play. There's nothing detrimental in accepting that. But where there is no equity then we should attempt to achieve it. And that's not equality. That's equity. That's what Christ would urge us to do. And it's not comparable to Marxism.

People on the right will disparage Marxism (and there are aspects of it where we would agree). But to denigrate a call to the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie in an economic revolution and then directly compare that to a modern day search for a more equitable society by calling that Marxism is complete bulldust of the highest order.

 

[Gene2memE]

I've posted below an excellent analysis of the origins of "woke", activist culture. The commentator is a pretty liberal guy, and does his best to describe accurately the Marxist roots of this culture.

Marx was not an economist or philosopher: he was a kind of theologian, who had a Manichaein view of the world. Everything was reducible to oppressor and oppressed, and it was only through awakening (woke) class-consciousness in the proletariat, that the roots of revolution could grow. Later theorists directed his ideas to the "dominant culture", as that culture was itself deemed oppressive, and kept people in a state of "false-consciousness"

How to show you've not read any Marx, without saying you've not read Marx.

Marx WAS an economist. A pretty darn good one. Some of his economic contributions were pioneering and are still taught and in use today. His purely mechanical critiques of Capitalism remain eerily evergreen and relevant.

He published better than 10,000 pages of economic works in his life time (of which I slogged through several thousand of as a second and third year economics student). You may as well argue that Smith, Ricardo or Say weren't economists.

Marx was also a philosopher. That's what his doctorate was in, and what he got his start writing about in his early 20s. This is not my area of expertise, but he was reputedly a decent philosopher with some major blind spots (Hegelian and entirety materialistic). Bernard Russell calls him difficult to classify and the last great system builder, but also too wrapped up in the problems of his time to have a greater philosophical impact.

If you think that Marx' writing can be boiled down to something as basic as oppressor and oppressed, you're attempting to simplify his work down to a point of near meaninglessness. Marx' writing on Capitalism, class and political economy embraces systems of cooperation within groups and between groups. Marx developed conflict theory/historical materialism after-all.

Marx viewed Capitalism and class systems as inherently exploitative. What he didn't seem to understand is that a majority of people are willing to put up with, or be conditioned to put up with, exploitation provided there is a certain set of rewards. Basically, Marx didn't forecast the expansion of the comfortable middle class (because it didn't fit with his diminishing profits model of Capitalism).

Economic exploitation (in the Marxist capitalist critique sense) is not, in and of itself, inherently bad - for very many reasons too involved to go into here. Exploitation becomes a two-way street. In that way, it turns into cooperation and conflict is substantially reduced.

 

[Merrill]

How to show you've not read any Marx, without saying you've not read Marx.

Marx WAS an economist. A pretty darn good one. Some of his economic contributions were pioneering and are still taught and in use today. His purely mechanical critiques of Capitalism remain eerily evergreen and relevant.

He published better than 10,000 pages of economic works in his life time (of which I slogged through several thousand of as a second and third year economics student). You may as well argue that Smith, Ricardo or Say weren't economists.

Marx was also a philosopher. That's what his doctorate was in, and what he got his start writing about in his early 20s. This is not my area of expertise, but he was reputedly a decent philosopher with some major blind spots (Hegelian and entirety materialistic). Bernard Russell calls him difficult to classify and the last great system builder, but also too wrapped up in the problems of his time to have a greater philosophical impact.

If you think that Marx' writing can be boiled down to something as basic as oppressor and oppressed, you're attempting to simplify his work down to a point of near meaninglessness. Marx' writing on Capitalism, class and political economy embraces systems of cooperation within groups and between groups. Marx developed conflict theory/historical materialism after-all.

Marx viewed Capitalism and class systems as inherently exploitative. What he didn't seem to understand is that a majority of people are willing to put up with, or be conditioned to put up with, exploitation provided there is a certain set of rewards. Basically, Marx didn't forecast the expansion of the comfortable middle class (because it didn't fit with his diminishing profits model of Capitalism).

Economic exploitation (in the Marxist capitalist critique sense) is not, in and of itself, inherently bad - for very many reasons too involved to go into here. Exploitation becomes a two-way street. In that way, it turns into cooperation and conflict is substantially reduced.

If the claim is that Marx was an economist, we can say with certainty that he was the worst economist who ever lived

The Marxist system of socialism, centralized planning, etc. led to starvation, poverty, inefficiency, and economic collapse, in dozens of countries. It has failed on every economic and empirical level.

So I am not sure what you have been reading, because it isn't economics or history

someone needs to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and detach from the Matrix

 

[Merrill]

If society can be considered 'the machine' then we are all cogs in it. We all have a part to play. There's nothing detrimental in accepting that. But where there is no equity then we should attempt to achieve it. And that's not equality. That's equity. That's what Christ would urge us to do. And it's not comparable to Marxism.

People on the right will disparage Marxism (and there are aspects of it where we would agree). But to denigrate a call to the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie in an economic revolution and then directly compare that to a modern day search for a more equitable society by calling that Marxism is complete bulldust of the highest order.

" to denigrate a call to the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie in an economic revolution"

is the correct attitude. Whether it is violent revolution in the classical Marxist sense, or something else, it isn't anything people in their right mind would want.

Pretty sure most people here don't want to live in Venezuela

 

[Bradskii]

" to denigrate a call to the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie in an economic revolution"

is the correct attitude. Whether it is violent revolution in the classical Marxist sense, or something else, it isn't anything people in their right mind would want.

That depends which side of the ledger one finds oneself. If you read Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier about the conditions under which those in the UK were working prior to the Second World War then a workers' revolution was on the cards. You'd wonder why people in their right mind wouldn't want a change to the system. That's why they turned to socialism immediately post war. It's the only reason why workers revolt against the status quo - they are getting the very thin end of a large wedge. Luckily that overthrow was done via the ballot box, but it many cases that isn't an option.

And in a democratic society the system is self correcting. Swing too far towards socialist policies (as happened post war in the UK) and the pendulum swings the other way. But the policies that helped most of the working class, such as a National Health Service, remained.

But can a vote for a socialist party ever be described as a Marxist position? Can any vote for a party left of centre (which would have been described as conservative in the UK of the 50's) be described as Marxist? Can policies which propose some basic health benefits for those who would otherwise suffer be described as Marxist? Can any attempt to level the playing field when it comes to disadvanted minorities be described as Marxist? Of course not.

But that's what we see today: 'Marxism! Do you want this country turning into Venezuela!'

 

[rambot]

"Everything can be deduced to....". I can't remember an instance in my entire under degree where anything I studied could ever be reduced to one thing. A friend used that line in an essay and his professor leaned into him as being "lazy" (they had a cordial history) but he later said he meant it.

Everything was infinitely complex. If I thought it was reducible, my understanding of the topic was lacking and I needed to make sure I had the humility to admit that.

Never listen to people who say that. It's a bad road.

 

[Merrill]

That depends which side of the ledger one finds oneself. If you read Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier about the conditions under which those in the UK were working prior to the Second World War then a workers' revolution was on the cards. You'd wonder why people in their right mind wouldn't want a change to the system. That's why they turned to socialism immediately post war. It's the only reason why workers revolt against the status quo - they are getting the very thin end of a large wedge. Luckily that overthrow was done via the ballot box, but it many cases that isn't an option.

And in a democratic society the system is self correcting. Swing too far towards socialist policies (as happened post war in the UK) and the pendulum swings the other way. But the policies that helped most of the working class, such as a National Health Service, remained.

But can a vote for a socialist party ever be described as a Marxist position? Can any vote for a party left of centre (which would have been described as conservative in the UK of the 50's) be described as Marxist? Can policies which propose some basic health benefits for those who would otherwise suffer be described as Marxist? Can any attempt to level the playing field when it comes to disadvanted minorities be described as Marxist? Of course not.

But that's what we see today: 'Marxism! Do you want this country turning into Venezuela!'

Things like universal healthcare or a pension system are not socialism --they are social policies within the free-market framework.

But if we read the central texts of CRT, we see that:
1. They believe integration of the races is impossible
2. They believe that POC should get 3 votes for every one cast
3. Some believe in full-on overthrow of capitalism and the abolition of private-property

CRT comes from CT, which is Neo-Marxist. All the adherents to those schools of thought are to some degree anti-capitalist and anti-liberal

Fascism is also anti-liberal

we need to make sure people aren't trying to cloak their intentions by saying they want reasonable things (healthcare, equality of opportunity, a pension, etc.), when in reality, they want unreasonable things (hate-speech laws, disenfranchisement of some racial group to benefit themselves, abolishing the free-market, etc.)

we see this with the queer activism: everything is said to be in promotion of "equal rights for transgender youth" when it is really about the victimization of kids, pederasty, etc.

 

[pastmoon]

Things like universal healthcare or a pension system are not socialism --they are social policies within the free-market framework.

But if we read the central texts of CRT, we see that:
1. They believe integration of the races is impossible
2. They believe that POC should get 3 votes for every one cast
3. Some believe in full-on overthrow of capitalism and the abolition of private-property

CRT comes from CT, which is Neo-Marxist. All the adherents to those schools of thought are to some degree anti-capitalist and anti-liberal

Read up on the works of Adolph Reed Jr. or Jodi Dean. The form of identity politics at the center of your fears is class warfare against the proletariat; it aims to uphold the legitimacy of bourgeois rule. The people you call Neo-Marxist are less Marxist than Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian.

 

[Merrill]

Read up on the works of Adolph Reed Jr. or Jodi Dean. The form of identity politics at the center of your fears is class warfare against the proletariat; it aims to uphold the legitimacy of bourgeois rule. The people you call Neo-Marxist are less Marxist than Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian.

some of that is true (and I will look at those authors), but it is complicated.

Let's look at the example of internationally-funded activist organizations influencing and working with large corporations:

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) establishes things like the CEI, MEI, etc. which act as social-credit scores for companies. They shake down companies and make all kinds of demands, and in return, they give these companies high scores, access to investors, and a reputational boost among college graduates, etc. As a left-wing organization, the HRC is lending legitimacy to international capitalism.

And big corporations "rainbow wash" their brand while subjecting workers to conditions similar to slavery (think Apple)

CRT came from Neo-Marxism, but it is my understanding that classical Marxism is at odds with much of its claims. Marx did not divide the Proletariat up into different racial and ethnic groups, or assert that such groups are inherently antagonistic, even in the absence of a capitalist system (CRT adherents claim that whites are always oppressive, no matter the system). Marx was not out to start a race war

Classical Marxists have typically been agnostic when it comes to matters of sexuality. Neo-Marxists assert that all norms and guidelines regarding sex, gender, etc. are invalid. So we have to ask ourselves if Marx or Engels would have been comfortable with children having sex with adults, polygamy, and rampant homosexuality?

Marx was skeptical and edgy when it came to his philosophy and view of the world. Neo-Marxists are outright irrationalist. I doubt Marx would agree to statements like "language is inherently meaningless", "biological sex is a social construct", "a woman is anyone who claims to be a woman"

Marx wanted to overthrow capitalism, Neo-Marxists want to overthrow western culture, science, and rationality (CRT theorists claim that "objectivity", "truth claims", "fairness" and "facts" a white, western constructs)

 

[Bradskii]

Things like universal healthcare or a pension system are not socialism --they are social policies within the free-market framework.

No one said they were socialism. But they are socialist in that they are systems that benefit society as a whole. Which is why a lot of people reject those ideals. Because they confuse them with socialism. And you are perpetuating this nonsense by equating honest attempts to help those who are disadvantaged to Marxism for heaven's sake.

And the people who do this are either intentionally using buzz words like socialism and Marxism knowing that they don't apply or they are too dumb to know what they are discussing. 'I don't like this, therefore it's bad. Those who want it are on the left, Marxism is a left wing ideology and is bad so...we'll call it Marxist'.

Maybe we need an example. One will be along shortly I'm sure...

But if we read the central texts of CRT, we see that:
1. They believe integration of the races is impossible
2. They believe that POC should get 3 votes for every one cast
3. Some believe in full-on overthrow of capitalism and the abolition of private-property

CRT comes from CT, which is Neo-Marxist. All the adherents to those schools of thought are to some degree anti-capitalist and anti-liberal

Didn't even have to leave the same post to find one...

 

[Pommer]

No one said they were socialism. But they are socialist in that they are systems that benefit society as a whole. Which is why a lot of people reject those ideals. Because they confuse them with socialism. And you are perpetuating this nonsense by equating honest attempts to help those who are disadvantaged to Marxism for heaven's sake.

And the people who do this are either intentionally using buzz words like socialism and Marxism knowing that they don't apply or they are too dumb to know what they are discussing. 'I don't like this, therefore it's bad. Those who want it are on the left, Marxism is a left wing ideology and is bad so...we'll call it Marxist'.

Maybe we need an example. One will be along shortly I'm sure...

Didn't even have to leave the same post to find one...

It’s human nature to be at the near-top of the heap and think “everything is mostly fine and everything should (generally speaking) remain pretty much the same”. This is the very essence of conservatism.

The people who desire sweeping changes in how/why/when/where/whether Government’s interaction with its citizens should mostly benefit the people or the principles, of a given nation, are, by definition, “left”; this present time has given us the “leftist-conservative”.
Everyone wants things to change in their desired direction, how to achieve that is the crux of politics.

“Drain the swamp” and “rule-of-law” cannot easily coexist for long.

 

[perplexed]

In a world without Marx there would still be a clueless Hollywood elite and Trumpers pretending to be conservative feeding each other with ridiculous behavior. Actually Marxist theory gets way to be