I didn't actually know what Dual Power meant. I just got very strong socialist aesthetic vibes from that video and went for the nearest socialist aesthetic cultural meme.
Why would the BSA support Marxism? Marx seemed pretty racist in his views of Africa, at least that's what I gathered from his readings.
How can you deviate from Marx and still be Marxist? Might as well just call it something else not named after a specific individual. Then again, I've never liked the idea of ideologies being named after people.Because Marxism isn't Marx. Marxism is a method of analysis. Marx is a fallible individual.
How can you deviate from Marx and still be Marxist? Might as well just call it something else not named after a specific individual. Then again, I've never liked the idea of ideologies being named after people.
If they apply it to their own conditions, why bother calling themselves something when the person in question probably never even anywhere near where they are? And a racist person will almost surely have that effect his economic views. Of course, we are all racially prejudiced to varying extents, which would influence us too. One may argue that Marxism isn't about Marx, but it's pretty hard to separate Marx from Marxism when his name is the namesake.1. If Marx was racist, it has nothing to do with his economic analysis other than potentially his analysis not being robust enough. But do you really think that the numerous black Marxists, or Latin Marxists, or Chinese Marxists etc. who have applied Marxist analysis to their own conditions aren't Marxist?
2. Marxism isn't about Marx. It's not a religion. It's not a dogma. Marxism requires being ruthlessly critical, and that applies to Marxism itself.
It refers to his writings.How can you deviate from Marx and still be Marxist? Might as well just call it something else not named after a specific individual. Then again, I've never liked the idea of ideologies being named after people.
It refers to his writings.
Like how "Cartesian space" refers to the mathematical work of Rene Descartes and not his social attitudes or his philosophical work.
The legacies of a person's ideas outgrow their originators with time.
If they apply it to their own conditions, why bother calling themselves something when the person in question probably never even anywhere near where they are? And a racist person will almost surely have that effect his economic views. Of course, we are all racially prejudiced to varying extents, which would influence us too. One may argue that Marxism isn't about Marx, but it's pretty hard to separate Marx from Marxism when his name is the namesake.
Eating my tabletop Marx portrait right now tbh.
Why did Karl Marx say "If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist"?
In 1880 Marx was assisting French socialists in writing the program for the Worker's party of France. Marx did help the party in writing the program but had some serious disagreements with them. Marx had issues with demanding better work conditions and wages from the bourgeoisie. This is where the quote comes into proper context. Marx wanted to destroy the idea that if demanding such reforms from the capitalists is believed to be mainstream Marxism, then he is not a Marxist.
The question is why Marx was against demanding such reforms in favor of the workers?
Well, for Marx those were tools to dilute the worker's revolutionary spirit. Such reforms will keep the workers in delusion of a better future and keep them incorporated in the bourgeois culture. In the communist manifesto, Marx warns his readers that one of the most dangerous Bourgeois is the one who will propose free healthcare and other social benefits because the workers will be appeased, not realizing their condition and their alienation and instead work within the confine of the system. Workers will not emancipate because the system will absorb them into it.
What take ?ever see a take so bad you want to listen to the red scare podcast?
well im just kind of frustrated by some posters on this site when it comes to politics especially in poli-era. I need a break from this site probably
Ohhh. Liberals. LMAO.well im just kind of frustrated by some posters on this site when it comes to politics especially in poli-era. I need a break from this site probably
well im just kind of frustrated by some posters on this site when it comes to politics especially in poli-era. I need a break from this site probably
Ah yes, the anarchist who somehow thought that the subjugation of women was compatible with liberation of humanity.
Ah yes, the anarchist who somehow thought that the subjugation of women was compatible with liberation of humanity.
And wasn't Kropotkin an anti-semite? Or was that another big anarchist thinker.Ah yes, the anarchist who somehow thought that the subjugation of women was compatible with liberation of humanity.
Is your Avatar Mai Shiranui?
Anyways, how many of these men had any sort of intersectionality in mind?
Maybe, in any case it's why we need to focus on ideas rather than people, because people are imperfect (well, so are ideas but ideas are nothing without people).And wasn't Kropotkin an anti-semite? Or was that another big anarchist thinker.
Kill your idols, etc., etc.
isn't this the discussion that took place above?Ah yes, the anarchist who somehow thought that the subjugation of women was compatible with liberation of humanity.
I feel like this applies to Proudhon as well. He was sexist and anti-semitic as well. But those seem to me like failures on him as an individual, not stemming from his political philosophy or economic analysis. If anything, because those views are inconsistent with his anarchism; we can conclude that he probably should've been able to see that and we don't have to repeat his mistakes.1. If Marx was racist, it has nothing to do with his economic analysis other than potentially his analysis not being robust enough. But do you really think that the numerous black Marxists, or Latin Marxists, or Chinese Marxists etc. who have applied Marxist analysis to their own conditions aren't Marxist?
And as I said before, I do not believe at all that your views can somehow not be influenced by your bigotry. Political/economic analysis will be influenced by bigoted views.isn't this the discussion that took place above?
I feel like this applies to Proudhon as well. He was sexist and anti-semitic as well. But those seem to me like failures on him as an individual, not stemming from his political philosophy or economic analysis. If anything, because those views are inconsistent with his anarchism; we can conclude that he probably should've been able to see that and we don't have to repeat his mistakes.
But I'm not really a mutualist anymore. I think I became a lot more interested in DSA anyway and probably there's less of a contradiction being democratic socialist with my support of a large welfare state (and religion).
I think you can just avoid Poli-Era but a break isn't bad. Frozenprince is on a break from this place as well.
And as I said before, I do not believe at all that your views can somehow not be influenced by your bigotry. Political/economic analysis will be influenced by bigoted views.
Well, the only Marxist analysis is really reading Marx directly and trying to understand the context of his life. If you make any of your own analyses it stops being Marxist analysis and becomes your own analysis. The only reason why I can see people calling their own interpretations as "Marxist" is because Marx is revered and thus it's an attempt to gain more clout.How is Marxist analysis, as an example, influenced by bigoted views?
To be clear, like I mentioned, I think it can be argued that it is not robust enough. See for example the "Asiatic mode of production" which just kind of seems to me like Marx being Eurocentric and not taking the time to read about non-European economic structures, though, to be fair, he also wouldn't have had nearly as many resources about that in the mid-19th century. But that's fine. We can take the analytical method he developed and tweak it, expand it, incorporate new elements into it. Just as many have done over the last two centuries.
At that point we would have to get into specifics, you know? And while it's been years since I've read any Proudhon's work, it's not immediately obvious which part of "What is Property?" or whatever else, necessitates anti-semitism or sexism. This applies to a lot of philosophers (off the top of my head: Heidegger, Schopenhauer) who wrote really great stuff, but had terrible reactionary politics (in part or whole).And as I said before, I do not believe at all that your views can somehow not be influenced by your bigotry. Political/economic analysis will be influenced by bigoted views.
Well, the only Marxist analysis is really reading Marx directly and trying to understand the context of his life. If you make any of your own analyses it stops being Marxist analysis and becomes your own analysis. The only reason why I can see people calling their own interpretations as "Marxist" is because Marx is revered and thus it's an attempt to gain more clout.
Well, the only Marxist analysis is really reading Marx directly and trying to understand the context of his life.
If you make any of your own analyses it stops being Marxist analysis and becomes your own analysis. The only reason why I can see people calling their own interpretations as "Marxist" is because Marx is revered and thus it's an attempt to gain more clout.
No, It defends women rights and equality, but there's sexist marxists.
Any good books on hermeneutics? Never studied it and a quick search mentioned "Hermeneutic Communism" by Gianni Vattimo and Santiago Zabala.My academic specialization is (sort of) in the history of philosophy, and this isn't really true. You can apply as a hermeneutic to the text a view that grounds it as a secondary expression of an individual's own proclivities or temperament (William James thought this), but even if you'll never have the basic motivating essence behind why they believe what they do (because that object in question is essentially implicit temperamental bias) regardless of that you're still left with their arguments, which is something like the inorganic structure left after a living person has tried to articulate reasons why their given perspective is worth considering. And that's just one hermeneutic, honestly if all history of philosophy was yolked to an individual's character, we'd be screwed. Aristotle? Hated women and thought some people were 'natural slaves'. Kant also hated women and was an incredible racist. Both these dudes are basically the two you'd pick out as the foundational figures of literally the foundational discipline of western civilization, and philosophy doesn't really make much of it, and in reading these texts that information does often seem more biographical than immediately relevant. Though it's always worth knowing, and you probably would take it as a means of critically interrogating their work in some areas. Though philosophy is admittedly a bit old and dusty in terms of its repertoire of hermeneutics, at least relative to some other more modern humanist disciplines, but generally philosophers spend a lot of time trying to reduce their thought to bare ideas, and so it's no surprise that that's what philosophers primarily see themselves as engaging with as their trade.
Personally I think that anyone drawing heavy influence from Marx and/or consciously adopting significant elements of Marx's style can claim to follow in that tradition. If you're capturing the same heart or essence (which is to say, you're not ostensibly creating your own holistic or systematic work), it would be very natural or to claim your project "Marxist" or 'Marxian' or whatever. But these claims are always self assumed and can always be (and often are) contested. I remember a question on a final about whether or not Heidegger was an existentialist, and he sure didn't think so, but imo he was at least partially wrong.
Any good books on hermeneutics? Never studied it and a quick search mentioned "Hermeneutic Communism" by Gianni Vattimo and Santiago Zabala.
Well, the only Marxist analysis is really reading Marx directly and trying to understand the context of his life. If you make any of your own analyses it stops being Marxist analysis and becomes your own analysis. The only reason why I can see people calling their own interpretations as "Marxist" is because Marx is revered and thus it's an attempt to gain more clout.
Ah, I see.
The issue is that Marxism-Leninism was the official ideology of the Soviet Union enshrined by Stalin. Many would argue that it is neither Marxism (an analytical method) or Leninism (a strategic method for capturing and holding state power) but a bastardization of the two meant to solidify Stalin's position, and later the entrenched power of the Soviet nomenklatura.
The defining features of Marxism-Leninism are a single party state under a planned command economy, with the party bureaucracy in control.
In other words, ML = "tankie". Even though there are divisions between types of Marxist-Leninists (Stalinists, Hoxhaists, Maoists, etc.) they share the same underpinning authoritarian streak.
I'd argue that Leninism's devolution into Stalinism is inevitable, because a dictatorship of the vanguard party, like any dictatorship, is going to inevitably become more interested in maintaining or enhancing its power rather than fulfilling the needs of the people.
Much like how you had Thermidor, followed by Napoleon. The full circle revolution (that is, that you snake back around to a system just about as oppressive as the one overthrown) will follow a society that is not significantly participatory.
It makes me follow the idea that the "stateless" revolution might be necessary, or that electoralism is the only path because an electoral gain, won fairly, forces reactionary elements to either acquiesce or revolt and be crushed by force, putting the onus of revolution on the fascists instead, which is more their natural domain.
It is often said that 'the germ of all Stalinism was in Bolshevism at its beginning'. Well, I have no objection. Only, Bolshevism also contained many other germs, a mass of other germs, and those who lived through the enthusiasm of the first years of the first victorious socialist revolution ought not to forget it. To judge the living man by the death germs which the autopsy reveals in the corpse – and which he may have carried in him since his birth – is that very sensible?
Conservative capital pours money into domestic propaganda. Liberal capital pours money into means-tested micro-loan creditors in India.Ive been thinking a lot about why conservatism in the US (and the world really) lends itself to social organization that progressivism seems to lack in comparison. The long-term maneuvering by political entities like The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society and further still into social movements like the IDW (blegh I even hate to give legitimacy to it by mentioning it) or Gamergate are decades in the making and we havent even started. Where is this similar movement by progressive ideology?
Conservative capital pours money into domestic propaganda. Liberal capital pours money into means-tested micro-loan creditors in India.
Also they try to solve problems with disruptive apps instead of, you know, directly.
Direct solution to housing crisis: Seize empty homes, build more housing
(Neo)Liberal solution to housing crisis: Tax credits, mixed-income developments, public-private partnerships where private entities take a piece of that delicious public subsidy