Why so many of us have become Marxists: Video

[klapse]

Now I understand myself

 

[levi]

How is he equating environmental studies and feminism with marx? He's using a very wide and very tarry brush here.

 

[klapse]

you're right it is broad-brushing. those were left movements so he piles it into the marx bucket.

overall, very impressive lecture

 

[Jebe457]

How is he equating environmental studies and feminism with marx? He's using a very wide and very tarry brush here.

It's on record that the Feminist strains that hold to the notions of a Patriarchy historically involved Female Socialists taking the Proletariat/Bourgeois dynamic from Marx replacing it with Women/Men respectively and replacing the narrative about overthrow Capitalism/Society/etc to achieve a Worker's Utopia to overthrowing the "Patriarchy" to achieve a Feminist Utopia. So those strains are literally Marxism with the serial number ground off, and names switched around.

Example in an easy to consume package:

The Green Lobby's situation is more complex, but it's no secret they've had serious Marxist influence.

 

[Linux-SWAT]

Greens are red.

 

[levi]

@Jebe457, yeah I was hesitant to include feminism in my critique, cos as you say it does fit a them vs. us mould that marxism also used. I could argue that that template predated marxism, but either way it's a bit of a red rag to certain people so I did strongly consider not mentioning it.

I'm not sure that some environmentalists also being marxists automatically makes the whole theory marxist though. There's a heavy scent of it in stuff written by the likes of George Monbiot which is why I'm not a fan of his stuff, but there's more written by people without such an axe to grind that makes sense to me.

 

[Jebe457]

@Jebe457, yeah I was hesitant to include feminism in my critique, cos as you say it does fit a them vs. us mould that marxism also used. I could argue that that template predated marxism, but either way it's a bit of a red rag to certain people so I did strongly consider not mentioning it.

Well ultimately Karl Marx was a deadbeat who never worked a day in his life, lived by exploiting the charity of others, couldn't manage his personal finances, was covered in boils due to not bathing properly, and both literally and figuratively fucked the closest thing to a working class person he was in regular contact with.

From my perspective none of his ideas have intrinsic value or merit, but he expressed very well a archetype, which the derivative movements from his philosophical tree have in turn distilled down.

This goes over the personality dynamics pretty well:

Mind when we're talking influential philosophy trends like this the question isn't necessarily always where the idea came from, but what about it calls to people. One could make an argument this goes back to Cain, as opposed to Able, and certainly in the spirit of Cain they seek to slay Able.

 

[thatgui]

Now I understand myself

Maybe I am missing the point, because I skipped the introduction and only watched 8 min of the speech. But I had no interest in watching something about marxsism, where (at least) in the first 8 min socialsm, communism, marxism and authoritarianism are treated the same.

Well ultimately Karl Marx was a deadbeat who never worked a day in his life, lived by exploiting the charity of others, couldn't manage his personal finances, was covered in boils due to not bathing properly, and both literally and figuratively fucked the closest thing to a working class person he was in regular contact with.

And don't forget that he had rabies, was a pedophile, stole the Lindberg baby and was actually involved in the planning of 9/11.

 

[Jebe457]

Maybe I am missing the point, because I skipped the introduction and only watched 8 min of the speech. But I had no interest in watching something about marxsism, where (at least) in the first 8 min socialsm, communism, marxism and authoritarianism are treated the same.

So you didn't actually watch the speech, admit you're simply making assumptions about what was said, and want to make a point about a distinction without bothering to make the distinction.

And don't forget that he had rabies, was a pedophile, stole the Lindberg baby and was actually involved in the planning of 9/11.

Do you actually have anything productive to add? Or are you just intending to throw a tantrum?

 

[JDTAY]

Karl Marx, 1848: "The theory of Communism may be summed up in a single statement: The abolition of private property."

JDTAY, 2018: "Hands off my Pyra, commies."

 

[Haraldur]

Karl Marx, 1848: "The theory of Communism may be summed up in a single statement: The abolition of private property."

JDTAY, 2018: "Hands off my Pyra, commies."

My pedantry compels me to point out that socialists tend to use "private property" synonymously to "immovable property" or "real property", i.e. land, large machinery, "the means of production" and so on, as opposed to "personal property" such as your clothes, your Pyra, your food and so on. There are grey areas, like your personal dwelling (is it "productive" property or is it essentially just a possession that enables you to live?), your personal vehicle, etc., so one can argue that the distinction between "private" and "personal" property is not useful (in fact some communists prefer to contrast "property" and "possession", where "possession" means that one is using or in the habit of using some object and so "owns" it -- this sometimes comes up in law in cases of squatting, adverse possession, renting etc.), but it is commonly accepted.

So, typical conceptions of a communist system would not involve being compelled to share your Pyra.


I have not watched the video and do not want to get too involved with the rest of the discussion as I suspect that there will mainly be sophistry and word-gaming, inconsistent definitions* etc., mainly for the purpose of maintaining a political position, and I simply do not have the energy for that these days.

*Define: communism, socialism, the state, power, Marxism, proletariat, bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, lumpenproletariat, property (private, personal, immovable, real...), means of production, capitalism. Have fun -- see you in 50 years!

 

[JDTAY]

Hmmm, no need to share my Pyra? I may have to check this Marxism thing out...

 

[FBnil]

Greens are red.

So... when is your red shirt (avatar logo) become green again (and when will it stop snowing?)

 

[Linux-SWAT]

~16°C all the week, maybe it's time ?

 

[klapse]

Outside of ivory-tower academia, communism is socialism. ALL the soviet republics called themselves "socialist" and not "communist".

It's the most obvious deception in history. They say 'the people shall control the means of production' - then they say 'the state is the people'. And you've got tyranny. So you've got marxists claiming only that a completely undefined vision of society must be the goal. And the real actors in history using them as useful idiots to gain total control.

Now the same problem applies to defenders of capitalism. Do they want to allow that term to be associated with state-capitalism / crony-capitalism, a system of bribes, purchased legislation etc,

 

[levi]

I don't see anyone here disagreeing with you. However I will point out that marxism was an ingredient to the brand of social democracy that swept europe during the 20th century. It's heavily tempered by concepts of democracy (hence the name) and keynsian economics, but key ideas of equality, justice and a big state remained. It may not be to your tastes, but it was quite successful for a time.

 

[Klumpen]

Greens are red.

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength!

 

[klapse]

marxism was an ingredient to the brand of social democracy that swept europe during the 20th century. It's heavily tempered by concepts of democracy (hence the name) and keynsian economics, but key ideas of equality, justice and a big state remained. It may not be to your tastes, but it was quite successful for a time.

Yes, and it has become the default of the entire political discourse

 

[thatgui]

So you didn't actually watch the speech, admit you're simply making assumptions about what was said, and want to make a point about a distinction without bothering to make the distinction.

Well the point is, I just got better things to do, instead of hearing someone talk about a certain topic for about 40 min, if that person isn't able to clearly define the topic he wants to talk about in roughly the first one-fifth.
But I left the possibility open to be surprised, as (if that was really the case) someone surely would have made a comment if that would have actually had happend. And the term "broad brush" that was already present in this thread wasn't helping either.
And btw. you have a rather uncommon definition of "admit" (but that may be a language barrier - problem on my side)

Do you actually have anything productive to add? Or are you just intending to throw a tantrum?

Sorry, I thought this was the "we are writing silly things" - game - at least your comment looked a lot like that. Or did you have any other intention then discrediting the ideas/theories of Marx by discrediting the author. Which is something inherently stupid, but maybe I am completly misunderstanding your intentions - so I am quite eager to hear what they were, but I doubt it had anything to do with bringing productive thoughts into this thread. And just to be sure: Marx actually worked one or two hours of his live (like beeing an editor of several publications, a correspondent for the New York Tribune), had indeed financial problems (which weren't all releated to an inability to keep his finances straight, but also political persecution), although adhering to hygene standards the more common worker employed actually had a skin condition and had an affair with his housekeeper (which resulted in a child), but did not have such a polygamistic mindset you implied.
But I wonder why you did not mention that he made recurringly anti-Semitic (although beeing from jewish descent) comments - would have fit the picture you tried to draw wonderfully.

 

[ElPoco]

It's a wonder how we can all be marxists and still live in a neo-liberal world dominated by mulitnationals where the 1% most wealthy people own more than the rest of the world...