4 ms·
> If I told you that I'd be replacing your broken windshield, would you understand that I'd be simply removing your windshield and not putting anything in its p
by jules 9y ago
> If I told you that I'd be replacing your broken windshield, would you understand that I'd be simply removing your windshield and not putting anything in its place?
That's not how societies work. You cannot have no social structure anymore than a person can have "no age". You can try to create a flat social structure, but that's still a social structure (and not a stable one, obviously).
> That's true, though it does little to hold for Peterson's argument that "Marxists" in general have moved to such a position, or have mutated class theory rather than simply adding to it. Marxists, orthodox and otherwise, still think in terms of class.
Intersectional feminism certainly seems to be by the most popular strand today. Of course some old school Marxists still exist.
- etplayer 9y ago>You cannot have no social structure anymore than a person can have "no age" Class is not equal to social structure; when Marxists talk about classes they refer to economic power relations, as in, there is no group of people with majority or exclusive control over the main social means of production. This is in contrast to today in which the social means of production are owned almost entirely by the bourgeoisie, as in, the capitalist class, which employs wage labour. In higher stage Communism, there is free association of people and the method that may be chosen would likely be decentralised direct-democratic councils with random or rotating delegates.