4 ms·

> Which is precisely what Marx claims to do, with essentially the model which Marx claims does so. Again, no. Marx's characterization is much more concrete tha

> Which is precisely what Marx claims to do, with essentially the model which Marx claims does so. Again, no. Marx's characterization is much more concrete than that, and really cannot be separated from notions of class and capital and commodity-form without rendering the term "Marxist" nearly meaningless. Or at least synonymous with much less politically-charged ideas like "materialism" or even just "politics". Separating Marx from those things is like separating Jesus from Christianity. The next two criticism are more tangential and obvious, but hopefully more illustrative of the problem with the way you're trying to re-define Marxism 1. A capitalist operating as Marx would predict is not himself a Marxist, so your statement is especially confusing for more than one reason. 2. Plenty of non-Marxist -- even conservative economists -- tap into various Marxist ideas. And even more tap into the same ideas that Marx was himself building on (e.g., the effectiveness of providing moral justifications on the basis of oppression... not a Marxist innovation!). So drawing any tangential connection to Marx and labeling anything connected by that tangent as "Marxist" implicates 100% of economists. Which, again, makes the label "Marxist" kind of silly and pointless. If you strip Marxism of Marx's actual core ideas, then "Marxism" ceases to mean anything. And class is a central component of those ideas. At some point referring to something as "Just Marxism s/.../class" begins to occupy the "you are an idiot" box in on the PG argument hierarchy. > It's pretty obvious that Postmodernism is homomorphic to Marxism This seems mostly off-topic... you'll have to draw out the connection for me. (edit: Obviously, plenty of postmodernists critique closeparen's post and plenty of non-postmodernists would agree with closeparent's post. Are you sure you mean postmodernism?)

stcredzero 9y ago
really cannot be separated from notions of class and capital and commodity-form without rendering the term "Marxist" nearly meaningless. The Intersectional claim is basically that inherent markers like race have become a functionally like a marker of class. Separating Marx from those things is like separating Jesus from Christianity. You just keep on asserting this without specifying why -- probably because you find it particularly embarrassing. So you're saying there's something magically special about the very specific formulation? Many atheists have noted that Jesus has many similarities to many other religious/mythical figures. The principles are usefully generalized. As is the with religion, the fact that there are these patterns is significant in itself. "Marxism" in such broad-brush terms is certainly not meaningless in any case. Use "collectivist" if you like. Anyone who throws individual rights under the bus in favor of the interests of the group and says phrases like "By any means necessary" or "all power comes from the end of a gun" is a party to ideologies which have played out in the deaths of tens of thousands to tens of millions of people, across different cultures, in different times, again and again throughout history.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > The Intersectional claim is basically that inherent markers like race have become a functionally like a marker of class. Hm. Unless closeparen edited their comment, I've very confused, because that's not at all the claim that closeparen made. In fact, the "all racism is really just a form of classism" is more common in conservative circles than leftist circles. > So you're saying there's something magically special about the very specific formulation? No, not at all. It's just one more idea. And it has a name. That name is Marxism. Use each name for the thing that it refers to, and nothing else. > "Marxism" in such broad-brush terms is certainly not meaningless in any case. Not really. Marxism refers to the political philosophy laid out in Capital and popularized in texts like the Manifesto. It refers to Marx's synthesis of a bunch of specific ideas -- Hegel's dialectics, materialism, the labor theory of value, commodity form, class warfare, markets, etc. -- some of which were unique to Marx and some of which pre-dated him by centuries. Marxism refers to, you know, Marx's system of thought. I submit that whatever alternative definition you're proposing is silly and confusing. > Anyone who throws individual rights under the bus in favor of the interests of the group It's all fine and well that you're a traditional liberal, but calling everything that's "not you" a Marxist is pretty lazy.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Hm. Unless closeparen edited their comment, I've very confused I wasn't specifically referring to closeparen's comment at that point. What are you trying to pull? And it has a name. That name is Marxism. Sounds like your intoning some kind of quasi-religious exceptionalism. Marxism refers to, you know, Marx's system of thought. Which historically results in one group of people violently seizing stuff from another group of people using some collectivist morality because individual rights means nothing to them. Nothing confusing about that. calling everything that's "not you" a Marxist is pretty lazy. I'm calling everything collectivist that has resulted in the above Marxist. Historically, most everything collectivist that has gained control of a society has resulted in the above and has called itself "Marxist."
    - throwawayjava 9y ago

stcredzero 9y ago

really cannot be separated from notions of class and capital and commodity-form without rendering the term "Marxist" nearly meaningless. The Intersectional claim is basically that inherent markers like race have become a functionally like a marker of class. Separating Marx from those things is like separating Jesus from Christianity. You just keep on asserting this without specifying why -- probably because you find it particularly embarrassing. So you're saying there's something magically special about the very specific formulation? Many atheists have noted that Jesus has many similarities to many other religious/mythical figures. The principles are usefully generalized. As is the with religion, the fact that there are these patterns is significant in itself. "Marxism" in such broad-brush terms is certainly not meaningless in any case. Use "collectivist" if you like. Anyone who throws individual rights under the bus in favor of the interests of the group and says phrases like "By any means necessary" or "all power comes from the end of a gun" is a party to ideologies which have played out in the deaths of tens of thousands to tens of millions of people, across different cultures, in different times, again and again throughout history.

throwawayjava 9y ago
> The Intersectional claim is basically that inherent markers like race have become a functionally like a marker of class. Hm. Unless closeparen edited their comment, I've very confused, because that's not at all the claim that closeparen made. In fact, the "all racism is really just a form of classism" is more common in conservative circles than leftist circles. > So you're saying there's something magically special about the very specific formulation? No, not at all. It's just one more idea. And it has a name. That name is Marxism. Use each name for the thing that it refers to, and nothing else. > "Marxism" in such broad-brush terms is certainly not meaningless in any case. Not really. Marxism refers to the political philosophy laid out in Capital and popularized in texts like the Manifesto. It refers to Marx's synthesis of a bunch of specific ideas -- Hegel's dialectics, materialism, the labor theory of value, commodity form, class warfare, markets, etc. -- some of which were unique to Marx and some of which pre-dated him by centuries. Marxism refers to, you know, Marx's system of thought. I submit that whatever alternative definition you're proposing is silly and confusing. > Anyone who throws individual rights under the bus in favor of the interests of the group It's all fine and well that you're a traditional liberal, but calling everything that's "not you" a Marxist is pretty lazy.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  Hm. Unless closeparen edited their comment, I've very confused I wasn't specifically referring to closeparen's comment at that point. What are you trying to pull? And it has a name. That name is Marxism. Sounds like your intoning some kind of quasi-religious exceptionalism. Marxism refers to, you know, Marx's system of thought. Which historically results in one group of people violently seizing stuff from another group of people using some collectivist morality because individual rights means nothing to them. Nothing confusing about that. calling everything that's "not you" a Marxist is pretty lazy. I'm calling everything collectivist that has resulted in the above Marxist. Historically, most everything collectivist that has gained control of a society has resulted in the above and has called itself "Marxist."
  - throwawayjava 9y ago