4 ms·

A nice example of "Everything I dislike is Marxism". Marx was extra specific in which his historical analysis was about economic classes. The framework he cites

A nice example of "Everything I dislike is Marxism". Marx was extra specific in which his historical analysis was about economic classes. The framework he cites with the opossing groups is not exclusive to marxism, but hey, I guess it wouldn't be scary enough to the casual reader calling it Hegelianism for example. Weird enough, the article gets a lot right, the critique of liberalism is on point IMO, but I don't really see the point of bringing this to the table. Radical liberalism is self-defeating as the framework fails to acknowledge the power relationships, thus is not surprising that liberal principles can result on illiberal consequences when tried to being pursued. Marxism was not even a thing when the french revolution became a bloodbath, and you can even say taking this event in account, Marxism is more descriptive on the outcomes of revolution than prescriptive. On my perspective, on the recent events, I see only liberalism eating itself, and certainly I see little Marxist relationship with clear marxist tenants like workers taking control of their economic results. That's unless you're a liberal writing on a liberal magazine, doing mental gymnastics to avoid seeing the failures of liberalism, then you can loosely define Marxism and blame it all on it.

thu2111 6y ago
The first part of the essay does go into the question of whether what's happening can be truly called Marxism. I believe he argues convincingly that it can be, although indeed, everyone accepts that the "neo-Marxists" or whatever you want to call them don't call themselves that (BLM leadership excepted!), and they have moved on from an arbitrary notion of two economic classes to slightly less arbitrary notion of two races (white vs BIPOC/minorities/whatever it is today). A few other bits of jargon have been renamed, but otherwise the belief framework is intact. Marx is by far the most famous proponent of this kind of dual class oppression/revolution based framework. Someone really deep into the history of that stuff might prefer the term Hegelianism, but it's hardly more useful for communication. There's a large population at least roughly familiar with what Marx believed and far more importantly, what happened everywhere his followers took power. The essay does acknowledge that the underlying worldview pre-dates Marx, and the term Marxism is thus merely a useful handle to describe that bundle of worldviews. It's not saying he invented the whole thing from scratch. BTW: Quillette is not a liberal magazine and Hazony is a highly conservative Jewish nationalist.
- licebmi__at__ 6y ago
  >I believe he argues convincingly that it can be It's pretty convincing when you read third party accounts of Marxism by right wing spokesman who have a lot to gain to equating what they don't like to Marxism. When you read either Marxists (plenty of others besides BLM) or the ones who you call Neo-Marxists, you find Marxists sighing when not Marxism is called Marxism, and the so called "Neo-Marxists" criticizing Marx. >arbitrary notion of two economic classes to slightly less arbitrary notion of two races. Every classification is arbitrary, although you can argue about it's usefulness or consistency. >A few other bits of jargon have been renamed, but otherwise the belief framework is intact. Except the most essential part which makes the framework consistent. But hey, if you squint hard enough even a dog can be a cat. >Marx is by far the most famous proponent of this kind of dual class oppression/revolution based framework. Someone really deep into the history of that stuff might prefer the term Hegelianism, but it's hardly more useful for communication. Marx is known for a lot of things, to be honest I don't be surprised if some isolated community believes that Marx had babies for breakfast, this is an effect of being an ideological boogeyman. Regardless of what you think of communism, it should be hard to deny the depth of his philosophical and historical points, if not that it's a regular POV. With that in mind, adding more legends to the Marxist black legend should be considered the opposite of useful communication. >The essay does acknowledge that the underlying worldview pre-dates Marx, and the term Marxism is thus merely a useful handle to describe that bundle of worldviews. Yes, as mentioned this is exactly my main problem with the essay, the author even spells out my main point, but still framing this as a external factor "corrupting" liberalism. >BTW: Quillette is not a liberal magazine and Hazony is a highly conservative Jewish nationalist. I was not familiar with the writer, and mixed the liberal term with the more American Libertarian. My mistake.

thu2111 6y ago

The first part of the essay does go into the question of whether what's happening can be truly called Marxism. I believe he argues convincingly that it can be, although indeed, everyone accepts that the "neo-Marxists" or whatever you want to call them don't call themselves that (BLM leadership excepted!), and they have moved on from an arbitrary notion of two economic classes to slightly less arbitrary notion of two races (white vs BIPOC/minorities/whatever it is today). A few other bits of jargon have been renamed, but otherwise the belief framework is intact. Marx is by far the most famous proponent of this kind of dual class oppression/revolution based framework. Someone really deep into the history of that stuff might prefer the term Hegelianism, but it's hardly more useful for communication. There's a large population at least roughly familiar with what Marx believed and far more importantly, what happened everywhere his followers took power. The essay does acknowledge that the underlying worldview pre-dates Marx, and the term Marxism is thus merely a useful handle to describe that bundle of worldviews. It's not saying he invented the whole thing from scratch. BTW: Quillette is not a liberal magazine and Hazony is a highly conservative Jewish nationalist.

licebmi__at__ 6y ago
>I believe he argues convincingly that it can be It's pretty convincing when you read third party accounts of Marxism by right wing spokesman who have a lot to gain to equating what they don't like to Marxism. When you read either Marxists (plenty of others besides BLM) or the ones who you call Neo-Marxists, you find Marxists sighing when not Marxism is called Marxism, and the so called "Neo-Marxists" criticizing Marx. >arbitrary notion of two economic classes to slightly less arbitrary notion of two races. Every classification is arbitrary, although you can argue about it's usefulness or consistency. >A few other bits of jargon have been renamed, but otherwise the belief framework is intact. Except the most essential part which makes the framework consistent. But hey, if you squint hard enough even a dog can be a cat. >Marx is by far the most famous proponent of this kind of dual class oppression/revolution based framework. Someone really deep into the history of that stuff might prefer the term Hegelianism, but it's hardly more useful for communication. Marx is known for a lot of things, to be honest I don't be surprised if some isolated community believes that Marx had babies for breakfast, this is an effect of being an ideological boogeyman. Regardless of what you think of communism, it should be hard to deny the depth of his philosophical and historical points, if not that it's a regular POV. With that in mind, adding more legends to the Marxist black legend should be considered the opposite of useful communication. >The essay does acknowledge that the underlying worldview pre-dates Marx, and the term Marxism is thus merely a useful handle to describe that bundle of worldviews. Yes, as mentioned this is exactly my main problem with the essay, the author even spells out my main point, but still framing this as a external factor "corrupting" liberalism. >BTW: Quillette is not a liberal magazine and Hazony is a highly conservative Jewish nationalist. I was not familiar with the writer, and mixed the liberal term with the more American Libertarian. My mistake.