3 ms·

Marx wrote about a theory of history in which all of history progresses through phases in which each phase is defined by struggle between classes. His view was

Marx wrote about a theory of history in which all of history progresses through phases in which each phase is defined by struggle between classes. His view was that communism was the inevitable end of this model of history in that communism would finally resolve the class struggle. But for somebody who wishes to promote communism, the problem is if there is no class struggle, then history does not advance to their desired end state. The original formulation of Marxism was economic, based on the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This conflict worked to create communist revolutions in nations with more feudalistic systems like Tzarist Russia. However Communists have struggled to create revolution in more Democratic societies with greater social mobility, or at least the perceived possibility of. So failing to get the economic class consciousness to trigger a revolution, the modern Marxist has moved on to pushing race/culture based class consciousness as the trigger for their revolution. This is why todays Marxist is not obsessed with rich and poor but white vs black vs hispanic.

rocqua 5y ago
Summarizing what you said (without agreeing) to see if I understood your point correctly. Marxism is the idea of needing class struggle for progress. Cultural Marxism is transposing that from class to culture / ethnicity. Essentially moving the dialectic from worker / captialist to privileged race / non-priviliged race? And the idea is that this is done, not to engender gradual change, but to engender revolutionary change?
- blacktriangle 5y ago
  Yes, I'd say that summarizes my statement well, where Marx's definition of progress is moving a society towards communism. This is why any time you see somebody talk about "the right side of history" that's a flag that said person is a Marxist, they view their desired communist end-state as inevitable.
  - onionisafruit 5y ago
    You may be right about the origin of "the right side of history", but the phrase has become popular enough that you can't use it to pin down the speaker's ideology. I think most people use it to mean that their ideas will be commonly accepted in the future. Whether their perceived future is a communist utopia or a libertarian thunderdome is irrelevant.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    The right side of history was the US immediately after WWII.
    - blacktriangle 5y ago
      I think everybody in Eastern Europe who got to live behind the Iron Curtain would disagree with that. Not dealing with the USSR immediately has to be one of the greatest screwups in US history.
  - rocqua 5y ago
    > Yes, I'd say that summarizes my statement well, where Marx's definition of progress is moving a society towards communism. Thanks for the explanation! > This is why any time you see somebody talk about "the right side of history" that's a flag that said person is a Marxist, they view their desired communist end-state as inevitable. I think that is, at best, a gross generalization. Just because that is what a Marxist might say, does not mean that everyone who says that is actually a Marxist. Besides, I believe that "history is the story of human progress" is much more a modernist theory, than a Marxist one. It seems to me that someone being "on the right side of history" could just as easily mean, being part of the progress which modernists consider inevitable. Hence making it a modernist sentiment. Besides, when someone says "the right side of history" all that suggests to me is "back then people thought X was acceptable, now we no longer think that. Person Y was against X, and hence 'on the right side of history' ". The idea that our current morals are better than our previous morals is rather unsurprising. Most people probably hold that opinion, because otherwise, our current morals would change.
nivenkos 5y ago
So you think that Marxists are now promoting race war, not class war, and this is somehow a "leftist" idea? Seems more that the US deliberately focussed on creating these divisions to destroy working-class movements with COINTELPRO. That's also why it only exists in the US.
- blacktriangle 5y ago
  You think this is only going on in the US? You must not get out much.

rocqua 5y ago

Summarizing what you said (without agreeing) to see if I understood your point correctly. Marxism is the idea of needing class struggle for progress. Cultural Marxism is transposing that from class to culture / ethnicity. Essentially moving the dialectic from worker / captialist to privileged race / non-priviliged race? And the idea is that this is done, not to engender gradual change, but to engender revolutionary change?

blacktriangle 5y ago
Yes, I'd say that summarizes my statement well, where Marx's definition of progress is moving a society towards communism. This is why any time you see somebody talk about "the right side of history" that's a flag that said person is a Marxist, they view their desired communist end-state as inevitable.
- onionisafruit 5y ago
  You may be right about the origin of "the right side of history", but the phrase has become popular enough that you can't use it to pin down the speaker's ideology. I think most people use it to mean that their ideas will be commonly accepted in the future. Whether their perceived future is a communist utopia or a libertarian thunderdome is irrelevant.
- dekhn 5y ago
  The right side of history was the US immediately after WWII.
  - blacktriangle 5y ago
    I think everybody in Eastern Europe who got to live behind the Iron Curtain would disagree with that. Not dealing with the USSR immediately has to be one of the greatest screwups in US history.
- rocqua 5y ago
  > Yes, I'd say that summarizes my statement well, where Marx's definition of progress is moving a society towards communism. Thanks for the explanation! > This is why any time you see somebody talk about "the right side of history" that's a flag that said person is a Marxist, they view their desired communist end-state as inevitable. I think that is, at best, a gross generalization. Just because that is what a Marxist might say, does not mean that everyone who says that is actually a Marxist. Besides, I believe that "history is the story of human progress" is much more a modernist theory, than a Marxist one. It seems to me that someone being "on the right side of history" could just as easily mean, being part of the progress which modernists consider inevitable. Hence making it a modernist sentiment. Besides, when someone says "the right side of history" all that suggests to me is "back then people thought X was acceptable, now we no longer think that. Person Y was against X, and hence 'on the right side of history' ". The idea that our current morals are better than our previous morals is rather unsurprising. Most people probably hold that opinion, because otherwise, our current morals would change.

nivenkos 5y ago

So you think that Marxists are now promoting race war, not class war, and this is somehow a "leftist" idea? Seems more that the US deliberately focussed on creating these divisions to destroy working-class movements with COINTELPRO. That's also why it only exists in the US.

blacktriangle 5y ago
You think this is only going on in the US? You must not get out much.