3 ms·

>What annoys me about this line – a lot of "old school Marxists" are actually as opposed to "wokeness" [0] Oh ya I think Jordan Peterson went into the debate w

>What annoys me about this line – a lot of "old school Marxists" are actually as opposed to "wokeness" [0] Oh ya I think Jordan Peterson went into the debate with zizek with the preparation that Zizek was part of the new religion. As the debate went on it was revealed that he wasn't part of it. I believe even an early allegation was that zizek was behind the new religion. Clearly falsified since. >and they'd very likely view contemporary "wokeism" as a capitalist plot to sow division among the proletariat and distract people from the real work of revolutionary class struggle. This reminds me of a cartoon where the woke resurrect US troops to fight nazis, aka conservatives. Only to find out they arent allies at all. I think you're right, but this new religion is certainly not some sort of conspiracy. >Look at something like the recently launched Compact magazine, which brings together Marxists such as Edwin Aponte, Slavoj Zizek, and the Marxist feminist Nina Power with right-wing (many would even say far-right) Catholics such as Sohrab Ahmari, Matthew Schmitz and Adrian Vermeule – who seem to have realised that as much as they radically disagree with each other about innumerable things, in "woke" contemporary progressivism they have a common enemy. Not familiar with this magazine. I think it's the wrong take to consider the new religion an enemy. Something the right-wing is regularly doing and clearly a mistake. The religion is forming due to the failure of marxism. They aren't a threat once you understand what they are doing. > I know some people object to the term, "wokeness". It certainly seems at times overused. But, on the other hand, there seems to be a real thing – a certain sort of contemporary bourgeois progressivism which prefers boardroom endorsements to class struggle, emphasises race/ethnicity/gender/sexuality over class, claims to be standing up for the marginalised and oppressed yet instead functions in practice as a way for academic/corporate/media elites to look down on the hoi pollo BLM is a big sect of the religion and they are pointing out a legitimate problem. Larry Elder likes to ask 'show me the racism' and it's hard to do but the one I really enjoy. Go to a state that allows you to open carry a rifle. Have a white dude open carry the rifle and try to incite the police to deprive your rights for a 1984 lawsuit. Pretty standard idea and while a cop will come bother you, they will let you do it. Now do that same experiment as a black guy. I guarantee a very different result. Countless recreations on youtube are available. There is a legitimate problem there to be solved. Trump is so far the only person to help them. >If we shouldn't call it "wokeness", what should we call it? Most people who object to that particular name will also object to any serious alternative. And "wokeness" isn't just a figment of the right-wing imagination, because people on the left (whether centre-left or far-left) criticise it too–for example, the African-American Marxist political scientist Adolph L. Reed Jr. Sam Harris is a far left atheist. He as an anti-theist detected this new religion early on and got labelled a racist and such. The usual ad hominems. What Sam doesn't seem to understand is that Trump is way way ahead of him on this and Trump can be the fix but Sam hates Trump with all of his not-soul. Something that has been very unusual to me. Christians see the new religion as a new false god. A new attempt by Satan to get them to stray away from god. Its funny that christians and atheists are coming together on this.

skissane 5y ago
> BLM is a big sect of the religion and they are pointing out a legitimate problem. Larry Elder likes to ask 'show me the racism' and it's hard to do but the one I really enjoy. I can claim only an imperfect familiarity with either figure's views, but my impression is that Adolph L. Reed Jr and Larry Elder take rather different approaches to the issue of racism. Elder is an individualist conservative who says that (by and large) people are victims, not of systematic oppression by others, but rather of their own bad decisions. Unlike Elder, Reed views poor Black Americans as victims of systemic oppression – a point at which his views are much closer to BLM's than to Elder's – but while BLM views that oppression as primarily race-based, Reed argues that it is instead primarily class-based. Many right-wing critics accuse BLM of being "Marxist", but BLM is actually a long way from genuine Marxism; the contrary position which Reed espouses is arguably much more faithful to the classic Marxist tradition. > Sam Harris is a far left atheist. Sam Harris has never been "far left". The far left are people such as Marxists (by which I mean real Marxists, not groups such as BLM which some on the right label as "Marxism" but which have only a rather tenuous connection to actual Marxism), Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, anarcho-socialists/anarcho-communists/anarcho-syndicalists, etc. For the 2016 Democratic primaries, Sam Harris endorsed Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders – one of the reasons he gave, was that he was confident Clinton would continue established US foreign policy, whereas Sanders was likely to overturn it. Nobody on the "far left" would have ever said such a thing. Sam Harris' fundamental political orientation has always been center-left, with emphasis on the word "center" – like many on the center-left, his positions on certain issues (such as foreign policy or economics) often have a great deal in common with those of the center-right. I'm also not sure what his being an atheist has to do with anything. You will find atheists at both extremes of the political spectrum, and every possible point in-between – and the same is true of theists too.

skissane 5y ago

> BLM is a big sect of the religion and they are pointing out a legitimate problem. Larry Elder likes to ask 'show me the racism' and it's hard to do but the one I really enjoy. I can claim only an imperfect familiarity with either figure's views, but my impression is that Adolph L. Reed Jr and Larry Elder take rather different approaches to the issue of racism. Elder is an individualist conservative who says that (by and large) people are victims, not of systematic oppression by others, but rather of their own bad decisions. Unlike Elder, Reed views poor Black Americans as victims of systemic oppression – a point at which his views are much closer to BLM's than to Elder's – but while BLM views that oppression as primarily race-based, Reed argues that it is instead primarily class-based. Many right-wing critics accuse BLM of being "Marxist", but BLM is actually a long way from genuine Marxism; the contrary position which Reed espouses is arguably much more faithful to the classic Marxist tradition. > Sam Harris is a far left atheist. Sam Harris has never been "far left". The far left are people such as Marxists (by which I mean real Marxists, not groups such as BLM which some on the right label as "Marxism" but which have only a rather tenuous connection to actual Marxism), Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, anarcho-socialists/anarcho-communists/anarcho-syndicalists, etc. For the 2016 Democratic primaries, Sam Harris endorsed Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders – one of the reasons he gave, was that he was confident Clinton would continue established US foreign policy, whereas Sanders was likely to overturn it. Nobody on the "far left" would have ever said such a thing. Sam Harris' fundamental political orientation has always been center-left, with emphasis on the word "center" – like many on the center-left, his positions on certain issues (such as foreign policy or economics) often have a great deal in common with those of the center-right. I'm also not sure what his being an atheist has to do with anything. You will find atheists at both extremes of the political spectrum, and every possible point in-between – and the same is true of theists too.