5 ms·

Sorry, I'm just not interested in really arguing about it anymore except to disagree whenever I see someone act like it's not happening. There are direct paral

Sorry, I'm just not interested in really arguing about it anymore except to disagree whenever I see someone act like it's not happening. There are direct parallels in modern Wokeness to Maoist history. There's a great podcast about it which is worth listening to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqD5RF2Kwjs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqD5RF2Kwjs and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaw72Wxz9EY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaw72Wxz9EY Some examples: - They are both offshoots of Marxism. This is an easy target, but it serves as the foundation for the rest of the parallels. - Struggle sessions: occur on social media in modern times as mob freakouts and "cancellation" of people/organizations. - Us vs. them: to be an ally of the cause you have to always agree with it. Any deviation from the current narrative makes you vulnerable to being painted an enemy - regardless of your rational arguments or personal support for the cause. The narrative is dictated by elites. "Not to have a correct political orientation is like not having a soul." - Mao This is the concept of "the people" and "the enemy", as per Mao, and it informs why often progressive allies get suddenly railroaded and become the same as right wingers in the eyes of the indoctrinated. - Totalism: the ideology must intertwine in every aspect of daily life. It has to be in everything. At school, on TV, in the news, in advertisements, in food, whatever. Wherever totalism exists, institutions become closed groups akin to a cult. I'm sure everyone has noticed Wokeness in basically everything now, gradually introduced over the past 7-8 years. - "The Great Leap Forward": this isn't so much a direct parallel, but probably coincidental that The Great Reset is essentially the same idea that Mao had, and has such a similar name. - Maoist freedom and democracy in society guided by ideological elites: the modern parallel is stakeholder capitalism. The point is that ideologues dictate what is or isn't allowed, while supposedly maintaining a free and open market. This is different from democratically established oversight and regulations because the stakeholders are not elected or accountable to anyone. There's too much to go into as it's a really really deep topic, but hopefully I at least gave some idea of how these political movements are comparable.

shadowgovt 3y ago
I think the source for these two YouTube videos is highly suspect. Isn't this the same guy who got called out by Claire Lehmann for promoting white genocide theory? Source aside, I think this is another example of confusing common elements in any cultural shift with the totalitarian violence-oriented method employed by the Maoists. "Stakeholder capitalism," for example, is a fancy term for "Corporations bow to their stakeholders." But who are the stakeholders? They're mostly customers. So if the customers are rewarding companies for (at least paying lip-service to) being open-minded about diverse ways of being, then who we blame for capitalism-backed-democracy being "subverted" is... The people? Can the people subvert their own democratic system?
- prohobo 3y ago
  Actually the stakeholders are the investment firms implementing ESG programs. What you're referring to is a different kind of capitalism from what we currently have. I think it was in the late 19th century that someone first figured out that you can give out a newspaper for free and make tons of money by selling ad placements and creating eye-catching headlines. That's the current model of capitalism, where the "customer" is not a stakeholder at all but is instead the product. Investors are the real stakeholders. As for the YouTube videos being suspect, half of the content is direct quoting from Maoist literature, and I think a discerning intelligent person can figure it out for themselves.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    What investment firms are those, and what benefits to they gain from ESG programs?
    - prohobo 3y ago
      https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/best-esg-funds/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/best-esg-funds/ The biggest ones are of course Vanguard and Blackrock. I don't really know what they gain from it. I don't think it's anything directly, but maybe it's part of the intertwining of state and corporation, where they scratch each others' backs and compensate for each others' weaknesses.
      - shadowgovt 3y ago
        I believe what they gain from it is investors. ... which ties back to the "It appears to be what the people want" problem. Granted, money may be a bad proxy for what the people want (and we could have an entire conversation on the caustic effect of financial inequality of the stability of a functioning democracy). But to the extent that capitalism likes to imagine we can conflate the two... If it pulls in the dollars, it's the thing that's wanted, right?
scythe 3y ago
>They are both offshoots of Marxism. As long as YouTube is making our arguments, here's Žižek trolling Peterson about this canard: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Wsz6ijXWS3A https://youtube.com/watch?v=Wsz6ijXWS3A
- prohobo 3y ago
  I don't get it, you don't know anything about critical theory? "Who are these postmodern neo-Marxists?" Herbert Marcuse, Paulo Freiri, Erich Fromm, Max Horkheimer, Robin DiAngelo, Patrisse Cullors, etc. I'm not so interested in the origins of critical theory though, but in its implementation, like the last two people I listed. And what do they have to do with Marxism? They believe that applying Marxist economic theory to cultural issues provides a more effective means of hijacking political discourse and enforcing their moralistic ideologies. They're using Soviet and Maoist strategies to do it, not because they're Marxists, but because they're cultists and ideologues and those strategies work. Where are they? In nearly every institution. In every organization that has a Diversity and Inclusion officer, and most universities. Everywhere you see the rainbow flag, basically. I know old school Marxists hate being associated with these people, but that's not really my problem... Zizek is cool, but he hasn't said anything interesting in like 10 years.
  - pphysch 3y ago
    The only relevant Marxists have been the Marxist-Leninists so it is bizarre that Trots and anti-Leninists (like those you listed) get to own the label. Whatever, it's all superfluous labels anyways.
  - scythe 3y ago
    >They believe that applying Marxist economic theory to cultural issues This is literally gibberish. It's like saying you're going to apply quantum mechanics to modeling bird populations in the Galapagos. >Robin DiAngelo Nobody seriously considers her a Marxist. >Patrisse Cullors Likewise. >random list of Frankfurt school scholars you grabbed from Wikipedia These people claim influence from Marx, sure. They also claim influence from Freud and the psychoanalysts, who were some of the first critics of Marx. Someone who worked as long ago as Marx has touched a lot of fields in a small way. That doesn't make anything with even a hint of Marx's influence "Marxist", any more than it makes Ho Chi Minh an American liberal because he quoted the Declaration of Independence at a rally. https://www.thehistoryreader.com/military-history/ho-chi-minh-thomas-jefferson/ https://www.thehistoryreader.com/military-history/ho-chi-min... Jordan Peterson knew not to say anything so utterly farcical as what you've presented because he would have gotten raked over the coals. You should learn from his example.

shadowgovt 3y ago

I think the source for these two YouTube videos is highly suspect. Isn't this the same guy who got called out by Claire Lehmann for promoting white genocide theory? Source aside, I think this is another example of confusing common elements in any cultural shift with the totalitarian violence-oriented method employed by the Maoists. "Stakeholder capitalism," for example, is a fancy term for "Corporations bow to their stakeholders." But who are the stakeholders? They're mostly customers. So if the customers are rewarding companies for (at least paying lip-service to) being open-minded about diverse ways of being, then who we blame for capitalism-backed-democracy being "subverted" is... The people? Can the people subvert their own democratic system?

prohobo 3y ago
Actually the stakeholders are the investment firms implementing ESG programs. What you're referring to is a different kind of capitalism from what we currently have. I think it was in the late 19th century that someone first figured out that you can give out a newspaper for free and make tons of money by selling ad placements and creating eye-catching headlines. That's the current model of capitalism, where the "customer" is not a stakeholder at all but is instead the product. Investors are the real stakeholders. As for the YouTube videos being suspect, half of the content is direct quoting from Maoist literature, and I think a discerning intelligent person can figure it out for themselves.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  What investment firms are those, and what benefits to they gain from ESG programs?
  - prohobo 3y ago
    https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/best-esg-funds/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/best-esg-funds/ The biggest ones are of course Vanguard and Blackrock. I don't really know what they gain from it. I don't think it's anything directly, but maybe it's part of the intertwining of state and corporation, where they scratch each others' backs and compensate for each others' weaknesses.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      I believe what they gain from it is investors. ... which ties back to the "It appears to be what the people want" problem. Granted, money may be a bad proxy for what the people want (and we could have an entire conversation on the caustic effect of financial inequality of the stability of a functioning democracy). But to the extent that capitalism likes to imagine we can conflate the two... If it pulls in the dollars, it's the thing that's wanted, right?

scythe 3y ago

>They are both offshoots of Marxism. As long as YouTube is making our arguments, here's Žižek trolling Peterson about this canard: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Wsz6ijXWS3A https://youtube.com/watch?v=Wsz6ijXWS3A

prohobo 3y ago
I don't get it, you don't know anything about critical theory? "Who are these postmodern neo-Marxists?" Herbert Marcuse, Paulo Freiri, Erich Fromm, Max Horkheimer, Robin DiAngelo, Patrisse Cullors, etc. I'm not so interested in the origins of critical theory though, but in its implementation, like the last two people I listed. And what do they have to do with Marxism? They believe that applying Marxist economic theory to cultural issues provides a more effective means of hijacking political discourse and enforcing their moralistic ideologies. They're using Soviet and Maoist strategies to do it, not because they're Marxists, but because they're cultists and ideologues and those strategies work. Where are they? In nearly every institution. In every organization that has a Diversity and Inclusion officer, and most universities. Everywhere you see the rainbow flag, basically. I know old school Marxists hate being associated with these people, but that's not really my problem... Zizek is cool, but he hasn't said anything interesting in like 10 years.
- pphysch 3y ago
  The only relevant Marxists have been the Marxist-Leninists so it is bizarre that Trots and anti-Leninists (like those you listed) get to own the label. Whatever, it's all superfluous labels anyways.
- scythe 3y ago
  >They believe that applying Marxist economic theory to cultural issues This is literally gibberish. It's like saying you're going to apply quantum mechanics to modeling bird populations in the Galapagos. >Robin DiAngelo Nobody seriously considers her a Marxist. >Patrisse Cullors Likewise. >random list of Frankfurt school scholars you grabbed from Wikipedia These people claim influence from Marx, sure. They also claim influence from Freud and the psychoanalysts, who were some of the first critics of Marx. Someone who worked as long ago as Marx has touched a lot of fields in a small way. That doesn't make anything with even a hint of Marx's influence "Marxist", any more than it makes Ho Chi Minh an American liberal because he quoted the Declaration of Independence at a rally. https://www.thehistoryreader.com/military-history/ho-chi-minh-thomas-jefferson/ https://www.thehistoryreader.com/military-history/ho-chi-min... Jordan Peterson knew not to say anything so utterly farcical as what you've presented because he would have gotten raked over the coals. You should learn from his example.