3 ms·

> This might be contrasted with “postmodern Marxism” or “postmodern neo-Marxism” which is some kind of pseudointellectual epithet but is seems fundamentally inc

> This might be contrasted with “postmodern Marxism” or “postmodern neo-Marxism” which is some kind of pseudointellectual epithet but is seems fundamentally incoherent. Postmodernism rejects grand narratives about society, but Marxism itself is a grand narrative (namely, that capitalist society should be framed as a class struggle between workers and capitalists). Postmodern Marxism is a real thing too. See for example yet another Duke University Press book (Duke University is really into this kind of stuff for some reason) from 2001, "Re/presenting Class: Essays in Postmodern Marxism" [0]. Another more recent book is "The Condition of Digitality: A Post-Modern Marxism for the Practice of Digital Life" (University of Westminster Press, 2020) [1] Are postmodernism and Marxism inherently contradictory? Well, "postmodernism" is a very broad and amorphous school of thought. The idea of postmodernism as opposition to "grand narratives" is due to Lyotard, and yes that idea seems rather incompatible with Marxism, at least in its classic form; but other postmodernist thinkers emphasised different ideas, whose incompatibility with Marxism is less obvious. I also am picking up on the fact that you are obliquely referring to Jordan Peterson, who is known to use the phrases “postmodern Marxism” and “postmodern neo-Marxism”. Honestly, I've never paid him a great deal of attention – I'm neither one of his fans nor one of his haters, I'm just not that interested in him. So, I can't say whether he is using the phrase "postmodern Marxism" in the same sense as those academic books I cite do, or in a different sense. > The cultural Marxism discussed in 60s and 70s academia is not the same thing as what the Norway terrorist was referring to in his manifesto. I don’t know about that. Let me put it this way: the World Zionist Congress (WZC) is a real thing, an international conference that was first held in Switzerland in 1897, and it was held for the 38th time in Jerusalem in 2020. So the conference is not a conspiracy theory. But, if you go looking for them, you will find antisemites who will tell you that the WZC secretly controls the world’s banks and governments-that is a baseless conspiracy theory. However, even though we have both a real world factual discourse about the WZC and an unhinged antisemitic conspiracy theory about it, that doesn’t mean that the two discourses are using the term “World Zionist Congress” to mean fundamentally different things-no, they are both talking about the same thing. In the same way, just because Breivik talked about “Cultural Marxism”, doesn’t in itself prove he was talking about something different - he could be talking about the same thing, but making baseless/unhinged claims about it, and wrongly using those claims to justify his senseless mass murder of innocents [0] https://books.google.com/books?id=0PdqvSOo-rgC https://books.google.com/books?id=0PdqvSOo-rgC [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=qSkNEAAAQBAJ https://books.google.com/books?id=qSkNEAAAQBAJ

janalsncm 3y ago
I think we have a disagreement about how to deal with a situation where two different concepts are called by the same name. In some sense they may seem the same because they have the same name, but in another they actually have no relationship. There is no logical path from A to B or vice versa. It’s not like the Norway terrorist was simply disagreeing with cultural Marxism in the academic sense. He wasn’t engaging with it at all, and simply borrowing the term (or more likely, organically reinventing it). As a simple example, in the conspiracy, cultural Marxism is used nearly synonymously with multiculturalism. Neither of your links mention multiculturalism even once.
- skissane 3y ago
  Well, coming back to my World Zionist Congress example – you might equally say that antisemites who accuse the WZC of "secretly controlling the world" are not "engaging with it at all, and simply borrowing the term (or more likely, organically reinventing it)". And yet, I don't think that makes sense. Antisemites make all kinds of unhinged, baseless accusations against Jewish people and their community organisations – and yet, that doesn't mean that when an antisemite says "Jew" they are talking about something completely unrelated to what non-antisemites mean by that word – if that were the case, they wouldn't (strictly speaking) be antisemites at all. And, it is false that "cultural Marxism" the real world academic movement has "no relationship" with Breivik's concept of "cultural Marxism". In his manifesto, Breivik cites figures such as Antonio Gramsci, the Frankfurt School and György Lukács, who were foundational influences on that academic movement. So he is talking about the same thing. That doesn't mean his criticisms of it are sensible, nor do they in any way justify the unspeakable horror of his violence. Imagine reading an antisemitic screed against the World Zionist Congress, which mentions its real founder and first President Theodor Herzl, and other key early figures such as Max Nordau, Abraham Salz and Samuel Pineles – but then baselessly accuses them of secretly controlling the world's governments. The baseless and irrational accusation doesn't change the identity of the targets of the accusation, it doesn't mean "the screed isn't actually attacking Theodor Herzl et al, rather it is attacking imaginary persons who by coincidence have the same names". In the same way, Breivik's claims about the academic cultural Marxist movement are ignorant and over-the-top, but that doesn't mean he isn't actually talking about them, and instead talking about something completely unrelated.

janalsncm 3y ago

I think we have a disagreement about how to deal with a situation where two different concepts are called by the same name. In some sense they may seem the same because they have the same name, but in another they actually have no relationship. There is no logical path from A to B or vice versa. It’s not like the Norway terrorist was simply disagreeing with cultural Marxism in the academic sense. He wasn’t engaging with it at all, and simply borrowing the term (or more likely, organically reinventing it). As a simple example, in the conspiracy, cultural Marxism is used nearly synonymously with multiculturalism. Neither of your links mention multiculturalism even once.

skissane 3y ago
Well, coming back to my World Zionist Congress example – you might equally say that antisemites who accuse the WZC of "secretly controlling the world" are not "engaging with it at all, and simply borrowing the term (or more likely, organically reinventing it)". And yet, I don't think that makes sense. Antisemites make all kinds of unhinged, baseless accusations against Jewish people and their community organisations – and yet, that doesn't mean that when an antisemite says "Jew" they are talking about something completely unrelated to what non-antisemites mean by that word – if that were the case, they wouldn't (strictly speaking) be antisemites at all. And, it is false that "cultural Marxism" the real world academic movement has "no relationship" with Breivik's concept of "cultural Marxism". In his manifesto, Breivik cites figures such as Antonio Gramsci, the Frankfurt School and György Lukács, who were foundational influences on that academic movement. So he is talking about the same thing. That doesn't mean his criticisms of it are sensible, nor do they in any way justify the unspeakable horror of his violence. Imagine reading an antisemitic screed against the World Zionist Congress, which mentions its real founder and first President Theodor Herzl, and other key early figures such as Max Nordau, Abraham Salz and Samuel Pineles – but then baselessly accuses them of secretly controlling the world's governments. The baseless and irrational accusation doesn't change the identity of the targets of the accusation, it doesn't mean "the screed isn't actually attacking Theodor Herzl et al, rather it is attacking imaginary persons who by coincidence have the same names". In the same way, Breivik's claims about the academic cultural Marxist movement are ignorant and over-the-top, but that doesn't mean he isn't actually talking about them, and instead talking about something completely unrelated.