Why is politics so convoluted? Why isn't there a book stating exactly what Marxists truly want and why, without all the jargon and abstract bullshit?
This is what I understand so far. I know it is probably retarded but help me out.
>Marxists hate Liberal Democracy. I guess because muh capitalism and muh neo-imperialism. >If Liberal Democracy collapsed now or generations before us the west would revert to some sort of capitalist hierarchy (Fascism, Monarchy whatever) >Marxists empower and awaken groups to their identity/oppression under Liberal Democracy. (Feminism, BLM, gays, trannies) >A culture so awakened creates the conditions that led the French to revolt in the French Revolution. Thereby making fascism or any other type of authoritarianism impossible if Liberal Democracy collapsed. >This is in the hopes of humanity arising into some sort of cooperative socialism at the end of Liberal Democracy.
Are you aware of how many journals and organizations are Marxists think tanks in modern universities?
Fucuckyama is the greatest meme enabler of the century, in close competition with Sammy Huntingcuck and Nigel the Fercuckson.
>implying 'liberal democracy' isn't some sort of capitalist hierarchy as well.
>>Marxists empower and awaken groups to their identity/oppression under Liberal Democracy. (Feminism, BLM, gays, trannies)
Marx would probably be opposed to modern day identity politics. What binds the revolution together in marxism is class consciousness. The working class should find solidarity in that they are all workers, identity politics is dividing the workers. A true marxist would see it as a capitalist construct to divide the working class and make social cohesion needed for the revolution impossible.
Communist Manifesto was a thing.
>Nigel the Fercuckson Who?
Without all the jargon?
There is so much wrong with your post holy fuck. I honestly want to help you but it would take hours.
>Marxists don't hate democracy, or liberal democracy. They talk about capitalism which is often the economic system associated with those things. >there is no possibility for true reverting to prior structures in Marxism >Marxist don't empower anyone but the proletariat. All the identity politics bullshit would be considered subversive to this cause. Those groups do often use the idea of a 'class consciousness' however: IE look at us trannies we're so oppressed we need to realize people who cut their dicks off are a class! The real gommies would round them up. It's just people spring theory. >cultures can 'awaken' to over throw their tyrants. They can also change in other materialist ways that necessitate a change. Fascism was a response to capitalism so was a attempt at the next step. You seem to keep implying modern fascism is the same as some type of older unspecified nationalism. It's not. >Marx original idea for a last step version of government was basically capitalism where nobody gets fucked. He basically only thought this was the last step because the consciousness of the class of people getting fucked would eventually demand it.
They still have no influence in modern politics.
The more intellectual and theoretical books on politics are interesting and fun because they are weird and frightening to the minds of the extremely partisan. Even hearing their arguments is scary to some people, because they never seem to fit neatly into a right or left dichotomy that some people comfortably believe in in a neo-Manichaean way, even when the author's individual viewpoints are made apparent throughout the text.
That's exactly the purpose of all this bullshit: exploitation & replacing any class consciousness with a race war and a sex war, in order to divert political thought and action away from the usual suspects.
Besides, Porky needs to sell some books and its online newspaper needs some pageviews.
>marxist groups in sociology and gender studies departments
wew lad so relevant
>Nigel the Fercuckson. if you mean niall ferguson idk why he makes so many people butthurt
probably because he defends empire
The manifesto is pretty readable. You're probably just a retard
Probably because he gets under the skin of leftists and conspiracy theorists.
Because he uses (or rather twists and manipulates) History to forward an specific agenda. He's literally an old style propagandist with 21st century tools.
I can't even understand how this pathetic joke of a historian gets so much tv and media exposure. Well, yeah, I do...
and? there are tons of academics who do this
>w-w-e are not relevant at all, we just get to define what will become the acceptable public discourse in the next decades, while our bourgeois enemies are always behind us and receiving from us their own morality >i mean, it's not like having total control over the institutions where everyone who matters go at their most influentiable phase to be educated is having power >if we don't have absolute political, economical, social and cultural power, if we still have to compete with other groups, then we are not relevant at all, because we are only satisfied with total power
>le gramsci meme kys
>Marxist intellectual: "I will do x so y happens" >y happens >Non-marxist critic: "y happened because Marxist intellectual did it x" >"Lol you are just a conspiracy theorist"
Why does it keep happening?
Pic related, even more influential than Gramsci nowadays. Basically every single issue in public discourse nowadays was advanced by Marxist intellectuals, as they said they would do.
There are. But I wouldn't say tons, in my experience. I don't like it.
There's a thin red line with this. If you cross it, at least have the deference of telling the media to drop the "historian" label behind your name for one of "guy with an opinion, professional paid-shill, lobbyist, politician, w/e"
>twists and manipulates history First of all, that can be said about practically every historian that has ever existed. Second, care to give a few examples?
Well it is a social science after all, but there's a difference between having an specific historiographic discourse and using it as an excuse to put forward an agenda.
It's not really a matter of logic. Marxist intellectuals have been saying exactly what they would do. What's the problem of taking them for their word?
>Because he uses (or rather twists and manipulates) History to forward an specific agenda yeah, because most historians dont do that either way, consciously or not
So I'm saying to you, I'm gonna sacrifice a goat so the Sun would rise up again tomorrow, and if it will, then my method is working and we should do it every day. And again, the fact that Marxists were able in some cases to recognize the trajectory of social development in the West doesn't mean they caused that development.
Credited. The only Marxists that even understood basic Economics in the last century or two was the Analytical Marxists out of the UK.
The fact anyone adheres to the LTV is insane.
Because he talks politics and tries to make it pass as a historical view. His entire discourse is contaminated by political prejudices leading to a conclusive point, that oh surprise coincides with his a priorism. The funny thing is you don't really need to resort to level of buffonry if you want to exalt the British Empire and the socio-economical system he relates to and attaches to the British system too. It is defensible without looking like a faggot.
I can smell shilling from a mile. I am spanish, and one of our hot-topics for shilling is the II Republic-Civil War, usually in the direction of apologetic-exhalting historical dicourse im favour of the Republic. While I am actually favourable to the II Republic, and acknowledge there is a lot of anti-republican, coup-apologetic memes still standing in our 'popular beliefs', the ones that do the same but on the republican side are just as bad and really do a bad service to 'the cause' with their shilling.
I think that their central position in the main apparatus of cultural reproduction in the Western world, the education system, gives credence to the idea that they changed the trajectory of social development, as they said they would.
But that's just me. The irony is that such thinking is considered "crazy". Pierre Bordieu can put all sort of evil plans in the minds of the bourgeoisie with absolutely no evidence and no one gives a shit. It's almost like there is standards of thought which are allowed to Marxists but not to anyone else.
What area? Most modern "Marxism" is complete Post-Structural (French People) or Crit Theory Bullshit.
"Oppressed and Marginal Groups" are useful in destabilizing governments. USSR was doing cartwheels at the civil rights and modern Russia, same thing
Have you Read Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism? He explores every strain of Marxism and its ideology and proves totalitarianism is inherent in the ideology. He's not a conservative either, btw, he's a democratic socialist who was active in Polish Solidarity.
Pierre Bourdieu isn't a Marxist.
Of course he was.
>without all the jargon and abstract bullshit? They want to seem intelligent (they're not) and think big words do that. Same thing with adopting completing inappropriate or misinterpreted science concepts like the Sokal hoax. That stupid French bitch is still claiming science (not employment of women in science) science itself is sexist
There is absolutely no way you have read that book
T. Postgrad using laclau in dissertation
Except for getting rid of capitalism, the only goal that matters to Marxism fgt
If he's a Marxist so's Croce, Gentile, and Foucault.
He was obviously influenced heavily by Marxist thought and conflict theory, but he was also influenced heavily by Durkheim, Hauser, Mauss, and others
The broadness with which some people on this board define "Marxist" can basically mean anyone who is not explicitly hostile to Marx (and even some who are, eg Foucault)
PROTIP: Any book with the word "hegemony" in the title is complete and utter shit
Is it complete and utter shit or is it genius-level predictions of societal issues? It can't be both
Yeah dude, it takes a genius to reason that identity politics were a thing and then fill in 200 additional pages with ramblings about Gramsci.
Unlike most people who are the ones citing it, I actually read the book. It's shit. It's vague, wishy-washy, feel-good, post-structural, pro-everyone, Anti-M-L, democratic socialism "pluralism" masquerading as Marxism. It has theoretical holes you could sail the titanic through with its hilarious and all encompassing hegemony aka "The Man".
Ludwig Gumplowicz and the other early Conflict theorists were saying this shit before the end of the 19th century, more coherently. Read Lenin, too. And Foucault.
HSS was written in 1985, ie, before the modern idpol movement How does Foucault negate HSS in any way when they both share a critique of the construction of subjects as a relationship of power If anything, much of Laclau/Mouffe's work is an extension of Foucault, concerned as they both are with discourse analysis
You get that they are explicitly post-Marxist right, and not trying to be "Marxist"
Marx had no intention of generating a coherent strategy, he just needed it to appear coherent enough so he could use it to rip on capitalists. For example this passage that sounds more like banter than a nice and boring technical explanation.
>Our capitalist, who is at home in his vulgar economy, exclaims: “Oh! but I advanced my money for the express purpose of making more money.” The way to Hell is paved with good intentions, and he might just as easily have intended to make money, without producing at all. He threatens all sorts of things. He won’t be caught napping again. In future he will buy the commodities in the market, instead of manufacturing them himself. But if all his brother capitalists were to do the same, where would he find his commodities in the market? And his money he cannot eat. He tries persuasion. “Consider my abstinence; I might have played ducks and drakes with the 15 shillings; but instead of that I consumed it productively, and made yarn with it.” Very well, and by way of reward he is now in possession of good yarn instead of a bad conscience; and as for playing the part of a miser, it would never do for him to relapse into such bad ways as that; we have seen before to what results such asceticism leads.
Marx's attempt to quantify value by the amount of human effort required is interesting, but it only goes as far as its use as another fictional utopian ideal to contrast with the capitalists of his time. Had he acknowledged the organizational role of capitalists as well as the strategies they use to corner markets and so forth, he could go on to engineer an alternative that serves the interests of the workers, instead he seeks to dismiss the role of capitalists entirely. Rather than critically examining capitalism he imagines it as some kind of giant kafkaesque illusion conjured out of nothing and his ideas rapidly deteriorate to the status of conspiracy theories about jew and reptilians.
Marx's major failing is he destroys Capitalism and ushers in a state of awesome by amassing a gigantic state which will, inevitably, disappear completely creating a socialist utopia. How precisely a massive state apparatus disappears, barring magic, is one of the great mysteries of Marxist theory
Marxism is an intellectual culture, and Foucault was immersed on it.
I thought you were the user who posted the C&M pic and wrote, "Basically every single issue in public discourse nowadays was advanced by Marxist intellectuals, as they said they would do." He implied rather strongly they were Marxists. I was actually pointing out they barely are, so I rather agree about the Post-Marxism. That's half my point actually.
The other half is they're hippie crap.
Marxism is supposed to be convoluted. It's a dialectical philosophy. Dialectics are always convoluted (e.g. Plato).
>what Marxists truly want and why, Power, like everyone else.
They want power better distributed, Leninists may want power but the majority of other ideologies just want to put an end to the idea of rule by the bourgeoisie, they see liberal democracy as a facade to keep the rich in power.
(They have a point, there's a reason only certain propositions get on the ballot and in a political system that is dependent on campaign contributions and big tent parties it's impossible for the working class despite being the majority in a two class system to really have a say)
>>Marxists empower and awaken groups to their identity/oppression under Liberal Democracy. (Feminism, BLM, gays, trannies) No. In Marxism, people organize along class lines, not the ideological lines the bourgousie have divided the populace up into. I know this goes against everything that /pol/ told you about cultural marxism and I am sorry.