Why do right wingers think radicalism in universities is a new, ongoing phenomenon when 40 years ago practically every historian, sociologist, and political scientist was heavily influenced by Marx?
Since the 70s there's been a steady process of postmodernists and other liberals kicking socialists out of academia with the support of governments and wealthy donors.
Other urls found in this thread:
theguardian.com
foxnews.com
youtube.com
marxists.org
twitter.com
Becasue leftist radicalism has been rampant for the past 20 years
Because literally nobody went to college until the mid 90s, prior to that colleges were actually selective and the people who attended them were somewhat intelligent by default, now all you have is hoardes of militant shit for brains sociology majors who consider themselves "educated radicals" when merely a generation ago they would have made a career out of being a store clerk or post office worker. It's not the radicals that are the problem, it's the quality and quantity of them.
"What starts in the universities, happens in the real world 20 years later" - some guy
It's now in the streets, people can see it.
Actual Marxism in universities is dying and has been declining since the 1970s
>Actual marxism
Yeah its morphed into something else but its still a product of marxism
pic related died anyway
theguardian.com
...
No it hasn't. In 1980 professors would structurally analyze societal hierarchies and advocate for their abolition.
In 2017 professors wear "Drumpf Sucks" shirts and complain about how Russia stole the election.
Contemporary liberalism has no substantial Marxist influence. BLM, Shareblue, and the Democratic Party are not Marxist organizations.
Did you read what i wrote? Its morphed. In any case, you will find many people involved with BLM, the democratic party etc who share views with radical leftists.
Marxism hasn't morphed. It's vanished. Marxist ideology is not present in left wing institutions and is increasingly less prevalent in academic spaces.
All politics has moved to the right since Reagan and Clinton, and the current preeminence of identity politics rather than structural class analysis is a result of this.
>who share views with radical leftists.
No they don't? Call me when you find a democrat as a card carrying IWW member
You're a fucking donk.
The radical leftism and intersectional feminism you see today is heavily influenced by marxism.
don't talk about universities when you've clearly never been to, much less studied in, one
You really gotta give it to the elites and their western liberal lackeys. Thanks to them the average joe thinks leftism equals trannies and multi culturalism.
I think that the issue is that the left got louder to the rest of society. Dumber too.
But yeah, there were always radicals. EO Wilson had to face a Holy War back in the day, with very dishonest critics. Roger Scruton lost his academic career for being a conservative, in the 80's.
>if I regurgitate more words I learned on youtube I will sound smart
Considering that the New Left had abandoned class analysis to stay relevant, no.
How? Where is the class analysis?
Right wingers say this shit all the time but can never back up their arguments. It's clear you guys don't even know what Marxism is.
Because for about 2 decades the commies were too embarassed by their entire system collapsing in almost everyone in the world that they stopped spouting about it for a while. Now I guess its been long enough and a new generation of impressionable morons have grown up without the memory of communisms utter failure that theyve crept back out of the woodwork to push their agenda again.
And most of the New Left started out Marxists, or were heavily-influenced by Marxist theory.
Where do you live? Most Tru-Left™ anarchists/Marxists in my country support basically everything liberals propose, they just tack on "capitalism delenda est" at the end
Looking through this thread, and after seeing so many similar others over the last few years, I think we need to come to a solid consensus on just what so many of these political terms (leftist, marxist, liberal, etc.) mean, because I see people throwing them around and equating them with each other without any understanding of the history behind them, or how that plays into how ideology has morphed over time. And this isn't just a Veeky Forums (or even Veeky Forums or /pol/) thing, because I also see people on normie social media, and in the news, and in my personal life, who use terms incorrectly and often conflate several conflicting political identities into bite-size, digestible caricatures that are very difficult to pin down when asked just what they mean (conservative, fascist, progressive).
Until we can reinstate consensus definitions for these ideologies, all of these arguments and conversations are going to continue to devolve into confusing mud puddles where someone accuses someone else of belonging to ideology "x" and they disagree because they have a different idea of what ideology "x" entails. This is the real cancer in modern political discussions because it makes discussions impossible, and I honestly don't know how to solve it.
I'm a conservative. I preferred the old left to the new one.
foxnews.com
I would rather have the Stalinists.
Yea i ag-
>Russian communist party got 40 percent of the votes in first election after udssr collapse
Nvm faggot
you're repeating yourself
you're repeating yourself
you're repeating yourself
Because they didn't mind until said leftist professors started getting overtly political and started turning college students into protestdrones.
That doesn't take away from the fact that they weren't marxists anymore and anything they do can't be considered as such?
>heavily influenced by Marxist theory
>no class analysis
Like asking for coffee but with no caffeine in it
What exactly does multi culturalism and faggotry have to do with communism? If these ideas are communist, how come literally every corporation supports said ideas?
Fact of the matter is, the only true leftist movements that exist today are in second and third world countries. They concentrate on the economic and class question, which is what communism literally is.
I'm not the earlier poster, and no I wouldn't classify them as Marxists but it's silly to overlook the influence that Marxist theory had on their ideologies
>If these ideas are communist, how come literally every corporation supports said ideas?
I'm not saying they are, just that the TRUE Leftists I know and have met generally repeat liberal talking points on everything, they just think capitalism is the root cause. And a similar dynamic operates on /leftypol/; most of the board are just edgier liberals
Don't forget that the US had to interfere like crazy into that election for Yeltsin to even win.
> TRUE Leftists I know and have met generally repeat liberal talking points on everything, they just think capitalism is the root cause
Err it is more the other way around but okay. I mean this relationship with leftists and liberals that you described is not new and has been around since the Red Scares.
*tips tinfoil hat*
everyone who hates neo-marxism realizes that it started to infect academia back in the 60s
>tfw west point graduates feel confident enough to pose for public pictures on their social media profiles advocating for communism and the downfall of the US
With Corbyn now it seems like that left is coming back.
The idpol liberal left is really a product of Baby Boomer domination
>What exactly does multi culturalism and faggotry have to do with communism?
new leftist interpretations and trying to revise failed marxist ideal in an attempt to make it work in the west.
Corbyn, just like every other leftist, is the typical SJW cuck as well. The attempt to back track and distance yourselves from that cringy shit after it blew up in your faces is pathetic. Stalinist leftism is dead and burried, probably even more so than nazism.
Are you suggesting that wasn't the situation in the 60s and 70s?
The imperialists admit to this my man
...
Politics can be reduced to marxism, progressivism (Marxist dialect flipped from class to identity), liberalism, fascism, and traditionalism.
The right wing is pretty simple:
>Conservatism/Liberalism (moderate right) - individualist, support individual liberties, meritocracy, class mobility
>Fascism/Authoritarianism - collectivist, totalitarian, meritocracy, class mobility
>Traditionalism (furthest right) - subservience/caste, totalitarian, no meritocracy, no class mobility, birth determination
Liberalism uproots traditionalism, Marxism uproots traditionalism, fascism uproots liberalism, progressivism uproots liberalism. Traditionalism uproots nothing other than maybe Marxism.
Traditionalism cannot take root in a liberal society as no one wants to be a serf. Liberalism brings opportunity and wealth to workers and they will not want to return to traditionalism. For the same reason, Marxism does not take root in liberal countries. Marxism instead preys upon traditionalist societies with rigid castes where the workers are desperate enough to support it. While liberals are immune to traditionalism, they aren't immune to fascism, because fascism still offers class mobility and meritocracy. Traditionalism dehumanizes workers, but fascism offers them a chance to sacrifice themselves for a collective cause and still gives them some of the fruits of liberalism.
>despite being a republican, actually liked Bernie at first for all of his "WE NEED TO GO AFTER THE CORRUPT BANKERS" talk
>see this happen
>realize how weak willed he is
If two fat cunts can bully him into submission, what would those big fat cat bankers have done? They would have alpha maled that little worm into submission
Also I should have mentioned that fascism is a specific system of government within right-wing authoritarianism, with the traits of class collaboration (as opposed to liberal individualism and Marxist class conflict), totalitarianism, and ultranationalism.
Corbyn is no Stalinist (indeed not every old leftist is one) and you don't have to be a SJW to give a shit about discrimination. Corbyn actually has the best parts of the New Left and old, reminding everyone that racism, imperialism and whatever is empowered by capitalism
>Advising someone is the same as interfering in an election
Don't think so, sweetie.
>racism, imperialism and whatever is empowered by capitalism
Well whether or not you believe to be true doesn't undermine that is the narrative Corbyn is selling to 'liberals' to bring them back to the Left. Indeed centrist Guardian neo-liberals are just as terrified of him as Tories.
Corbyn doesn't want to address immigration and at one point suggested formalizing diplomatic relations with isis. He's fucking useless and is less of a meaningful departure from mainline sjwism than Bernie cucking Sanders.
>moving the goalposts this hard
If you wanna shit on Corbyn's policies like a good Toryboy there is always /britpol/, but this reply chain is about how Corbyn is fundamentally a leftist and not a liberal.
>proving my point with your autistic talking points.
EVERY leftist, without exception, is some retarded SJW cuck. They only pretend they arent because even they were forced to realize how much of a joke SJW are to anyone with half a brain.
no, the point is that corbyn, like every other leftist today, it a typical cookie cutter SJW retard.
Why isn't there a "traditional values left"?
As in "we want redistribution and that the poor people live decent lives. And living decent lives also include that we don't want to promote a shitty culture where women are sluts who have 3 sons with 3 different men and where men become effeminate and drug users".
NAZBOL NIGGA!
>Why do right wingers think radicalism in universities is a new, ongoing phenomenon when 40 years ago practically every historian, sociologist, and political scientist was heavily influenced by Marx?
>This is what leftists actually believe
In the western world, most professors are either students of analytic or continental philisophy. Reactionaries and communists are not common
Because traditional values = hierarchy, inequality, and an ethical system that is more complex than consent morality. Leftists hate all of that.
That's why Strasserists are more liked by right wingers than left wingers.
Repeating what you said before is not an argument senpai
I have to repeat it because you are so stubborn that you continue to ignore it.
>actually trying to appropriate alt-right memes to your own cause in a desperate attempt to ride their coat tails of online guerilla marketing success
kill yourself
This. Anytime anyone complains about all the Marxism rampant in universities, I can tell they've probably never been to college themselves. I've done programs in social science at three major universities in the US, and none of the professors I encountered took Marxism seriously; it was also barely addressed in theory courses. For that matter, I barely had any postmodernist professors, either. Most of them treat it like ridiculous new garbage, and the ones that do (who are all young) weren't extreme about it at all. This is also a pattern I've noticed going to a number of academic conferences; pretty much no Marxism, little postmodernism, and still lots of modernist thought and people distancing themselves from the things conservatives accuse them of practicing.
>practically every historian, sociologist, and political scientist was heavily influenced by Marx
>was
>I've done programs in social science at three major universities in the US, and none of the professors I encountered took Marxism seriously
Which universities?
This picture is the western society resumed: upper middle class trash worshiping revolutionaries they saw in movies and in pamphlets as ''working for the poor''
The upper middle class usually have no background or roots so they stick with whatever influences them during college.
Also worshiping Marx and Lenin makes them feel less guilty about their comfortable lives and their little summer vacation
>Considering that the New Left had abandoned class analysis to stay relevant, no.
It hasn't, but it has included race and sex as part of the class analysis. many leftist will frequently point out that putting black on a resume is worse than being a convicted criminal, a form a racial discrimination. They will also point to wealthy blacks being less likely to go to college than poor whites (this used to be the case until Obama, now they are just less likely to graduate).
>How? Where is the class analysis?
Classical marxism pointed out for the disparity in life outcomes between the classes, the feminists and anti-racists do the same for women and minorities. There was little else in marxist analysis, there were some inane ramblings about wars for oil, but that tradition has been continued with intersectionality.
it's pointless to talk with Veeky Forums marxists
Everything that is not Karl Marx is not real marxism™
Using racial agitation to destroy the ''bourgeois'' social structure is not real marxism™; It's actually post-modernism according to them
They learned this behaviour with Leon Trotsky
marxists.org
>What exactly does multi culturalism and faggotry have to do with communism? If these ideas are communist, how come literally every corporation supports said ideas?
Because every communist supports these ideas. We can go read the blogs of communist, we can go to leftypol, lit etc. Marxists generally support it, the strongest opposition I know about is Zizek, and he bascially said "this might backfire"
What has it morphed into? Postmodernism? Lots of youtubers like to conflate the two, but postmodernism in inherently anti-Marxist. A big part of what led to its creation was reactions against Marxism (that hate of metanarratives includes the great class struggle that Marxism is founded on), and that's why both camps hated the shit out of each other in the 70s and 80s.
As other people have said, a lot of the people that like to throw these terms around and talk about how they're killing society really don't understand what they mean.
Because neoliberals and commies have extremely similar social position. Commies hold them because muh oppressive hierarchies, while neoliberals realize the truth, that is, those ideas can be used to completely atomize individuals and make them become the perfect consumers.
Because the tactics have shifted from "We have a right to be heard on these liberal opinions!" which is fair enough, to "Nobody who disagrees with us has a right to be heard!" which is toxic.
The radicalism of academia is not new, the intolerance is.
But that's not Marxism. These people are not Marxists or neo Marxists. They're liberals, but you want to associate them with Marxists because you want to think of your political opponents as monolithic.
This is bullshit lol, politics isn't rock-paper-scissors.
Communist revolutions tend to happen in more traditional societies simply because these societies tend to be poor. Liberal societies that are also poor and grossly unequal (Germany in the 30s, France in the 60s, Peru in the 70s, Venezuela in the 90s, Colombia in the 2000s) played host to massive socialist and communist movements that nearly captured the levers of power.
It's more about material conditions than ideology.
"Stalinist leftism" is hugely significant everywhere outside the West, where leftism means liberalism, and most Muslim countries, where leftism has been extinguished
You're assuming that the political currents of the US and Western Europe are replicated everywhere
>why does [large group] think [kind of inaccurate thing]
Mother fucker the US wanted the USSR to stay together, they were straight up allies by the 90s
>Vaporwave is always fashwave
How new are you?
Even you admitted that these 'leftist' says that race trumps class in this situation which again it is not what a Marxist would say