Allowing Rufo and Lindsay to speak in their own voices,

_{kairosfocus

January 3, 2023

Academic Freedom, Culture, Ethics, rhetoric}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

again, as a certain objector here has accused:

Right-wing grifters like Jordan Peterson, James Lindsay, and Christopher Rufo make a lot of money selling these lies to the gullible fools who get their worldview injected into their brains by downloading Fox News propaganda

I have not previously heard of these two, but — courtesy YouTube — it is only fair to let them speak for themselves.

Rufo:

Lindsay:

(He was here giving a workshop, and onward sessions here and here may be helpful.)

I trust that in future, commenters will refrain from such intemperate language. END

F/N: William S Lind interviews Roger Kimball in the 1990’s on culture form marxism and political correctness:

Similarly, this discussion of the labour theory of value vs the marginal revolution, will help clarify thinking on Marx’s exploitation thesis:

The calculation of value challenge:

These two videos on economic issues will help to clarify underlying issues. Ponder, if titanium would make excellent grills, why is it never used for that?

(Why is it primarily used for aerospace work, and why do old cooking gas containers sometimes end up adapted into grills? What was the advantage to the UK c 1943 to take thousands of worn 12 cylinder, V-block Merlin aero engines, take off their superchargers etc and convert them into Meteor Tank engines, going from 1300 – 1600 HP to about 650 HP? A diamond would make a useful stone for a slingshot, or could be used as an industrial abrasive or could even be burned as fuel, why then are certain clear or attractively coloured diamonds reserved for making jewels? Why is water so much cheaper than diamonds or gold or titanium? A certain sheet of paper with $100 printed on it could be used to light a fire, why would we regard this as foolish waste? Hint, what is the next best use of the metal, or the worn engine, or the diamond, or the water, or the sheet of paper, and what price would someone be willing to pay? This is the opportunity cost principle of value, pivoting on the principle of scarcity.)

U/D Jan 10 23: On a more dynamically and historically based political spectrum, using the Overton Window to show how lawless agendas can undermine lawful government:

Comments

PPS, SEP on critical theories https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/
[SEP:] Critical Theory First published Tue Mar 8, 2005 Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences. “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers of” human beings (Horkheimer 1972b [1992, 246]).
[--> of course, this is the oppressor thesis of neo-marxism, and the "liberation" in view is to be understood i/l/o the history of Marxism driven "liberation" movements and fronts, i.e. not lawful state, constitutional democracy and associated cultural buttresses; the history of C20 is sufficient warning on here such "liberation" has consistently ended]
Because such theories aim to explain and transform all the circumstances that enslave human beings [--> loaded language that sets up scapegoats as targets, originally the business classes, now any target selected by culture form [neo-]marxist thought], many “critical theories” in the broader sense have been developed. They have emerged in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies. [--> the range of radical movements pushing for "liberation"] In both the broad and the narrow senses, however, a critical theory provides the descriptive and normative bases for social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom in all their forms. [--> oppressor thesis, leading to scapegoating] Critical Theory in the narrow sense has had many different aspects and quite distinct historical phases that cross several generations, from the effective start of the Institute for Social Research in the years 1929–1930, which saw the arrival of the Frankfurt School philosophers and an inaugural lecture by Horkheimer, to the present. Its distinctiveness as a philosophical approach that extends to ethics, political philosophy, and the philosophy of history is most apparent when considered in light of the history of the philosophy of the social sciences. Critical Theorists have long sought to distinguish their aims, methods, theories, and forms of explanation from standard understandings in both the natural and the social sciences. Instead, they have claimed that social inquiry ought to combine rather than separate the poles of philosophy and the social sciences: explanation and understanding, structure and agency, regularity and normativity. Such an approach, Critical Theorists argue, permits their enterprise to be practical in a distinctively moral (rather than instrumental) sense. They do not merely seek to provide the means to achieve some independent goal, but rather (as in Horkheimer’s famous definition mentioned above) seek “human emancipation” in circumstances of domination and oppression. This normative task cannot be accomplished apart from the interplay between philosophy and social science through interdisciplinary empirical social research (Horkheimer 1993). While Critical Theory is often thought of narrowly as referring to the Frankfurt School that begins with Horkheimer and Adorno and stretches to Marcuse and Habermas, any philosophical approach with similar practical aims could be called a “critical theory,” including feminism, critical race theory, and some forms of post-colonial criticism. [--> the list is long]
Context.kairosfocus_{January 10, 2023
January
01
Jan
10
10
2023
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PST}

FP, first, the matter is not what one disagrees with, but a traceable history: marxist failed expectation on the great war --> rise of variant forms, including the frankfurt school and allies --> development of culture form marxist ideology [note, the British school too] --> spread through academia as critical theory framework with the oppressor thesis that dominates arts and social sciences --> various movements and rising policy initiatives --> the current black theme colour cultural revolution push with riots, arson, looting, mayhem and murder, agit prop, lawfare, a reichstag fire incident operation, dubious expansion of correspondence voting and much more, fitting SOCOM's insurgency escalator and low kinetic 4th generation war operations. If you disbelieve the linked vids notice the set of clips from books here on -- much of that is from the horses' mouths. This chain is not in credible doubt, though there is a gaslighting and censoring attempt that is widespread as part of the agit prop push. This post is in specific response to a lurid accusation. Further to such, advocacy of the outdated, marxist form labour theory of value appeared above, and is refuted, with pointing out of the fact of many value adding factors in production, and of how it provides a grand theft thesis that has consistently led to persecution, state lawlessness, loss of livelihood and mass murder of millions. Marxism should be retired to the history books and due lessons on lawlessness need to be drawn, including, that it is yet another case on how lawless oligarchy is the natural state of government and what it takes to establish and buttress a lawful state. As for oh he is not advocating, he has manifestly advocated and in so doing has inadvertently shown the connexions. KF PS, I will now add to the OP a note on an alternative, historically anchored political spectrum -- rising above, monarchists sit at the Speaker's honoured right with ever more disreputable radicals further and further to the sinister side -- and the tendency to slide into lawless oligarchy.kairosfocus_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PST}

Let me also add that relying on a single data point on which to rest an argument is a poor idea. There are almost always multiple ways to interpret statistics, and there are often confounding factors. A more reliable picture emerges from multiple data points, while a single data point nearly always misleads. And then there unknown and changing data requiring Bayesian statistics: Bayesian statistics and modelling https://www.nature.com/articles/s43586-020-00001-2 -QQuerius_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PST}

Relatd @208
Not heard in a Pub in Norwich.
Yeah, I also didn't hear the exact same thing in that very same pub! Unfortunately, what you recount is a fairly typical conversation. Often, people just make up things and present them as "facts." Something like,
"So how do you explain that almost half of all homicides in the world this past year were the direct result of religion?"
I suppose the most successful tactic would be just to make up your own FantasyFacts (tm) such as
"Actually, if you account for those also mandated by government executions, the number drops down to less than 4%. "
Then, when they respond with
"Where did you get that misinformation from?"
You can tell them that it's the same source as theirs. And of course, all this leads nowhere. -QQuerius_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PST}

Ford “You have yet to address the billions of dollars in property damage and multiple deaths that resulted from the 60’s civil rights protests.” Ford how about getting up to speed before you start yapping. There is nothing for me to address. PMI “I don’t deny that there are “toxic, corrosive ideologies of polarisation” but insofar as there are any coming from the Left, they are faint and meager compared to those coming from the Right” We are talking about the left. Are you making the absurd claim that the riots and deaths by the civil rights protestors of the 60’s were caused by the right? I lived through the 60s MLK was excoriated by the Black Panthers ( Kwame Ture, Bobby Seale , Huey Newton) and other leftist and heavily criticized for his adamant stance of non violent protest. Vividvividbleau_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PST}

VB writes:
This is laughable coming from a person that calls billions of dollars in property damage and multiple deaths as “feint and meager””
You have yet to address the billions of dollars in property damage and multiple deaths that resulted from the 60’s civil rights protests.Ford Prefect_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PST}

VB writes:
PMI’s socialist paradise…
I think you are misinterpreting PM1’s comments. He is not promoting socialism or Marxism. He is criticizing the intentional polarizing tactic of labeling anything that several here disagree with (LBGQ, BLM, pro choice, same sex marriage, universal health care, gun control, secularism, dogs and cats living together, whatever) as socialist or Marxist agendas aimed at destroying our society. And they use this disingenuous tactic without having a clear understanding of the concepts of Marxism and socialism.Ford Prefect_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PST}

PMI “Sure, but that just goes to my point about how history is written, and who writes it, and why: what gets recorded are the actions of those who control what gets recorded.” Do you have anything other than this word salad to offer like disputing any of the historical facts I have provided? “That seems like a very slender reed upon which to build any grand sweeping statements about “human nature”. This is laughable coming from a person that calls billions of dollars in property damage and multiple deaths as “feint and meager”” Vividvividbleau_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PST}

Not heard in a Pub in Norwich. Religion is bad. "What?" You heard me. Religion is responsible for millions dead. "And who were the Russians dying for in the Second World War?" You miss my point. "Which is?" People should stay away from religion. "And be what? Atheists? When the Soviet Union collapsed, churches opened back up. It's pretty clear to me that religion does a better job of keeping people on the straight and narrow than the KGB."relatd_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PST}

PMI’s socialist paradise/ hell hole https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/10/13/my-socialist-hell-20-years-of-decay-in-venezuela/ Only an intellectual (smart dumb people)could deny the failure of socialism Today PMI is lauding Brazil 20 years ago ( or when ever it went socialist) he would have been lauding Venezuela Vividvividbleau_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PST}

“You forgot Brazil, which just elected a socialist president” https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/brazil-protests-bolsonaro-congress How did that work out for Venezuela? Vividvividbleau_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PST}

Pyrrhomaniac1, Thanks for bringing up Lord Acton's famous quote! Here are some more that I thought you might also enjoy, starting with more of the quote you mentioned:
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”

“Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.”

“Everybody likes to get as much power as circumstances allow, and nobody will vote for a self-denying ordinance.”

“Liberty consists in the division of power. Absolutism, in concentration of power.”

“The will of the people cannot make just that which is unjust.”

“Example is of the first importance in politics, because political calculations are so complex that we cannot trust theory, if we cannot support it by experience.”

“Bureaucracy is undoubtedly the weapon and sign of a despotic government, inasmuch as it gives whatever government it serves, despotic power.”

“Socialism easily accepts despotism. It requires the strongest execution of power—power sufficient to interfere with property.”
As with all quotes from online sources, let me caution that these have been attributed to Lord Acton. I've not verified their accuracy from his actual writings. -QQuerius_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PST}

PyrrhoManiac1 @199,
You forgot Brazil, which just elected a socialist president.
Does that make them Communist?
The conquistadors butchered, raped, and enslaved their way across the length and breadth of the Americas, assured all the while that they had the full blessing of the Church and of God Himself. But that wasn’t TRUE Christianity, right? LOL
You’re resorting to the Tu Quoque Fallacy: https://fallacyinlogic.com/tu-quoque-fallacy-definition-and-examples/ The question is the lack of success of any Communist government in history, including short-lived Christian attempts. Why is that? -QQuerius_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PST}

PM1 @
For all you’ve told us so far, maybe the people who end up in power are unusually good at bullying, intimidating, threatening, and killing. If that were true, there is very little that we could learn about human nature in general from the recorded actions of those in power, because those with power really aren’t like the rest of us at all.
Perhaps the explanation is that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Can we agree on that?Origenes_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PST}

@200
This does not include the tyranny of the church in medieval times. The tyranny of the monarchs and their Lords and minions. On and on history is either tyranny or the march towards it.
Sure, but that just goes to my point about how history is written, and who writes it, and why: what gets recorded are the actions of those who control what gets recorded. That seems like a very slender reed upon which to build any grand sweeping statements about "human nature". For all you've told us so far, maybe the people who end up in power are unusually good at bullying, intimidating, threatening, and killing. If that were true, there is very little that we could learn about human nature in general from the recorded actions of those in power, because those with power really aren't like the rest of us at all.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PST}

I said earlier that a careful reading of Marx would have shown that communism cannot be successfully imposed by the state. Let me elaborate on this, just a minute. Marx is very clear that what he envisions is the elimination of scarcity. This would be possible (he thinks) given a sufficient level of technological development. And he thought, with a certain Victorian optimism that would be difficult to sustain today, that the late 19th century was on the cusp of reaching that level. What was preventing the full realization of a post-scarcity society was that technology was serving the interest of capital, which is ultimately interested only in constant expansion of itself. As I see it, being a Marxist involves at least the following commitments: (1) it is possible for us to eliminate scarcity and with it the need to work; (2) it would be a good thing for us if we did. The Soviet and Chinese communists quickly abandoned the attempt to eliminate scarcity, and instead resorted to an inefficient bureaucratic management of scarcity, and not the elimination of it. Far from being controversial, I think it is quite straightforward that state communists were never really Marxist, and couldn't be Marxist -- because the technology necessary to eliminate scarcity simply did not exist at that time. It doesn't even exist now, and we're a lot closer to it than they ever were!PyrrhoManiac1_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PST}

PMI https://brewminate.com/an-historical-overview-of-tyranny/ I got exhausted just doing the Greek Tyrants Ceylon 632 BC Pisistratus 581 BC Hippias 527 BC Theramones 404BC Aristion 88 BC Dionysius Hieron This does not include the tyranny of the church in medieval times. The tyranny of the monarchs and their Lords and minions. On and on history is either tyranny or the march towards it. PMI you are a true believer nothing anyone can say can alter that. Vividvividbleau_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PST}

@197 You forgot Brazil, which just elected a socialist president.
HAHA! Yes, because (once again) that wasn’t TRUE socialism, right? LOL
The conquistadors butchered, raped, and enslaved their way across the length and breadth of the Americas, assured all the while that they had the full blessing of the Church and of God Himself. But that wasn't TRUE Christianity, right? LOLPyrrhoManiac1_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PST}

196
Just in the 20th century alone 144 million were killed.
How does that help towards your point? How many people were killed per century doesn't establish your claim about human nature. You're trying to make a general claim about human nature in general. What's the relevance of how many people are killed per century? Now, it's widely accepted that the 20th century was the bloodiest century on record. But if the 20th century was unusual, then how does that establish a general truth about human nature? How does the fact that the 20th century was so bloody establish the general truth of:
We are killing machines. What humans do best is kill and the powerful subjugate the weak! That is the record of all of human history regardless whether we are in a Capitalistic or Marxist system. The state must be restrained. Historically tyranny by the state and by the powerful , or the long march towards tyranny, is the natural order of things.
While we're at it, I can't tell if your view is Hobbesian or not. Are you saying
The natural state of human being is to dominate and exploit each other, and the state is necessary to prevent that from happening.
or
We need to protect ourselves from being exploited and dominated by the state
Or might your view be both -- that we are naturally prone to dominate, subjugate, and exploit each other, but that there is nothing to be done about that, because giving the state enough power to end "the war of all against all" would also require giving it too power and that would deprive us of liberty?PyrrhoManiac1_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PST}

Seversky @149,
I think we can actually agree that the Soviet Union was no more an Atheist Utopia than it was a Marxist Workers Paradise.
HAHA! Yes, because (once again) that wasn't TRUE socialism, right? LOL So, the various versions of Marxists have to try again . . . and again . . . and again . . . and again . . . this time for sure . . . we're almost there . . . it's just gotta work this next time. Oh, I almost forgot:
Communism didn't fail Russia, the Russians failed Communism!
And other favorite:
Communism has never been tried.
Except in . . . Afghanistan Albania Angola Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Benin Bulgaria Cambodia China (Current) Cuba (Current) Czech Republic (Czechoslovakia) Democratic Republic of Congo Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Georgia German Democratic Republic (East Germany) Hungary (twice) Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Laos (Current) Latvia Lithuania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique North Korea (Current) Poland Romania Russia Somalia Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine United States (progressing nicely from Fascism to Communism) Uzbekistan Venezuela (a "complex" situation, but in process) Vietnam (Current) Yemen Yugoslavia (Bosnia and Hertzegovena, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, and Slovenia) But groundless hope and true faith in a Marxist utopia lives on forever! -QQuerius_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PST}

PMI “You presented your opinion as if it is obviously true, with absolutely no evidence at all.” Just in the 20th century alone 144 million were killed. In the 19th century, you do the math https://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm Vividvividbleau_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PST}

@194
LOL once again. Do you have any counter evidence that historically this is not the actual state of affairs? Obviously NOT!!
I referred to books written by scholars and activists that present a view of history that differs from yours. You didn't even do that much. You presented your opinion as if it is obviously true, with absolutely no evidence at all.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PST}

PMI LOL Save the BS for someone else. Once again. Do you have any counter evidence that historically this is not the actual state of affairs? Obviously NOT!! Vividvividbleau_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PST}

@191
Do you have any counter evidence that historically this is not the actual state of affairs?
If your account of history is based on "the West" and ignores the rest of the planet, then there's a possibility that your account is biased towards WEIRD people and it might not hold more generally. And when trying to draw lessons about human nature from history, one also needs to be careful: what gets recorded is what's interesting, or noteworthy, or deserves special attention. Written history and other documents are important, but so are archeological excavations and reconstructions, anthropological studies, etc. We would also need to ask "what counts as history"? If we privilege written history, then what about the millennia during which writing didn't exist, or the millennia during which the lives of ordinary people weren't documented because they weren't special enough? Do hundreds of thousands of years of hunting and gathering count as "history"? If not, why not? What about a philosophy of history less focused on Great Men (who often enough become Great by killing and getting others to kill) and more about how people manage their ordinary yet remarkable lives?PyrrhoManiac1_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PST}

@Origenes/189 How interesting. And some here were assuring us not long ago that all that CRT racist and absurd non-sense had nothing to do with true marxism...Jblais_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PST}

PMI “Well, you weren’t wrong — we really do have a fundamental disagreement about human nature” Do you have any counter evidence that historically this is not the actual state of affairs? Vivid.vividbleau_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PST}

@188
We are killing machines. What humans do best is kill and the powerful subjugate the weak! That is the record of all of human history regardless whether we are in a Capitalistic or Marxist system. The state must be restrained. Historically tyranny by the state and by the powerful , or the long march towards tyranny, is the natural order of things.
Well, you weren't wrong -- we really do have a fundamental disagreement about human nature.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PST}

PM1@
How did Charles Mills fail?
I cannot imagine how this brave and brilliant mind could possibly fail. How inspiring it is to read about his worldview. He surely is onto something:
Throughout his rich body of work, specifically within the areas of ethics, social, and political philosophy, Mills is critical of the “view from nowhere.” Mills’ work powerfully demonstrates how the whiteness of philosophy, in its attempt “to illuminate the world, factually and normatively” (2012, p.65), entails cognitive distortion, a form of evasion and epistemic violence that is linked not only to its monochromatic whiteness, but to “the conceptual or theoretical whiteness of the discipline” (1998, p.2). Reading the work of Mills (2017) reinforced, for me, the importance of calling into question the whiteness of ideal theory and how it “can only serve the interests of the [white] privileged” (p.80). That “view from nowhere,” for Mills, is a ruse that is actively maintained by those white philosophers who hide behind the structural (though contingent) normativity of whiteness. Mills (1998) argues that white experience is entrenched as normative, and that it is “so deep that its normativity is not even identified as such. For this would imply that there was some other way that things could be, whereas it is obvious that this is just the way things are” (p.10). ... Moreover, I had absolutely no idea regarding the whiteness of the field of philosophy, its pretensions, and how the morphology of its philosophical assumptions and problems were shaped by the dynamics of white power and privilege. I didn’t see the debauchery, the fact that “a lot of philosophy,” as Mills (1998) observed, “is just white guys jerking off” (p.4).
Origenes_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PST}

PMI “Humans do all sorts of things very well: we love, hate, create, destroy, bring new life into being, and kill. I don’t know what you’re getting at by “what humans do best”.” We are killing machines. What humans do best is kill and the powerful subjugate the weak! That is the record of all of human history regardless whether we are in a Capitalistic or Marxist system. The state must be restrained. Historically tyranny by the state and by the powerful , or the long march towards tyranny, is the natural order of things. Vividvividbleau_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PST}

@184
For sure. My evidence is based upon the whole of human history, what is your evidence? Ask yourself, historically what do humans do best?
Humans do all sorts of things very well: we love, hate, create, destroy, bring new life into being, and kill. I don't know what you're getting at by "what humans do best". @183
You can list all american or western marxist academics and activists if you like but this is completely irrelevant to my point.
But it's not irrelevant to my point, because we're making different points. That's what I'm trying to get you to see. As far as I can tell, you seem to be thinking of Marxism as involving a violent capture of the state apparatus by a revolutionary group and the subsequent use of state power to abolish markets and classes. It's not that I don't mourn for the victims of state communism -- of course I do, I'm not heartless -- it's that I don't think that's even the right way to go about engaging with the world as a Marxist. This has nothing to do with me personally -- it's not like I have some secret decoder ring and that I'm the only person to understand Marx. I've read a lot of Marx, and I've read a lot of Marxist scholarship, and I've learned a lot from talking with left-wing activists over the years. Based on all that, I've come to two conclusions: 1. The violent capture of the state apparatus by a revolutionary group and the subsequent use of state power to abolish markets and classes could never have worked. The people who thought it could work did not understand Marx, because it's pretty clear from Marx himself why this strategy could not possibly succeed. 2. That has absolutely nothing to do with what Marx actually said, wrote, or did, nor does it have anything to do with the work of subsequent generations of Marxists, from Rosa Luxuemborg and Sylvia Pankhurst down to the present-day.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 9, 2023
January
01
Jan
9
09
2023
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply