How the left destroyed American education
It is close to 4 decades ago now that t he New York Times own Felicity Baringer wrote "The Mainstreaming of Marxism in US Colleges."
"In August 1989, Poland’s parliament did the unthinkable. The Soviet satellite state elected an anti-communist as its new prime minister.
The world waited with bated breath to see what would happen next. And then it happened: nothing .
When no Soviet tanks deployed to Poland to crush the rebels, political movements in other nations—first Hungary, followed by East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Romania—soon followed in what became known as the Revolutions of 1989 .
The collapse of Communism had begun.
‘Marx’s Ideological Heirs’
On October 25, 1989, a mere two months after Poland’s pivotal election, the New York Times published an article, headlined “ The Mainstreaming of Marxism in US Colleges ,” describing a strange and seemingly paradoxical phenomenon. Even as the world’s great experiment in Marxism was collapsing for all to see, Marxist ideas were taking root and becoming mainstream in the halls of American universities.
“As Karl Marx’s ideological heirs in Communist nations struggle to transform his political legacy, his intellectual heirs on American campuses have virtually completed their own transformation from brash, beleaguered outsiders to assimilated academic insiders,” wrote Felicity Barringer.
There were notable differences, however. The stark, unmistakable contrast between the grinding poverty of the Communist nations and the prosperity of Western economies had obliterated socialism’s claim to economic superiority.
As a result, orthodox Marxism, with its emphasis on economics, was no longer in vogue. Traditional Marxism was “retreating” and had become “unfashionable,” the Times reported.
”There are a lot of people who don’t want to call themselves Marxist,” Eugene D. Genovese, an eminent Marxist academic, told the Times . (Genovese, who died in 2012, later abandoned socialism and embraced traditional conservatism after rediscovering Catholicism.)
Marxism wasn’t truly retreating, however. It was simply adapting to survive.
Watching the upheaval in Poland and other Eastern bloc nations had convinced even Marxists that capitalism would not “give way to socialism” anytime soon. But this would cause an evolution of Marxist ideas, not an abandonment of them.
”Marx has become relativized,” Loren Graham, a historian at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told the Times .
Graham was just one of a dozen of the scholars the Times spoke to, a mix of economists, legal scholars, historians, sociologists, and literary critics. Most of them seemed to reach the same conclusion as Graham.
Marxism was not dying, it was mutating.
”Marxism and feminism, Marxism and deconstruction, Marxism and race – this is where the exciting debates are,” Jonathan M. Wiener, a professor of history at the University of California at Irvine, told the paper."
The New York Times Reported ‘the Mainstreaming of Marxism in US Colleges’ 30 Years Ago. Today, We See the Results - LIBERTY FIRST
It all began with what was once called "The New Left" back in the 1960s. The movement was influenced by the German Marxist Herbert Marcuse who taught at several American universities, including Harvard, Columbia and Brandeis. In 1964 Marcuse wrote "One-Dimensional Man," which was widely read by lefties at the time and also had influenced future generations of radical lefties.
Herbert Marcuse
Once a generation of New Left professors had established themselves at universities, they began to dominate the teaching. I don't know if anyone here knows this, but a tenured professor gets to name his own successor. Though many thought at the time that the wave of leftist professors would evaporate within a generation, they were wrong. The tenured professors simply replaced themselves with another generation of hard left professors and on it went. Today Marxist concepts like DEI, CRT, BLM, ESG, etc. are all built right into the curriculum.
Indoctrination wasn't limited to higher education. In 1980 Howard Zinn published his "A Peoples History of the United States." It is a view of US history from the standpoint of every group with a grievance. It was written as a textbook and that is exactly what it became for impressionable young students.
Howard Zinn
And let us not forget the lower-level schoolteachers. They, unlike the New Left professors, were simply trying to do the job of educating. However, they took direction from the highly partisan and ideological Teacher's Unions. The Department of Education was corrupted very quickly, and even young children were indoctrinated at a very young age. The democrat party helps to support teachers' unions and teachers' unions help to support democrats.
Randi Weingarten (Karen # 4)
Aside from the indoctrination has been the dumbing down. Because of DEI, the teachers' unions have opposed testing such as the SAT exams. And we now have lowered the standards for all our children in order to get some kind of racial quota at the university. Thus, our universities have had to offer remedial math courses and many on the faculty now believe that asking a college student to read a novel might be asking too much.
Finally, it seems someone is striking back!
Tags
Who is online
137 visitors
After Harvard student organizations condemned Israel rather than terrorists for what happened on October 7th, Larry Summers (Harvard University President 2001-2006) said he never felt more alienated from Harvard.
If every one under the age of 30 is being taught to revere communism why aren't there more communists? I say that both literally and figuratively.
The question answers itself, but apparently there are some too stupid to understand it. They'll stare at you in the face and say "But there are! Tens of millions of communists! It's all Democrats! They're coming for your kids and wives! Hurray hide or they'll turn you gay or trans!". You can't expect folk like that to be able to understand simple facts and reality.
Like the fact that there are only two sexes.
And men can get pregnant and lactate.
The new science!
Yes, yes, we all know there are only two breeding compatible humans. But what if some humans don't want to breed? Is it up to you to claim they have to? So, what if some of those Americans that don't want to breed were born with male genitalia but feel like women on the inside? Are you going to try and enforce some stupid moronic code of gender to claim they can't feel and act the way they want? And here I thought conservatives supported individual rights.
I recognize that only two genders can mate and procreate, but what people want to do beyond that whether it's to dress up in a cat outfit because they're a Furry or to dress as a man because that's how someone born female feels, or as a woman even though they were born male. Who the fuck are conservatives to tell them they can't be who they want to be? Rightwing religious conservatives seem to desperately want to be Nazi's on the inside, which I'm fine with that as long as they keep it out of our laws, schools and courthouses.
Biologically speaking, there are three. But are you implying that people should NOT be able to live their lives freely?
Prove it.
Never hear of hermaphrodites?
Fantasies of yours?
Do you think that people taught a certain ideology necessarily know where it came from?
Well, that's a whole lot of bullshit opinion. This seed reads like some dystopian conspiracy theorist fantasy rewrite of American history where you're supposed to already know the horrors of what a "leftist" is and what the "New left" were without so much as even debating what they were actually teaching. All we get are these intellectually lazy labels just thrown out calling everyone and anyone that doesn't subscribe to their ideology a 'Marxist'. They even throw BLM in there as something that supposedly came out of some fictional unproven "Marxist Concepts" being built into the curriculum. No evidence, no description of anything that these programs were doing or teaching, just ignorant dumb fuck labels that get regurgitated by morons on the right who give none of this any actual thought, they're too caught up in their fucking conspiracy theory fantasy to do any thinking. It is pretty hilarious that they keep trying. Perhaps this moronic drivel will appeal to some moron on the right and you'll get your desired echo chamber of idiocy.
It is opinion based on a sad set of facts.
BTW you failed to dispute any of it.
I saw zero facts presented, just a bunch of fact-less hyperbole, but if that's what gets you aroused be my guest. Just claiming something is "Marxist" without actually presenting a case and laying out any facts is just another tired pointless attempt to smear the left by dumb fuck disingenuous morons.
their marxist boogeymen threats are useless, ever since their lord, master, and savior submitted to putin ...
Compare with the Harvard History curriculum for undergraduates in 1950 :
Compare with every course offered by the Harvard History department in Spring 2026 (bottom images).
Keeping Americans completely ignorant of history is critical to their movement
Just going through the Harvard Course Catalog is insane. 397 courses in which gender is mentioned, 319 for race, 219 sexuality, 545 diversity. Plato gets 22 mentions, Homer 16, Aristotle 37, 0 Pericles, 8 Cicero, 13 Augustine, Dante 11, Tudor 3, etc.
I
One of the people from the x thread that Sean linked to say these courses are an example of how history at Harvard is being mistaught.
I don't get it.
History of Sport in Africa? Tattoo: History and Practices? Pyramid Schemes? Jews and 'Others' in Modern North Africa?
Really?
How do courses like this prepare students to participate in American society? I cannot understand how these course would even prepare students to participate in a global society.
That's why there are questions and gripes about the education system in the US.
Thank you, John.
There it is.
But he still doesn't get it!
Is the only purpose of university to participate in US society?
Obviously the motivation of foreign students has little to do with participating in US society. But that drifts into discussing the profit incentives some institutions of higher learning have monopolized.
Here are questions for you to consider --
Should Federal and state subsidized higher education serve the domestic market or a global market? Is it really appropriate for American taxpayers to subsidize the multinational corporate business model adopted by higher education?
Higher education doesn't need to serve any Market
I can think of many reasons for the courses listed in JR's post to be of practical import today. Everything studied does not have to yield a larger paycheck, especially in history.
We have, as a world-enveloping people, projected ourselves into many subdisciplines. That is wonderful, IMO. We can study what we want to, at least until this administration came along. Now, in the interest of academic freedom, we cannot study certain things because they are verboten. And all the Trump supporters don't even realize how fucked up that last sentence is.
And now, from my archive of "Everything I needed to know I learned from a Rush album"....
Hemispheres I hope everybody enjoys it.
We can walk our road together
If our goals are all the same
We can run alone and free
If we pursue a different aim
Let the truth of Love be lighted
Let the love of truth shine clear
Sensibility
Armed with sense and liberty
With the Heart and Mind united
In a single perfect sphere
good choice of education!
That may be so. But not every personal interest deserves a public subsidy.
But spreading the cost of all these subdisciplines contributes to making education unaffordable. Our educational systems have lost the ability to train students to independently study their interests (which places education within reach of everyone at any skill level).
Should we value credentials over knowledge? Is all knowledge created equal? Why do we need a curated, credentialed educational certificate for love? Since higher education has siloed the very thing being preached then what is being defended here?
Show me where the subsidies come in. If the class is popular, that means more people are taking it, and that means the college gets more money as a whole for the class. You, nor I, nor JR or anyone else have complete knowledge on what information is going to be useful to any one student.
So does keeping the lights on. If you have a more cogent argument for why a particular class not be taught then, by all means, give us the reasons and logic behind your argument.
Not everyone can teach themselves from the ground up. It sounds as if you are making the argument for critical reasoning skills, but even with such skills not everyone can teach themselves from the ground up without guidance.
Why is this a choice we have to make, especially for someone else?
I don't think so. Harvard probably has some good epistemological courses offered by their philosophy department that you could take on the subject.
Who said we did? Maybe a course or two would be good for that, also.
There are a lot of assumptions built into that question, not the least of which is the unsupported assertion that education has somehow formed a wall around itself. What does education (a vast category in and of itself) separate and by what means does this separation occur?
Many of these questions seem to assume that structured education and independent learning are opposites. In reality, universities exist precisely to provide the tools that make independent inquiry possible.
It's called 'tuition and fees'. You think the tuition a student pays only covers the cost of the classes they attend? The 'collectivized' costs of higher education is a source of demagoguery about socialized education. And the 'collectivized' cost do not provide a 'collectivized' benefit.
State colleges and universities really do obtain taxpayer funding to subsidize institutions, too. Don't taxpayers have a vested interest in seeing that their tax money is spent wisely?
That is correct. These subdisciplines require the same infrastructure as do disciplines providing broader societal benefit. It's like a video game competing for electricity the refrigerator needs. The preferred solution seems to be dumping more resources into the system to accommodate both. But that solution doesn't really change the nature of unequal benefit obtained from those resources.
If these students need a professor to organize their study, then what are the really learning about independent application of the material? That sort of dependence would stunt curiosity, exploration, and personal growth.
Structured education is supposed to provide the model for self learning. The structured nature of the education is supposed to train the student how to study. How else do teachers learn to teach?
The following argument was developed in a conversation with ChatGPT. It did all the bad parts
The argument being made seems to rest on the idea that some disciplines provide broader societal benefit while others are analogous to a video game competing with the refrigerator for electricity. The problem with that analogy is that it assumes the very point that needs to be demonstrated. It assumes we can reliably determine in advance which areas of knowledge are trivial and which are essential.
History is not very kind to that assumption. Video games themselves have been a major driver of advances in computing technology. Graphics processing, networking, and hardware acceleration were all pushed forward by gaming demand.
The economic argument is also a bit confused. Universities operate with shared infrastructure, much like any other complex organization. Tuition and fees support buildings, libraries, laboratories, faculty, utilities, and administration. Even in retail, which is perhaps the most consumer transaction model imaginable, the price of an item includes far more than the cost of the ingredients in the product. Rent, electricity, logistics, staffing, and management are all bundled into the price. Institutions necessarily distribute those costs across their operations.
But education is not simply the transfer of information. It is the honing of the brain as a tool. Like any tool, it must be learned before it can be used effectively. Developing critical thinking, analysis, and the ability to evaluate evidence are part of that honing process. No one hands someone a lathe or a chainsaw and expects them to safely teach themselves from scratch. Tools require instruction before they can be used independently.
Trying to determine in advance which knowledge will be useful is therefore a bit like deciding which tools a carpenter should be allowed to keep based only on the job he is working on today. The point of education is to expand the set of tools a person has available, not to predict in advance which one will prove most valuable.
No, that is a false equivalency. The question is not which areas of knowledge are trivial but rather which areas of knowledge are worthy of structured education that consumes limited resources. We're discussing the benefits of education; not the benefits of knowledge. The two are not interchangeable.
Video games spurring advances in computing was not accomplished in a classroom. Researchers and explorers generate knowledge. Teachers disseminate knowledge. Again, these are different and non-interchangeable activities.
Adding courses to an institution's curricula unavoidably increases cost for all students. But the various programs in that curricula do not provide comparable educational benefits for society. Some of the coursework within the curricula can be pursued by self study rather than requiring curated rote classroom teaching that add costs for all students. Again, the distinction is not the value of the knowledge but rather the value of educational resources that are used for the societal benefit obtained.
That is correct. But self study really is the application of critical thinking, analysis, evaluation learned from education. Not all topics, subjects, and interests need the expenditure of resources for classroom study. If the educational system has done its job, the students learn how to educate themselves through self study.
That is a false equivalency. The question is not about the value of knowledge. The question is about the value of expending limited resources on education. By teaching students how to study, how to teach themselves, the demand for institutional resources can be better managed. If those resources are stretched thin by increased demands for teaching subject matter suitable for self study then the quality of the education provided by the institution may suffer.
I have to say that your contention that I introduced false equivalencies is incorrect. It seems instead to function as a way to introduce the separate issue of limited resources.
Every institution operates with limited resources. Simply pointing that out does not resolve the question of what should or should not be taught.
The real question before us is this: who decides what knowledge is worthy of instruction? Universities already have mechanisms for doing exactly that through departments, faculty expertise, curricular committees, and student demand. Those decisions have already been made. Disagreeing with the outcome does not mean the process does not exist.
One of the most compelling reasons to attend college is that the process teaches people how to think across multiple subjects. I can't tell you how exciting it was for me (I really love learning) to have that experience where all of this different information, coming at me from several disparate and varied sources clicked in my brain! What a rush! Didn't have to be from the class I was in or the book I was reading, but there was this epiphany of sorts where everything just fell together in my brain, forming a coherent and living understanding. That is part of what higher education is designed to cultivate.
For that reason, asking only “what practical value does this course have” misunderstands the purpose of a university education. The goal is not simply to deliver immediately useful information. It is to develop the intellectual tools that allow people to analyze complex issues, understand different societies, and continue learning throughout their lives
Did you introduce the false equivalency or did ChatGPT? I never argued that knowledge is trivial. What I argued is that some curated college courses have little value for society.
Somewhere along the way we've lost sight the fact that public education was intended to benefit society. It seems today the priority is to benefit the individual at the expense of society.
Accreditation boards are the gatekeepers for legitimate instruction that contributes to a degree. That's why accreditation has become highly political.
That applies to many organized and institutional activities that contribute to personal growth and exploration without the imposed stress of achieving performative results. Education is not unique in diversity, intellectual challenges, or exposure to knowledge. But keep in mind that the structured environment of education can also erect barriers intended to guide independent critical thought into a siloed acceptability. One consequence of structured education is preference for group think and bell curve conclusions.
But society does require consideration of practical value for societal benefit. Society really does need to scrutinize the distribution of resources for delivered societal benefit. That is the role of prudent government. Education really is a societal decision, not an individual decision. Individuals do not build institutions, hire instructors, or establish the merit of credentials. Society determines the need for education and the resources allocated to education. The public expectations for education really do matter.
Public education is a public utility. Society building colleges isn't any different than society building hospitals. We've seen how the safety net of public utilities has been degraded by demands to accommodate special interests and satisfy individual consumer expectations. Your arguments step away from the idea of "common good" for the pursuit of ephemeral "personal gratification".
Hahahaha! I give ChatGPT what I want to say and it says “Tsk! Tsk! Are you sure you really want to say it that way?” Consider it the good angel sitting on my shoulder constraining my other, more acerbic angel. It is definitely kinder and more gentle. (Besides, something at least gets to read my best lines before they are tossed in favor of more temperate wordings.)
You said that some curated college courses have little value for society. The course list you objected to comes from a private college. If students enroll in those courses and the institution chooses to offer them, that already represents a form of societal feedback. If many students enroll, those courses could even help subsidize some of the less well-attended but “more important” courses. I would think someone concerned with markets would be comfortable letting the marketplace of money and ideas do its job in determining which courses survive.
What your argument really comes down to is that universities should be teaching subjects that conform to your idea of what serves the “common good.” When institutions choose to offer courses outside that framework, you conclude that something has gone wrong. That sounds less like a problem with universities and more like frustration that they are not conforming to the particular ideological framework you prefer.
Which, frankly, sounds like a mixture of hard cheese and sour grapes.
In a country as large and pluralistic as ours, there will inevitably be many different views about what knowledge is valuable. No single person or ideological framework gets to define the standard of education for everyone else, which is why your protestations sound so illogical. If someone wants to study only the core courses, there are multiple degree programs that focus exactly on that and do not offer what critics like to dismiss as “underwater basket weaving.”
My point has been, and continues to be, that individuals do not get to decide for the whole nation what is important and what is frivolous.
Your point has been, and continues to be, that people who think like you should be determining what constitutes a proper education and what is frivolous.
That's not precisely what I have been saying. I have not been arguing that some college course have little value for society. What I have said is that some curated courses provide less value to society than other courses. Society does have a vested interest in prioritizing the allocation of resources. One (and only one) way society indicates the value of courses is through the labor market.
Another issue that we have not discussed (yet) is the student motivation to obtain credentials. There is some desire for less challenging coursework to obtain a credential of ostensibly equal merit. That aspect of modern education raises questions about the purpose of the education. Is it to obtain knowledge? Or is it to obtain a credential?
Not at all. What I am pointing out is that universities have elevated "personal gratification" above the "common good". Universities (and professors) are offering courses that compete for attention or satisfy personal interests or fits a political narrative rather than paying attention to what society indicates is really needed. Universities are marketing their credentials and popular offerings in a manner little different than a Macy's store floor.
If society's need for doctors is being crowded out by educating social workers then the institution is not attempting to delver a "common good".
That is still moving the goalposts. The argument is about allocation of resources. As you have been pointing out, the value of knowledge can be rather subjective. Claiming all knowledge has value doesn't avoid the subjective nature of valuation. But the selection of educational priorities shouldn't really be based upon the subjective value of knowledge. These decisions should be guided by what instruction provides a "common good" for society. And society does have a voice in determining educational priorities based upon societal needs.
But that is what you have been arguing. You have been arguing that popularity and personal gratification should be the criteria for determining the educational curricula. You have been arguing that universities should cater to individual interests. You are arguing that higher education should function like an entertainment streaming service. You really have been arguing that the "common good" has little merit in determining what courses should receive funding for instruction.
No, that is what you have been arguing. You have unilaterally determined the value of knowledge and that all knowledge has equal merit to receive funding for instruction. You are attempting to pluck dollars off a magic money tree.
Going back to the list of courses (offered by Harvard), I haven't questioned the value of knowledge being disseminated. What I have questioned is the value some of those courses provide society as a "common good". If the education does not prepare the student to participate in society and apply their education to sustain themselves then society will be required to subsidize that individual. In that instance the system of education has failed society.
Exasperated.
You wrote:
But earlier, in 4.1.16, you wrote:
So which is it? It cannot be both, because those statements are diametrically opposed. They directly contradict each other.
What you are arguing appears to be logically and internally inconsistent.
In my opinion, it appears that you will do almost anything to avoid admitting that your commentary leads one to believe that you or others who think like you should act as the gatekeepers of what should or should not be taught. That is where your argument has pointed from the very beginning of this exchange. You now seem to be retreating from the position you initially staked out: that some courses are worth teaching and others are not.
The question remains the same: who decides?
Until you have resolved that issue, I do not think this conversation can move forward.
Now you are arguing over one poorly constructed sentence out of an entire commentary that contradicts that one sentence. That's an editorial complaint not support for or against a position. I made one mistake so focus attention on that one mistake and ignore everything else.
(If a professor make a mistake while teaching necessary material to obtain a BA, does that invalidate the BA? What is the context and significance of that mistake?)
Based upon one poorly constructed sentence? One editorial error on my part? One bad brick in the edifice is of singular importance? One mistake invalidates the whole?
You have no more right to decide what should be taught or why something should be taught than those who claim the opposite. That is why there are independent accreditation boards. That is why there are independent school boards. Today the veneer of independence may be thin but these independent boards are supposed to represent the interests of society, at large, and not the biased interests of institutional education.
A professor with esoteric interests would naturally want to teach those esoteric interests. That's a feedback loop. The course is important to the professor because of the need to sustain themselves. But those esoteric interests may not be of sufficient benefit to society to warrant the expenditure of resources. Who decides? Accreditation boards, school boards, professional organizations, business organizations, legislatures, and the public.
Is this the excuse du jour for Trump Republican ignorance? "Them damned communist Democrats made Trump Republicans ignorant of the Constitution, rule of law, and American Protestant Progressivism."
What the hell does DEI, CRT, BLM, ESG, etc. have to do with Marxism? These social theories have nothing whatsoever in common with collectivism. These social theories are grounded in neoliberal principals of using government to obtain special privileges for a select few. The billionaires and oligarch of the United States are upset because these social theories are riding their Federal gravy train.
Trump Republicans are all snipe and no solution. They're trying to gaslight us into believing that eliminating Democrats will solve every problem. But Democrats are not responsible for the grift, graft, and illegal behavior of this administration. Democrats are not responsible for Trump Republicans weakening the Constitution. Democrats are not responsible Trump Republican un-American behavior at home and abroad.
It's not Democrats' fault that highlights of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence will be a (Asian) UFC dog fight on White House grounds, FIFA European football hosted in several cities, and a European style Grand Prix race on the streets of the Capitol.
It is definitely not the fault of Democrats that we now have a royal President to celebrate the quarter millennial anniversary of America with 'bread and circuses'.
They are soft entries of the underlying principles of Marxism. It's like when some idiot tries to tell you that public schools and libraries are evidence of socialism being a good thing. They're about as transparent as your teenage son trying to get you to agree he's responsible before he asks you for a 4am curfew, but it never seems to stop them trying.
The core of all of these ideas is the argument that the traditional metrics used to measure the success or failure of an endeavor are misguided and must be replaced.
With DEI, the prevailing idea is that a diverse organization is necessarily better than a homogenous organization, ignoring the actual reasons the organization exists to start with.
You're supposed to gradually accept that a diverse company is better than a more profitable company or that a diverse hospital is better than a hospital that saves more patients. A fireman who "looks like you" is supposedly better than a fireman who can throw your ass over his shoulder and carry you down the ladder to safety.
When we all start to agree that merit and ability are secondary or tertiary concepts, it's far easier to push the idea that those people don't actually "deserve" the rewards their skills provide them.
ESG is the similar. It's simply the liberal version of "I only invest in Christian owned companies", as though we don't remember what the actual purpose of investing is. We're attempting to redefine the metric for success away from actual achievement.
That's fair.
What??
We've been playing soccer in this country since the 1850s. It's been here longer than Nebraska.
We invented Indy Car. The first race was in 1911, 15 years before Europeans started the Manufacturers Championship and nearly 40 years before Formula 1. It's American AF.
Where did Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels advocate for special treatment of special interests? The problem with education is adopting an extreme policy of accommodating special interests.
China is kicking the ass of the United States because its quasi-communist system doesn't breakout in angst and outrage when a special interest isn't accommodated. The United States cannot compete with the Chinese homogeneous organization. The problem with DEI is that it creates an organization made up of special interests who protect their interests. DEI demands equity for special interests; not equality or homogeneity.
Then why was FIFA created in Europe? Soccer was invented in England during the 1850s. Soccer was imported to the US; it's not a native invention.
Indy car racing has always been run on an oval tracks. Formula 1 Grand Prix races are run on city streets. Formula 1 is European Grand Prix style racing; it is not Indy Car racing.
What do you believe are the underlying principles of Marxism (what was advocated/described by Marx and Engels)?
Primarily class "struggle" and collectivism.
That's why they call you a racist if you say that about DEI.
DEI was initially about creating equal opportunities. When those opportunities still did not create equal outcomes, DEI proponents were forced to start trying to mandate those directly.
The problem with American education is much simpler and actually less nefarious. It's the metrics we use to measure the "success" of public schools, especially those with large numbers of poor students. The almost religious devotion to metrics like drop out rate or minimum skills testing have led to a systematic reduction of academic standards.
Mississippi of all places has turned this around by simply returning to common sense.
I don't disagree with that at all. But I do think it goes farther than that.
Why is FIFA French? Why are the IOC and FIBA headquarters in Switzerland?
Same for baseball. We didn't invent golf or tennis, either. Are we canceling the US Opens?
Much to the dismay of the Huffington Post, this summer is going to be a fantastic celebration of America in all its glory, and most of us will be brimming with national pride. Events like the World Cup will bring people from all over the world to celebrate with us. (July 4 falls right in the middle of the tournament). It's a great time to be a proud American.
Spoken like a true Trump apologist.
A good start. Both class consciousness/struggle and collectivism are key to Marxism. It also emphasizes anti‑capitalism, proletarian political power, and ultimately aims for a stateless, classless society in which industrial prowess provides material abundance and people are free to use their talents as they see fit (an idealistic goal).
Marxism seeks to mitigate gross class inequalities but does not aim to make everyone economically identical regardless of contribution.
Classical Marxism treated factors such as gender, race, and sexuality as secondary to class while addressing them; but they are not the defining feature of Marxist theory. Classical Marxism did not promote hiring someone based on race, gender, etc. over a better qualified candidate who did not have minority demographics. Contemporary Marxists support these measures as corrective, but not as an objective.
The cool thing about not being a member of the cult is that I get to love America no matter who the president is.
That would imply they were remotely rational. We all know they're not. It also implies they care about the actual tenets of Marxism, which we know they don't.
Contemporary "marxism" in the US exists almost solely on the support of people whose primary driver is hatred of billionaires.
You believe that everyone or even most of the contemporary Marxists are irrational? You do not think that there are Marxists who seek change but recognize that it will be based on taking advantage of incremental opportunities rather than an abrupt inversion of the system?
We do? So you have never had a serious, thoughtful discussion with a contemporary Marxist who is rational?
And how do you know this? Actually, why would you believe this?
Hatred is an emotional factor. You think that contemporary Marxists are driven by hatred and not by the ideological view that wide class disparity is bad for society?
By definition, yes. In an almost uniquely naive way.
I'm not sure there is a material difference between the desire to wave a magic wand and implement nonsense immediately vs brewing a magic potion that implements nonsense over time.
Yes.
Yes. If they gave a shit about disparity they would be concentrating on changing the behaviors of the poor, not the rich.
By which definition?
You deem Marxism to be categorical nonsense. Let's take the notion of worker-owned businesses. That concept is rooted in Marxism. It is arguably an incremental step. That is not nonsense.
And why do you think they do not? Contemporary Marxism (as was true with classical Marxism) is largely a critique of capitalism. That critique (identification of problems with capitalism) has led to changes such as:
All of these are aligned with the principles of Marxism.
Thing is, there are plenty of things wrong with classical Marxism (e.g. the notion of a bloody revolution abruptly placing the MoP/MoD in the hands of the proletariat who then successfully manage the transition to the ideal classless, stateless society) but the very idea that capitalism is imperfect and underlying arguments as to why provide a basis for positive change. While most contemporary Marxists likely do not hold true to classical Marxism (especially the idealized notions), deeming Marxism categorical nonsense ignores its empirical influence on institutions and policies that have indeed benefited working people ('blue' and 'white' collar).
Also, with the growth of AI, I suspect we will see quite a bit more Marxist-like concepts arise as we deal (for the first time) with the reality of not having enough jobs to maintain the 'work to live' model.
Yes.
Define "worker owned business" as you're using it here, and give an example of a successful on in America.
When people show you who they are, believe them.
We're back to pretending things are Marxist when they're not, trying desperately to paint lipstick on an Orwellian pig. We're half a step away from trying to convince everyone that roads and bridges are examples of communism working for the betterment of everyone.
Marxism concentrates on who owns capital and who owns the means of production. Nothing you've listed involves a change in either of those.
Well are they Marxist or aren't they? You say they don't hold true to radical ideas like confiscating property, but they sure as hell seem to be working toward exactly that in NYC.
These are enterprises (not always a business) that are collectively owned –and share profits– by their worker-members who have significant democratic control (as opposed to classical hierarchic command structures) over major decisions.
I asked Claude to provide links to the registries of worker-owned businesses in the USA since you seem to think none exist:
That is a non-answer.
Another non-answer. Plus you suggest I am pretending. I have offered a serious discussion. Don't screw it up.
Because I listed what I explicitly told you were changes that were aligned with the principles of Marxism. If you had asked me to list every society that has implemented full-scale Marxism I would have just given you the empty set.
Do you recognize that what I listed are improvements, are rooted in Marxist philosophy, and that with AI we are likely to see more of the same?
You do not recognize that one can be a Marxist and not hold that there should be an immediate bloody revolution where the proletariat assumes control over a nation's means of production and distribution and manages same to an idealized classless, stateless society?
Your comments suggest that you believe that most (if not all) Marxists are blood-thirsty, irrational idealogues who hold secret meetings on how they can replace capitalism in the present.
Why, do you think?
Because AI is replacing (and threatening) jobs at a much faster pace than we have seen with other disruptive technologies. And it seems to be accelerating.
Today's Marxists aren't strictly dealing with classical Marxism. Rather than Marx's concept of workers owning the means of production being the primary focus, they have replaced it with Gramsci's Cultural Hegemony concept, combined with the Frankfurt school of Marxism's idea of critical theory. As such, Jack is correct, except I would say they are only "soft" in comparison to Marx's idea of the necessity for bloody revolution. It perfectly explains what has been causing the decline of the West in every area of culture.
The problem is treating Marxism as a single thing. Jack deems 'it' categorically 'nonsense'. As I have noted many times in the past, the term 'Marxism' has been so overloaded with different factions (e.g. Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Gramsci/Frankfurt school, neo-Marxism, ...) as well as profound contradictions (e.g. the former USSR ... Stalinism) that it is meaningless.
Rather than use 'Marxism' as a general and largely meaningless pejorative, it would be substantially more informative if people would name the philosophy / system they are criticizing. If one sticks merely with 'Marxism' then logically they either should be referring to classical Marxism or to the common theme that most variants share which is anti-capitalism.
Those who criticize 'Marxism' sans qualification likely have no concept of what they are talking about and instead hold a shallow, stereotypical view of Marxism drawn (typically) by gathering the bad elements of the variants.
So let's now apply specificity. What, specifically, is the 'it' that perfectly explains the decline and what is the decline you have in mind? Then, given that, how precisely did they accomplish this decline? And how do you know this?
How is Western culture declining exactly?
maga.
Agreed. Marx did not create objective truth no one could challenge. Since this is so, it was inevitable that Marxism would acquire different "flavors." For instance, Marxists were genuinely surprised, apparently, that western European workers did not automatically join Lenin's workers revolution. That had to be explained. From that necessity for explanation came thinkers like Gramsci, who was a Marxist but had different ideas as to why western industrialized European workers did not revolt. He thought Marxism should be realized through means other than seizing the means of production, at least initially. That means was to attack cultural norms.
Because, fundamentally, it is nonsense. Marxism fundamentally misunderstands human nature. And, because it does, Marxism will only ever cause pain and suffering.
There is not one specific "it;" there are several. In my opinion, the two most important are Gramsci's writings concerning how to realize a communist society in the West and the intersection of those ideas with Postmodernism.
Primarily? Control of higher and lower education and control of major media outlets.
I simply have to turn on the news and watch someone say men can get pregnant.
Postmodernism, for one.
explain. I'm not as smart as you
No such claim was made; indeed I upfront noted that I believe Marxism is flawed. No reason for you to introduce this notion into this discussion.
No claim was made that various forms and misnaming would not occur. Again, pointless to introduce this.
Given, Drakk, there are variants, etc. of Marxism and I listed some of them. My point was about the misuse of terms and the overloading of the word 'Marxism'. You made no mention of the point and instead argued truths that were never disputed (or even mentioned).
The most fundamental notion of Marxism is that those who control the means of production and distribution in a society can and will leverage same to produce a class/economic disparity. That is not nonsense, it is reality. It is also human nature.
What is nonsense is the idea that democratic control of these means would necessarily create a utopia. Marx did naively presume altruism, and that is clearly not how human beings operate. (However, when one looks at collectivist societies like Japan, one wonders how much might be possible as societies evolve.)
In addition to its flaws, classical Marxism has productive ideas (e.g. unions, coops, ...) that have emerged in society and ideas that will likely emerge in the future as we face (for the first time) a crisis where there are simply not enough jobs to continue the 'work to live' paradigm. Categorically dismissing classical Marxism as nonsense suggests bias-based thinking rather than rational/objective analysis.
Indeed, that is the point I have made. So criticizing 'Marxism' is almost meaningless. One should (as you did in your next sentence) name the philosophy/system you have in mind and provide criticism on specific aspects of that system. Otherwise, the discussion is vague to the point of meaningless.
Specifically, what bad things did 'they' do, who is the 'they', and what are the 'Marxist' principles 'they' used to do these unnamed bad things? (I am not demanding an answer, I am just trying to show how meaninglessly vague these claims are.)
Drakk, come on, that rarely happens (I think I have seen this only once), and when it does, it is referring to a trans male — someone who is biologically female and equipped with still functioning reproductive parts who identifies as male. Classical Marxism should not be indirectly (through variants and misnomers) blamed for the media engaging in sensationalism.
Classical Marxism had nothing even remotely close to this. We are relying upon mere thread attachment to classical Marxism with a bunch of bolted-on notions that have nothing to do with what Marx sought to accomplish. Yet again, illustrating my point that the label 'Marxism' is so overloaded as to be meaningless.
Okay. I can see that trying to have a conversation with you will be as pointless as it always is.
Postmodernism holds that there aren't objective truths about what constitutes reality because those things are shaped by language, power and culture. Popularly, that translates to things such as "Speaking truth to power", which is an oxymoron under such a system, because that "truth" has no more objective reality than anything else. In short, everyone is free to create their own "reality." Like men being able to get pregnant, for instance. Anyone with common sense should be able to understand that any society based on such a principle will collapse sooner rather than later as no one can realistically expect several million realities to be able to function together.
What percentage of human beings do you think believe that men can get pregnant?
Given that dismissive reaction, I am happy for you to walk away rather than start engaging in snark and sophistry.
It is a common tactic for some to provide a 'rebuttal' that posits commonly held truths that were never denied. It creates the false impression of a sound rebuttal, but it is nothing but sophistry. I will call that out when I see it.
My point was about overloading the term 'Marxism' and that classical Marxism is not categorically nonsense. That while I can easily identify flaws (as I have noted), there are also factors that do indeed hold true and are valuable to consider.
But, again, I would rather you take your ball and go home if you do not want to deal with my arguments honestly, directly, and seriously.
It's very telling that you couldn't name any that anyone would recognize.
The actual truth is that "worker owned" is the most capitalist of ideas. That's how every small business in America starts. Almost every law firm or physician group in America is owned by people who work there. Costco has enormous levels of employee ownership.
But every one of those highly successful examples involves people investing their own hard earned money into the enterprise. They are the purest form of capitalism.
It's a concise answer. You just didn't like the phrasing. How about "observable behavior patterns over many years".
Again, it's a concise answer. Now, you are either pretending you don't recognize the difference between workplace safety regulations and proletariat ownership of the means of production.... or you actually don't understand that. I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt rather than insult your intelligence.
Yes. And I'm telling you that's nonsense. Just like it's nonsense that public roads are somehow examples of socialism.
Yes.
Not at all.
This is a common ploy that advocates of Marxism or socialism use quite often. They attempt to make feeble connections to any deviation from unbridled, unregulated, zero sum capitalism and "Marxist principles" or "democratic socialism" or some other idea they intend to use as the thin end of their rhetorical wedge. Just like the teenager who wants to talk about how responsible he is before he asks for the 4am curfew, they convince themselves that they're not totally transparent.
Yes, I realize you can be a Marxist who prefers a slow acting magic potion to a fast acting magic wand. It doesn't change the fact that the entire system ignores basic human psychology in favor of a fantasy that would be more realistic with unicorns and pixie dust.
Not blood thirsty yet, and the meetings aren't secret. As much as you will undoubtedly dislike that, history is quite clear on how blood thirsty these people actually are.
As it is with any social/political philosophy; libertarianism which ranges from far left to far right, comes in more flavours than an icecream parlour.
I for example am a Libertarian Monarchist.
probably much less than the percentage of religious right supporting males that eagerly seek other males for companionship during CPAC, WCPAC, RNC, and other types of evangelical religious conventions or gatherings ... /s
Culture, language, and power dynamics will continue to evolve. These are natural forces that occur regardless of what names we want to ascribe to them.
The fact that society is recognizing a distinction between biological sex (e.g. cis...) and gender (e.g. trans) and that some are biologically one sex but genuinely identify with the other sex is almost to be expected. As we evolve, our languages become more nuanced, our base of knowledge expands (and thus is more nuanced), and this affects our culture.
Postmodernism does accept objective truths (e.g. the laws of physics, the truths in formal systems, ...) but it also accepts concepts that are by definition anti-conservative. Social conservatives obviously do not approve of this, but they should recognize that religions often advance faith‑based or metaphysical truths that are not empirically grounded.
They act like men getting pregnant is a commonly held belief among non conservatives. For many years I attended a liberal Catholic parish church that encompassed about 1000 families. I would bet my life that not a single person in any of those 1000 liberal families believed that a man could get pregnant.
I know you don't want to hear it but you are describing the Trump cult.
Irrelevant. What is relevant is that media treated it as a serious subject rather than the nonsense that it is.
I have no problem with hearing it. I am not MAGA in the sense you ascribe to the term. I, of course, want America to be great. That doesn't necessarily require me to support Trump's or MAGA's vision of what that might be.
I don't believe that either.
I think it has more to do with the names they get called when they speak up.
Is it your belief that people would normally recognize registries for worker-owned businesses? Look, I gave you the means to look up as many worker-owned businesses as you desire. That is far more powerful than me listing a few of them. The fact that you registered this complaint suggests that you really do not want to base your argument on what is true.
It is dodging. You continue to do so.
You claim with no supporting argument. Provide an actual argument. Explain why it is nonsense to note the following are consistent with classical Marxism:
Well, Jack, that is a very simplistic view. You ignore all the facets of classical Marxism and pretend that there are no good ideas and that nothing positive has ever evolved from those ideas.
Most modern anti-capitalist philosophies focus on adjusting capitalism. A key concern is the continuing disparity between the extremely wealthy and the average citizen. So of course, they focus on how to regulate capitalism and mitigate the endless leveraging of capital. Apparently, you hold that laissez-faire capitalism should be the rule. That the unbridled accumulation of power (via wealth and influence) in a tiny minority is a good thing.
The good of capitalism is that it encourages risk-taking, entrepreneurial endeavors, hard work, etc. This has served us well. But it is important to recognize that what is good for growing businesses can, when we get to the extreme, be bad for society. Our constitution has some brilliant notions and one of them is the distribution of power. By design (at least), our constitution sought to ensure that no person or group could dominate ... that checks and balances were in place. With the current level of capitalism, the uber-wealthy have enormous power. While it is fair for those with wealth to have more power than those without (assuming they earned their wealth) there is a point where, arguably, a person can acquire too much power ... just as the CotUS seeks to prevent.
Anti-capitalists often make this argument and seek to mitigate the runaway accumulation of wealth and power. Those who object just claim that there should never be any limits. Kind of like what you are doing.
You focus on the parts that are naive / utopic and pretend that is the entire body of work of classical Marxism. The cliche criticism of classical Marxism is that it is at odds with human nature. That is partly true. The notion that a democratic society will evolve into a classless, stateless utopia where everyone will work in harmony in an altruistic sense is clearly silly. But, as I have noted, many other elements such as the notion of worker-owned businesses, unions, etc. are demonstrably realistic and productive.
But, of course, you claim (incorrectly) that these are not directly consistent with classical Marxism (since you cannot argue against them).
Of course, you leap to Stalinism, Maoism, etc. with the implied claim that these are representative of classical Marxism. Happens every time in these discussions.
In the former USSR, the people did not have a democratic voice, the did not in any way have democratic control over their economy. They did not have economic freedom. They were oppressed, abused, worked-to-death, and killed by a brutal authoritarian (Stalin). Under the tenets of classical Marxism, the people of the former USSR would have been democratically involved in political and economic matters and would be directing how productive resources are used. The people would not be oppressed but would be sharing the wealth of the nation. (Again, this is the idea. But it is important to compare the idea with the system of Stalin to illustrate that Stalin built a system in direct opposition to classical Marxism.)
Now, we know that is idealistic, but my point is that anyone who tries to claim the former USSR is an example of classical Marxism has no clue what classical Marxism sought since the dynamics and the results of the former USSR were the polar opposite.
Do you acknowledge that Trump?:
Trump does not view the presidency as a solemn duty but rather as a license to do whatever pleases him personally. If you think Trump is making America great (or is even doing a good job), then recognize that you are part of the MAGA cult.
gosh darn that first amendment when it comes to derogatory statements about maga and religious dogma ...
make unsubstantiated claims, risk being called hilarious names ...
Here is what you said that I replied to...
Here is what I said in response...
Gramsci was a through and through Marxist. Where he differed with Marx is how communism would ultimately be realized, brought about by the Russian revolution's failure to engender corresponding revolts in Western industrialized societies. Gramsci tried to account for why Marx's prediction was wrong. His answer was cultural hegemony.
The point, TiG, is that while Gramsci's version of Marxism isn't exactly like Marx's, it is still legitimately Marxism precisely because it is the well from which Gramsci based his ideas upon. In other words, the rebuttal isn't in some sort of commonly held truths no one denied. The rebuttal is in that because it isn't classical Marxism doesn't mean it isn't Marxism. It very well is Marxism precisely because the goals and assumptions are pretty much identical, only the method for achieving the goal is different.
Once again, however, these "conversations" are really about your brilliance. Hence, any idea outside what you yourself present is treated as straw men, sophistry, deflection and so on. You appear fundamentally incapable of recognizing counterarguments for what they are, counterarguments.
I don't do ideological purity tests. Sorry.
“What percentage of human beings do you think believe that men can get pregnant?”
Who knows, but they are all damn sure on the left.
Millions. If they dont speak out against the lunacy they agree with the lunacy
It's my belief that if Marxist style collective owned businesses worked, we'd be able to name several that everyone would recognize.
I have. You just don't like it. There is a vast difference between safety regulations and proletariat ownership of the means of production. They are not the same. They are not varying degrees of the same thing.
The tactics are transparent and can be explained simply. The denial is much more complicated.
Not at all. I thought you said you wanted a serious discussion.
You've skipped dozens of others, from Shining Path to Weather Underground and several in between, including our very own Antifa...because they're the poster children for transparent attempts to pretend they're something other than what they are.
Please tell me none of these groups have ever advocated your preferred brand of Marxism. Then the cliche' will be complete.
Then obviously you don't know jack Jack.
As, there are thousands of big successful employee owned corporations...
The Employee Ownership 100: America's Largest Employee-Owned Companies
Awwww... how cute.
If you were following along, you no doubt recall I've already said employee ownership is the ground floor of almost every capitalist enterprise. TiG is talking about Marxist style collective ownership, which is different. He's pretending they're the same so he can try to rationalize Marxism for something that isn't stupid.
You'll notice the number of asterisks on that list, indicating the companies are owned in as ESOP. ESOPs are the primary way for capitalist founders to retire and get all the money out of their companies tax free.
Look up section 1042 of the internal revenue code.
Now... the irony of confusing a fantastic capitalist tax dodge with Marxist ideology is just too hilarious not to mention.
While you are being impertinent and sarcastic then I guess you have never heard of the thousands of long-standing successful NYC cooperative apartment buildings or of a Rural Electrical Cooperative or a Farmer's Co-op Cotton gin or grain elevator?
Sometimes it is better to stay quiet than to show your ass...
I gave you a registry of businesses. You did not even try to do any research. Look, all I had to do was ask Claude to provide a list of 10:
Also, internationally, the Mondragon Corporation (Spain) is a proof-of-concept worker cooperative federation with democratic worker ownership. It has been operating for just shy of 70 years now.
I stated that the concept of worker-owned is quintessential classical Marxism (because it is). Your response is to declare worker-owned to be quintessential capitalism with the claim that most businesses start out as worker owned. That is not even close to truth. Most businesses start out with the owners working their asses off (that part is true) but what is NOT true is for them to make every worker a part-owner at inception (go directly to worker-owned and operated). Stock plans are often for the upper echelon, with the majority of employees being non-owners.
Capitalism, in its essence, is based on a minority in control hiring those who are not in control. The presence of unions, ESOP, etc. evolved to shift the balance a bit in the favor of workers and it should be obvious that this is aligned with classical Marxism and not capitalism.
Cliche platitude.
What is my 'preferred brand of Marxism'? Yet again, you take the discussion into shit.
Bullshit!
I stated that ideas from classical Marxism have emerged in US businesses. I have never stated that a company with an ESOP, for example, is equivalent to a Marxist democratically controlled worker-owned enterprise. ESOPs are examples of worker ownership, not a 100% pure Marxist workplace democracy.
I made the point that not all of Marxism is bad. You are changing my argument because you cannot rebut it. Predictable intellectual dishonesty when all else fails.
classical marxism inhibits the amount of graft and corruption republicans require to be successful as capitalists.
Good choice to avoid an argument when you are on the wrong side of the truth.
And yet again, you put forth a rebuttal for something I have not claimed. I have never stated nor implied that there are no variants of Marxism. I have even listed some of them so what you are trying to rebut is clearly a fantasy. What I have repeatedly stated is that when speaking of 'Marxism', it makes no sense to merely use the word 'Marxism' since that term is overloaded. If you want to critique a variant of Marxism then to make any sense whatsoever you need to name the variant.
So if you critique Marxism and are not critiquing classical Marxism and you want your readers to understand what you are talking about, I have recommended that you name the variant you have in mind. Otherwise, unless talking in grossly general terms (e.g. Marxism is anti-capitalism) your critique is incoherent.
Using a different method does make it different, doesn't it? When critiquing Gramsci's version of Marxism, don't you think you should state the variant you are critiquing? Now just apply that same principle to every other variant (and name-only relationship) of 'Marxism'. That, by the way, is the point I have made. Again, Drakk, my point is and has been that 'Marxism' is an overloaded term and it makes no sense to critique 'Marxism' unless you really are critiquing classical Marxism or your critique is so abstract and general that it (somehow) covers all the various philosophical systems that claim the label 'Marxism'.
In short, you cannot stand it when someone provides a good rebuttal to your argument.
Look at what you are doing: dishonesty and making it personal. That should be your first clue that you are the one creating the problem.
By definition, Drakk, a counterargument is countering an argument that was made. When you make up the argument to counter that is a strawman.
I did name the variant. More than once. This platform doesn't have the crayon option so I can't make it any more plain than I already have.
Depends upon what you're talking about. Gramsci was a dedicated Marxist. Does the fact that he thought achieving Marxist goals required a different method mean he was not Marxist? In other words, is Marxism the goal or the method? My view is it is the goal, not the method. It appears to me that your point is that unless one strictly adheres to every nuance Marx concerning Marxism, they are not true Marxists. I find that very unconvincing, as the goal is what is relevant, not the method. Gramsci differed with Marx on method, not goal. That hardly disqualifies him as a Marxist.
And I am disagreeing with your point. There is no reason I have to confine my argument to your view or whatever you consider classical Marxism to be. Gramsci felt the same, apparently. Although he was Marxist, he apparently felt a need to understand and explain why Western European workers did not revolt against their "capitalist" masters as Marx predicted. His solution was that it wasn't the means of production that was important in developed industrial nations but, rather, cultural hegemony and, if Marxism was to have any chance in such environments, this had to be taken into account. Again, from what I understand, Gramsci's goals were the same as Marx, but his method for achieving Marxist goals differed from Marx. That he differed on method doesn't disqualify him as a Marxist as, eventually, through changing cultural hegemony, Marx's ideals would eventually be realized.
You need to figure out what Marxism is. The method or the goal?
Sure, TiG.
Uh, yeah. I made this personal. Not you...
Rather than reply to what I said, you impugned my motives. I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one tired of your hypocrisy.
By definition...
Since I did not misrepresent or oversimplify your position but, instead, simply stated my own, I am not guilty of a strawman argument.
As far as I can tell, you seem to believe that the only real Marxist is one who believes 100% in Marx's ideas and how to achieve them and, if one doesn't believe that, then whatever they believe cannot therefore be Marxist. Fine. You can believe whatever you wish. For my part, a Marxist is one who believes in Marx's ultimate goal, not necessarily the steps Marx thought necessary to get there.
This is now ridiculous. I did not claim that you did not name the variant. I restated the point that I made. You know, the point that you originally responded to.
Again, I have never stated nor implied that Gramsci was not a Marxist. I stated that his variation is not classical Marxism. Again you are rebutting claims I have never made.
WTF are you talking about?? Where do you get this crap?
Marxism (unqualified) is either a reference to classical Marxism (what Marx and Engels produced) or it is an ill-defined reference to all variants (and in-name-only philosophical systems). If one wants people to understand what one is talking about, then one should NOT label the subject variant merely as 'Marxism', but use its unique name. This, again, is the point I have made.
So, when you say I need to figure out what Marxism is, you are lumping all that could be labeled 'Marxism' by any method (logical or not) into one identifier. There is no single method nor single goal for what the term 'Marxism' represents unless you are speaking of classical Marxism or a specific variant (that has a single goal).
I have made this point repeatedly. You clearly are intentionally ignoring it.
Correct. You.
When you put forth a strawman, expect it to be called out.
When you put forth a rebuttal to an argument that I did not make, that is a strawman.
Clearly you are not even trying to understand what I have written. No, Drakk, you are completely wrong. I have never even hinted that. Not sure repeating my point again will make a difference.
What is Marx' final goal in your opinion?
Also, do you think Stalinism is Marxism by your definition?
Let's see if a crystal clear summary will break through.
I think a Marxist is someone who believes in what Marx was trying to accomplish and, if an agent, is acting in a manner that could realistically achieve Marx' objectives.
If a Marxist is pursuing objectives that are not part of classical Marxism and are not a reasonable extension of same but a new branch of objectives, then the new part is not Marxism.
There are plenty of variants of classical Marxism. Some are extensions, some expand the scope, some apply the philosophy in the abstract to a new dimension, and some are in-name-only that flat out contradict classical Marxism.
And, of course, my point. If one wants to seriously discuss Marxism then given the clear fact that 'Marxism' is an overloaded term, it is incumbant on the individual to name the specific philosophical system they are talking about. Just calling it 'Marxism' is vague and pointless.
LOL.
Yes, it is. Since it is, I'm just going to not respond further. There's no point to it.
Of course, you have no rebuttals—just strawman arguments, do not want to deal with my probative questions at the end, and my summary @5.1.56 mitigated your bullshit.
[✘]
[✘]
“If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.”
— Walter E. Williams
Well, no. But you have your reality, I have mine. So who's reality is better or more real? I suggest that your reality is based on fantasy because I don't need a Sky Daddy to tell me what to do every minute of my life. It's a scientific fact that men can't get pregnant but what's it to you if a woman transitions to male before her reproductive system is removed and has a child? It's no concern of yours. So let people live their lives and just maybe they won't be judging you and trying to force you into a lifestyle you find repugnant
Do you not recognize that the fundamental concept of classical Marxism is for workers to benefit from the results of their labor? In very simple terms (inaccurate but close enough to make the point), the workers would (in effect) share profits (surplus value). One can make good arguments about how unrealistic his methods were, but one should at least understand the concept.
the corner stone of evangelical xtianity ...
my favorite reply to those that came to my door wanting to know if I knew their lord and savior -
fuck off, get off my property and don't come back, or you'll be meeting your savior in my front yard ...
Did you guys lose him again?
So, you think Postmodernism has merit? That everyone can just create their own reality/truth and, as a society, that's going to work out?
Good question. What do you think of the life Jesus lived as recorded in the Gospels? What do you think of the man?
How do you know you don't need Him? Or do you really mean you don't want Him and therefore don't need him? I'm not asking in an accusatory manner. From my point of view, a person either feels sufficient in themselves to tackle every moral issue in life and personal flaw about themselves or they don't. The latter seems more connected to reality, in my experience, as they recognize these things are far more complicated than not. The former seem simply to do whatever satisfies them emotionally and call that morality.
Why are you moving the goal posts? The issue was the claim that men could get pregnant, and that only in critique of Postmodernism. That is what some were pushing society to accept, like the emperor was actually wearing clothes when he wasn't. This is the inevitable result of Postmodernism, which rejects objective truth over truth created by a given society.
LOL. You don't really believe that, do you? Feminists, atheists, humanists, Vegans, animal rights types, secularists and every other group you could name is trying to shape society to their own views, whether I want them or not. Why should my kind sit it out?
I stopped reading when you started proselytizing. I should have flagged your comment for that. Please do not respond to this comment.
I no more proselytized than you did but flag away.
Do you recognize that worker coops are not necessarily Marxist in nature? Every one of those coops you list could be owned by died-in-the-wool capitalists. Further, even if every single business in the US was worker owned, there's no reason to assume they'd stop working under a capitalist system and every reason to think they would. And that it would even be preferrable, since competition would lower prices and improve efficiency.
Not true. There's nothing about Capitalism that insists on minority control. In actuality, Capitalism in its essences is a system of private ownership of production, voluntary exchanges and market forces controlling production and prices. There's absolutely nothing in the concept that says capitalism must be based on minority control of any of it.
What you are describing is simply how it works out in the real world. Most people just want to get money for work without having to invest their personal lives into a business. But there's not a shred of theory that says a worker coop is not every bit a capitalistic as a company such as Microsoft.
Lastly, worker coops were not actually part of classical Marxism, according to what I've read on it. While he thought they had merit, he felt they would be insufficient in creating the society he envisioned. Mostly, I think, because worker coops were not necessarily Marxist in nature. For instance, I think worker coops could be great, if it had the right leadership and I would totally be on board with joining one, and I am thoroughly anti-communist.
How do you know it has a penis? Who confirmed that God is a "Him"? Wouldn't you need to prove God exists before you claim to have looked down its trousers.
The issue is the straw man of 'liberals believe men can get pregnant' which of course is total horse shit. No one on the left believe men can get pregnant. They understand that someone born female but dresses, acts and looks male, can still get pregnant as long as they haven't had any surgery to remove their female body parts. But no, no one on the left believes humans born with male genitals can get pregnant.
No, they aren't.
Feminists, atheists, humanists and secularists aren't trying to force their beliefs on anyone else. If you want to believe in God, go ahead, the atheists aren't stopping you, but they won't let you try and force your God and religious morality on them either. No one is trying to force anyone to get gay married or to get an abortion or to commit adultery. If you want to be a trad wife and submit to your husband and stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, no one is stopping you. No one on the left is trying to force conservatives to stop going to their churches or trying to ban their religious books. They're simply trying to create a space where everyone can live the way they want as long as they're not hurting others or trying to force others to comply with a certain brand of religious morality.
With that said, part of our freedom is to be able to criticize others they disagree with. I think religion is completely moronic and in America I can express such views without fear of harm or imprisonment. But just because I believe people praying to an invisible unproven fantasy sky fairy are either stupid, gullible or just indoctrinated in their youth and are too lazy to think for themselves, this doesn't mean I'm "oppressing" conservative Christians. They can live how they want and no one is forcing them to get gay married or get an abortion, so why the fuck do they think they have the right to try and stop other Americans from getting gay married or to get an abortion or to live how they want and love who they want?
No one is saying religious conservatives have to "sit out" of forcing their beliefs on others, they're the only ones trying to do it and they need to fucking stop. Like I said, no one is trying to force you to get gay married or live as an atheist. You can practice your faith as you always have. All the feminists, atheists, humanists and secularists are trying to do is the same, live the way that works for them without forcing their beliefs on others. It's only when some self-righteous religious bigot steps in and says "NO! You're not allowed to get gay married! Gays aren't allowed to adopt children! Men should make all family decisions as they're the head of the household! No abortions because there's a tiny invisible 'soul' created when an egg is fertilized! The government must stay out of the Church, but the Church does not have to stay out of government!".
Now, if you are claiming that a gang of gays grabbed you off the street and took you down to the courthouse and tried to force you to get gay married then perhaps, you'd have a point. Is that what happened? Can you show us on the doll where the feminists, atheists, humanists and secularists touched you?
No, I do not recognize that. The fact that they are an adaptation to an extant capitalist system does not remove the root notion of worker ownership. An enterprise does not need to be 100% classical Marxism workplace democracy to have a legitimate tie to classical Marxism.
Good grief man, not again!
Nowhere did I even hint that workplace democracy would not work under a capitalist system. Indeed, Drakk, I have made quite a few comments illustrating how various (albeit diluted) forms of this do exist in the USA and are working. I even noted Mondragon corporation in Spain that is a workplace democracy but is working within a capitalist system (the economic system of Spain). So you are yet again 'rebutting' a point I have not made.
Yes, Drakk, I am talking about the reality of capitalism. Since you understand this, why are you trying to find some obscure way to disagree?
Marx did mention coops in letters; his view was that they were a step in the right direction. But I was not claiming that he outlined coops as part of his method. Marx went well beyond the notion of a coop.
So to be crystal clear, I am not suggesting that coops, ESOPs, unions, etc. were explicitly outlined by Marx. Rather, I have argued that the concept of worker ownership is fundamental to classical Marxism. Worker coops (and other, similar modern concepts such as ESOPs, unions, etc.) provide the worker with equity and sometimes voting rights. That is clearly aligned with classical Marxism.
This is telling. You are okay with worker coops as long as you can believe they are 'not necessarily Marxist in nature'. Well, Drakk, the notion of workers being able to more thoroughly benefit from their labor is fundamental to classical Marxism. That is arguably the key point of his works. Clearly capitalism is focused on generating profit for the owners and not on equitable treatment of the workers. To capitalism, workers (labor) is just a cost (why do you think companies rely upon foreign labor rather than stay 100% with domestic?). Wages are paid to secure the level and volume required to achieve the goals of the enterprise.
When you see programs that help workers share the wealth, so to speak, that is aligned perfectly with the principles of classical Marxism and is antithetic to the principles of capitalism. Marx went far beyond the programs, but they certainly are well aligned with his principles.
That's the problem, and what I think Jack is trying to point out to you. You are giving credit to classical Marxism for something that isn't necessarily Marxist. I would imagine that many who work in a workers coop do so for the same reason I would. A worker who also owns the company will be more invested in its success than someone who is simply hired for a paycheck. Marxist ideas would not be a factor in their thinking. Rather, capitalist concerns. In other words, worker coops can be considered to be an example of capitalism as much as one could claim Marxism.
Perhaps more telling, there's no obvious transition from a workers coop run form of capitalism to Marxism, even if every single business ran on a workers coop model. I doubt they would even want to, as the whole point of the workers coop would disappear the moment the transition happened. They would no longer own their own businesses.
Drakk, you keep trying to find some way to twist what I am saying. I am not saying that the only possible origin of these ideas came from Marx. (Hell, Marx borrowed and was inspired by classical ideas of collectivism ... so he is not the inventor of every idea.)
I am saying, yet again, as always, that there were some good ideas in Marx and that some of these have materialized in modern practices. The notion of worker equity, profit-sharing, unions, etc. all are consistent with the principles of classical Marxism.
To wit, and here is the key point I made with Jack, it is wrong to categorically deem classical Marxism (or, worse, all forms of Marxism) as nonsense.
Yes indeed, companies today use these tools because they believe them necessary to retain the quality and level of staff they require. They do not, however, do this altruistically. They do not do this because the want to be fair to employees. That is simply NOT how capitalism operates (noting the exception that some business owners —typically smaller private owners— are altruistic to some degree).
That does not change the point I made about Marxism not being categorical nonsense.
Okay, a new topic now. The transition would be slow and evolutionary if it all. If (big if) workplace coops were to really catch on and evolve into workplace democracies, then that would be a cultural shift that could indeed transition into a change in the economic system itself.
I do not see this happening, but largely because classical Marxism relies too much on collectivist and altruistic thinking. While cultures like that of Japan show that collectivism is indeed possible to achieve in human society, we are likely looking at hundreds of years in a culture like ours, and it is silly to even try to imagine what might take place across such a span. And even Japan, with its collectivist culture, is based on capitalism — collective capitalism but capitalism nonetheless.
I don't think you know what those words mean.
Oh FFS. Tell me you don't understand money without telling me you don't understand money.
Owning a small part of something is not Marxism. Businesses banding together to get better pricing or to pool capital for new enterprises is not Marxism.
Let me help you before this gets any worse.... mutual funds are also not Marxist. ETFs.... not Marxist. Banks.... where people pool their money and then fund new enterprises with loans..... not Marxist. Mutual insurance companies.... also not Marxist.
Almost anything else you're likely to think of... not Marxist.
Exactly. Liberals and progressives? Not Marxist. But that might be news to some here who seem to prefer their heads stuffed up their dear Leaders ass and are desperate to vilify their political opponents.
Generally speaking, that's correct. Marxists do tend to identify as progressives, but Marxism is not something most progressives support.
It used to be that many of them were "bleeding hearts". Now most of them don't give a shit what happens as long as it goes against Trump.
The idea that you of all people would accuse anybody else in the world of that is utterly fucking hilarious.
So, because it's obvious that I don't have my head shoved up Trumps ass, that's 'hilarious' to you? I guess comedy is different for some. If you're thinking there's some funny irony, it's just not there since I'm a fan of reality and have never had my head stuck up any politician's ass as clearly so many Trump supporters do.
Nice try. It's because of unbridled hatred you have for your political opponents and the regularity and ignorance with which you vilify them.
I'm not the one making them stick their heads up Trumps ass, why am I the bad guy for just pointing it out?
Brainless devotion is not different than brainless opposition. There are zero brain cells involved, either way.
DP does not post brainless opposition.
[✘]
[✘]
[✘]
You have to remember what Trotsky told Lenin. Class warfare will never work in the US because in a free enterprise society like America economic status is not permanent. Americans dream about improving their lot in life. Thus, American Marxism had to change the script a little. Race replaced class because race is permanent. The idea is to travel a different road to achieve the same ends.
I want to know how turning minorities into fair haired stepchildren is collectivism? Marx didn't preach special treatment for special interests. Socialism doesn't recognize butt hurt woke crap.
Special treatment for special interests is a neoliberal thing. The neoliberal Federal government doesn't give rat's crap about anyone except the wealthy. The whole 'class warfare' trope was created by the rich because they're supposed to be entitled to everything in the United States.
"Race warfare" was created by the left to battle "class warfare" created by the right. So we have the Democrats' privileged, entitled minorities battling the Republicans' privileged, entitled minority. The left and right minority groups are fighting for control over the Federal gravy train.
MAGA was supposed to speak for all the Americans stuck in the middle. But now Trump has completely destroyed that hope.
Race is being used to divide the country. Think back to how Jim Clyburn saved the Biden Campaign and how Biden was repackaged to look like Scranton Joe of the 70s while kept under wraps and the Obama people put across those radical policies in his name. Didn't Marx believe in a world without borders? How about those 2020 riots where race was used to attack the system of law and order?
It is a means to an end. An American version of Marxism.
MAGA was supposed to speak for all the Americans stuck in the middle. But now Trump has completely destroyed that hope.
I know Trump will not destroy that hope. I can't explain how I know. Let's just say that poets and gamblers understand the feeling.
What are the ends that you believe Marxism (per Marx and Engels) sought to achieve?
Too bad, that would be quite interesting to read.
Trump is about Trump.
1.800.my-reset is the gambling hotline number.
I don't suppose you could source that for us, could you? I'm aware of him being of the opinion that revolution wasn't likely in the US because of the widespread presence and strength of labor unions at the time, making workers far less likely to revolt than in other places. But that's a bit different than what you're saying. I mean, class warfare was behind the labor movement back then in the first place, coming out of the Gilded Age when workers were actually being shot for striking. Literal class warfare.
There is nothing in Marx about fomenting racial conflict within a society. That doesn't even make sense.
The New Left of the 1960s was not an explicitly Marxist movement. They were indeed more about social justice, with race being a major point of focus, than they were about old-school Marxist stuff having to do with labor and capital.
I think you're trying to group a few too many things together into one big boogeyman.
So you consider yourself a gambler, then. [deleted][✘]
Precisely.
To some, 'Marxism' is just a label for 'anything that I consider to be bad for society'.
How about Trotsky's own words:
"They fear lest communism should try to fit them to a bed of Procrustes, and they point to the bulwark of Anglo-Saxon conservatism as an insuperable obstacle even to possibly desirable reforms. They argue that Great Britain and Japan would undertake military intervention against the American soviets. They shudder lest Americans be regimented in their habits of dress and diet, be compelled to subsist on famine rations, be forced to read stereotyped official propaganda in the newspapers, be coerced to serve as rubber stamps for decisions arrived at without their active participation or be required to keep their thoughts to themselves and loudly praise their soviet leaders in public, through fear of imprisonment and exile."
Leon Trotsky: If America Should Go Communist (1934)
There is nothing in Marx about fomenting racial conflict within a society.
That is correct. Again, American Marxism has replaced the traditional Marxist principle of class warfare with racial warfare for the reasons I already gave. That is why Critical Race Theory was taught. Don't you agree that most Americans believe they can improve their class status by hard work? That means that class status in the US is transitory. We don't have peasants who remain peasants for generations. On the other hand, race is permanent. Thus, if minorities can be convinced that they are permanent victims, a revolution is possible (in the Marxist view.)
The New Left of the 1960s was not an explicitly Marxist movement. They were indeed more about social justice, with race being a major point of focus, than they were about old-school Marxist stuff having to do with labor and capital.
That is basically true, but higher education was exposed to them and they took decisive advantage.
I think you're trying to group a few too many things together into one big boogeyman.
I'm providing the pedigree.
Why would you want to have that conversation?
This is about American Marxism and the means to their ends, is it not?
What a load of horse shit. The 'reasons' you gave were just your lame opinions where you re-label anything and everything you dislike in American society as "American Marxism". Don't like an increase in minority owned businesses? American Marxism! Don't like women in positions of authority and owning more businesses than ever before? American Marxism! Hate people pointing out how white conservatives have been continuing a legacy of discrimination against minorities? American Marxism! Hate seeing loud and proud gay Americans getting married? American Marxism! Your tired claims trying to paint all liberals and progressives as Marxist is nothing but sad attempts to sound educated while making laughable assertions that would be laughed out of any actual college or university.
21st century McCarthyism
Because you typically use the term 'Marxism' and then talk about some bizarre, fantastical alternate reality.
But since you are dodging, let's try this.
What are the ends that you believe 'American Marxism'Vic seeks to achieve?
I don't know what their vision for America is. I only know that what they have done to get there. It appears that they want to gut everything including our system of justice, law enforcement, family values, religious values, an honest press etc, etc, etc.
This article was a brief summation of what they did to education. It was the first institution they infiltrated.
I think part 2 should focus on what they did to a free press that was supposed to report news without bias.
Mamdani the Marxist is celebrating a guy who publicly supports destroying western civilization at Gracie mansion. I think their goals are clear enough
Who are these people who have done this gutting? Where do you see this gutting? How did they get the power to do all this gutting?
It yet again appears that you have imagined some terrible scenario and picked an imaginary boogeyman.
Then you should be totally upset with Trump's attempts to control the press.
What nonsense.
We'll start with the Mamdani administration.
They've said openly that "home ownership is a tool of white supremacy" and that "white families are going to need to get used to a different relationship with home ownership". They've promised the "warmth of collectivism". It's all very Animal Farm.
The actual plan is becoming obvious.... that is.. to make residential real estate utterly untenable as private investment. They intend to do that with more rent freezes (already announced) combined with more property taxes (already proposed).
As they continue to tighten these screws, not only will small landlords not be able to rent buildings without losing money, nobody will want to buy them. They will be forced to sell to the City at deep discounts either through statute or by making the properties so utterly unworkable as private investments that there won't be any other buyers.
Property is theft, after all, and everybody gets an apartment based on how the looney leftists in the Mayor's office decides to allocate them... which won't be corrupt or anything....
The content I responded to was defined by this:
Who are these people who are gutting our?:
Mamdani is a collectivist (and will not get very far with those ideas, I predict). You have not shown how he is doing what Vic outlined.
So who are these people who have so much power and influence that they can literally gut the above (and those were just the enumerations ... Vic stated 'everything').
( Now, consider what the Trump administration is doing right now given that list. )
As predicted last evening, the screed entitled "How the Left Destroyed American Education" should be consigned to the fiction section.
Amongst the most egregious of the author's many distortions is this assertion, which is just plain wrong:
No professor gets to pick his replacement. No accredited U.S. college allows a tenured professor to simply name their replacement. Hiring decisions involve search committees, departmental votes, and administrative approval.
A more plausible explanation is simple self-selection by the individuals who pursue those careers in the first place. A person who undertakes a degree in sociology, for example, is likely to be interested in questions of social structure and societal issues.
Colleges are constantly asking prospective, current, and past students what they want to study and why, along with a host of other questions designed to ensure that institutions remain aligned with the educational goals and changing needs of their students.
This whole article rests on the unsupported assumption that college students are “indoctrinated." They are not. I am sure some percentage of students are gullible, but as we can see with examples such as JD Vance and others, there is clearly no universal indoctrination occurring. They passed through elite universities and did not emerge with swirly wheels in their eyes or as monotone ideological caricatures.
And I have not even addressed the author’s use of the New York Times article, which does not conclude what the author claims it does.
So if the author claims ideological indoctrination in colleges, as the title “How the Left Destroyed American Education” suggests, they fail to demonstrate either the mechanism by which such indoctrination supposedly occurs or to provide any evidence that it has occurred.
I have two books on my bookshelf which I would like to recommend to you.
The first is The closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom.
The second is American Marxism by Mark Levin.
Oh that explains your belief on 'American Marxism' nicely. Mark Levin. You follow that nut.
For readers, I asked Claude to summarize that book's key ideas:
Note how the summary lists items that are not Marxism. This is an illustration of how some improperly use the word 'Marxism' as an emotive label for anything they do not like.
Marxism largely critiques capitalism and offers abstract solutions. It views capitalism as a system that produces class exploitation. Marxism's solution is collective ownership / democratic control of the means of production and distribution.
While there are plenty of things wrong with classical Marxism, IMO, this stupid practice of using Marxism as a pejorative while ignoring what the term actually means spreads disinformation; that is never good. But people like Levin are sensationalists so they create boogeyman entities responsible for changes they dislike and label them 'Marxism'. This helps to dumb down the public by substituting what should be a historically correct understanding of a term with meaning that is as superficial as a bumper sticker.
One fundamental claim of Marxism that should be obvious to anyone is that ownership and control of the means of production and distribution can be leveraged to widen the gap between owners (the bourgeoisie or capitalists) and the majority (the proletariat or workers).