JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
This is an example of why I think the Left should not be fukking with liberals under any circumstances, save for a popular front situation in the fight against fascism.
Reminder: Liberalism Is Working, and Marxism Has Always Failed
- Thread starter 88m3
- Start date
Actually, you're wrong. Again.
Leftists really are quick to ignore their own blind idealism and are prone to adopting the mission creep endemic to the "well meaning" fascism of collectivism.
Life comes at you fast
Yes liberalism is working very well for middle aged white men with steady jobs whose biggest concern in the world is the trolls online. This is true.
Yesterday when pressed Chait couldn't even define what makes a Marxist a Marxist. Hes a clown who works for his class and racial interests.
And rampant campus PCness, to the extent it exists(which I've yet to expierence, might be a more private school phenomenon), is not Marxist in nature. Social justice activism usually prioritizes the experience of individuals(i.e. Triggering) over collective needs.
If chait were to study the subject past 3 googles, he'd know that Jacobin as an institution isn't beloved in radical social justice circles. But then that would require he be an actual journalist
Yesterday when pressed Chait couldn't even define what makes a Marxist a Marxist. Hes a clown who works for his class and racial interests.
And rampant campus PCness, to the extent it exists(which I've yet to expierence, might be a more private school phenomenon), is not Marxist in nature. Social justice activism usually prioritizes the experience of individuals(i.e. Triggering) over collective needs.
If chait were to study the subject past 3 googles, he'd know that Jacobin as an institution isn't beloved in radical social justice circles. But then that would require he be an actual journalist
Last edited:
Eternal Tecate
Superstar
calling anything that exists right now "working" is laughable
Deutsche Bank
Some Of My Partners Dope Fiends Ha
Ironically, the same people ostensibly subscribe to evolution, but refuse to acknowledge the fact that they themselves are unfit to compete in a free market economy.
Especially in the era of the internet, where groups of people can manage to arrange massive shutdowns of political rallies, but can't even collaborate to form business enterprises that would empower themselves and their communities.
Losers are great at obstruction, not so great at construction.
Especially in the era of the internet, where groups of people can manage to arrange massive shutdowns of political rallies, but can't even collaborate to form business enterprises that would empower themselves and their communities.
Losers are great at obstruction, not so great at construction.
Fascinating
Joe Schome
Pro
Chait. He has been a comedy figure for years.
Domingo Halliburton
Handmade in USA
I knew what you meant. They both sound like idiots.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
What's the point of this shytty article? Nobody in mainstream political dialogue is espousing marxism. Sanders is pushing Scandinavian-style democratic socialism and he's considered the left-wing extreme in America. I can't believe people get paid big money to write lazy, irrelevant trash like this.
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
Marxism has always failed though
ADemonYouKnow
Rookie
YeahMarxism has always failed though
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Oh, Good, It’s 2016 and We’re Arguing About Whether Marxism Works
By Jonathan ChaitFollow @jonathanchait322pointed this out, in light of the resurgence of Marxist thought among some left-wing intellectual circles. In an essay inIn These Times, Tyler Zimmer writes what he purports to be a response, but that in fact confirms my point for me.
Reminder: Liberalism Is Working, and Marxism Has Always Failed6 Years After Obamacare’s Passage, Haters Refuse to Accept RealityDonald Trump Versus the Republican Brain
The problem with Marxism, I argue, lies in its class-based model of economic rights. Liberalism believes in political rights for everybody, regardless of the content of their ideas. Marxists believe political rights belong only to those arguing on behalf of the oppressed — i.e., people who agree with Marxists.
Zimmer begins by insisting that self-described Marxist regimes such as the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cuba, North Korea, etc., all of whose leaders were immersed in Marxist thought, were not real Marxists at all. (Zimmer: “[T]hese authoritarian monstrosities had virtually nothing to do with [what] Marx himself said or did.”)
Zimmer proceeds to explain why the liberal idea that everybody should enjoy the same right to express their political idea is a failure, and lays out the Marxist concept of what free speech should really mean:
Marxists value free speech because they are committed to building a society where all can decide matters of public concern democratically, as genuine equals. Thus, the Marxist has a consistent way of explaining why speech that aims to dominate or marginalize others should be challenged rather than protected: it is contrary to the very values animating our commitment to free speech in the first place. …
This explains why, to quote Jelani Cobb, “the freedom to offend the powerful is not equivalent to the freedom to bully the relatively disempowered.” It also provides a principled, consistent basis for opposing and disrupting the public acts of openly racist organizations that seek to subordinate, harm, scapegoat or marginalize others. …
[T]he (socialist) goal of cooperating and governing public life together as full equals gives us a principled criterion for deciding which forms of expression deserve protection and which don’t.
Zimmer is articulating the standard left-wing critique of political liberalism, and all illiberal left-wing ideologies, Marxist and otherwise, follow the same basic structure. These critiques reject the liberal notion of free speech as a positive good enjoyed by all citizens. They categorize political ideas as being made on behalf of either the oppressor class or the oppressed class. (Traditional Marxism defines these classes in economic terms; more modern variants replace or add race and gender identities.) From that premise, they proceed to their conclusion that political advocacy on behalf of the oppressed enhances freedom, and political advocacy on behalf of the oppressor diminishes it.
It does not take much imagination to draw a link between this idea and the Gulag. The gap between Marxist political theory and the observed behavior of Marxist regimes is tissue-thin. Their theory of free speech gives license to any party identifying itself as the authentic representative of the oppressed to shut down all opposition (which, by definition, opposes the rights of the oppressed). When Marxists reserve for themselves the right to decide “which forms of expression deserve protection and which don’t,” the result of the deliberation is perfectly obvious.
In the contemporary United States, these ideas are confined by the fact that only in certain communities (like college campuses) does the illiberal left have the power to implement its vision, and even there it is constrained by the U.S. Constitution. If illiberal ideas were to gain more power, the scale of their abuses would widen.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...whether-marxism-works.html?mid=facebook_nymag
By Jonathan ChaitFollow @jonathanchait322pointed this out, in light of the resurgence of Marxist thought among some left-wing intellectual circles. In an essay inIn These Times, Tyler Zimmer writes what he purports to be a response, but that in fact confirms my point for me.
Reminder: Liberalism Is Working, and Marxism Has Always Failed6 Years After Obamacare’s Passage, Haters Refuse to Accept RealityDonald Trump Versus the Republican Brain
The problem with Marxism, I argue, lies in its class-based model of economic rights. Liberalism believes in political rights for everybody, regardless of the content of their ideas. Marxists believe political rights belong only to those arguing on behalf of the oppressed — i.e., people who agree with Marxists.
Zimmer begins by insisting that self-described Marxist regimes such as the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cuba, North Korea, etc., all of whose leaders were immersed in Marxist thought, were not real Marxists at all. (Zimmer: “[T]hese authoritarian monstrosities had virtually nothing to do with [what] Marx himself said or did.”)
Zimmer proceeds to explain why the liberal idea that everybody should enjoy the same right to express their political idea is a failure, and lays out the Marxist concept of what free speech should really mean:
Marxists value free speech because they are committed to building a society where all can decide matters of public concern democratically, as genuine equals. Thus, the Marxist has a consistent way of explaining why speech that aims to dominate or marginalize others should be challenged rather than protected: it is contrary to the very values animating our commitment to free speech in the first place. …
This explains why, to quote Jelani Cobb, “the freedom to offend the powerful is not equivalent to the freedom to bully the relatively disempowered.” It also provides a principled, consistent basis for opposing and disrupting the public acts of openly racist organizations that seek to subordinate, harm, scapegoat or marginalize others. …
[T]he (socialist) goal of cooperating and governing public life together as full equals gives us a principled criterion for deciding which forms of expression deserve protection and which don’t.
Zimmer is articulating the standard left-wing critique of political liberalism, and all illiberal left-wing ideologies, Marxist and otherwise, follow the same basic structure. These critiques reject the liberal notion of free speech as a positive good enjoyed by all citizens. They categorize political ideas as being made on behalf of either the oppressor class or the oppressed class. (Traditional Marxism defines these classes in economic terms; more modern variants replace or add race and gender identities.) From that premise, they proceed to their conclusion that political advocacy on behalf of the oppressed enhances freedom, and political advocacy on behalf of the oppressor diminishes it.
It does not take much imagination to draw a link between this idea and the Gulag. The gap between Marxist political theory and the observed behavior of Marxist regimes is tissue-thin. Their theory of free speech gives license to any party identifying itself as the authentic representative of the oppressed to shut down all opposition (which, by definition, opposes the rights of the oppressed). When Marxists reserve for themselves the right to decide “which forms of expression deserve protection and which don’t,” the result of the deliberation is perfectly obvious.
In the contemporary United States, these ideas are confined by the fact that only in certain communities (like college campuses) does the illiberal left have the power to implement its vision, and even there it is constrained by the U.S. Constitution. If illiberal ideas were to gain more power, the scale of their abuses would widen.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...whether-marxism-works.html?mid=facebook_nymag
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
Bump your 1-starred thread that was only dapped by the WOAT, brehs.
ADemonYouKnow
Rookie
Fantastic thread