Moses was not being a proto-Marxist when he mythically said 'Let my people go.' The American revolution was not a form of Marxism. Neither was the Peasants' Revolt or the abolition of slavery. Sometimes ppl see society in terms of oppressed & oppressor groups because it is.
-
-
Show this thread
-
This is what matters. Is there a good reason to see society in this way? What evidence for it is there? I fear that associating claims of societal injustice with Marxism can often be a form of "You know who also liked dogs? Hitler."
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Marx's conflict theory strongly lends himself to being the focus of this term, imo. While oppressor/oppressed dynamics have existed for centuries, they more often would describe warring neighbours than social groups within a peacetime entity.
-
OK, but this doesn't mean that every analysis which looks at social groups within a society is just a variation on Marxism. Marxism is a very specific class analysis.
-
I dont think there is any suggestion that every & all analysis of social groups is a variation of Marxism, or that the act of analysing social groups is either I don't see Marx's conflict theory being constrainted to either his time or the protagonists of his analysis
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Call it neomarxism, call it conflict theory, the point is, looking at all present and past sociopolitical issues through the lens of power and oppressor/oppressed groups, belief in dogmatic egalitarianism is a thing of the radical Left.
-
Actually, no, it isn't. This focus on identity politics, outrage culture, & victim mentality is actually nothing but a series of obstacles to the attainment of any leftist goals. Leftism requires Solidarity & all this stuff you're talking about promotes division.
-
And Helen is right, Marxists, as well as other Leftists (since we're not all Marxists, there being many types of Socialism besides Marxist Socialism) are concerned with class struggle. Class is not an identity, regardless of how much some revisionist takes on intersectionality
-
have tried to make it so. When you focus on all these diverse skin colors & sexualities & so forth, all you're doing is promoting division based on what are largely superficial characteristics. But the poor black woman has more in common with the poor white man than either has in
-
common with any member of the 1%. The working class, regardless of their various sexualities, have more in common with one another than they do with any useless bloated leech sitting at the top of the pyramid getting fat off the lifeblood of the people. This is the only
-
oppression worthy of any attention, because until it is successfully dealt with, none of these divided up identity groups are going to ever have their needs & concerns dealt with in anything remotely akin to a permanent way. Identity politics is a distraction. It is perhaps even
-
a tactic for perpetuating the status quo, because it is naught but realization of the old oligarchic strategy "divide ut regnes." As long as we are divided into rival groups squabbling over scraps from the table of the 1%, we cannot stand together in Solidarity against the 1%.
-
When big corporations (Google, Starbucks, etc) adopt the intersectional paradigm, leftists should be at least suspicious.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
True, but the language ("privilege") and the binary focus on oppressor and oppressed directly mirrors Marxism much more than any of the examples you give in the next tweet. It's a pretty good fit, relatively.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s not so much seeing it that way, I think, inasmuch as it’s developing the inability to see it any *other* way.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.