If JP is misrepresenting authors that is useful to point out, but the masses relate to his articulation of a modern phenomena they intuit to be occurring but couldnt articulate.
-
-
It's still revolutionary. It just no longer sees class difference as the instrument of revolution.
-
Yes. The revolutionary aspect has moved on from class issues (Marxism) to identity & language issues (postmodernism)
-
'Marxism' is not synonymous with 'dismantling perceived structural oppression' or with 'revolution'. That drive can be targeted at anything from slavery to patriarchy to feudalism to theocracy to liberalism. Marxism did it with class.
-
If Marxism abandons class issues, it's not Marxism. In the same way, if feminism abandoned women's rights, it just wouldn't be feminism. And if vegetarians start eating meat, they're no longer vegetarians. This isn't a no true scotsman. Those words mean something.
-
You can make perfectly reasonable and well-evidenced arguments that a movement or political position which used to focus on one thing then began focusing on something else whilst retaining its ethos but this is different to saying it still is that thing.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
that’s why it’s always referred to as neo-marxism by folk like jbp
-
It’s the same playbook. Divide and conquer
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.