|
|
Post by Rareclan on Jul 9, 2020 6:31:14 GMT 10
Isn't It a shame they don't tell you exactly what the words mean.......... HUMAN LIVES MATTER X Anarchism as you posted bro, no where near the true meaning. And as you said It Is not a choice where one Is given a Birth Certificate... Humankindness  |
|
|
|
Post by Rareclan on Jul 9, 2020 6:37:49 GMT 10
America still believes Dictator Stalin communism  Richard Wolff: Introduction To Marx’s Theory Of Value (TMBS 128) Richard Wolff explains the labor theory of value. This is free content from the weekly edition of TMBS. To support the Michael Brooks Show on Patreon and receive hours of weekly members-only content, subscribe at www.patreon.com/TMBSRichard Wolff: The Mainstream Still Doesn’t Understand Socialism |
|
|
|
Post by Rareclan on Jul 9, 2020 7:24:03 GMT 10
Thanks for the article
There’s nothing Marxist about Black Lives Matter
This woke movement, supported by capitalists, is disguising the class divisions that Marxism highlights.
It has become increasingly common for commentators to describe Black Lives Matter as a ‘Marxist’ movement. Most such characterisations have been pejorative, intended to discredit the organisation. But at the same time, one BLM co-founder was more than comfortable describing herself and her colleagues as ‘trained Marxists’.
It serves the interests of both critics and supporters of BLM to talk about it as a Marxist outfit. Critics get to dismiss BLM as part of the loony left, and supporters get to believe they are part of something genuinely revolutionary. But are they right?
Perhaps the most defining characteristic of Marxism is its explanation of class and its role in society. The Communist Manifesto famously claims that, ‘The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles’. In other words, class conflict is the driving force of history. Revolutions happen when societies can no longer contain that conflict.
Marx said such revolutions can only be successful if oppressed classes become sufficiently unified to be able to outnumber and overcome those in power. Attaining class consciousness, and rejecting the artificial differences imposed upon us by our rulers as a means of keeping us at war with one another, is key to bringing about change.
Fast-forward to today and many of the so-called Marxists of BLM are virtually devoid of any analysis of class at all.
One example of this refusal properly to engage with class is the accusation of ‘class reductionism’, levelled against those arguing that class is just as important as race in explaining inequality. Adolph Reed Jr – a black Marxist – was recently deplatformed for his ‘class reductionist’ views on race. Taking the traditional Marxist approach lands you in hot water with activists who live and die by the all-subsuming doctrine of institutional racism.
In fact, the BLM movement doesn’t only ignore class analysis, it also obscures the reality of class relations. The constant focus on ‘white privilege’, for instance, has come at the expense of any recognition that lots of poor white people suffer from deprivations, police violence and prejudice, too. Racial disparities are a problem. But obsessing over white privilege stands in the way of any real attempt to draw on the common experiences of the white and black working classes, with the aim of building a cross-racial campaign for change. Instead of putting aside our differences, we are encouraged to wallow in them.
Talk of ‘white fragility’, a term coined by Robin DiAngelo and discussed in her best-selling book of the same name, is an example of this trend. It undermines cross-racial unity by focusing on difference and by insisting that all whites are inherently racist. As Luke Gittos has pointed out on spiked: ‘By fixating on “whiteness” as the root of all the problems facing black Americans, DiAngelo discounts the possibility that solidarity in the face of common problems can be more powerful than racial identity.’ The same is true for BLM more broadly.
Indeed, how can the workers unite across racial lines if today’s anti-racist movement is right that the lived experiences of black and white people are so totally different? And if white workers are inherently racist, why would black workers want to join with them?
Modern identity politics wrongly views society as a split between a white ruling class and a non-white mass proletariat. It refuses to engage with the reality that Marx identified – that workers can be equally exploited regardless of their origins, and that the key to progressive change lies in building bridges between hitherto distinct communities rather than in setting them apart. In this regard Black Lives Matter clearly stands in opposition to Marxism.
Other woke campaigns have similarly been described (or dismissed) as an offshoot of Marxism. Right-wing critics of things like identity politics, political correctness and the trans movement say we are witnessing the rise of ‘Cultural Marxism’. But these movements are often more reactionary than revolutionary. We have only to look at how quick multinational corporations have been to endorse the woke worldview to see how utterly un-radical it is.
Every big firm from McDonald’s to Apple has doffed its cap to Black Lives Matter. Even members of the royal family – the epitome of inherited power and privilege – have backed BLM. When you have the backing of these sorts of people, you know you are not about to turn the world upside down in favour of workers’ revolution. The fashion today is less for champagne socialism and more for iPhone identitarianism, it seems.
The ‘Marxist’ appellation is not simply false, though. It is also both counter-productive and dangerous. George Orwell warned about the political implications of using ‘meaningless words’ in his great essay, ‘Politics and the English Language’. Bemoaning the abuse and overuse of the word ‘fascism’, in words that ring truer today than ever, he said that word now had ‘no meaning except insofar as it signifies something not desirable’.
In recent years, there has been a resurgence of this desire to brand all political opponents as extremists, without much serious consideration of the terminology deployed. Such hollowing-out of language inevitably leads to confusion and misunderstanding. But it also inadvertently eats away at independent thought and expression.
Orwell said that, rather than pick the words that best and most clearly convey our meaning, many people often choose the easier route of ‘letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in’. If you do this, you allow these phrases to ‘construct your sentences for you’, and even to ‘think your thoughts for you’. Ultimately, this can lead to ‘partially concealing your meaning even from yourself.’
This is one of the ways we end up with commentators and politicians attacking their enemies by using little-thought-out terms which they cannot ultimately justify. This is how parts of the modern left are able to brand everyone and everything they disagree with as ‘racist’. But it is also how people can use the word ‘Marxist’ in a similar way, in place of proper analysis or critique. If we are fairly to reject accusations of racism made against anyone who does not take the knee for BLM, we must lead by example. We have to make sure that the words we use have meaning, and that we understand what that meaning is.
Paddy Hannam is a spiked intern.
Picture by: Getty. |
|
|
|
Post by evilhomer on Jul 9, 2020 10:00:36 GMT 10
Enjoyed the video brill. While agreeing with a fair amount of it. I have a few counter points. Marx himself had very little to say about the nuclear family or anything to do with the cultural and social side of society so it's not really a "radical Marxist agenda". Marx was an economist his critique is of capitalism, people who have read his works have developed a theory that I disagree with that the nuclear family should be destroyed because of its inherent links to capitalism and that it breeds people to accept hierarchy at an early age. I believe all families are communal in nature and don't need to be destroyed, I see no reason why the nuclear family and community family that BLM want cannot simultaneously exist as I envisage. If we're talking destruction of the nuclear family look no further than the liberal democracy and capitalist society we have now, the nuclear family has been in decline for decades under it's oppression.
Another reason why they're not Marxist's is BLM want more state control. Marx never really commented on the state except in the communist manifesto, of which the end goal is a classless, stateless and moneyless society. So if anything he was anti state. It was Lenin who formed the idea of the proletariat taking the state, Stalin saw to it that was an awful idea. Richard Wolff argues in the debate I posted recently that the socialism of this century will look totally different and that it should be bottom up not a straight grab at the middle of the power pyramid. Which is closer to how Marx envisioned it. The trouble with it all is like the bible everyone has their own interpretation of it. As Tony Benn said "To blame Marx for what's been done in his name is like blaming Jesus for the Spanish inquisition".
Marx himself can be argued as a racist due to various documents and papers, so the idea of BLM championing him as a cultural not economic icon is laughable as they also argue for racist statues to be taken down.
I'll end on Orwell. In the novel 1984 the ruling party is ingsoc an acronym for English socialist party. But the message of the book and the same as animal farm is that it's a warping of socialism and that only true socialism can defeat it.
We now live in an age where the elite have taken on a Marxist brand. It is false, but it doesn't mean Marxism isn't the right way to go post capitalism. It is the humanist way to go.
The basic outline of Marxism in a bitesize video.
Cultural Marxism isn't a thing
The difference between Marxism, Socialism and Communism...
|
|
|
|
Post by Rareclan on Jul 10, 2020 6:50:12 GMT 10
Enjoyed the video brill. While agreeing with a fair amount of it. I have a few counter points. Marx himself had very little to say about the nuclear family or anything to do with the cultural and social side of society so it's not really a "radical Marxist agenda". Marx was an economist his critique is of capitalism, people who have read his works have developed a theory that I disagree with that the nuclear family should be destroyed because of its inherent links to capitalism and that it breeds people to accept hierarchy at an early age. I believe all families are communal in nature and don't need to be destroyed, I see no reason why the nuclear family and community family that BLM want cannot simultaneously exist as I envisage. If we're talking destruction of the nuclear family look no further than the liberal democracy and capitalist society we have now, the nuclear family has been in decline for decades under it's oppression. Another reason why they're not Marxist's is BLM want more state control. Marx never really commented on the state except in the communist manifesto, of which the end goal is a classless, stateless and moneyless society. So if anything he was anti state. It was Lenin who formed the idea of the proletariat taking the state, Stalin saw to it that was an awful idea. Richard Wolff argues in the debate I posted recently that the socialism of this century will look totally different and that it should be bottom up not a straight grab at the middle of the power pyramid. Which is closer to how Marx envisioned it. The trouble with it all is like the bible everyone has their own interpretation of it. As Tony Benn said "To blame Marx for what's been done in his name is like blaming Jesus for the Spanish inquisition". Marx himself can be argued as a racist due to various documents and papers, so the idea of BLM championing him as a cultural not economic icon is laughable as they also argue for racist statues to be taken down. I'll end on Orwell. In the novel 1984 the ruling party is ingsoc an acronym for English socialist party. But the message of the book and the same as animal farm is that it's a warping of socialism and that only true socialism can defeat it. We now live in an age where the elite have taken on a Marxist brand. It is false, but it doesn't mean Marxism isn't the right way to go post capitalism. It is the humanist way to go. You were only meant to be taller than me  Take that to your teacher ! A Nice Nature and Life has taught you these well spoken words |
|
|
|
Post by brillbilly on Jul 10, 2020 11:56:00 GMT 10
What worries me about Marxism,socialism,communism and any other ism is that it could all be seen as Orwells Newspeak.
Quote: Newspeak isn’t just a set of buzzwords, but the deliberate replacement of one set of words in the language for another. The transition is still in progress in the fictional 1984, but is expected to be completed “by about the year 2050.” Students of history and linguistics will recognize that this is a ludicrously accelerated pace for the complete replacement of one vocabulary and syntax by another. (We might call Orwell’s English Socialists “accelerationsts.”) Newspeak appears not through history or social change but through the will of the Party.
|
|
|
|
Post by evilhomer on Jul 11, 2020 8:15:44 GMT 10
Cheers rareclan ☺
Thanks brill, I do see where you are coming from it's a concern I've had myself. It is unfortunate that those who call themselves any of those labels also promote censorship. Many Marxists do believe in freedom of speech absolutely. It is our job to take the rest to task about identity politics and political correctness on how these are the groundwork for censorship and division.
I saw an article recently Noam Chomsky and other authors have signed an open letter calling for the attack on freedom of speech to end he is as left wing as you can get. Funnily enough so did liberal virtue signalling JK Rowling after she had been "cancelled" over supposed trasnsphobic remarks, it's funny because she's usually on the wrong side of history but I'm happy for anyone to stand up for freedom of speech. I don't like celebrities chiming in with their opinions because they're wrong and being used as tools, but if a little band of counter celebs wanna use their "status" then go for it, they're an irrelevance and distraction lmao.
As I see it though newspeak and doublethink especially are already here and have been for a while, newspeak (to diminish thought) was used by the Americans against the communists through the red scare, terrify those who hold those views for having them and dissuade anyone from having those views by totally obscuring the truth, to this day most Americans don't know what these words mean. Then there's the blacklist in Hollywood, banning all the communists from working, censorship in action. Now of course Stalin did the same, no soviet citizen was allowed to be a capitalist and far worse but again although he called himself a communist he just wasn't.
Then there's the Nazi's who used newspeak which Orwell obviously saw. They also obviously stole the word socialist as a way to draw actual socialists and communists to them, not that there was much choice after they burned down the Reichstag, blamed the communists, banned them from the Reichstag and went on to kill them and trade unionists and so on. What's the line if you repeat the same lie often enough it becomes true. Some myths need to be debunked around the ideolies of socialism, communism, Marxism and anarachism.
But at the same time anyone who calls themselves any one of those and is anti free speech and pro censorship of opinion via PC, identity politics and so on need to be totally questioned and changed. Because Marx never wrote anything about that and would've been strongly opposed to it. He believed workers had no colour which is totally on the contrary to BLM who believe quite the opposite. As it said in the first video of my last post "at this point in history we should all be Marxist's" because it's all about economics, you can be socially conservative and be economically a Marxist. Christopher Hitchens is an example of that although he described himself as a Luxumborgist-Trotskyist (two fascinating characters of history) but he was also socially and culturally conservative.
Orwell was socialism's biggest critic but to the day he died he was a self described socialist. Everyone needs to read his work. I need to read more of his work.
Peace and love
|
|
|
|
Post by brillbilly on Jul 13, 2020 0:02:11 GMT 10
You have a smart mind Evil and i love the fact that your a freethinker  Heres a link to 1984 PDF You can read it online www.george-orwell.org/1984you may find this well worth a watch |
|
|
|
Post by evilhomer on Jul 29, 2020 2:56:42 GMT 10
Will get round to watching your response shortly as it looks right up my street. Cheers brill.
Good debate. Some better speakers than others on both sides.
Andrew Rosindell
Ben Sullivan
Theodore Dalrymple
Katy Clark
Daniel Hannan
My favourite speaker Robert Griffiths
John Redwood MP
Jeremy Corbyn MP (back before managing an establishment party made him drop his beliefs for "electoral gain")
|
|
|
|
Post by evilhomer on Sept 29, 2020 7:43:01 GMT 10
Just a few videos I found enjoyable. Always nice to hear the opposite side certainly not the side I was taught at school. I know the bad, was refreshing to hear the good.
|
|
Happy New Years Everybody!!!