https://xcancel.com/NicholasTyrone/status/1942222683107934233
Neoliberal Centrist Dad, hoping British politics sobers up eventually. Author of several books. Research Director
I have often remarked on the fact that an “anti-Marxist” argument is only the apparent rejuvenation of a pre-Marxist idea. A so-called “going beyond” Marxism will be at worst only a return to pre-Marxism; at best, only the rediscovery of a thought already contained in the philosophy which one believes he has gone beyond.
Don’t believe this? Pay attention anytime someone says “Marx lived hundreds of years ago, we have to adapt his theories to present society”
Those adaptations? They are always pre-Marxist succ dem revisionist nonsense. They never come up with new ideas, it’s always the same social chauvinist horseshit every time from the breadtubers and their ilk.
Adapting Marxist theories for present conditions is what Lenin did. Radlibs don’t want to hear that these adaptations will actually be more severe and “authoritarian” than Marx, not less. Our present world demands even more radical and extreme and sudden action than in Marx’s day. We need Climate Stalin.
Deep ecology is the big one that I run into a lot. There’s a 150+ year history of Marxist ecology which inherently understands those ideas in an intersectional framework. I can go back to Engels and describe climate change from a humanistic perspective even if he predated the science. Deep ecology tried to reinvent the wheel without the overt political analysis of Marxism, still using that intersectional framework but in a defanged liberal way. The result is a very messy paraphrasing of Marxist ideas without being able to name them directly or reference them across that 150+ year body of literature. It’s much more easily recuperated and made into a passive academic subject for fancy lads to ponder without a coherent sense of ontology. That comes at the expense of Marxist ecology not being able to get a real foothold in modern academia.
Then there’s hippie shit and other forms of reactionary traditionalism. They take the same core ideas but don’t even have the academic pretense of the deep ecologists to help define or organise those into something actionable, scientifically or politically. A hippie can say something I agree with but derive the opposite conclusion from it because they don’t have actual theory or a sense of organised praxis. A reactionary can say they want to go back to the specific time period Marx is describing in his ideas of the antithesis between town and country, but they aren’t doing so from a post-enlightenment or historical materialist standpoint. They want a literal reinvention of the 17th century where they’re the guy enclosing the commons while Marx wants to apply 19th century ideas to solve specific contradictions that came from those 17th century conditions.
My caffeine hasn’t hit yet, so this entire paragraph is filled with words that I understand and yet I have absolutely no idea what the fuck its saying.
Marxism is the next stage of philosophical and scientific inquiry beyond the enlightenment. Rejecting it just reinvents the same things it’s saying or reinforces some kind of reactionary movement toward feudalism.
Thank you, my smooth brain appreciates it
By talented people with ideas he of course isn’t referring to engineers or even programmers but capitalists.
Everyone knows that the guy who goes “I have this great idea for an app” is the truly talented person. Whoever spends 10 years building it is just a pointless poor person
The people arguing in the replies that social democracy is socialism
The biggest clown in the room is anyone unironically calling themselves a neoliberal in this day and age, though.
lol, he’s so shook that he had to make a Youtube video about how socialism sucks
https://nicktyrone.substack.com/p/explaining-the-dumbest-politicalWhat a shock that he uses the old ”what about mud pies tho?” chestnut.
What a shock that he uses the old ”what about mud pies tho?” chestnut.
It’s kind of sad that this is the level of idiocy we’ve been fighting for over 100 years. And they’re still using these dumbfuck arguments.
I try to think positively about it. Marx’s theory has been around for over a century, and yet no one has been able to successfully disprove it. That means it is a pretty solid scientific theory. The only arguments against it are people literally arguing against straw man ideas or people arguing against things that Marx himself pointed out as stupid on page 1 of capital.
We were talking about it in the other thread. All of the competent reactionaries and capitalists who won the Cold War are retiring or dying off. What’s left are the people who grew up being true believers.
Someone wrote here or on lemmygrad: “ These are the failsons and faildaughters in charge of everything in the west. This is why everything is going to shit, their parents and grandparents understood that the working class needed concessions and distractions, but this generation is pure kool-aid drinker. These guys literally don’t even understand the basics of the economic system that they are in charge of.”
No one mention that greatest innovations in the last 100 years were mostly publically funded war experiments
Nooo its the capitalist
That, or part of the space program which was just a way to advance rocketry during peacetime
Highest level of political understanding you will find in any UK politics hack.
Wait, are libs afraid of Lenin? Or is it Linen? Hard to say for sure
It is a funny to be criticised for not knowing what value is, when your side basically wrote the book on economic value.
