you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If their ideas have nothing to do with marxism, then it doesn't make sense calling them "neomarxists" or "cultural marxists". Even if they cover their ideas with some marxist concepts to appear to be revolutionaries, it doesn't make sense. It's like calling TRA feminists because they use some feminist concepts to hide their true nature. Calling the woke "neomarxists" only serves to hide the fact that woke politics is, in fact, a capitalist enterprise.

Liberalism was originally tied up with economic policies, though. I don't know why Americans use the word in a different way, but I don't think Democrats care that much about freedom in general. Maybe, when it was the Republicans the ones who took offense at everything, they could say to be the party of freedom. However, IMO, just a glance at their foreign policy shows the two parties are two sides of the same coin.

[–]soundsituation 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not saying that they're exactly the same or that if you support one you have to support the other. I'm saying they share the same structure. They don't use the same recipe but they do use the same formula.

This video may explain it better than I can.

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm sorry, but I just stoped before the 5 minutes mark. I can't be bothered to finish the video when this dude get basic definitions totally wrong. Marxism opposes capitalism. You cannot talk about marxism without talking about economy and economic policies. Claiming that marxism opposes liberalism and the latter seeks the freedom of all individuals is disingenous. It is true that liberalism was key in the resurgement of democracy and the fall of absolute monarchies in modern times. However, the freedom that came with capitalsm had limits. For instance, in many (I'd say all, but I'm not sure) countries the vote was restricted to people based on sex, income or race at first. Many liberal countries have enganged in imperialism, without any care for the freedom of the people who lived in the countries they invaded. In some cases, the ruling class has overthrown democratic elected goverments they didn't like and persecuted political rivals (for an example of this, you can read on the history of military dictatorships in Latin America). Saying that only comunists can be authoritharians is a capitalist mith. That is why I said that the only freedom that liberals care about is economic freedom. Everything else is optional.

And I think it matters a lot how we choose to politically define the woke. Just like it matters we can say that "trans woman" are actually men claiming to be women for a variety of reasons, it matters we can say from where this ideology comes from and who is putting the money behind it. This ideology have surged in the West and the ones in power there are NOT marxist. Not only woke politics has nothing to do with economical policies, but their focus with identity has more in common with the individualism and the idea of the self-made man espoused by liberalism than with the class analysis from marxism.

I don't think it's a coincidence that "neomarxism" is a term usually used by conservatives. While conservatives opposes identity politics, they don't have any interest in economic reform, either. It suits their own interests to label the woke that way because they don't want people to question the status quo. Just like it suits them to blame transgenderism on feminism.