by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .7891011»

Third Worldism is not purely meant to be a critique of mainstream Marxism and I didn't mean to imply it is, though it obviously comes into conflict with some commonly held Marxist positions. Are you suggesting mainstream Marxism is idealist or that Third Worldism is with this last point here?

I've looked into Wallerstein previously, I believe after having discussions with you in The Internationale a while back. I've enjoyed what I've read from Sweezy and the rest of the Monthly Review school, but of course Third Worldists heavily draw from these folks as well (Arghiri Emmanuel is another author in this orbit of particular importance to Third Worldists). I've seen dependency theory and Third Worldism used interchangeably in some contexts though it's not a usage I accept personally.

You might be surprised to learn that Mao wasn't a Maoist either! He saw his theory as just a creative application of Marxism-Leninism to his setting. What's called "Maoism" is usually referring to MLs that take/took heavy influence from him like the Black Panthers or in more contemporary contexts Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, a tendency developed largely by Sendero Luminoso in the 80s that outright rejects some positions Mao took (ex: Three Worlds Theory). Third Worldists in the vein of Cope don't really focus too much on Mao's work, at least in what I've read (his Divided World Divided Class). Those who emphasize the Maoist side more lean on Lin Biao's work.

I'm not sure what you mean by rejecting the international proletariat in this context. Marx and Engels themselves both spoke of their concerns with sections of the English working class and how they were essentially becoming ideologically bourgeoisified and developing a self-interest in the exploitation of the periphery from the sharing of superprofits generated; Third Worldists merely extend this concept further.

I mentioned that the presentation of Third Worldists that you just repeat here (seemingly ignoring all that I wrote about them focusing on economic data in their work) was vulgar because it's a very reductionist view akin to skimming a Wikipedia page about the subject, one that is not actually representative of many prominent Third Worldists. Cope for example extends what he sees as the labor aristocracy to cover most of the working class in the core (i.e. beyond the specialized trades/guilds that characterized most of who the classical theorists had in mind when using term) but mentions that there are still some superexploited groups in the core whose benefits from unequal exchange don't "balance out" so to speak. He even stresses the importance still of activism in the core...

Regarding a successful revolution from below, that depends on how you define both "success" and "from below"! Moreover, regardless if anything has reached whatever your standards are on that, I don't think it's in any way controversial to suggest that the revolutionary left is and has been stronger in the Third World for decades now. I have much more respect for a project that tries and fails than one that doesn't even get started.

Feel free to give more exposition on Gramsci's views here, I'd love to hear it.

Zulanka in MSC wrote:Third Worldism is not purely meant to be a critique of mainstream Marxism and I didn't mean to imply it is, though it obviously comes into conflict with some commonly held Marxist positions. Are you suggesting mainstream Marxism is idealist or that Third Worldism is with this last point here?

I am talking about Western Marxism and the critical social theory which developed out of it. Either the individuals who started those schools did not read The German Ideology, which critiques German idealism, or they simply disagree with it. Either way, IMO, one of the reasons Marxist communism has not taken root in the Western world is because of the idealist turn.

Zulanka in MSC wrote:I've looked into Wallerstein previously, I believe after having discussions with you in The Internationale a while back. I've enjoyed what I've read from Sweezy and the rest of the Monthly Review school, but of course Third Worldists heavily draw from these folks as well (Arghiri Emmanuel is another author in this orbit of particular importance to Third Worldists). I've seen dependency theory and Third Worldism used interchangeably in some contexts though it's not a usage I accept personally.

Yes, I think I remember you, as well. Nice chatting with you again. Third Worldism draws on dependency theory, but it does not do so in a very consistent fashion. Most dependency theorists I know strongly disagree with Third World "Maoism." Personally, I have problems with all of them, but at least dependency theorists are rigorous in their approach.

Zulanka in MSC wrote:You might be surprised to learn that Mao wasn't a Maoist either! He saw his theory as just a creative application of Marxism-Leninism to his setting. What's called "Maoism" is usually referring to MLs that take/took heavy influence from him like the Black Panthers or in more contemporary contexts Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, a tendency developed largely by Sendero Luminoso in the 80s that outright rejects some positions Mao took (ex: Three Worlds Theory). Third Worldists in the vein of Cope don't really focus too much on Mao's work, at least in what I've read (his Divided World Divided Class). Those who emphasize the Maoist side more lean on Lin Biao's work.

Yes, and Marx wasn't a Marxist either. He disowned the term. However, I am referring to what Mao wrote in the Little Red Book. There isn't a hint of Third Worldism in his writings.

Zulanka in MSC wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by rejecting the international proletariat in this context. Marx and Engels themselves both spoke of their concerns with sections of the English working class and how they were essentially becoming ideologically bourgeoisified and developing a self-interest in the exploitation of the periphery from the sharing of superprofits generated; Third Worldists merely extend this concept further.

Third Worldists reject Marx's statement that workers of the world should unite. According to them, proletarians in the First World don't have the revolutionary potential to do so. I have yet to see a convincing defense of that position.

Zulanka in MSC wrote:I mentioned that the presentation of Third Worldists that you just repeat here (seemingly ignoring all that I wrote about them focusing on economic data in their work) was vulgar because it's a very reductionist view akin to skimming a Wikipedia page about the subject, one that is not actually representative of many prominent Third Worldists. Cope for example extends what he sees as the labor aristocracy to cover most of the working class in the core (i.e. beyond the specialized trades/guilds that characterized most of who the classical theorists had in mind when using term) but mentions that there are still some superexploited groups in the core whose benefits from unequal exchange don't "balance out" so to speak. He even stresses the importance still of activism in the core...

IMO, any approach which divides the Proletariat, rather than trying to find intersections which unite it, is counterproductive.

Zulanka in MSC wrote:Regarding a successful revolution from below, that depends on how you define both "success" and "from below"! Moreover, regardless if anything has reached whatever your standards are on that, I don't think it's in any way controversial to suggest that the revolutionary left is and has been stronger in the Third World for decades now. I have much more respect for a project that tries and fails than one that doesn't even get started.

I am using the term like Hal Draper in The Two Souls of Socialism.

Zulanka in MSC wrote:Feel free to give more exposition on Gramsci's views here, I'd love to hear it.

Gramsci was one of the major predecessors of Antifa, a current I incorporate into my work (along with Rosa's ideas). I like him because, from his prison cell, he laid the foundation for an approach which would challenge both autocrats and plutocrats from Mussolini to Trump.

A marxist scholar freien

Dialectical metaRealism wrote:I am talking about Western Marxism and the critical social theory which developed out of it. Either the individuals who started those schools did not read The German Ideology, which critiques German idealism, or they simply disagree with it. Either way, IMO, one of the reasons Marxist communism has not taken root in the Western world is because of the idealist turn.

"Western Marxism" is an umbrella term that incorporates many different and even opposing currents. Most Western Marxists based much of their reading of Marx on The German Ideology, since it is the main text to look at for any "philosophical" appreciation of Marx. I don't see why you think that they omitted or disagreed with that text, that simply doesn't come close to being a fact. Also, The German Ideology isn't a critique of German Idealism, as you say, but a criticism of German philosophers that were contemporaries of Marx and were associated with Left Hegelianism, just like him. German Idealism is the most complex and intriguing period in the history of philosophy, in my opinion, and actually Marxism owes a lot to it. Marx recognizes his debt to Hegel, specifically. German materialism can be said to have its roots on Schelling's lectures on the Grounding of Positive Philosophy, which were attended by Marx and Engels (also by Bakunin and Feuerbach, among many others). In any case, if you are trying to to accuse every figure that is considered to belong in what is called "Western Marxism" an idealist, then you are simply wrong and reductive (examples: Gramsci and Althusser), and if you moreover want to see the cause of this in a refusal by them to accept/recognize a supposed criticism of German Idealism made by Marx, then there are many parts of the story you are missing (what I said above, for example). I don't think that an idealist turn of Marxism ever took place and I would actually say that there has always been a fight between idealism and materialism within Marxism. But the issue of this duality is rather difficult, for a variety of reasons.

Dialectical metaRealism wrote:Yes, and Marx wasn't a Marxist either. He disowned the term.

Marx's claim that he wasn't a Marxist was mostly ironic and was told against the people that called themselves Marxists at them, particularly Lafargue and friends. But I don't believe that what Zulanka said about Mao not being a Maoist holds much ground. In the same sense, Lenin wasn't a Leninist either, Bordiga wasn't a Bordigist, etc. People generally see themselves as the continuation of the real movement and it's obvious that they do so; they would not be of it if they didn't believe so beforehand.

Dialectical metaRealism wrote:IMO, any approach which divides the Proletariat, rather than trying to find intersections which unite it, is counterproductive.

Where and how is the line drawn between what intersections can unite and what can divide the proletariat? I would like to hear what you have in mind saying that.

A marxist scholar freien wrote:"Western Marxism" is an umbrella term that incorporates many different and even opposing currents. Most Western Marxists based much of their reading of Marx on The German Ideology, since it is the main text to look at for any "philosophical" appreciation of Marx. I don't see why you think that they omitted or disagreed with that text, that simply doesn't come close to being a fact. Also, The German Ideology isn't a critique of German Idealism, as you say, but a criticism of German philosophers that were contemporaries of Marx and were associated with Left Hegelianism, just like him. German Idealism is the most complex and intriguing period in the history of philosophy, in my opinion, and actually Marxism owes a lot to it. Marx recognizes his debt to Hegel, specifically. German materialism can be said to have its roots on Schelling's lectures on the Grounding of Positive Philosophy, which were attended by Marx and Engels (also by Bakunin and Feuerbach, among many others). In any case, if you are trying to to accuse every figure that is considered to belong in what is called "Western Marxism" an idealist, then you are simply wrong and reductive (examples: Gramsci and Althusser), and if you moreover want to see the cause of this in a refusal by them to accept/recognize a supposed criticism of German Idealism made by Marx, then there are many parts of the story you are missing (what I said above, for example). I don't think that an idealist turn of Marxism ever took place and I would actually say that there has always been a fight between idealism and materialism within Marxism. But the issue of this duality is rather difficult, for a variety of reasons.

Hegel is generally called an absolute idealist. That distinguishes him from Kant's transcendental idealism. In German Ideology, Marx, given his background as a Young Hegelian, focuses on Hegel, but his statements can be applied more broadly to the idealist tradition in Germany.

As to Western Marxism and critical social theory: My own work comes out of Western Marxism and critical theory. I have written a long book on the subject. My point was not that all Western Marxists and critical theorists succumbed to idealism, but that idealism has been predominant. Roy Bhaskar, my major intellectual mentor, can broadly be called an critical theorist. He was a realist and opposed idealism. Bhaskar, and other critical realists, have tried to rescue critical social theory from idealism. Again, that does not mean that all critical theorists have been idealists, but idealism became predominant beginning with the Frankfurt School (and the New School).

A marxist scholar freien wrote:Marx's claim that he wasn't a Marxist was mostly ironic and was told against the people that called themselves Marxists at them, particularly Lafargue and friends. But I don't believe that what Zulanka said about Mao not being a Maoist holds much ground. In the same sense, Lenin wasn't a Leninist either, Bordiga wasn't a Bordigist, etc. People generally see themselves as the continuation of the real movement and it's obvious that they do so; they would not be of it if they didn't believe so beforehand.

Marx did not agree with a lot of the work that was being done in the name of Marxism. He was, it seems to me, trying to distance himself from those approaches. He also did not want Marxism to become Marxism, Inc. (or in German, Marxismus, GmbH).

A marxist scholar freien wrote:Where and how is the line drawn between what intersections can unite and what can divide the proletariat? I would like to hear what you have in mind saying that.

My view is that identity politics, as an awareness of those intersections, can be a beginning of conscientization, but it can never be the conclusion. In other words, identity politics needs to be quickly abandoned for class consciousness.

A marxist scholar freien

Dialectical metaRealism wrote:Hegel is generally called an absolute idealist. That distinguishes him from Kant's transcendental idealism.

Kant's Critical Philosophy was, by Kant's own admission, transcedentally an idealism, but empirically a realism. He even included a section called "Refutation of Idealism" in the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason to reject the related confusions that had followed its initial publication. It is only with Fichte's Wissenschaftslehre that one can talk about a genuine system of transcendental idealism. When it comes to Hegel, he is one of the most complex thinkers and I would say that one should not be too hasty to accept what his philosophy is "generally called". The appreciation of his work can, and does, differ greatly. Lenin was among the many readers of Hegel to be surprised by the fact that he might have not been as much as an idealist as considered to be.

Dialectical metaRealism wrote:In German Ideology, Marx, given his background as a Young Hegelian, focuses on Hegel, but his statements can be applied more broadly to the idealist tradition in Germany.

I don't see it. It seems to me that the German Ideology is a clear cut critique of the Young Hegelians, not of Hegel himself and even less of the whole "idealist tradition in Germany". Marx did critique Hegel earlier, but from a pretty much Feuerbachian standpoint. We know how the story goes, Marx was kind enough to clearly explain to us who was not a dead dog in the beginning of Capital.

Dialectical metaRealism wrote:Roy Bhaskar, my major intellectual mentor, can broadly be called an critical theorist. He was a realist and opposed idealism.

I don't know about Bhaskar specifically, but I think that realism and idealism are not mutually exclusive (you seem to have used them here as such), and that they actually are, and always have been, pretty close. The way I see it, materialism is not a realism. And a wise bearded German once said that "the road to materialism was nominalism".

Dialectical metaRealism wrote:My view is that identity politics, as an awareness of those intersections, can be a beginning of conscientization, but it can never be the conclusion. In other words, identity politics needs to be quickly abandoned for class consciousness.

I completely disagree with that position. Sounds like class reductionism? I consider identity politics to be of far greater importance than a mere way towards the acquisition of class consciousness. Those struggles neither begin, nor end, with the emancipation of the proletariat.

A marxist scholar freien wrote:Kant's Critical Philosophy was, by Kant's own admission, transcedentally an idealism, but empirically a realism. He even included a section called "Refutation of Idealism" in the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason to reject the related confusions that had followed its initial publication. It is only with Fichte's Wissenschaftslehre that one can talk about a genuine system of transcendental idealism. When it comes to Hegel, he is one of the most complex thinkers and I would say that one should not be too hasty to accept what his philosophy is "generally called". The appreciation of his work can, and does, differ greatly. Lenin was among the many readers of Hegel to be surprised by the fact that he might have not been as much as an idealist as considered to be.

It depends on how one uses those terms. Ontologically, Kant was an idealist. Epistemologically, he was a realist. Kant was the founder of modern philosophy which has, since his lifetime, been dominated by idealism, including with Fichte and his dialectic.

A marxist scholar freien wrote:I don't see it. It seems to me that the German Ideology is a clear cut critique of the Young Hegelians, not of Hegel himself and even less of the whole "idealist tradition in Germany". Marx did critique Hegel earlier, but from a pretty much Feuerbachian standpoint. We know how the story goes, Marx was kind enough to clearly explain to us who was not a dead dog in the beginning of Capital.

Marx's major criticism of Hegel was that he turned the dialectic upside down. Marx claimed to correct Hegel's error.

A marxist scholar freien wrote:I don't know about Bhaskar specifically, but I think that realism and idealism are not mutually exclusive (you seem to have used them here as such), and that they actually are, and always have been, pretty close. The way I see it, materialism is not a realism. And a wise bearded German once said that "the road to materialism was nominalism".

Again, it depends on whether one is referring to ontology or epistemology. Bhaskar was an ontological realist and an epistemic relativist. As to nominalism, Roman Catholic Thomists or neo-Thomists have generally argued that Ockham's razor, or nominalism as some define it, was the beginning of materialism. Of course, Ockham himself was not a materialist at all.

A marxist scholar freien wrote:I completely disagree with that position. Sounds like class reductionism? I consider identity politics to be of far greater importance than a mere way towards the acquisition of class consciousness. Those struggles neither begin, nor end, with the emancipation of the proletariat.

I see identity politics as a means to an end: conscientization. An identity politics which is separated from conscientization can become counter-revolutionary.

This is the new webpage I am creating for my nation in this region. (I really like this region, by the way.)

http://dmr.markfoster.red/

It is a mixture of fiction with my real views and a lot of translations.

FYI: That new request for embassies came from one the regions I run (CTSN).

A marxist scholar freien

I don't think that me playing with Kant will be of much interest here, so I will conclude, making a return towards Marxism.

Dialectical metaRealism wrote:It depends on how one uses those terms. Ontologically, Kant was an idealist. Epistemologically, he was a realist.

I can't accept any such distinction. You are exchanging the distinction Kant makes in categorizing critical philosophy for a distinction that rests on subfields of philosophy, essentially adopting the standpoint of the division of labor within thought, of primary importance mostly in Anglo-Saxon philosophy, while on the other hand, Kant's philosophy is systematic and stands only as a unity. In any case, I think it is closer to being the other way around and you got it wrong.

Dialectical metaRealism wrote:Kant was the founder of modern philosophy which has, since his lifetime, been dominated by idealism, including with Fichte and his dialectic.

Another disagreement. It is philosophy before Kant that, in my opinion, is dominated by idealism, with a few exceptions (Lucretius, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Spinoza). Philosophy after Kant, and especially after Marx, seems actually much closer to materialism (again, with exceptions, like existentialism). It is today, with the attempt to do metaphysics after Heidegger, which basically consists in a return to pre-Kantian metaphysics, that under the banner of "realism" idealism is making its comeback and exerting its domination. The enemies of materalism are not Kant and the German Idealists, but Plato and Descartes.

Dialectical metaRealism wrote:Marx's major criticism of Hegel was that he turned the dialectic upside down. Marx claimed to correct Hegel's error.

Is that a criticism though? Marx is distancing himself from Hegel, only to show his closeness to him. That is how this passage is to be read in its unity. Marx assures us that his "dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite". Anyone familiar with Hegel will be able to look beyond the appearance of that sentence and into its meaning. Marx continues by praising Hegel: "I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him". But it is another phrase of Marx that particularly captures my interest: "just as I was working at the first volume of “Das Kapital,” it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre Epigonoi who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing’s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a "dead dog". Marx is not just making an analogy between the critics of Hegel and Mendelssohn and between the treatment Spinoza and Hegel received. He is talking about Hegel in terms of Hegel, taking himself Hegel's position. One is struck to read in the Introduction of Hegel's Encyclopedia that: "Lessing said in his day that people treat Spinoza the way they treat a dead dog; one cannot say that in more recent times Spinozism, and speculative philosophy in general, are treated any better". The analogy is clear: Marx as Hegel, salvaging Hegel from what he saw but couldn't save himself from. The opposite where it properly belongs.

Dialectical metaRealism wrote:As to nominalism, Roman Catholic Thomists or neo-Thomists have generally argued that Ockham's razor, or nominalism as some define it, was the beginning of materialism.

Marx agrees with that in the Holy Family. Althusser adds on it, saying that nominalism is not only the beginning of materialism, but materialism itself.

Dialectical metaRealism wrote:I see identity politics as a means to an end: conscientization. An identity politics which is separated from conscientization can become counter-revolutionary.

Class politics are a means to an end too, however. Why do "identity politics" stand as secondary to it and thus, in waiting?

A marxist scholar freien wrote:I don't think that me playing with Kant will be of much interest here, so I will conclude, making a return towards Marxism.
I can't accept any such distinction. You are exchanging the distinction Kant makes in categorizing critical philosophy for a distinction that rests on subfields of philosophy, essentially adopting the standpoint of the division of labor within thought, of primary importance mostly in Anglo-Saxon philosophy, while on the other hand, Kant's philosophy is systematic and stands only as a unity. In any case, I think it is closer to being the other way around and you got it wrong.

That is one of Bhaskar's major distinctions. He calls it the epistemic fallacy. According to Bhaskar, one of the major problems with modern philosophy is a failure to make a distinction between ontology and epistemology. Now, that said, I think that Kant did understand the difference. However, it has often been glossed over by later philosophers.

IMO, no philosophy is really a unity. Philosophers, as humans, generally make many intellectual turns throughout their lives. That was true with Kant. It was also true with Bhaskar.

A marxist scholar freien wrote:Another disagreement. It is philosophy before Kant that, in my opinion, is dominated by idealism, with a few exceptions (Lucretius, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Spinoza). Philosophy after Kant, and especially after Marx, seems actually much closer to materialism (again, with exceptions, like existentialism). It is today, with the attempt to do metaphysics after Heidegger, which basically consists in a return to pre-Kantian metaphysics, that under the banner of "realism" idealism is making its comeback and exerting its domination. The enemies of materalism are not Kant and the German Idealists, but Plato and Descartes.

Aristotelian philosophy, which was dominant before Kant (and, to an extent, after him, as well), had both idealist and realist elements. However, he abandoned most of the strict idealism of Plato, especially regarding the theory of essences.

A marxist scholar freien wrote:Is that a criticism though? Marx is distancing himself from Hegel, only to show his closeness to him. That is how this passage is to be read in its unity. Marx assures us that his "dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite". Anyone familiar with Hegel will be able to look beyond the appearance of that sentence and into its meaning. Marx continues by praising Hegel: "I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him". But it is another phrase of Marx that particularly captures my interest: "just as I was working at the first volume of “Das Kapital,” it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre Epigonoi who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing’s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a "dead dog". Marx is not just making an analogy between the critics of Hegel and Mendelssohn and between the treatment Spinoza and Hegel received. He is talking about Hegel in terms of Hegel, taking himself Hegel's position. One is struck to read in the Introduction of Hegel's Encyclopedia that: "Lessing said in his day that people treat Spinoza the way they treat a dead dog; one cannot say that in more recent times Spinozism, and speculative philosophy in general, are treated any better". The analogy is clear: Marx as Hegel, salvaging Hegel from what he saw but couldn't save himself from. The opposite where it properly belongs.

The early Marx, yes. The later Marx, not so much. For instance, Capital and the Grundrisse show how far Marx had moved away from Hegel. Later on, Engels was even moving toward an institutional approach to scientific socialism (wißenschaftlicher Sozialismus).

A marxist scholar freien wrote:Marx agrees with that in the Holy Family. Althusser adds on it, saying that nominalism is not only the beginning of materialism, but materialism itself.

The problem with Althusser's claim is that, among the scholastic theologians, Ockham was not a materialist.

A marxist scholar freien wrote:Class politics are a means to an end too, however. Why do "identity politics" stand as secondary to it and thus, in waiting?

The goal of class politics is emancipation from capitalism and the capitalist world-system (Wallerstein). What is the goal of identity politics? (Edit: My own answer is that the goal of identity politics is class politics.)

Sharing from NK's RMB:

March 8th, International Women's Day!

North Korea is a revolutionary Marxist region and as so, it's also Feminist region. We recognize that liberation of all people's (and especially women) is dependant on smashing the for profit capitalist economy and establishing a public, democratically controlled and planned people's economy.

Women bare the brunt of the economic exploitation under this system by the societal implications of child rearing, household cleaning and often maintenance. The "patriarchy" or superstructure of this economy puts women in an inferior position in economic matters having to clear these and many other hurdles before equal footing with men is considered possible.

The exploitation of women in health care and education is world renowned, where we do the most important jobs in the world for mediocre pay.

Revolutionary regards;

Veronica Ming, founder of North Korea
--- --- ---

Women hold up half the sky! - Mao Tse-tung

Ubertas, Dialectical metaRealism, and Kalordolor

Apologies for the late reply!

Just to be clear, I'm not a Third Worldist, I'm trying to give a more charitable view of Third Worldists in replying here for the sake of discussion and further education.

Dialectical metaRealism wrote:I am talking about Western Marxism and the critical social theory which developed out of it. Either the individuals who started those schools did not read The German Ideology, which critiques German idealism, or they simply disagree with it. Either way, IMO, one of the reasons Marxist communism has not taken root in the Western world is because of the idealist turn.

I'm definitely sympathetic to criticism of Western Marxism, but isn't it somewhat idealist itself to point towards ideological defects as the main things that have held Western Marxism back from effecting substantial change rather than something in the base that serves as a material basis for issues there? The latter is part what I find compelling about Third Worldists, at least in introducing people to these concepts.

Dialectical metaRealism wrote:Third Worldists reject Marx's statement that workers of the world should unite. According to them, proletarians in the First World don't have the revolutionary potential to do so. I have yet to see a convincing defense of that position.

I don't see them as rejecting Marx's statement necessarily. I see their focus as giving Marxist political economy an update to reflect what they see as reality now. The conclusions that some may draw from that lead to views like what you mention but there's more nuance to them than that suggests. In groups like the Blekingegade Gang I see not an abandonment of the struggle but a different direction taken with a different emphasis than conventional political work we've seen in the West.

Dialectical metaRealism wrote:Gramsci was one of the major predecessors of Antifa, a current I incorporate into my work (along with Rosa's ideas). I like him because, from his prison cell, he laid the foundation for an approach which would challenge both autocrats and plutocrats from Mussolini to Trump.

What I'm interested in regarding Gramsci in this context is his concept of cultural imperialism you mentioned previously.

I think this piece might be a good introduction to contemporary perspectives on imperialism. It's approachable (to me at least) but very comprehensive. I recommend John Smith's Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century if you'd like to read more from a similar view.

Global Commodity Chains and the New Imperialism

https://monthlyreview.org/2019/03/01/global-commodity-chains-and-the-new-imperialism/

Zulanka in MSC wrote:Apologies for the late reply!

No problem. We are all busy.

Zulanka in MSC wrote:Just to be clear, I'm not a Third Worldist, I'm trying to give a more charitable view of Third Worldists in replying here for the sake of discussion and further education.

Honestly, I had a somewhat more charitable view of Third Worldism before I started watching Jason Unruhe. I know that he is not very popular with many other Third Worldists. Some of them have even accused him of plagiarism. (I am not in a position to judge the accuracy of that claim.) Unruhe seems to have a favorable view of right-wing governments, like Russia, Turkey, and Iran. He is even a political analyst for the Iranian government's English-language TV channel. It seems to be intentionally mimicking BBC News. Unruhe has also had other Third Worldists host his YouTube show (when he has been on vacation). They all appeared to share Unruhe's right-wing sympathies. It seems to me that he places his authoritarianism (a tankie for the sake of being a tankie) ahead of any Leftism. Now, again, I realize that not all Third Worldists agree with Unruhe. However, they all appear to question (without any evidence I have seen) any dialectical potential in the West. To me, that is a direct contradiction to Marx's internationalism.

Zulanka in MSC wrote:I'm definitely sympathetic to criticism of Western Marxism, but isn't it somewhat idealist itself to point towards ideological defects as the main things that have held Western Marxism back from effecting substantial change rather than something in the base that serves as a material basis for issues there? The latter is part what I find compelling about Third Worldists, at least in introducing people to these concepts.

I just think that many Western Marxists took an unfortunate turn toward idealism. That culminated in the Frankfurt School and, more recently, with post-Marxism.

Zulanka in MSC wrote:I don't see them as rejecting Marx's statement necessarily. I see their focus as giving Marxist political economy an update to reflect what they see as reality now. The conclusions that some may draw from that lead to views like what you mention but there's more nuance to them than that suggests. In groups like the Blekingegade Gang I see not an abandonment of the struggle but a different direction taken with a different emphasis than conventional political work we've seen in the West.

I am all for continuously updating scientific socialism. However, why focus on the Third World (unless one lives in the Third World)?

Zulanka in MSC wrote:What I'm interested in regarding Gramsci in this context is his concept of cultural imperialism you mentioned previously.

Throughout all the turns I have made in my life, since 1968, I have always appreciated his theory of cultural hegemony.

Mark

Workers party catalonia

Dialectical metaRealism wrote:Honestly, I had a somewhat more charitable view of Third Worldism before I started watching Jason Unruhe ... Now, again, I realize that not all Third Worldists agree with Unruhe. However, they all appear to question (without any evidence I have seen) any dialectical potential in the West. To me, that is a direct contradiction to Marx's internationalism.

I can understand not liking Third Worldism if you take Unruhe as representative of it! I had sort of the opposite experience as you since I didn't know of Third Worldism at all before I knew of him. I didn't respect the tendency as a whole for a long time after and engaged with other Third Worldist authors (like Cope as I mentioned) to sort of challenge myself. Reading them I quickly understood that my prior conceptions of Third Worldism were very limited and colored by Unruhe. There really is more diversity and nuance in Third Worldism than people just saying the West is worthless or fetishizing movements in the periphery.

Third Worldists do rely on hard data about discrepancies in trade, wages, etc. to back up their positions. While their analysis is not quite as rigorous as others already discussed and the conclusions they make from this data can (and should) be challenged, I don't see their work as intrinsically any more opposed to internationalism than Marx or Engels' own analysis of the labor aristocracy. I understand that recognizing these hidden hierarchies and forms of exploitation (like with racism or sexism) can be challenging, particularly for those who benefit from them. It can get even more divisive when there's a positive element involved in their deconstruction (ex: promoting black power against racism, affirming trans folks' genders while working towards abolishing gender, etc.). But I utterly reject what I see as the alternative, basically just a variation of the "color-blind" class-reductionist approach, of choosing essentially opportunism or what sounds good to the ear over a sober understanding of the world we live in.

Dialectical metaRealism wrote:I just think that many Western Marxists took an unfortunate turn toward idealism. That culminated in the Frankfurt School and, more recently, with post-Marxism.

To clarify, my point wasn't necessarily that I disagree Western Marxism took an idealist turn. I don't mean to dismiss the importance of theory and strategy in the course of a socialist project either, of course there can be more or less effective lines in a given situation. What I'm objecting to is the emphasis on the ideas some folks have over the material circumstances surrounding them. I just don't think it's entirely convincing as a Marxist or materialist to point to such subjective factors like ideological issues as primary faults behind failures of the left in the West for example.

Dialectical metaRealism wrote:I am all for continuously updating scientific socialism. However, why focus on the Third World (unless one lives in the Third World)?

The majority of the working class is in the periphery now. Inquiry into their circumstances and how they differ from our own will become more and more important for contemporary Marxists in the West for this reason alone. When we consider how global economic changes have led to this situation and how those trends effect us (workers in the West) as well this focus becomes less a curiosity and more relevant regardless of any personal connection one might have to the Third World.

Zulanka in MSC wrote:I can understand not liking Third Worldism if you take Unruhe as representative of it! I had sort of the opposite experience as you since I didn't know of Third Worldism at all before I knew of him. I didn't respect the tendency as a whole for a long time after and engaged with other Third Worldist authors (like Cope as I mentioned) to sort of challenge myself. Reading them I quickly understood that my prior conceptions of Third Worldism were very limited and colored by Unruhe. There really is more diversity and nuance in Third Worldism than people just saying the West is worthless or fetishizing movements in the periphery.

I had engaged with the work of other Third Worldists before Unruhe. However, I suppose that Unruhe's knee-jerk right-wing authoritarianism put a bad taste in my mouth. Even so, I disliked the emphasis on the Third World even before watching Unruhe's commentaries.

Zulanka in MSC wrote:Third Worldists do rely on hard data about discrepancies in trade, wages, etc. to back up their positions. While their analysis is not quite as rigorous as others already discussed and the conclusions they make from this data can (and should) be challenged, I don't see their work as intrinsically any more opposed to internationalism than Marx or Engels' own analysis of the labor aristocracy. I understand that recognizing these hidden hierarchies and forms of exploitation (like with racism or sexism) can be challenging, particularly for those who benefit from them. It can get even more divisive when there's a positive element involved in their deconstruction (ex: promoting black power against racism, affirming trans folks' genders while working towards abolishing gender, etc.). But I utterly reject what I see as the alternative, basically just a variation of the "color-blind" class-reductionist approach, of choosing essentially opportunism or what sounds good to the ear over a sober understanding of the world we live in.

Sure, but I think it makes more sense to use the work of, for instance, Kimberlé Crenshaw or Patricia Hill Collins, two of the seminal figures in intersectional theory. As I see it, intersectionality develops a sophisticated, nuanced, multidimensional approach to the capitalist world-system (borrowing from Wallerstein) without falling into the dualism of developing vis-ŕ-vis developed countries. Certainly, relative degrees of development can be considered as one axis (or, as I call it, a single intersectional thoroughfare) of the matrix of domination (Collins' term), but there are many other axes as well. To me, Third Worldism gets caught up in a simplistic economism, which both Marx and, especially, Engels, were moving away from toward the ends of their careers. There is more to capitalism than development.

Zulanka in MSC wrote:To clarify, my point wasn't necessarily that I disagree Western Marxism took an idealist turn. I don't mean to dismiss the importance of theory and strategy in the course of a socialist project either, of course there can be more or less effective lines in a given situation. What I'm objecting to is the emphasis on the ideas some folks have over the material circumstances surrounding them. I just don't think it's entirely convincing as a Marxist or materialist to point to such subjective factors like ideological issues as primary faults behind failures of the left in the West for example.
The majority of the working class is in the periphery now. Inquiry into their circumstances and how they differ from our own will become more and more important for contemporary Marxists in the West for this reason alone. When we consider how global economic changes have led to this situation and how those trends effect us (workers in the West) as well this focus becomes less a curiosity and more relevant regardless of any personal connection one might have to the Third World.

Yes, I think that the contrast between the core and the periphery, in the dependency theories, allows for greater sophistication than Third Worldism. To me, however, much of academic Marxism (of which I have been a part since 1980) has been so captivated by the Freudianism of the Frankfurt School and, more recently, the quasi-Lacanianism (poststructural Freudianism) of scholars such as Žižek that I wonder if academic Marxism, to which I have been committed, is, at this point, even redeemable.

Hey, I like this place.

Dialectical metaRealism, Marxstar, and The communist-america

Since we are a relatively small region, could we sponsor a reasonably scholarly debate on some subject? We could invite members of regions in which we have embassies (and perhaps others, too). It may attract more people to our region.

Marxstar

Greetings Comrades,
I decided to move to this region because I think I will fit better in here, I love marxist discussions. Hope our alliance to be long and great <3

Dialectical metaRealism, Kalordolor, and The communist-america

This place looks nice. Might come visit from time to time.

The liberalists you love

Anyone want to recommend me some leftist Youtube channels? I must admit that I stick to other websites (and podcasts) but I'm looking to watch some things. Thanks!

The liberalists you love wrote:Anyone want to recommend me some leftist Youtube channels? I must admit that I stick to other websites (and podcasts) but I'm looking to watch some things. Thanks!

I have looked around myself. Most of them are not particularly good. However, if you say what tendencies you have in mind, I can offer some suggestions.

Marksih privateeerrs

If I join the WA, can I get a position as the WA delagate?

Happy May Day!

Swarlornau and The communist-america

The communist-america

How do you go about abolishing the police and military in Nationstates in order to get rid of capitalistic repression and the capitalist state to promote internationalism?

The communist-america

The liberalists you love wrote:Anyone want to recommend me some leftist Youtube channels? I must admit that I stick to other websites (and podcasts) but I'm looking to watch some things. Thanks!

I know multiple good leftist YouTube channels Viki 1999, Viki 2000, Hakim, AzureScapegoat, The Gravel Institute.

«12. . .7891011»

Advertisement