promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 1:12 pmThat's the prevalent oxymoron that permeates all western interpretations of Marxism (thanks to conservative propaganda).
What you are calling 'totalitarian' is in fact the manifestation of a transitional phase during a revolution; Leninists claim that central ('total') control must be given to a relatively small party of intelligentsia, without which all organization and momentum in the revolution would be lost (it doesn't happen over night, btw). See the 'vanguard' concept.
What I have tried to suggest, and where my own interest and thrust lies, is in trying to sift out the informing ideas from the statements that are made. And I refer to this thread and to the participants in it. There is more to be got, more to be learned, and more to understand by taking this approach since, as I think is obvious (and yet must be stated) we have so little that we can all agree on. We lack *agreements* in the larger sense.
When very general labels are used in the media-systems -- like Marxism when for example Critical Race Theory is criticized -- great emphasis is placed on the term itself when it is used as a bludgeon. Marxism, socialism, communism, social justice warriorism, etc. These are fighting words and they obviously take the place of sensible, articulate argumentation.
So unless one has actually examined 'Marxist philosophy' and especially Marxist praxis in some depth one cannot really know what one is critiquing. Yet when one does that one quickly and easily discovers that Marxist-Leninism has an extremely destructive underbelly. But that is really the purpose of a caustic praxis: to attack, to bring into doubt, to undermine certainty, to establish oppositional stances as necessary, good and inevitable. It excites youth, obviously, and gets them hyped-up for action.
I suppose that 90% of average people have not and will not take the time to learn about this and yet they will avail themselves of the use of *fighting words* as they try to articulate an oppositional position. But in this sense people are doing the best they can with what they have. But their lack of preparation works against them.
As far as 'conservative propaganda' and -- what is its opposite? -- 'progressive propaganda' there should be no doubt that both sides use these tools. How unfortunate this is. All that a thinking person, with the free time required in order to devote to serious study, can do is to try to clarify the issues that are being debated. It is a demanding and exhaustive undertaking.
I admit to smiling when you use the term 'transitional phase'. If you can seriously put forward what genuinely seems absurd apologetics for what dedicated Marxists always end up achieving I might say that I admire your ability to self-deceive. But if I say this it does not mean that I think there is nothing to be admired in aspects of Marxian analysis. Isaiah Berlin did a very nice job of revealing aspects of Marx's genius (and that is a term that he used). So again it all requires a great deal of intellectual even-handedness so to be able to recognize the *positive* (an analysis of strict economic relationships):
The most enduring part of Berlin’s book is his approach to Marx and Marxism. His (Berlin's) reputation as a liberal democrat (and one distrustful of utopian ideologies) would lead many to expect a denunciation of Marx’s intellectual work. That never comes. Berlin concedes the intellectual brilliance and larger-than-life stature of his subject. It’s also clear that he finds in Marxism a useful framework for analyzing society, if not one for guiding socio-political change. Whether one finds Marx inspiring or monstrous, this is a useful contribution to the literature that should be eagerly read by students of philosophy, history, and politics for years to come.
In any case, what I most notice, and what I will continue to focus on, is the core and insurmountable differences between everyone who participates in this conversation. Even those who seem that they are *natural allies* in their tendentious, epic battles. My view is that the better one understands, as profoundly as one can, one's own position and how and why one wound up there, the easier it is to argue that position but also to see that one's opponent is also doing exactly the same thing. If no ground of any sort can be found then really & truly the structure of agreements will certainly collapse.
Or don't, and continue to buy their books.
Out of curiosity, a question. Have you ever bought and read the books written by those you consider to be your opposition? So for example I might ask if you have read Mark Levin's
American Marxism. Or have you ever read or listened to
James Lindsay's critiques of Critical Race Theory and its intellectual antecedents? (
His website).
If you had some background in the arguments of your opposition it would, in my opinion, improve your own discourse tremendously.
So when a Shawn Hannity or a Glenn Beck or a McCarthy are getting paid to sit in front of a camera and terrify you with stories of how horrible Marxism is, just remember that Marxism hasn't yet existed anywhere on earth in its final and theoretically mature form.
So there's still hope, yes?
Another old saw. The Osiris (or Horus) allegation has been asked and answered. 
