What exactly is Marxism?

[Peter Kropotkin]

I haven't been here very long, but I see very typical responses
to certain posts/threads...

For example, in one post I mentioned CRT... and right on cue,
someone brought up how CRT is Marxist...and that is a quite common
response, don't like a concept, just call it Marxists... whither the idea
in question is Marxists or not is irrelevant.. the point is to make the
accusation... to try to end the idea in question by simple calling it
Marxist... to label something so that people won't think about it..

If you label something, you are attempting to nullify that idea,
person or concept...''he is Marxist'' and what have you done? You have
demonized that person...You have given someone permission to ignore
or to demonize another person...It is an old trick...The Nazi's did the
exact same thing to the Jews...Einstein's physics, the basis of our
understanding of universe, was denounced, demonized by calling it
''Jewish science'' there was no attempt to understand Einstein's work,
because that wasn't the point of demonization of his work...

The value of doing this is to gain control over the science, to be
the official ''arbiter'' of what can or cannot be approved physics,
science, philosophy, history....The Nazi's calling ideas and concepts ''Jewish''
has as the modern version, conservatives calling ideas and concepts,
Marxist''' it serves the exact same purpose.. to devalue, to demonized
ideas and concepts.....if you don't like an idea or concept, just call
it ''Marxist''... it is completely irrelevant if that idea/concept is Marxist or
not...so CRT, I don't like it, because it might be true, so I just
call it ''Marxist''... I label it so people will dislike it or not believe in it...

Anything that contradicts my own values or beliefs, I refuse to
hold as valid or true, so I call it Marxist.. and I know I don't have to
value or understand that idea/concept.. for I have dismissed it,
devalued it.. just like the Nazi's of yesteryear... replace the word ''Jewish''
with ''Marxist'' and away we go....

The next point is, when the charge of an idea/concept is ''Marxist''..
just exactly which version of ''Marxism'' are you referring to? Marx?
Lenin? Stalin? Mao? Trotsky?....There are literality dozens of different
versions of ''Marxism''' So, in calling CRT ''Marxist'', which version
of ''Marxism'' are you referring to?

There is no attempt to understand or make sense of these demonized
ideas/concepts, the point is to devalue them...and calling them ''Marxist''
is the modern version of calling something ''Jewish''

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

Don't forget the liberals calling people racist, misogynist and homophobic.

Oops. I forgot antisemitic.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Don't forget the liberals calling people racist, misogynist and homophobic.

K: ah, here comes the ''whataboutism'' defense, no matter what the charge is, the
correct conservative defense, ''hay, what about this event, person or action''

someone did something in 1863, and that is my defense.. what about them?
What I did is irrelevant because someone else did something, so I am innocent...
This is a go-to conservative defense... I say, ''IQ45 committed multiple crimes'',
and the conservative defense will be ''what about him', Clinton''?... for example
or what about this event in 1824? They won't actually engage with the charge
at hand, they will say, ''what about him?'' Or let us say, ''IQ45 killed a man''..
and the conservative defense is, ''In 1806, Andrew Jackson killed a man"
and leave it at that...no context of any kind, just a random statement about
something relating to IQ45... These attempt to equalize bad behavior by comparing them
to people, places, events before... what about this?...

This "whataboutism" only goal is to justify bad or evil actions by a conservative,
it justifies an action by saying, "what about this?"... the point is to remove context
from any person, action or behavior... how can this action be wrong if X did this in
1806? This action was wrong is denied by 'Whataboutism" and helps create
the current climate where we don't think about our actions, we simple
claim that "my actions" have be "right" if in 1806, he did this....avoidance of
any responsibility or accountability is the goal of ''Whataboutism"...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

and we return to Marxism.... very few people actually have read Marx,
or even fewer understand him... remember the charge, "CRT is Marxist"

ok, let see how CRT is Marxist... For the majority of Marx's career,
he was a journalist... for example, he was the European correspondent for the
''New York Daily Tribune" and for years, that was his only source of income...

and as a journalist, what did Marx write about? 5 day work week, safety
in the work place, health care of workers, the advancement of women in
the workplace, hazard pay...now, how does any of this relate to CRT?
How is CRT Marxist? Given Marx was writing about workplace issues...
and how is any of this, radical or beyond the pale? It is basic worker/union
right issues that go on today...is this the Marxism we think of in CRT?

One might say, but he advocated against private property... and he did,
because that thought was in the air at the time.. or have you forgotten
Proudhon? SO, how does advocating against property, equal to
CRT? What is the connection between CRT and property?
Is this what people mean when they call CRT, Marxist? Some
vague connection to property?

To call something "Marxist" is to somehow connect that thing to Marxism...
and it cannot be something vague like the connection between CRT
and property.. so, in calling Democrats, Marxists, you have to
connect democratic idea's/concepts with Marx or some other
Marxist thinker but then who? And what is that exact connection?

Kropotkin

[Flannel Jesus]

I actually think some of the root ideological tenants of CRT are based in Marxism. Not in the way you think though, necessarily. Look up "Marxism critical theory".

Marxism isn't only political, it isn't only about communism, it also has its own set of philosophical principles, and critical theory is one of them.

[phyllo]

Don't forget the liberals calling people racist, misogynist and homophobic.

K: ah, here comes the ''whataboutism'' defense, no matter what the charge is, the
correct conservative defense, ''hay, what about this event, person or action''

someone did something in 1863, and that is my defense.. what about them?
What I did is irrelevant because someone else did something, so I am innocent...
This is a go-to conservative defense... I say, ''IQ45 committed multiple crimes'',
and the conservative defense will be ''what about him', Clinton''?... for example
or what about this event in 1824? They won't actually engage with the charge
at hand, they will say, ''what about him?'' Or let us say, ''IQ45 killed a man''..
and the conservative defense is, ''In 1806, Andrew Jackson killed a man"
and leave it at that...no context of any kind, just a random statement about
something relating to IQ45... These attempt to equalize bad behavior by comparing them
to people, places, events before... what about this?...

This "whataboutism" only goal is to justify bad or evil actions by a conservative,
it justifies an action by saying, "what about this?"... the point is to remove context
from any person, action or behavior... how can this action be wrong if X did this in
1806? This action was wrong is denied by 'Whataboutism" and helps create
the current climate where we don't think about our actions, we simple
claim that "my actions" have be "right" if in 1806, he did this....avoidance of
any responsibility or accountability is the goal of ''Whataboutism"...

Kropotkin

All you had to do is to say ... Yeah. Liberals do the same sort of thing with those words.

Instead you double down on your usual stereotypes and bigotry ... Conservatives are evil, liberals are pure goodness.

For you, the other guys are always the problem.

Oops. I forgot how pointless it is to respond to anything that you post.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Don't forget the liberals calling people racist, misogynist and homophobic.

Oops. I forgot antisemitic.

Another moron who doesn't know what liberal means.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Don't forget the liberals calling people racist, misogynist and homophobic.

Oops. I forgot antisemitic.

K; OK, let play... you say liberals... which liberals called which people
racists, misogynist or homophobic? so, as a liberal, if I were to
call Adolph Hitler antisemitic, is that out of bounds? Inappropriate?
Wrong? Under your theory you can't call out THE KKK for being
racists because, that is being racist? In other words, I can't call out
the KKK because why exactly?

Your ''whataboutism" brought down to earth seems to suggest
that I can't call out anyone because it might be true....

now your turn, please, explain to us how your "whataboutism''
isn't a way to hide from any responsibility or accountability for words
said and actions taken...

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

Don't forget the liberals calling people racist, misogynist and homophobic.

Oops. I forgot antisemitic.

Another moron who doesn't know what liberal means.

You guys are pathetic and this forum is pathetic.

There's a constant stream of insults and nastiness. And very little philosophy.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Don't forget the liberals calling people racist, misogynist and homophobic.

Oops. I forgot antisemitic.

K; OK, let play... you say liberals... which liberals called which people
racists, misogynist or homophobic? so, as a liberal, if I were to
call Adolph Hitler antisemitic, is that out of bounds? Inappropriate?
Wrong? Under your theory you can't call out THE KKK for being
racists because, that is being racist? In other words, I can't call out
the KKK because why exactly?

Your ''whataboutism" brought down to earth seems to suggest
that I can't call out anyone because it might be true....

now your turn, please, explain to us how your "whataboutism''
isn't a way to hide from any responsibility or accountability for words
said and actions taken...

Kropotkin

That's part of the point. PC wankers have used a very powerful word as a stock insult for anyone who doesn't agree with them-- to the point where it has essentially lost its meaning. What word are we supposed to use 'now' to describe an organisation like the KKK?

[phyllo]

Don't forget the liberals calling people racist, misogynist and homophobic.

Oops. I forgot antisemitic.

K; OK, let play... you say liberals... which liberals called which people
racists, misogynist or homophobic? so, as a liberal, if I were to
call Adolph Hitler antisemitic, is that out of bounds? Inappropriate?
Wrong? Under your theory you can't call out THE KKK for being
racists because, that is being racist? In other words, I can't call out
the KKK because why exactly?

Your ''whataboutism" brought down to earth seems to suggest
that I can't call out anyone because it might be true....

now your turn, please, explain to us how your "whataboutism''
isn't a way to hide from any responsibility or accountability for words
said and actions taken...

Kropotkin

I actually thought you had a good point ... That the word 'Marxist' is sometimes used to discredit people and to avoid dealing with valid arguments. I see it being used that way on this forum.

But you framed it in your usual way ... Making conservatives the bad guys.

I don't want to have that sort of one sided conversation.

It would be much more interesting to explore how all sorts of groups/people use those tactics. And I think it is a common tactic these days.

It's not going to happen. I don't intend to post again.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Don't forget the liberals calling people racist, misogynist and homophobic.

Oops. I forgot antisemitic.

K; OK, let play... you say liberals... which liberals called which people
racists, misogynist or homophobic? so, as a liberal, if I were to
call Adolph Hitler antisemitic, is that out of bounds? Inappropriate?
Wrong? Under your theory you can't call out THE KKK for being
racists because, that is being racist? In other words, I can't call out
the KKK because why exactly?

Your ''whataboutism" brought down to earth seems to suggest
that I can't call out anyone because it might be true....

now your turn, please, explain to us how your "whataboutism''
isn't a way to hide from any responsibility or accountability for words
said and actions taken...

Kropotkin

I actually thought you had a good point ... That the word 'Marxist' is sometimes used to discredit people and to avoid dealing with valid arguments. I see it being used that way on this forum.

But you framed it in your usual way ... Making conservatives the bad guys.

I don't want to have that sort of one sided conversation.

It would be much more interesting to explore how all sorts of groups/people use those tactics. And I think it is a common tactic these days.

It's not going to happen. I don't intend to post again.

K: I can see why you ran away...I ask for specific details,
why can't I call out Hitler for being antisemitic? and you can't answer..
and your entire statement, "Liberals calling people racist....."
is an broad base attack on liberals, the kind you claim I am doing..
and yet the difference being, I have engaged with your point, and you
haven't engaged with my point.... why can't I call out the KKK for being
racist, antisemitic.... you seem to want to run away from that point.....
and why? Because that would force you to come to grips with your
statement.. some people are racists, some people are antisemitic,
but according to you, I can't call them out.. and I want to know why?
If someone is racist or antisemitic, why can't I call them out?
Maybe, you think I might hurt their feelings? is that it? why can't I
call out those, like Hitler or the KKK on their beliefs?

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

K: I can see why you ran away...I ask for specific details,
why can't I call out Hitler for being antisemitic? and you can't answer..

Well, I can answer that. Of course he was.
But I think Phyllo had a good point. I am getting tired of people on the Right and Left who are short on memory and/or cannot see their own parallel behavior (or the parallel behavior of their own side).
Phyllo's point it seems to me, was that adherants to both parties or sides (though really there are many more sides out there) like to binarily label people. They do it fast, and they have a lot of problem with dialogue

So, can you see something on the Left these days, that parallels the calling everything Marxist on the Left?

And could we have a general discussion of why people do this kind of divisive, binary labeling, slippery slope type hysteria?

[Peter Kropotkin]

K: I can see why you ran away...I ask for specific details,
why can't I call out Hitler for being antisemitic? and you can't answer..

Well, I can answer that. Of course he was.
But I think Phyllo had a good point. I am getting tired of people on the Right and Left who are short on memory and/or cannot see their own parallel behavior (or the parallel behavior of their own side).
Phyllo's point it seems to me, was that adherants to both parties or sides (though really there are many more sides out there) like to binarily label people. They do it fast, and they have a lot of problem with dialogue

So, can you see something on the Left these days, that parallels the calling everything Marxist on the Left?

And could we have a general discussion of why people do this kind of divisive, binary labeling, slippery slope type hysteria?

K: of course, why don't you start that conversation about divisive, binary labeling
slippery slope type of hysteria?

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

K: of course, why don't you start that conversation about divisive, binary labeling
slippery slope type of hysteria?

that's a non-response. Do you see the validity of not just aiming critique at 'the enemy party/group' but also noting the same types of excesses problems with one's own team? Do you see the problem with only noticing what the other team is doing, but not being up front about your own team and how this might exacerbate current tensions?

Of course I can open a thread doing that, but I tend to post about the patterns as responses to individual posts in other threads. That is generally how I contribute. I did it in one of your threads on the issue of woke.

Part of what we are saying - hopefully I am not misrepresenting Phyllo - is that it is a problem when people point fingers at one team without owning up to the parallel behavior of their own team?

Or perhaps you think the divisiveness will be healed by pretending that only 'they' have a problem.

What you did was run away while writing something in response, but not responding.