- 11 Feb 2010 01:13
#13317040
That would be the book of an arrogant 18 year old that makes videos of himself singing to immortal technique? The day you actually understand what 'kantian idealism' and 'dialectical materialism' means is the day your posts become worth responding to. Until then, please avoid trolling.
In general I would say this is true and it is exactly what I said (although it is not exclusive as it is not a scientific category, only a 'realist' observation. I don't see, however, how this typology is odd in any way. It seems clear that the vast majority of the working class that are trapped into a false consciousness (i.e. 'middle class', or those that simply do not think of themselves as a working class) are, overwhelming, a part of the white-collar workforce and white-collar management. In what way is this observation odd? It is the typical North American experience.
Such as? Please elaborate as a lot of post-Marxist social analysis is liberal in nature - and I think you would agree to this as well. Again, I am not giving any scientific or socio-cultural analysis I am merely making a pertinent observation that many young Marxists simply ignore. It is the reason that many young Marxists tend to form within the 'fad', 'hipster' and 'countercultural' scenes. My point is simply that none of these cultures, none of these ideas, have anything to do with Marxism or the working class. But again, how exactly are you using the word 'conservative'? By conservative I mean simply the hostility towards liberal values, sexual culture and promiscuity, consumerism, etc. as well as the liberal policies that tackle socio-economic issues (in particular welfarism).
This has more to do with your oversimplification of my points rather than any confusion on my part. I am not sure I ever said this, as Marxism is not a 'cultural form' but a socio-scientific analysis. So saying 'Marxism should take a conservative form' is nonsensical. In fact, it is liberal Marxists that have turned Marxism into more than socio-scientific analysis, i.e. into a cultural and ideological form of its own appropriating liberal values like feminism, race theory, welfarism, sexual theory, etc. This has created a proto-typical assumption: A Marxist is a feminist, environmentalist, pro-abortionist, pot-smoking leftist 'hippie' (for lack of a better word). And, to extend my point (as this is the only point I was making) none of this resonates with the conscious working class - I think most people would know this if they were raised in such an environment.
Marxists should shed this degrading, cultural stereotype, shed drugs, promiscuity and appear respectable to workers.
This is nonsense - this vertical ideological structure you are giving a caricature of has no place in this discussion. Cultures and ideological structures are not formed by a 'top-down' manipulation - this is very juvenile. There is a reason that the conscious working class adopts cultural values, that is certain, but it is not some mystical manipulation by the overlords.
Again, an oversimplification of my point and a juvenile analysis of the complexity of ideological and cultural formation.
This is absurd Kurt and does not follow from anything I have said, only your caricature of what I am saying. If my position need be summed up in a single sentence, it is what I wrote earlier: "However, as much as these class conscious workers have to learn from Marxists, today's young Marxists have a lot to learn from these workers."
Kasu wrote:It's to be expected, given that he's a kantian idealist that rejects dialectical materialism. That's not marxism in my book.
That would be the book of an arrogant 18 year old that makes videos of himself singing to immortal technique? The day you actually understand what 'kantian idealism' and 'dialectical materialism' means is the day your posts become worth responding to. Until then, please avoid trolling.
Kurt wrote:It seems here that you're making some odd typology where blue-collar workers have class consciousness and where white-collar workers seem to be trapped into a form of false consciousness.
In general I would say this is true and it is exactly what I said (although it is not exclusive as it is not a scientific category, only a 'realist' observation. I don't see, however, how this typology is odd in any way. It seems clear that the vast majority of the working class that are trapped into a false consciousness (i.e. 'middle class', or those that simply do not think of themselves as a working class) are, overwhelming, a part of the white-collar workforce and white-collar management. In what way is this observation odd? It is the typical North American experience.
Kurt wrote:Also your definitions of culture and the way in which you're using the term seem to ignore the rigorous analysis of working class consciousness and culture itself by Marxists over the past few decades.
Such as? Please elaborate as a lot of post-Marxist social analysis is liberal in nature - and I think you would agree to this as well. Again, I am not giving any scientific or socio-cultural analysis I am merely making a pertinent observation that many young Marxists simply ignore. It is the reason that many young Marxists tend to form within the 'fad', 'hipster' and 'countercultural' scenes. My point is simply that none of these cultures, none of these ideas, have anything to do with Marxism or the working class. But again, how exactly are you using the word 'conservative'? By conservative I mean simply the hostility towards liberal values, sexual culture and promiscuity, consumerism, etc. as well as the liberal policies that tackle socio-economic issues (in particular welfarism).
Kurt wrote:I have a hard time following your logic of: if certain segments of the North American working class (and to be specific the "more valid, blue collar working class") are conservative: Marxism should take this form as well.
This has more to do with your oversimplification of my points rather than any confusion on my part. I am not sure I ever said this, as Marxism is not a 'cultural form' but a socio-scientific analysis. So saying 'Marxism should take a conservative form' is nonsensical. In fact, it is liberal Marxists that have turned Marxism into more than socio-scientific analysis, i.e. into a cultural and ideological form of its own appropriating liberal values like feminism, race theory, welfarism, sexual theory, etc. This has created a proto-typical assumption: A Marxist is a feminist, environmentalist, pro-abortionist, pot-smoking leftist 'hippie' (for lack of a better word). And, to extend my point (as this is the only point I was making) none of this resonates with the conscious working class - I think most people would know this if they were raised in such an environment.
Marxists should shed this degrading, cultural stereotype, shed drugs, promiscuity and appear respectable to workers.
Kurt wrote: The problem here is that you are lacking any sort of investigation into the origins of those conservative values, that have been manipulated just as much by the ruling intellectual elite (or at least those who serve that elite) as any sort of "progressive" or "degenerate" values.
This is nonsense - this vertical ideological structure you are giving a caricature of has no place in this discussion. Cultures and ideological structures are not formed by a 'top-down' manipulation - this is very juvenile. There is a reason that the conscious working class adopts cultural values, that is certain, but it is not some mystical manipulation by the overlords.
Kurt wrote:To claim that those values are the "true independent working class values" is just absurd, as it's quite easy to show how those values come into play to divide the working class for the advantage of capital time and time again (e.g. desegregation movement, labor movements in general, etc.)
Again, an oversimplification of my point and a juvenile analysis of the complexity of ideological and cultural formation.
Kurt wrote:As Eauz pointed out earlier: some conservative sections of the working class are quite anti-Marxist as well: does that mean that as a Marxist strategy to emancipate the working class that we should adopt an anti-Marxist stance? This conclusion is of course absurd.
This is absurd Kurt and does not follow from anything I have said, only your caricature of what I am saying. If my position need be summed up in a single sentence, it is what I wrote earlier: "However, as much as these class conscious workers have to learn from Marxists, today's young Marxists have a lot to learn from these workers."
Last edited by Vera Politica on 11 Feb 2010 14:44, edited 4 times in total.