/lit/ - Literature

>>23368680
OK, then if you want to be intellectually coherent, at least call it something like “neo-Marxism.” That could be an interesting point and a very good case could be made for its growing prominence.

>>23368688
It’s not. If you look at the modern political, social, and economic tendencies of the West, the phenomenon of PRIVATIZATION is a huge one, as well as “public-private partnerships”, and a deep interconnection between privately owned corporations and the state. It’s antithetical to or at minimum quite different from classical Marxism (which is also a stupid and failed ideology, I admit, which can destroy nations and cultures). They’re not pushing for workers to own the means of production.

I’m not even saying you shouldn’t criticize these tendencies (of extreme progressivism, social justice ideology, etc.) Just to do it intelligently and coherently. It’s a new monster which isn’t quite classic Marxism, although it might reiterate some of the tropes of it, or of its attempted implementation as in the USSR and Marxist-Leninism, or Mao’s China and the Cultural Revolution, etc.

> 'Hurr, it's all just le corpos bro!'
Are you denying we shouldn’t criticize the roles of corporations in this?

Who spreads crap like this in the mainstream media? The (privately owned) corporations who own and control much of the mainstream news stations and host many of the TV shows, by extension allowing the commercials to run that they do, etc.

>>23368737
Tell me what Marx said about: Black worship, so-called “BIPOC”, transgenders, the LGBTQ+ movement or queer movement, and women/feminism. (Funnily enough, even Marx himself, a fucking Jew, infamously criticized Jews and the classic stereotype [yet sometimes apparently really true] of the greedy money-grabbing Jewish banker and uber-capitalist). I’m just saying it’s dumb to call it LITERALLY identical to classic Marxism. It’s an entirely new monstrous breed of its own. I’m not even in as much disagreement with you all as you think. I just want the critiques you make of modern society, the ruling power elites, and their traits and policies to be put more intelligently.

Now interestingly, if you look at modern China, it’s also very far from classic Marxism. They have admitted and allowed for some private enterprise and reign of corporations, adopting elements of a market economy, so long as they work in tandem with the state and allow state regulation. They now call it “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

You can argue something analogous is going on in the West, with the fusion of corporate and state power. But the literal definition of Marxism is “the ideology of communist thinker Karl Marx” (and I guess by extension of his compatriot Friedrich Engels). Which did NOT even have this same exact race/sex/sexual orientation minority-obsessed ideology as modern progressivism. That’s why I’m saying it’s retarded to call it “literal Marxism.” It’s not even that. But both can be validly criticized.