My brilliance.

I remember a discussion last year, the “end of history”/”crisis of Marxism” sort of thing. And I said back then (among other brilliant things), responding to someone’s observation that there are no major Marxist parties any more, no class struggle, I said:

Suppose the western world is hit by a severe recession next week – in a few months you’ll see all the old Marxist ideas coming right back, with a vengeance.

That was September 2008, everything was still going fine. And what do you know, today, only 4 months later, I read this:

More than a million French public sector workers staged a massive strike on Thursday, many joining street marches as anger at the government’s handling of the economic crisis erupted.

“The capitalist economy is sick,” read one banner at a protest in the central city of Lyon. “Let’s let it die.”

Toldcha…

Advertisements

16 Comments

  1. Posted January 30, 2009 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    There are still marxists around El Lay–such as Mayor Villaraigosa.

    Seriously, Marxism means many different things to many different people. Usually Marx’s critique of capitalism is read in moralistic terms, or, as the pomo’s say (botching Nietzsche), ressentiment. To a Weblogger or most narcissistic xtian-idiots, it’s merely take revenge on all those bad capitalists! The naive romantic liberal mistakes it for a type of religion: indeed it functions as such. Those are the people, or rather demons–Kotzko, even in its own franciscan-lite terms, is a demon– who ruined it (tho’ helped by other thuggish forces)

    Marxism is cooler and more methodical than most cafe-leftists realize: and even positivisitic to a degree . Capital has flaws (including, perhaps, the grand generalizations of class struggle), but the usual college-boy liberal hasn’t taken the time to understand the flaws.

    Starting from a fairly sound naturalist foundation (ie outlined in German Ideology), Marx proceeds to construct a grand system. I don’t have the time to point out the specific errors, but the labor theory of value itself is certainly not necessary. The Hegelian abstractions still a problem.

    I think Marx had important things to say in regards to say commodification. Finance. Property–distribution in a sense. Or speculation. Industry. But conditions changed: the factories did improve. Working conditions improved. Labor got far more powerful–even now, trade unionism has far more power than most realize.

    Mill–I don’t care for all his writing, but fairly astute on politics—was sort of correct, in saying socialism could come about without revolution–though the trade-unionism and socialist bureaucracy (of course with some corporate capitalism) does not quite equal a worker’s paradise, does it. The various critiques of marx, whether from anarchists, or even fabians (laughed off by bolsheviks, or academics) still hold: great centralization, organization, few or any rights, industrialism, etc.

    Then Nietzsche hisself had a good idea what socialist dreams led to.

  2. Posted January 31, 2009 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    Yeah. I don’t think I disagree with any of this. Well, except for those Weblog kids being the Great Satan, naturally.

  3. Posted January 31, 2009 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    Ah they are not the G.S., but part of it. Particular manifestations of the universal Eevil. Interesting, Kotzkoli has recently proclaimed he has numerous “female companions”: many in blogland don’t realize that like many a poor seminarian, that’s his name for, er, “Mrs. Palmer and her four sisters,” and the official theologians’ electro-pussy (aka, Fee Fee for Jeeezusss) awarded to incoming students……..:-]

  4. Posted January 31, 2009 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

    Eh, relax, man.

  5. Posted January 31, 2009 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    I’m quite relaxed. However I don’t think many “leftists” quite went down with PostModernism: note that on the pomo sites (especially xtian sorts such as weblog) you rarely see any discussion of economics, of corporate corruption, of specific political strategies. It’s like “hemline marxism.” Guru Zizek or whoever proclaims discussions of finance, pro-sports, oil markets, executive salaries “”populist”, or merely “bio-politics”, whatever. Zizek or Badiou nixes Rawls or Galbraith, and they are anathema. So instead the Zizek groupies then switch back to discussing ye olde death drive, Lacanian muck, Judy Buttler’s favorite position, etc.

  6. Posted January 31, 2009 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    quite went down

    holy verbal phrase deletion batman

    that is, quite realize what went down. (a bit colloquial ugly–will do for blogspeak)

  7. Posted January 31, 2009 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    So what, where’s the harm?

  8. Posted January 31, 2009 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

    The “harm” due to postmod. would be difficult to quantify; irregardless, the pomo anti-rationalism and psychoanalytical jargon should not be mistaken for progressive politics–really, it’s not responsible marxism, either. Lacan did it, ah believe.

  9. Posted February 1, 2009 at 12:28 am | Permalink

    I highly doubt that anyone looking for progressive politics and/or responsible marxism is likely to be subverted by kids at the Weblog. Seriously.

  10. Posted February 1, 2009 at 12:39 am | Permalink

    True, if they have like an IQ in double digits. Regardless, Kotzko has managed to get his drivel published (think: knee padsteins), and has a sort of reputation, even if he doesn’t understand Kant’s 3rd Antinomy any more than the custodians at his alma mater do (Billy Bob Bible College).

  11. tim
    Posted February 1, 2009 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    😀 This is great!

    Add ‘xtian’ to the list of words that make me filter out everything else you say. Right next to weblogger.

    Writing tip of the day: Ad hominem attacks make you look childish.

  12. Posted February 1, 2009 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

    Ah satire and much political prose depends on a type of defamation doesn’t it? The usual Zizek journalistic rant’s chock full of ad homs (anyways, that a writer attacks someone’s character doesn’t mean that the character doesn’t need attacking– Like with the Zizek-Hirsch battle. Alas, Zizek’s not anti-zionist enough,and as usual capitulated)

    Perhaps you’d like to address the points on bogus marxism, or what postmod has done, or for that matter what xtianity continues to do (and not do). Kropotkin himself opposed the church in all its forms: the priest and preacher, like lawyers and financiers–those be predators on the laity. I respect a few intelligent clergymen–that’s not the weblog.

    We might note that El Papa has now taken to ex- ex-communicating some of his old pals from, er, the nazis. .

  13. Posted February 4, 2009 at 1:59 am | Permalink

    Ah one of the Weblogger nuns, stras-something jones, doesn’t care for one “Tos”. Maybe that’s because ToS has the spine to proclaim the truth about the clown posse: aka the Weblog, the Valvemann, J Hole-blow, benji, et all—. Sad sacks of mierda, and what’s more, untalented, mediocre, middle class sacks of mierda.

  14. Posted February 4, 2009 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    Reason’s painful. Reading say Bertrand Russell on theological arrors and deception is painful. Finding out that you’ve been sold a bogus bill of goods: that defines painful.

    I think it’s amusing how seminarians will go and on about their little faux-liberal ideas, even quote marx-lite, and then shut down blogs to secularists, or anyone who questions their BS, and yet keep the biblethumpers– like that chad clown, who seems about like a Reagan conservative, as does the benji stooge. That’s cool on the Neo-Con Weblog. Ergo, Kotzko prefers Reagan xtians (probably an infallibilist) to open discussion, and dare we say Reason.

    Don’t fly an A, if you don’t know what it means.

  15. tim
    Posted February 4, 2009 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    I think it’s amusing how seminarians will go and on about their little faux-liberal ideas, even quote marx-lite, and then shut down blogs to secularists, or anyone who questions their BS,

    You disagree with people fundamentally, and insist on highlighting that fact to the point that it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion about it. Seems reasonable to me to kick you out. I suggest a study of classical liberalism to you, everyone gets their opinion, and property rights ensure a place for it. Might do you good to get off the moral impoverishment that is Marxism. (But you see, I just suggest. Do I really think you will give up your evil socialist ways? 😉

    As for addressing any of your points, I don’t know 90% of what you are talking about. But it seems like you are trying to force your interpretations of these labels. I mean, did you ever think the A might be because of abb1 ? And besides, isn’t it ironic to tell an anarchist what to do?

  16. Posted February 4, 2009 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    Deception as usual–then first tell me if you attend church regularly. Those are the people who should be banned from sites.

    I’m not arguing for any specific political or economic policy: I argue for Reason, and having writers make assertions capable of some degree of confirmation. Blogs should deal with facts, evidence, instead of dogma or ideology, or endless aesthetics . Indeed even a Jeffersonian and rational marxist (rare) might agree on that. For that matter, I do question even some premises of laissez-faire, including distribution of property (as should anyone who flies an “A for anarchy”)

    Moreover, you don’t know the entire story. Whatsoever.


Post a Comment

%d bloggers like this: