No, but it would look fundamentally different than what it does right now. One of the core premises is that culture & politics are inextricably formed out of property relations & the distribution of economic surpluses.
It is a premise, but there are cases seen in governments where a people will choose to a act against their absolute economic interests for relative sociopolitical interests. Hell, a major underpinning of fascism or apartheid states is that a part of the social working class will get an elevated social position by allying with an oppressive state as long as they get some privileges for doing so.
You’re not wrong, the entire point of Marxist Internationalism & Solidarity is precisely to combat that tendency. In short, this is not really a counter-argument to Marxism, precisely because the vast majority of Marxist theory (that written between the Revolutions of 1848, and the revolutions in Russia & China) are written in exactly that context, and exists to address & make the argument to workers why that’s a bad idea for them to do.
Of course getting people to accept & understand that is harder than just saying it; but the point is that this isn’t something Marxists are unawares of. If you are interested in further (digestable) info on the topic I would suggest the youtube channels Jonas Čeika - CCK Philosophy, Hakim, Yugopnik & Second Thought.
I’m not presenting an argument against Marxism, just its implementation as described by its founding thinkers.
It gets sold as you only need to do it once, but it is something that needs constant attention and requires a review of those who say they follow The Revolution to make sure they still continue to do so.
It gets sold as you only need to do it once, but it is something that needs constant attention and requires a review of those who say they follow The Revolution to make sure they still continue to do so.
Absolutely, no disagreement on that position.
I think that’s kind of true of all political programs though, to some extent. Everything is of course subject to entropy.
Those are still good channels to check out though, if you’re interested. :3
I only bring it up as a part of communism over other systems seems to encourage a political system resistant to political change. The requisites that you need to join a certain political party and that only that one party seems to create a political monoculture that will calcify into something that doesn’t serve the people.
No, but it would look fundamentally different than what it does right now. One of the core premises is that culture & politics are inextricably formed out of property relations & the distribution of economic surpluses.
It is a premise, but there are cases seen in governments where a people will choose to a act against their absolute economic interests for relative sociopolitical interests. Hell, a major underpinning of fascism or apartheid states is that a part of the social working class will get an elevated social position by allying with an oppressive state as long as they get some privileges for doing so.
You’re not wrong, the entire point of Marxist Internationalism & Solidarity is precisely to combat that tendency. In short, this is not really a counter-argument to Marxism, precisely because the vast majority of Marxist theory (that written between the Revolutions of 1848, and the revolutions in Russia & China) are written in exactly that context, and exists to address & make the argument to workers why that’s a bad idea for them to do.
Of course getting people to accept & understand that is harder than just saying it; but the point is that this isn’t something Marxists are unawares of. If you are interested in further (digestable) info on the topic I would suggest the youtube channels Jonas Čeika - CCK Philosophy, Hakim, Yugopnik & Second Thought.
I’m not presenting an argument against Marxism, just its implementation as described by its founding thinkers.
It gets sold as you only need to do it once, but it is something that needs constant attention and requires a review of those who say they follow The Revolution to make sure they still continue to do so.
Absolutely, no disagreement on that position.
I think that’s kind of true of all political programs though, to some extent. Everything is of course subject to entropy.
Those are still good channels to check out though, if you’re interested. :3
I only bring it up as a part of communism over other systems seems to encourage a political system resistant to political change. The requisites that you need to join a certain political party and that only that one party seems to create a political monoculture that will calcify into something that doesn’t serve the people.
The opposite is observed in practice. In both the USSR and even moreso in the PRC, the single-party state encompassed wild swings in economic policy.
The joke goes, in the US you can change the party but not the policy, in China you can’t change the party but you can change the policy.