And yet in local races, primaries, ballot initiatives, progressive candidates and issues all lost. Almost every issue I voted on went the other way. So that has been my experience with California, that it is not very progressive. Admittedly this was a particularly bad election but similar things have happened before.
Yep. Cali is ideologically very neoliberal, from the SanFran techbros to the large presense of the Military Industrial Complex. People’s ideas are guided by their material conditions, which includes their class interests. I made an introductory reading list for Marxism if you are interested, the section on Dialectical and Historical Materialism as well as Scientific Socialism goes over said phenomena in further detail.
I realize I misunderstood what you were saying. Yes I agree.
I don’t find Marxism very compelling personally but I agree that material conditions certainly do have their influence on many things, perhaps including this issue.
I understand if you don’t want to talk about it, whether it be here or in general, but what is it about Marxism you don’t find compelling? I can either offer clarification or contextualization, if you want. I’m a big Marxist theory nerd.
It’s such a broad body of work that it’s hard to list all of the issues I have it it. I guess the biggest issue is just that Marx’s writings were an early attempt at describing a more rigorous case for social reform before more scientific theories of social change and economics were developed. So while his ideas were groundbreaking and innovative at the time they were written, not all of them have held up or are relevant to today’s world. And yet I don’t see many Marxists who have been willing to seriously dissect his ideas and take the useful ideas while discarding the bad or irrelevant ones. And in fact, those few who are willing to take a more critical stance are often ostracized and deemed “revisionists” which strikes me as a frankly absurd accusation. If you are not revising your theories then they are no longer theories but mere dogma, and that seems to be the state of mainstream Marxism today.
It’s pretty difficult to talk about anything if you don’t give specifics. What of Marxism hasn’t held up? What is better than it? Kinda hard to have a convo that way.
Secondly, taking a critical stance towards Marxism isn’t enough to be revisionist. Lenin added on Marxism and analyzed along his contemporary times, and isn’t considered a revisionist. Marxism is an ever-evolving ideology. Revisionism rejects pillars of Marxism like Scientific Socialism, the Law of Value, or Dialectical and Historical Materialism.
All that being said, it’s difficult to understand what you’re getting at if you don’t give an example.
And yet in local races, primaries, ballot initiatives, progressive candidates and issues all lost. Almost every issue I voted on went the other way. So that has been my experience with California, that it is not very progressive. Admittedly this was a particularly bad election but similar things have happened before.
Yep. Cali is ideologically very neoliberal, from the SanFran techbros to the large presense of the Military Industrial Complex. People’s ideas are guided by their material conditions, which includes their class interests. I made an introductory reading list for Marxism if you are interested, the section on Dialectical and Historical Materialism as well as Scientific Socialism goes over said phenomena in further detail.
I realize I misunderstood what you were saying. Yes I agree.
I don’t find Marxism very compelling personally but I agree that material conditions certainly do have their influence on many things, perhaps including this issue.
I understand if you don’t want to talk about it, whether it be here or in general, but what is it about Marxism you don’t find compelling? I can either offer clarification or contextualization, if you want. I’m a big Marxist theory nerd.
It’s such a broad body of work that it’s hard to list all of the issues I have it it. I guess the biggest issue is just that Marx’s writings were an early attempt at describing a more rigorous case for social reform before more scientific theories of social change and economics were developed. So while his ideas were groundbreaking and innovative at the time they were written, not all of them have held up or are relevant to today’s world. And yet I don’t see many Marxists who have been willing to seriously dissect his ideas and take the useful ideas while discarding the bad or irrelevant ones. And in fact, those few who are willing to take a more critical stance are often ostracized and deemed “revisionists” which strikes me as a frankly absurd accusation. If you are not revising your theories then they are no longer theories but mere dogma, and that seems to be the state of mainstream Marxism today.
It’s pretty difficult to talk about anything if you don’t give specifics. What of Marxism hasn’t held up? What is better than it? Kinda hard to have a convo that way.
Secondly, taking a critical stance towards Marxism isn’t enough to be revisionist. Lenin added on Marxism and analyzed along his contemporary times, and isn’t considered a revisionist. Marxism is an ever-evolving ideology. Revisionism rejects pillars of Marxism like Scientific Socialism, the Law of Value, or Dialectical and Historical Materialism.
All that being said, it’s difficult to understand what you’re getting at if you don’t give an example.