for example all time greats are:
Intersectionality is opposed Marxism
Queer Theory is opposed to Marxism
Postmodernism is opposed to Marxism
Postcolonialism is opposed to Marxism
Feminism is opposed to Marxism
Identity politics exists because of Stalinism
it's all just shit like that, they seem to fundamentaly oppose any theory after Lenin.
I've tried arguing wih them for example about Intersectionslity, but they just say that it can't incorporate class because then they wouldn't need to use it anymore because it is the only thing that matters.
all reform is useless because it doesn't remove capitalism(black liberation, lgbt+ liberation?)
They now try to explain foucault and described him as anti-marxist.(turns out that's true)
"Queer Theorie says it is reactionary to be cis." "intersectionality leads to infighting about who is the most opressed"
They use postmodernism and idealism as some kind of slurs for ideas and all of the above is idealist, only the material ever matters. Idealism is petit-burgoise, post-modern nonsense
Also they are explicitly anti-pluralist in their organisation and don't want to do anything except growing by recruiting students. Like I can't even convince them to go help the foodbank.
Because these people(at hte foodbank) are apparently too pre-occupied with survuval to educate themselves about marxism. So any energy on them is wasted. They can't be useful as activists and we must grow first before we can help people. (which is a shit reason)
They also say shit like that all opression is based on class, and that intersectionality splits the working class and should be avoided. That privileges don't exist because you can't make individuals responsible for opression because it all comes from above.
This video explains what is happening here. It's their exact points.
They only ever go somewehere to hand out flyers, not for support. (one guy actually said we couldn't go to the foodbank beecause we would have to do work there and couldn't just hand out flyers)
I don't know if still have the energy to fight against this bullshit and I've read some more about intersectionality but, they've "indoctrinated" themselves about this shit for years and i am not making any progress. It makes me angry and tired.
Foucault was a leftist, but he was somewhat anti-Marxist. He left the communist party over the antisemitism and homophobia he encountered, and generally thought that orthodox Marxism was outdated.
Not to say that one shouldn't read Foucault as a Marxist, but there is actually some basis for this one.
Ok, yeah the problem is i do not trust anything theoretical from them anymore,
Edit:i am also just about fed up with orthodox marxism.
That sounds like a good call, honestly.
they have this eternal hateboner for post-modernism, anything bad is always post-modernism.(also post-colonianism, queer-theory and intersectionality are also post-modernism)
[Scooby and gang removes the mask of this group]
Old Man Peterson!?
They also have a problem with queer-theory because it's apparently unscientific and unmaterialistic
I find that's not uncommon for people who are hardcore into orthodoxy. But I don't think all of theory post Marx should just be footnotes on his work, so
They also keep to the marxist model of societal development(written by either marx or engels), with slaveholder societies and stuff.
Which I am skeptical of because it was written in the 1870 or somewhen around there.
Are there better alternatives to it? It seems most Marxists accept that general idea without getting into the details.
I don't quite know, I am just very sceptical because they believe in it and used it to argue that modern slavery doesn't exist because we are past that society. It is also probably extremly eurocentric and from 1860.
I don't think they understand what the model is , if they draw that conclusion from it. Of course slavery can exist a world in which capitalism is the dominate mode of production. Slavery didn't end when feudalism began, and some places remained feudal long after capitalism became commonplace. The point of the divisions in the model is to illustrate the main mode of production, not the only mode of production.
But i would argue that even feudalism is not a good way of describing a lot of systems around the world around the time of european feudalism. It's just a very eurocentric word. Regardless of mode of production, a lot of places were very differently organized.
Well, Marx was European. i don't know how much he knew about the world outside of it. I'm under the impression a complete view of history would require socialism, if not communism. I don't want to pretend Marx knew everything and maybe that's where your org and I differ.