So here I am finding out about instrumental and structural Marxism.

The problem is that the main promoters of both theories were anti soviet. So my question is. Are there any sources of either Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Mao and what they thought about it?

I can imagine that maybe the terms instrumental and structural could've been coined after their death. But I can also imagine they had some thoughts on similar concepts

  • ghost_of_faso2@lemmygrad.ml
    ·
    8 months ago

    Firstly, instrumental? who? lmao I did 6 years of study doing literal classical sociology (which is basically just heres marxist canon) and i've got 0 idea who tf this is. I have studied post-modernism however and structural Marxism so hopefully I can give a informed perspective on this.

    Structuralists are alright, thinkers like Foucault, Steven Lukes, Althusser and Bauldrillard have both put out things worth reading. I will say though, those are often promoted as being the canon of european marxist thought specifically because they are anti-soviet in thought; there very ability to be considered elite and high society in a liberal society is a requirement that they hold these views, otherwise they would have suffered the same fate as Gramsci; locked up in a mental asylum or prison for having intulectually honest views on Stalin, Marx and Lenin; Or like Claudia Jones, deported from America for speaking postively about Lenin.

    The anti-soviet marxists of the 1960s-1990s in Europe unfortuantly drank the kool aid about fascist and liberal propoganda.

    • davel [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      8 months ago

      The anti-soviet marxists of the 1960s-1990s in Europe unfortuantly drank the kool aid about fascist and liberal propoganda.

      They didn’t appear out of nowhere. Gabriel Rockhill: The CIA & the Frankfurt School’s Anti-Communism

      They supported & promoted Hannah Arendt’s anticommunist construction of “totalitarianism” as well (also Rockhill): Imperialist Propaganda and the Ideology of the Western Left Intelligentsia: From Anticommunism and Identity Politics to Democratic Illusions and Fascism

      One of the centerpieces of the cultural cold war was the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), which was revealed in 1966 to be a CIA front. Hugh Wilford, who has researched the topic extensively, described the CCF as nothing short of one of the largest patrons of art and culture in the history of the world. Established in 1950, it promoted on the international scene the work of collaborationist academics such as Raymond Aron and Hannah Arendt over and against their Marxian rivals, including the likes of Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir. The CCF had offices in thirty-five countries, mobilized an army of around 280 employees, published or supported some fifty prestigious journals around the world, and organized numerous art and cultural exhibitions, as well as international concerts and festivals.

      • ghost_of_faso2@lemmygrad.ml
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yes, great post. I recently deprogrammed a well meaning french friend on Hannah Arendt by sharing a collection of quotes from her describing how she is pro-american segregation, pro-south african aperthied, pro-zion and views Africans as sub-human.

        https://www.jpost.com/opinion/hannah-arendt-white-supremacist-456007

        The right to free association, and therefore to discrimination, has greater validity than the principle of equality,” wrote Hannah Arendt in 1957, in support of segregation in the US South.

    • BrownMinusBlue@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      8 months ago

      Thank you for your response comrade.

      Here's a link to instrumental Marxism but beware it's from natopedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_Marxism

      It seems to me that instrumental Marxism is more logical, but I don't know enough theory to be completely convinced if I'm right or wrong.

      • ghost_of_faso2@lemmygrad.ml
        ·
        8 months ago

        I had a quick read over this and a few criticisms jump to mind.

        Firstly, it talks about how the elite in the state are inherently bougie and serve the class interests of both the state and those that enable the state.

        I think it misses the mark, it puts politics above the upper class. The issue is not that there are politicians, we will always need those; they are elected represnatives after all. The issue is that the politicians only serve the upper classes interests.

        I believe the only time these theories have been significant is when one of the leading theorists had a debate with Ed Millibands brother, Ralph Milliband, a capitalist sociologist; Ralph Milliband.

        I also see it has ties with Orthodox marxism, which honestly dont even bother reading, those guys are legit just idiots who treat the word of Marx like the bible 2, whack jobs.

        By orthdox I mean Karl Kautsky and "Kautskyism" or "Menshevism", and also ultras to a degree; the only one out of the three that are relevant in a modern day setting are Ultras, and they do have a signficant prescene in the east and middle east, as well as south america; and are worth studying, but mostly as what to avoid doing.