From the article:
Bourgeois history has primarily retained from ’68 the spectacle of the student-led revolts in the heart of Paris: the barricades in the Latin Quarter, the occupation of the Sorbonne, the libertarian sloganeering, and so forth. A significant segment of the intelligentsia, particularly anarchist, Maoist, Trotskyist, libertarian socialist, and Marxian currents, wrote in support of these revolts and often joined them in the streets and the various occupations. Marxist-Leninist intellectuals generally questioned the strategic clarity of the unorganized petty-bourgeois and anticommunist politics of many of the more vocal students, which they criticized for being gauchistes and beholden to the illusory belief in a revolutionary situation.5 At the same time, many of these intellectuals also recognized the youth uprising as an important catalyst for a new phase of class struggle, and they stalwartly supported the mobilization of workers.
These different segments of the intelligentsia, as we shall see, were not those that rose to global prominence as major contributors to the phenomenon known as French theory.6 On the contrary, those marketed as the ’68 thinkers—Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, Pierre Bourdieu, and others—were disconnected from and often dismissive of the historic workers’ mobilization. They were also hostile to, or at least highly skeptical of, the student movement. In both senses, they were anti-’68 thinkers, or at a minimum, theorists who were highly suspicious of the demonstrations. Their promotion by the global theory industry, which has marketed them as the radical theorists of ’68, has largely obliterated this historical fact.
And one of my favorite parts from the article:
deleted by creator
To be fair, many activists and organizers from the 60s/70s era are still here and fighting. It's not that ubiquotous and I would even say they're partly behind the recent revival in radicalism and Marxism today.
For example, Black Alliance for Peace are headed by radicals from the 60s/70s/80s era.
I find it morbidly fascinating, how some of the seemingly more academically-educated Marxists in the Western left turned to shit.
I.E. Read also Lyndon Larouche and his "National Caucus of Labor Committies", a cult if you will, and the developing of the magazine "Living Marxism" into "Spiked", another right-wing British rag for reading. Even without hindsight, folks, there were clear red signs on pseudo-leftism in the west, if you will.
I've always found that there is a particular irony within the Marcuse analysis of 'workers selling out', because Lenin also comes to the same conclusion, albeit he recognized that that 'selling out' nature comes from the derivation of 'super-profits' of imperialism. It is from there that we come into complex class terms such as 'labor aristocracy' and the complex class character of the imperial core proletariat, who are both coddled on a world stage, but still exploited by strict Marxist definitions, but to varying degrees.
However, that doesn't mean that Lenin rejects the Marxist analysis that the proletariat are only class with the revolutionary potential to 'remake society and redefine the relationship to the means of production'. Which is true! Artists, students, beggars and intellectuals can all adopt aesthetics of revolution and bang the gong of 'change' but they cannot redefine the relationship to the means of production because they are not directly involved with the mass replication of the material culture nor the long-term production processing of capital. Can they potentially form a sort of vanguard? Of course. But are they the revolutionary class? No, they cannot be.
It's almost like he didn't actually process any Lenin, Engels or Marx and really shows the liberalism and idealism within his theory, instead picking and choosing what he believed to be the 'most radical' based off of his own personal academic experiences.
Uh, actually, the American proletariat can indeed by the most revolutionary class, given how poorly they treated, which is only better than a peasant in India.
Perhaps, but the average level of purchasing power is still too high. Even the working poor in America can afford luxury electronics and most escapist media is oriented towards their desires. We'll see what happens when they get to retirement age and realize that they have nothing close to what their parents had, and they can't just consume their sorrows away. Drugs probably. We are still the world's premier consumers, and it's important not to forget that.
The purchasing power vis a vis other countries does not matter, especially in terms of quality of life, and Americans by and large are dirt-poor.
"luxury electronics"
So do a lot of people in India.
These are just Republican talking points repackaged in leftist jargon.
Look you can believe whatever you want. I am simply going off of the observations that I, as a multi-decade long member of the working class, see that cause lumpen behavior. You can dismiss them if you want but don't accuse me of being reactionary.
I've been to India a couple of times, and this is simply not true. The purchasing power of your average poor American is still much higher than the majority of people in India and American's quality of life is better simply because there are less people competing for more space. This country is absolutely massive, I'm not saying that there are not lots of very poor Americans living is squalor, there are! But their physical concentrations and numbers are, right now, small enough to render them politically inert. At this point in time, you can still, at the sacrifice of your body, pick up a welding job in the Midwest in your teens for 21 dollars an hour, or work in retail for 18. It's not enough to retire or raise children or live alone, but it is still enough to buy what you want on the global market. However, this is a rapidly deteriorating situation.
Once our relationship with China and the real manufacturing hubs starts to change, that will not be the same case, and that time is approaching as the elite class, who are completely financially isolated from any consequences of their actions at this point because of their relationship to super-profits, try to contest for geo-political control. This country will not survive if we are not the world's premier trading partner, as consumption is the only thing we have left. The question is if it will be enough, or if we get into the strange modern situation where we are at war but still fully trading with each other (like the current situation with Ukriane and Russia).
These are not 'Republican talking points'. Republican talking points are that (white) god-fearing Americans are culturally and genetically prone to individuality and freedom, that they love hard and honest work, and that communists are lazy beggars who have never done an honest day's labor in their life and just want hand-outs. None of which I am saying. Hell, you could say that my points are closer to neo-liberal talking points, but I am saying that they are a bad thing.
"but don't accuse me of being reactionary"
I never did but I know that talking-points like this one are common and it just gives people an excuse to not organize or do any bit of activism.
It would not matter if the purchasing power is better as it means little to quality of life for an American. Go to where I live. Poverty. Go to prison. Poverty. Go to the homeless in the city. Poverty.
Republican talking-points are that the poor are not poor and that they own an iPhone or a computer and therefore have it easy.
I am not saying that we shouldn't be organizing, I'm just saying we shouldn't expect our activism alone to turn the situation around.
Again, there is poverty, but it is too spread out and completly disorganized. There is no peasant or proletariat community that are the traditional building block for communist or anarchist movements. The closest thing we can get is ethnic minority communities, and that could be enough to create an effective political bloc. But that will not be the case forever.
They don't make life 'easy', but they do make life 'tolerable'. I can't even remember how many times I have had discussions with people about activism or politics and just receive blank stares, but as soon as I bring up video games or tv shows their faces light up and are engaged. These are people who are right next to the poverty line despite working 40+ hours. If they get to a point where they can no longer afford those things, then maybe they will engage in politics. Maybe not. The point is to have the organizations and capacity to facilitate their understanding and redirect them away from reactionary tendencies.
These aren't the days where the whole town comes out to support the strike, only to be put down by the national guard.
There is a proletariat. They deal with the largest incarceration rate in the world. What ethnic minority communities? You mean people like me? But what about the bourgeoisie within them as well? And why are you banking on us to save white people or whatever? Sorry, but I take a bit of offense to that. 😅
"They have video games." Yup. Spotted it.
Frankly, my message was snippy and that was rude of me. I don't mean to insult. My apologies. @TreadOnMe@hexbear.net
It's ok. These can be frustrating subjects, with no clear answers. Solidarity!
sure sure