Yes. They were well read individuals and either academics or students.
The average person (depending on location) is anticommunist. The average person has never read a single page of political philosophy. Why would you expect them to have read, or even have an interest for, Marx.
Have you read modern works by liberal economists and philosophers? I know I haven't, and it's an issue.
Neither do the masses need to read Marxist theory. Mao led them to found the PRC when few people could even read and write.
I would actually strongly recommend reading liberal philosophy. I haven't read any modern liberal philosophy but I really would recommend reading the big names in liberalism like Hobbes and Rousseau and Locke etc.
It can be useful because in many respects Marx reacted against liberal political theory and wrote in response to it. It's also useful to draw upon when engaging with liberals.
From a historical materialist perspective, it can be really illuminating to do a critical examination of liberal political philosophy from the understanding that this is one of the best representations of the superstructure reflecting the base.
As an example here, although this is not speaking about the base in the strictest sense (i.e. being about production) Hobbes wrote in a time which was wracked by civil wars between Catholics and Protestants in Europe, and with this in mind it becomes obvious that the political conclusions that he arrives at are a direct product of the realities that he faced and the solution to the otherwise intractable social problems that he saw all around him.
That's not to excuse his position but I'm sure you get what I'm driving at here.
If we understand liberalism broadly in the sense that it's designed as a way of mediating struggles which would otherwise devolve into civil war and, as such, it's essentially a transposing of this struggle onto a sort of agreed-upon political boxing ring then it helps to clarify what's going on by giving this a broader historical and philosophical context. It also gives insight into how liberalism manages crises and, especially, in how it fails to manage crises and ultimately how it has sown the seeds of its own destruction.
As we see the breakdown of the so-called "liberal order" (cursed phrase) we see a natural result which is edging closer to civil war.
While I'm loath to call the January 6th event an insurrection (those clowns carefully walked between the velvet ropes, took selfies and nabbed souvenirs for God's sake - there was nothing truly insurrectionary about it) this event shouldn't have come as a surprise to people who understand what conditions liberalism sprang forth from and the current conditions that are reemerging as liberalism breaks down under the weight of its own inherent contradictions.
It's also kinda fun on an intellectual level to watch as the diehard liberal argues against the very values of the system that they ostensibly uphold and/or as they push for policy which undermines the very foundations of liberalism. There's a lot of room to play the contradictions there if you ever feel like engaging a liberal in a debate when you know the political philosophy that they're oblivious to.
Ultimately it's an intellectual and philosophical pursuit but there unless you're really interested in the history of ideas or political philosophy then there's more important stuff for you to focus on; to be post-liberalism is admirable but to be anti-liberalism is imperative.
Yeah it makes sense as a Marxist to do so. I'd recommend, and intend to do so myself, to read modern works, because you should always read things that go against your biases, in general. It's silly and dogmatic to only read work by Marxist academics, and worse yet to only read
I gotta be honest with you, and this is probably my ignorance and my bias shining through (a very powerful combination indeed), but I can't really think of any modern liberal philosopher that isn't primarily an economist besides... Fukuyama I guess? lol. And I really don't have time for him or anyone else who is just an apologist or who gets their ideas directly out of the trashcan of ideology.
Nah I mean economists. Piketty is the first name that comes to mind - broadly left wing, makes a strong case, but comes from a different philosophical background (not Marxism). It's why I am planning on reading Arrighi — a post-marxist but left wing view on imperialism.
Michael Hudson is great, but he doesn't challenge a Marxist's worldview, simply because he too is a Marxist. But a modern one, and a good economist, and a proper academic.
See how I don't even know real liberal academics to read? I want to improve on that. I'm still looking for a modern liberal analysis of imperialism
Arrighi is good but a tough read (I got through about 100 pages before I tapped out). I've been reading Hegemony and Socialist Strategy recently, and while it's also tough it is holding me a bit better. It could be that I need to revisit Arrighi given how I'm doing with this current book.
Yes. They were well read individuals and either academics or students.
The average person (depending on location) is anticommunist. The average person has never read a single page of political philosophy. Why would you expect them to have read, or even have an interest for, Marx.
Have you read modern works by liberal economists and philosophers? I know I haven't, and it's an issue.
Neither do the masses need to read Marxist theory. Mao led them to found the PRC when few people could even read and write.
I would actually strongly recommend reading liberal philosophy. I haven't read any modern liberal philosophy but I really would recommend reading the big names in liberalism like Hobbes and Rousseau and Locke etc.
It can be useful because in many respects Marx reacted against liberal political theory and wrote in response to it. It's also useful to draw upon when engaging with liberals.
From a historical materialist perspective, it can be really illuminating to do a critical examination of liberal political philosophy from the understanding that this is one of the best representations of the superstructure reflecting the base.
As an example here, although this is not speaking about the base in the strictest sense (i.e. being about production) Hobbes wrote in a time which was wracked by civil wars between Catholics and Protestants in Europe, and with this in mind it becomes obvious that the political conclusions that he arrives at are a direct product of the realities that he faced and the solution to the otherwise intractable social problems that he saw all around him.
That's not to excuse his position but I'm sure you get what I'm driving at here.
If we understand liberalism broadly in the sense that it's designed as a way of mediating struggles which would otherwise devolve into civil war and, as such, it's essentially a transposing of this struggle onto a sort of agreed-upon political boxing ring then it helps to clarify what's going on by giving this a broader historical and philosophical context. It also gives insight into how liberalism manages crises and, especially, in how it fails to manage crises and ultimately how it has sown the seeds of its own destruction.
As we see the breakdown of the so-called "liberal order" (cursed phrase) we see a natural result which is edging closer to civil war.
While I'm loath to call the January 6th event an insurrection (those clowns carefully walked between the velvet ropes, took selfies and nabbed souvenirs for God's sake - there was nothing truly insurrectionary about it) this event shouldn't have come as a surprise to people who understand what conditions liberalism sprang forth from and the current conditions that are reemerging as liberalism breaks down under the weight of its own inherent contradictions.
It's also kinda fun on an intellectual level to watch as the diehard liberal argues against the very values of the system that they ostensibly uphold and/or as they push for policy which undermines the very foundations of liberalism. There's a lot of room to play the contradictions there if you ever feel like engaging a liberal in a debate when you know the political philosophy that they're oblivious to.
Ultimately it's an intellectual and philosophical pursuit but there unless you're really interested in the history of ideas or political philosophy then there's more important stuff for you to focus on; to be post-liberalism is admirable but to be anti-liberalism is imperative.
Yeah it makes sense as a Marxist to do so. I'd recommend, and intend to do so myself, to read modern works, because you should always read things that go against your biases, in general. It's silly and dogmatic to only read work by Marxist academics, and worse yet to only read
I gotta be honest with you, and this is probably my ignorance and my bias shining through (a very powerful combination indeed), but I can't really think of any modern liberal philosopher that isn't primarily an economist besides... Fukuyama I guess? lol. And I really don't have time for him or anyone else who is just an apologist or who gets their ideas directly out of the trashcan of ideology.
I'm open to being convinced otherwise though.
Nah I mean economists. Piketty is the first name that comes to mind - broadly left wing, makes a strong case, but comes from a different philosophical background (not Marxism). It's why I am planning on reading Arrighi — a post-marxist but left wing view on imperialism.
Michael Hudson is great, but he doesn't challenge a Marxist's worldview, simply because he too is a Marxist. But a modern one, and a good economist, and a proper academic.
See how I don't even know real liberal academics to read? I want to improve on that. I'm still looking for a modern liberal analysis of imperialism
Oh right, fair enough then. I agree with you in that case.
Arrighi is good but a tough read (I got through about 100 pages before I tapped out). I've been reading Hegemony and Socialist Strategy recently, and while it's also tough it is holding me a bit better. It could be that I need to revisit Arrighi given how I'm doing with this current book.
John Rawls died like 20 years ago but he's pretty modern, definitely a liberal, and definitely not an economist.