BLUE
Login
PostsUsersHashtags
DNdrneil.bsky.social

This is funny because if a progressive politician has ever had anything to do with a union, you know those non-profit organisations that work to protect workers rights, they get labeled as some sort of Marxist for life but Tories get to be in bed with all sorts of nasties and it’s “just a job” …

Inorightturnnz.bsky.social

Casey Costello whining about being "attacked and villified for my connections to the tobacco industry". Lie down with cancermongers, get up with cancer. Maybe she should choose her friends / donors / bosses more carefully then. #nzqt

0
PGpetergates.bsky.social

Identifying where someone comes from is not attacking just describing. Many hiding their alignment rather than being honest and open then take faux-offence when described. Anyone who describes me as a Marxist progressive would be spot on! My point though is most teachers don’t have time or expertise

0
Jgravitysra1nbow.bsky.social

Look, let’s start small here okay. You can’t be breaking out terms like that when we use Marxist and Fascist as synonyms

0
GJgavinjackson.bsky.social

So the theory. One strand is that this is just a way of smuggling Marxist ideas into economics (you need a bourgeois revolution to create capitalism) and it sort of is. In doing so it misses something. Casting these liberal institutions as "inclusive" misses how corrupt and expropriative they were.

1
RLlapenseerevue.bsky.social

Matérialisme historique : quatre jeunes chercheurs publient dans La Pensée Jean Quétier, Laure Flandrin, Guilhem Mevel, Florian Gulli shs.cairn.info/revue-la-pen...#materialismehistorique#marterialismo#HistoricalMaterialism#marx#engels#Marxist#marxism#marxismo

0
WLwilliamjtlane.bsky.social

Interesting! I'm just finishing 'Fascism in Europe' by Morgan at the minute,but I'll be looking for some new non fiction soon. One thing that a lot of Marxist types seem uncomfortable with is how similar the March on Rome and the November Revolution are from the perspective of the organisers....

1
Xxaqerius.bsky.social

he's part of the tradition, stop this nonsense where you treat him as a marxist but not part of any socialist agenda today

1
CDeatyrselffitter.bsky.social

god the anti kamala ads use "liberal" like it's fucking 2000 again. but at least they haven't come up with anything clever like "kommunala marxist"

0
Ssoilent.bsky.social

Here's something to think about that I stole from someone lol

Suppose we started with a particular story about how child labor in Indonesia is contracted by multinational corporations at near- starvation wage levels. This information probably would not be car- ried in rightwing publications, but in 1996 it did appear-after decades of effort by some activists—in the centrist mainstream press. What if we then crossed a line and said that these exploitative employer-employee relations were backed by the full might of the Indonesian military government. Fewer media would carry this story but it still might get mentioned in an inside page of the New York Times or Washington Post. Then suppose we crossed another line and said that these repres- sive arrangements would not prevail were it not for generous mili- tary aid from the United States, and that for almost thirty years the homicidal Indonesian military has been financed, armed, advised, and trained by the U.S. national security state. Such a story would be even more unlikely to appear in the liberal press but it is still issue- specific and safely without an overall class analysis, so it might well
138 BLACKSHIRTS AND REDS make its way into left-liberal opinion publications like the Nation and the Progressive. Now suppose we pointed out that the conditions found in Indonesia-the heartless economic exploitation, brutal military repression, and lavish U.S. support-exist in scores of other coun- tries. Suppose we then crossed that most serious line of all and instead of just deploring this fact we also asked why successive U.S. administrations involve themselves in such unsavory pursuits throughout the world. And what if then we tried to explain that the whole phenomenon is consistent with the U.S. dedication to making the world safe for the free market and the giant multinational cor- porations, and that the intended goals are (a) to maximize opportu- nities to accumulate wealth by depressing the wage levels of workers throughout the world and preventing them from organizing on behalf of their own interests, and (b) to protect the overall global sys- tem of free-market capital accumulation. Then what if, from all this, we concluded that U.S. foreign policy is neither timid, as the conservatives say, nor foolish, as the liberals say, but is remarkably successful in rolling back just about all gov- ernments and social movements that attempt to serve popular needs rather than private corporate greed. Such an analysis, hurriedly sketched here, would take some effort to lay out and would amount to a Marxist critique-a correct cri- tique of capitalist imperialism. Though Marxists are not the only ones that might arrive at it, it almost certainly would not be pub- lished anywhere except in a Marxist publication. We crossed too many lines. Because we tried to explain the particular situation (child labor) in terms of a larger set of social relations (corporate class power), our presentation would be rejected out of hand as "ide- ological."
1
JBjohnnieburdette.bsky.social

This might be futile, but here goes. The fundamental difference between the ideologies is that socialism works in a democracy where opportunities are made available for all to achieve their maximum potential, which is totally contrary to Marxism. Therefore, you can’t be a Marxist & a socialist.

1
HomePopularExplore