Welcome again to everybody! Make yourself at home. Is anyone reading this? In the time-honoured tradition of our group, here is our weekly discussion thread!
Matrix homeserver at genzedong.org. See this thread for information about our Matrix space. Discord here.
Short reading list for new MLs here. To find theory, try z-lib, libgen, or Sci-Hub (for scientific articles). If an article is unavailable, try the Wayback Machine.
Accidentally revealed myself as a Marxist to a liberal colleague. Now he wants political discussions.
My condolences. I got my midterm back yesterday where I basically wrote my own version of the communist manifesto and I’m terrified to look at the comments he wrote lol
I feel that!
Discussions? Or does he want to tell you why you’re wrong?
Well he claims the former. We’ll see. I’m not really used to such things. I.e. the fellow asked for a “definition of liberalism as per Marxism”, after I said that “humanity above all” was not really what liberalism is about. And what am I supposed to do? Try to explain how liberalism is still capitalism and thus reactionary? It’s going to be difficult without the appropriate understanding of diamat
I see, I see. Not that you’re asking for advice but, while we’re here…
It’s an opportunity, at least. And if you’ve managed this long to stay friendly, if you continue with that, you can plant some seeds.
In this situation, when someone sees liberalism as progressive and as separate to capitalism, I go back to the classics. If you can prompt him to read the founding theorists in good faith, there’s no other conclusion.
The ‘classical liberals’, like the ‘whigs’, are often referred to as a kind of pure liberal who are not tainted by the failures of modern capitalism. This allows people to call themselves classical liberals and detach liberalism from the capitalism they have experienced and can see is problematic. But the neoliberals start with all the same premises. The neoliberals even call themselves classical liberals (or they used to, at least—I’m thinking of Hayek and Berlin).
I tend not to start with Marx. I insist on looking at their ideological roots (i.e. the liberal’s) and highlight the contradictions. Then I go to Marx and show that Marx(ists) begin with these contradictions and ask, ‘Now what?’ it doesn’t always go to plan; liberalism does not encourage self-reflection and the ideology simply apologises for all it’s bad features as if those things would happen whatever the political economy.
This could be a good starting point in your situation because Marxists don’t have their own definition of liberalism, they instead ask what liberals think liberalism is. I think don’t liberals have fully accepted the idea that Marxism is a utopian ideology that is entirely based in the ‘after capitalism’. Liberals need to be taught that Marxists are criticising the conditions of today (which becomes clearer by putting today in context by looking first at the past).
I’m not sure if this is helpful, but I hope so.
Thank you