In all fairness, Carl, I think whether or not you could be called a neoliberal shill or a Marxist would depend on what definition of "Marxist/Marxism" you were using. Is it the Classical iteration actually formulated by Marx and Engels that kept a focus primarily on class, and was intended to unite *all* workers towards that goal? Or is …
In all fairness, Carl, I think whether or not you could be called a neoliberal shill or a Marxist would depend on what definition of "Marxist/Marxism" you were using. Is it the Classical iteration actually formulated by Marx and Engels that kept a focus primarily on class, and was intended to unite *all* workers towards that goal? Or is it more modern re-conceptualizations that switch the focus on race, gender, religion etc while minimizing class, and are more interested in turning designated "marginalized" groups against white male heterosexuals by attempting to advance a handful of the former within the capitalist system and are loyal to the Democratic Party? In other words, the re-conceptualization that has sometimes been sub-catalogued as "Cultural Marxism" or "Neo-Marxism" because of that.
Sometimes labels are mis-applied, and I do not disagree with that. I have, for instance, been called a "right-winger", a "fascist", a "misogynist", etc by people on the Mainstream Left because I do not go along with the narrative of the Democrats or have loyalty to their brand of identity politics. Whether or not it's fair to label you or anyone else as a neoliberal shill rather than a Marxist would be right or wrong on a case-by-case basis.
"First, I'm not attacking 'white people,' viciously or otherwise. I'm attacking white supremacy and its advocates and defenders. Many whites oppose it."
And I, of course, am one of those whites. However, one distinctive trait of neoliberals is the belief that white supremacy is still all over the place and pervasive, and written into law. And it always carries the implication that the main problem with capitalism is not its class divisions that impoverish the majority of every group but that it's predominantly white men who are running it... as if PoC or women act any better when they achieve positions of power. In other words, you keep the focus on race-baiting and "white supremacy" rather than class unity. And actually remain loyal to the Democrats, believing that capitalist-controlled party is against "white supremacy" when its current White House shill is a notorious racist and back of segregationist policies in the past. It's all about diverting the attention away from class unity. This near-single-minded focus would clearly denote "Cultural Marxism", but not the Classical Marxism of Marx and Engels.
It would also label a Classical Leftist like me as a "white supremacist" for not embracing "checking" some imaginary privilege I allegedly have just for being white, despite the fact that I do not have a dime to my name much of the time.
"Second, 'white' itself is problematic. It has nothing to do with biology and little to do with ancestry. It's a political category designed to keep us all down, working-class 'whites' included."
That I pretty much agree with. Which is why I focus on class, without being concerned about whether one of my black friends' ancestors may have been a mover and shaker in the Moor Empire that owned a European ancestor of mine as a slave. That was then in a much earlier era of time, and this is now when we all need to forgive the past sins of our ancestors and work together to create a better world for *everyone* to ensure that *no* group ever again achieves disproportionate power over any other.
"Our 'betters' have had a turn and brought us to the current batch of crises."
Yes, though personally I define our "betters" as anyone who controls the lion's share of the wealth we collectively produce and who privately own the industries and services we all depend on to live in material comfort. And I fully agree that we need to end class divisions and establish social ownership of the industries and services and provide everyone with the full fruit of their labor now that we have technologically established a post-scarcity civilization.
"But for the 'color race' entitlements, get rid of them all. We can agree, I think, that racialized inequalities exist. when you view the same thing from the bottom up, you see racial privilege."
Yes, I can agree with this. But privileges as seen from the bottom up can take numerous forms, not merely racial or sex-based etc.
I speak as a heterosexual white man who grew up in a rough inner city environment that has always had many black and female cops; who has had many black and female bosses & supervisors; many black and female teachers from elementary school on up to college; who has patronized the many minority-owned and run businesses that are all around where I live; who has always lived beside, worked with, and studied among PoC and girls as equals; and who envied many men of color I have known who had better social skills than I do (and thus were far more socially popular), had better athletic skills than me (my athletic skills have been limited to martial arts & the fighting sports), smarter than I was (my high school graduating class's Valedictorian and Salutatorian were both black), and better looking/more attractive than I am.
Due to growing up in that environment, I have experienced racism when I was called out for being white while in a social environment where I was the only white person present; and more recently all over social media. I have known numerous PoC, women, and LGBTs throughout my life, many of whom were among the most wonderful people I have ever met, and some of each who were among the worst, both on a personal and professional level.
This is the POV I have based on the specific environment and life station (lower middle class inner city family, currently counting as poor) to which I was born & raised, and in which I still live and work.
In short, I'm a Marxist who thinks 1. Both capital and class in the new world has been racialized from day one and, 2. the road to class unity passes through the battles to takes down all the structures of white supremacy and others of the like. and 3. All politics contains identity, including yours. I'm reminded of a trip in my teens to the Newport Jazz festival, As we hit New Jersey and beyond, we all laughed at the 'accents' we heard. We, 'obviously,' didn't have an 'accent.' We talked 'normal.' Once I got to college, I quickly learned that we 'Pittsburghers' not only had an accent, but a unique and funny one.
I do concur that identity is a real thing. However, I do not agree that it should be made to replace class as the macro of the Left's focus, or stand on equal footing with it. Over-emphasizing identity can be very divisive, especially in the heavily polarized climate of the present era.
The fact remains that no matter what our identity is, we all have basically the same material needs... food, clean water, a clean environment & harmonious existence with nature, access to medical care when needed, a good form of shelter, access to meaningful work to make a reasonable contribution to society, a need for the rest of society to take a "live and let live" policy towards how we conduct our lives, and the psychological need for access to recreation and relaxation.
All forms of group superiority, whether it be white supremacy or feelings of inherent superiority *over* white people, or men, etc., require one group to have disproportionate access to the above material bounty that we are now technologically capable of providing to everyone in order to oppress other groups. That, or providing benefits to one group of people at the expense of another, especially in an era when there is no longer any material justification for it, will hence trigger divisive conflict within the working class.
When white supremacy -- specifically -- and the conception of identity of the liberal variety are strongly emphasized or mentioned as often as class in this neoliberal climate, even by those purporting to be Marxists/socialists, it is naturally going to cause people to suspect some degree of fealty to the Democrats and their worldview rather than the working class as a whole in a manner that transcends party lines. And it tends to imply a worldview that one particular group is somehow more capable of identity-based bigotry and abuse when wielding disproportional power over others. Either that, or other groups are being given a free pass for the same type of behavior when abusing power.
It also brings up a suspicion of continued tolerance of capitalism depending on *which* demographic is perceived as most benefiting from the class divisions. Or, worse, that a capitalist of a certain identity group is somehow going to care about workers in that identity more than their fellow capitalists.
In all fairness, Carl, I think whether or not you could be called a neoliberal shill or a Marxist would depend on what definition of "Marxist/Marxism" you were using. Is it the Classical iteration actually formulated by Marx and Engels that kept a focus primarily on class, and was intended to unite *all* workers towards that goal? Or is it more modern re-conceptualizations that switch the focus on race, gender, religion etc while minimizing class, and are more interested in turning designated "marginalized" groups against white male heterosexuals by attempting to advance a handful of the former within the capitalist system and are loyal to the Democratic Party? In other words, the re-conceptualization that has sometimes been sub-catalogued as "Cultural Marxism" or "Neo-Marxism" because of that.
Sometimes labels are mis-applied, and I do not disagree with that. I have, for instance, been called a "right-winger", a "fascist", a "misogynist", etc by people on the Mainstream Left because I do not go along with the narrative of the Democrats or have loyalty to their brand of identity politics. Whether or not it's fair to label you or anyone else as a neoliberal shill rather than a Marxist would be right or wrong on a case-by-case basis.
"First, I'm not attacking 'white people,' viciously or otherwise. I'm attacking white supremacy and its advocates and defenders. Many whites oppose it."
And I, of course, am one of those whites. However, one distinctive trait of neoliberals is the belief that white supremacy is still all over the place and pervasive, and written into law. And it always carries the implication that the main problem with capitalism is not its class divisions that impoverish the majority of every group but that it's predominantly white men who are running it... as if PoC or women act any better when they achieve positions of power. In other words, you keep the focus on race-baiting and "white supremacy" rather than class unity. And actually remain loyal to the Democrats, believing that capitalist-controlled party is against "white supremacy" when its current White House shill is a notorious racist and back of segregationist policies in the past. It's all about diverting the attention away from class unity. This near-single-minded focus would clearly denote "Cultural Marxism", but not the Classical Marxism of Marx and Engels.
It would also label a Classical Leftist like me as a "white supremacist" for not embracing "checking" some imaginary privilege I allegedly have just for being white, despite the fact that I do not have a dime to my name much of the time.
"Second, 'white' itself is problematic. It has nothing to do with biology and little to do with ancestry. It's a political category designed to keep us all down, working-class 'whites' included."
That I pretty much agree with. Which is why I focus on class, without being concerned about whether one of my black friends' ancestors may have been a mover and shaker in the Moor Empire that owned a European ancestor of mine as a slave. That was then in a much earlier era of time, and this is now when we all need to forgive the past sins of our ancestors and work together to create a better world for *everyone* to ensure that *no* group ever again achieves disproportionate power over any other.
"Our 'betters' have had a turn and brought us to the current batch of crises."
Yes, though personally I define our "betters" as anyone who controls the lion's share of the wealth we collectively produce and who privately own the industries and services we all depend on to live in material comfort. And I fully agree that we need to end class divisions and establish social ownership of the industries and services and provide everyone with the full fruit of their labor now that we have technologically established a post-scarcity civilization.
"But for the 'color race' entitlements, get rid of them all. We can agree, I think, that racialized inequalities exist. when you view the same thing from the bottom up, you see racial privilege."
Yes, I can agree with this. But privileges as seen from the bottom up can take numerous forms, not merely racial or sex-based etc.
I speak as a heterosexual white man who grew up in a rough inner city environment that has always had many black and female cops; who has had many black and female bosses & supervisors; many black and female teachers from elementary school on up to college; who has patronized the many minority-owned and run businesses that are all around where I live; who has always lived beside, worked with, and studied among PoC and girls as equals; and who envied many men of color I have known who had better social skills than I do (and thus were far more socially popular), had better athletic skills than me (my athletic skills have been limited to martial arts & the fighting sports), smarter than I was (my high school graduating class's Valedictorian and Salutatorian were both black), and better looking/more attractive than I am.
Due to growing up in that environment, I have experienced racism when I was called out for being white while in a social environment where I was the only white person present; and more recently all over social media. I have known numerous PoC, women, and LGBTs throughout my life, many of whom were among the most wonderful people I have ever met, and some of each who were among the worst, both on a personal and professional level.
This is the POV I have based on the specific environment and life station (lower middle class inner city family, currently counting as poor) to which I was born & raised, and in which I still live and work.
In short, I'm a Marxist who thinks 1. Both capital and class in the new world has been racialized from day one and, 2. the road to class unity passes through the battles to takes down all the structures of white supremacy and others of the like. and 3. All politics contains identity, including yours. I'm reminded of a trip in my teens to the Newport Jazz festival, As we hit New Jersey and beyond, we all laughed at the 'accents' we heard. We, 'obviously,' didn't have an 'accent.' We talked 'normal.' Once I got to college, I quickly learned that we 'Pittsburghers' not only had an accent, but a unique and funny one.
I do concur that identity is a real thing. However, I do not agree that it should be made to replace class as the macro of the Left's focus, or stand on equal footing with it. Over-emphasizing identity can be very divisive, especially in the heavily polarized climate of the present era.
The fact remains that no matter what our identity is, we all have basically the same material needs... food, clean water, a clean environment & harmonious existence with nature, access to medical care when needed, a good form of shelter, access to meaningful work to make a reasonable contribution to society, a need for the rest of society to take a "live and let live" policy towards how we conduct our lives, and the psychological need for access to recreation and relaxation.
All forms of group superiority, whether it be white supremacy or feelings of inherent superiority *over* white people, or men, etc., require one group to have disproportionate access to the above material bounty that we are now technologically capable of providing to everyone in order to oppress other groups. That, or providing benefits to one group of people at the expense of another, especially in an era when there is no longer any material justification for it, will hence trigger divisive conflict within the working class.
When white supremacy -- specifically -- and the conception of identity of the liberal variety are strongly emphasized or mentioned as often as class in this neoliberal climate, even by those purporting to be Marxists/socialists, it is naturally going to cause people to suspect some degree of fealty to the Democrats and their worldview rather than the working class as a whole in a manner that transcends party lines. And it tends to imply a worldview that one particular group is somehow more capable of identity-based bigotry and abuse when wielding disproportional power over others. Either that, or other groups are being given a free pass for the same type of behavior when abusing power.
It also brings up a suspicion of continued tolerance of capitalism depending on *which* demographic is perceived as most benefiting from the class divisions. Or, worse, that a capitalist of a certain identity group is somehow going to care about workers in that identity more than their fellow capitalists.