Perhaps my largest critique of Marx’s ideas is that he often operated under the presumption of knowing what is best for the “proletariat” whilst genuinely being too far removed from them throughout his formative and even adult life (despite running out of money during his later years). I think he nailed the nature of bourgeois on the head largely because he was enveloped and educated alongside those very circles.
Where I see the intellectual Left stumble most often, is they often operate under these very similar false presumptions of knowing what’s best for peoples whom they do not thoroughly understand. To the point where they come off as chiding and elitist, and therefore to the average member of the working class - untrustworthy.
Where I think this article misses the point is the last paragraph. Cause yes heterosexuality is an oppressive force in our society. We all know it. As a heterosexual male I feel that as well (sounds dumb but I can explain lol). But we shouldn’t force people into this discussion. That will only alienate them. We should just say „yeah well I think people should have the freedom to do what they want, who am I to tell them who they should sleep with or marry?”. Stick to the basics that our culture, with all its flows, is built upon. Cause it could be worse. Ultimately what happens is that the right will engage and they will lose. Cause they are the wrong party. That approach in my opinion will allow for defending the truth while at the same time not alienating people who don’t want to have this conversation.
While I agree the same criticism applies to this article and your comment. So we should wonder… what is the answer? I don’t think pretending that we are part of the proletariat (Im not idk about you) is the answer. Or pretending that we don’t care about trans issues is the answer either. And let’s be real the „marxist inteligencia” has little to none influence on the reality of common people. So my answer would be honesty integrity and humanisation of our message. Talk about people’s real issues first, then about their anger towards the liberal elites, then human rights and minorities, and these issues should be discussed from a perspective of freedom not a moral high ground. In my country, Poland there is an up and coming party called Razem. I think their methods are close to my heart and should be considered as effective.
I think the wrench in this formula is the force of evangelical Christianity in American culture — you couldn’t have a pro-abortion populist in America because these positions are separated by the gulf of evangelicalism and the two-party system. Every time I’m in Europe, I’m a bit taken aback by how their party lines are so much more transient.
Another aspect of Western hypocrisy is the way state education has been seen as primarily there to ensure a skilled workforce, a capitalist aim, rather than as an essential component of functional democratic processes. In the UK, and many other countries, a child can be required to endure 11 or more years of compulsory schooling, run as highly hierarchical (even totalitarian) organisations, overseen by school governors who are mostly middle-class, taught a curriculum focused on summative exams where understanding how democracy functions, basics of social ethics, basics of economics, are not embedded in any qualification specification. We could say, following Arendt, that our school system doesn't even prepare people to interrogate knowledge claims, articulate opinions, critically evaluate values. And then we wonder why approximately half the population are taken in by misinformation, neo-liberal capitalist rhetoric and its totalitarian leanings!
Perhaps my largest critique of Marx’s ideas is that he often operated under the presumption of knowing what is best for the “proletariat” whilst genuinely being too far removed from them throughout his formative and even adult life (despite running out of money during his later years). I think he nailed the nature of bourgeois on the head largely because he was enveloped and educated alongside those very circles.
Where I see the intellectual Left stumble most often, is they often operate under these very similar false presumptions of knowing what’s best for peoples whom they do not thoroughly understand. To the point where they come off as chiding and elitist, and therefore to the average member of the working class - untrustworthy.
Where I think this article misses the point is the last paragraph. Cause yes heterosexuality is an oppressive force in our society. We all know it. As a heterosexual male I feel that as well (sounds dumb but I can explain lol). But we shouldn’t force people into this discussion. That will only alienate them. We should just say „yeah well I think people should have the freedom to do what they want, who am I to tell them who they should sleep with or marry?”. Stick to the basics that our culture, with all its flows, is built upon. Cause it could be worse. Ultimately what happens is that the right will engage and they will lose. Cause they are the wrong party. That approach in my opinion will allow for defending the truth while at the same time not alienating people who don’t want to have this conversation.
While I agree the same criticism applies to this article and your comment. So we should wonder… what is the answer? I don’t think pretending that we are part of the proletariat (Im not idk about you) is the answer. Or pretending that we don’t care about trans issues is the answer either. And let’s be real the „marxist inteligencia” has little to none influence on the reality of common people. So my answer would be honesty integrity and humanisation of our message. Talk about people’s real issues first, then about their anger towards the liberal elites, then human rights and minorities, and these issues should be discussed from a perspective of freedom not a moral high ground. In my country, Poland there is an up and coming party called Razem. I think their methods are close to my heart and should be considered as effective.
I think the wrench in this formula is the force of evangelical Christianity in American culture — you couldn’t have a pro-abortion populist in America because these positions are separated by the gulf of evangelicalism and the two-party system. Every time I’m in Europe, I’m a bit taken aback by how their party lines are so much more transient.
Another aspect of Western hypocrisy is the way state education has been seen as primarily there to ensure a skilled workforce, a capitalist aim, rather than as an essential component of functional democratic processes. In the UK, and many other countries, a child can be required to endure 11 or more years of compulsory schooling, run as highly hierarchical (even totalitarian) organisations, overseen by school governors who are mostly middle-class, taught a curriculum focused on summative exams where understanding how democracy functions, basics of social ethics, basics of economics, are not embedded in any qualification specification. We could say, following Arendt, that our school system doesn't even prepare people to interrogate knowledge claims, articulate opinions, critically evaluate values. And then we wonder why approximately half the population are taken in by misinformation, neo-liberal capitalist rhetoric and its totalitarian leanings!
I am looking for other isolated intellectuals to join us at The Rhizome Times!
Our mission is to expose the hidden systems of manipulation as well as the creation and publishing of subversive media.
https://open.substack.com/pub/ragalla/p/i-love-you-but-we-are-killing-each?r=55jm5x&utm_medium=ios
I’m so confused by this article. Poorly written and rambling. Someone please tell me what he’s trying to say