Video: James Lindsay 30 minute address to EU parliament on 'woke' and marxism.

Marxism actually refers to the beliefs of Marx, which aren't actually expressed in the video. Instead, the video appears to rely on the concept of "Cultural Marxism" . . . which is a mischaracterization of Marxism that began with the Nazis.

 

Lindsay describes marx's beliefs as they're recorded in marx's writings from the 1840s, one of the books cited is called 'Capital'.

According to Lindsay, Marx wrote (not necessarily in 'Capital', and I'm paraphrasing Lindsay paraphrasing Marx since you won't watch the video yourself):

'Man is a being that is incomplete and knows he is incomplete. His nature as a social being having been forgotten because of the economic conditions operating as the means of production of not just of the economy, but of man, society and history. Economic production doesn't just produce the goods of society, but produces society itself. Society in turn produces man. Marx calls this 'the inversion of praxis'. Thus, 'seizing the means of production' means seizing how we construct who we are as human beings so we can complete ourselves and complete history with a socialist society that transcends private property.'

How does this 'mischaracterize' the beliefs of Marx?

 

You are talking about someone's blatant mischaracterizations of ONE of Marx's quotes from ONE of his books and you refuse to actually read what Marx actually said. No, no one with two braincells to rub together would call that an accurate summary of Marxism. No, sorry, but when Marx talked about seizing the means of production, he actually meant the seizing of the means of production. This is basic literacy.

 

Yes, Marxism and Fascism are the designated and very politically expedient boogeymen for mainstream party battlers. And very few of them are likely to take the time to seriously examine the foundations of Fascism or Marxism.

Which is not to say that some "Marxists" have not been too damn woke for their own good.

“Doggedly loyal to the current Soviet line, American Communist did little to restore their tarnished image in the months that followed. While still ostensibly holding both sides responsible for the war, the Daily Worker reserve it sternest criticisms for the allies the Communist never went so far as to echo the Soviet foreign office’s sentiment that ***"fascism is a matter of taste"*** but the party’s publications consistently absolved the Nazis of any special responsibility for the war.”
The American Communist Party during the Second World War, Which Side Were You On?, By Maurice Isserman, University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, 1993. P. 45.

Isn't that special?

 

Of course it is. IF right and wrong are subjective and up to the whims of a majority, oligarchy, or monarch, then it really is a matter of fashion - some people like killing people and some people like not killing people. Like some like oranges and others prefer cantaloupe.

 

So this "woke" stuff is a phase as a means to bring about Marxism? What gets me is how quickly so many abandon our nations long held values to jump on board with it.

 

"Woke" has nothing to do with Marxism. It's a fake complaint that began with the Nazis, not Marxists.

 

Well, basic literalism, perhaps, but not 'literacy.' It seems marxists (at least some, I understand marxists views on what marxism actually means covers quite a range...) that the means of production is very closely intertwined with society and culture. Seizing one would logically mean seizing all. That may not be what marx literally said, but it makes way more sense than just having a laser focus on literal material production as a social foundation, given marx's emphasis on its importance to the human condition.



Praxis in philosophy
In Western philosophy, the term praxis has been used by various thinkers, always as a synonym for action or practice of something.

However, the term is strongly associated with politics and especially Marxism: Karl Marx contradicted the classic subordination of praxis to theoretical thought (in the sense that one must first come up with theory and then proceed to praxis), claiming that in reality theoretical thought arises from the practical (material, social) conditions in which human life occurs and therefore so much actually depends on them.

This inversion (that the theory is determined by praxis and not the other way around) is fundamental in Marxist thought, for which the concrete models of material production are those that determine the way in which reality is interpreted, and not the other way around. Put more easily, for Marxism it is the material that determines the way in which one thinks, and not the other way around.
Concept of Praxis - In philosophy, professional practice and malpractice - Daily Concepts (conceptdaily.com)

 

I see. Woke is not Marxist.

Woke is Nazi.

 

No. Calling Wokeness Marxist is Nazi. They were literally the ones who started the whole fake "cultural Marxism" attack that you guys are mirroring.

 

I'd say its a means to bring back feudalism, as that's the innevitable result of abolishing private property. But it does seem marxism is a popular tool to try and reach that end.

 

I think it's a tactical mistake, relying on the listener disliking one and using that to tar the other? What if the listener likes Marxism?