Everyone should read this short, succinct article!
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:54 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > March 30, 2016 > > *Oh, Good, It’s 2016 and We’re Arguing About Whether Marxism Works *By > Jonathan Chait > > Every Marxist government in history has been a repressive nightmare. > Marxists aside from the ones who defend the remaining Marxist regimes > consider this a strange coincidence that has no bearing on Marxist > ideology. I recently pointed this out, > <http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/reminder-liberalism-is-working-marxism-failed.html> > in light of the resurgence of Marxist thought among some left-wing > intellectual circles. In an essay in > <http://inthesetimes.com/article/19007/jonathan-chait-marxism-liberalism-free-speech-jacobin> > *In > These Times* > <http://inthesetimes.com/article/19007/jonathan-chait-marxism-liberalism-free-speech-jacobin>, > Tyler Zimmer writes what he purports to be a response, but that in fact > confirms my point for me. > The problem with Marxism, I argue, lies in its class-based model of > economic rights. Liberalism believes in political rights for everybody, > regardless of the content of their ideas. Marxists believe political rights > belong only to those arguing on behalf of the oppressed i.e., people who > agree with Marxists. > > Zimmer begins by insisting that self-described Marxist regimes such as the > Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cuba, North Korea, etc., all of whose leaders > were immersed in Marxist thought, were not real Marxists at all. (Zimmer: > “[T]hese authoritarian monstrosities had virtually nothing > <http://socialistworker.org/2010/11/22/does-socialism-exist> to do with > [what] Marx himself said or did.”) > > Zimmer proceeds to explain why the liberal idea that everybody should > enjoy the same right to express their political idea is a failure, and lays > out the Marxist concept of what free speech should really mean: > > Marxists value free speech because they are committed to building a > society where all can decide matters of public concern democratically, as > genuine equals. Thus, the Marxist has a consistent way of explaining why > speech that aims to dominate or marginalize others should be challenged > rather than protected: it is contrary to the very values animating our > commitment to free speech in the first place. … This explains why, to > quote Jelani Cobb, “the freedom to offend the powerful is not equivalent to > the freedom to bully the relatively disempowered.” It also provides a > principled, consistent basis for opposing and disrupting the public acts of > openly racist organizations that seek to subordinate, harm, scapegoat or > marginalize others. … [T]he (socialist) goal of cooperating and governing > public life together as full equals gives us a principled criterion for > deciding which forms of expression deserve protection and which don’t. > > Zimmer is articulating the standard left-wing critique of political > liberalism, and all illiberal left-wing ideologies, Marxist and otherwise > <http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/obama-on-pc-a-recipe-for-dogmatism.html>, > follow the same basic structure. These critiques reject the liberal notion > of free speech as a positive good enjoyed by all citizens. They categorize > political ideas as being made on behalf of either the oppressor class or > the oppressed class. (Traditional Marxism defines these classes in economic > terms; more modern variants replace or add race and gender identities.) > From that premise, they proceed to their conclusion that political advocacy > on behalf of the oppressed enhances freedom, and political advocacy on > behalf of the oppressor diminishes it. > > It does not take much imagination to draw a link between this idea and the > Gulag. The gap between Marxist political theory and the observed behavior > of Marxist regimes is tissue-thin. Their theory of free speech gives > license to any party identifying itself as the authentic representative of > the oppressed to shut down all opposition (which, by definition, opposes > the rights of the oppressed). When Marxists reserve for themselves the > right to decide “which forms of expression deserve protection and which > don’t,” the result of the deliberation is perfectly obvious. > > In the contemporary United States, these ideas are confined by the fact > that only in certain communities (like college campuses) does the illiberal > left have the power to implement its vision, and even there it is > constrained by the U.S. Constitution. If illiberal ideas were to gain more > power, the scale of their abuses would widen. > > http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/oh-good- > were-arguing-whether-marxism-works.html?mid=fb-share-di > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
