EX-MARXISTS
Whitacre Chambers, James Burnham, and Christopher Hitchens were all Marxists who abandoned Marxism later in life. What can we learn from apostates? Some became Neocons, others like Eugene Genovese became Paleocons. Which reasons for leaving the fold are most valid and which should we consider addressing intellectually.
1. A general disillusionment
2. Social pressure
3. A belief that the core tenets were disproven
4. Other causes
Discuss.
...
I think he ignored the case of Horst Mahler's shift from the far left to the far right. If anything that reveals a deeper issue than transforming into ordinary conservatives.
excellent thread ahead
Hi someone called? What da fugg???
I think 1 and 2 occur more often than 3, simply because even some capitalists throughout history acknowledge its eventual end. Sometimes Marxists turn into accelerationists (communism the end goal, but extreme capitalism the method) which to me is the only really "logical" path to take if you have to choose.
Between what and acceleration?
Boomerism is disease.
Marxism can only come about after Feudalism has been destroyed by Capitalism. Peasants are conservative, but Proletariat are radical. Marxism is inherently accelerationist.
the question is, where do you see feudalism? i don't see feudalism here in the USA.
I think if anything it existed during the industrial period when a petit bourgeois middle class arose, but shackled to manufacturers. Despite popular memery American manufacturing isn't dead yet, just moribund. Service workers would be the proletariat, unless their bosses are full service.
With few exceptions, they didn't have much marxist credentials to begin with.
Government contracting is basically modern-day feudalism. The US funds companies like SpaceX etc, gets to keep the tech at a lower price and the companies then get to sell it abroad.
Because they are cops, spies and stooges.
That has nothing to do with feudalism.
This is not true. It's possible to give up after a while seen the sorry state of marxism today
You're forgetting two big ones: Kolakowski and Popper, both of whom become very staunch liberal apologists.
There have been hundreds of millions of people believing in the tenets of Monarchism, Liberalism, etc. so of course you'll also find examples of liberals who became open Nazis etc. or a switch between any other such pair. The only positions possibly free from that problem are micro-sects, like vegano-posadism or whatever. What's the point. Is Mussolini's life the proof that syndicalism leads to fascism? Surely not. This is a dumb idea for a thread and you are dumb, OP.
Brainlet who got constantly BTFO by the Vienna circle and who only had socialist sympathies as a teenager (possibly influenced by his socialist uncle Josef Popper-Lynkeus) and perhaps early twenties. 20th century Muke.
People's war bitch
I've been preoccupying myself with a bit of his work - enough for me to find out that he renounced his views on evolution being a 'metaphysical programme' or whatever he called it. Most know about his criticism of Marxism's lack of scientific-ness and the standard response appears to come from the 'analytical Marxists' who try to reframe it as some sort of rigid body of knowledge (they take Marx's achievements with regards to empirical judgements rather than the core of his method, which is strictly dialectical). Some researcher called 'Alexander Naraniecki' alleges that Popper actually took a neo-Kantian or even Hegelian turn in later life. I have seen even less on Kolakowski besides Rafiq's words against some 'will franklin' guy (who was probably a troll!)
Popper is not worthy of even being read. The man selectively quoted people so he could portray them as totalitarians or whatever boogeyman he liked. He was a fraud.
Christopher Hitchens is interesting because I was a "fan" of his when I was a really young, neoconservative / New Atheist type. I met him once at a Christian book fair (where he was doing a debate) and said "Christopher, I love you!" He replied, "Are you a Christian?" And I said "no." He then went "oh good!" and made a comment about not wanting to be loved by his enemies and so on. He knew how to work a crowd. He loved his crowds and his fans. Which says a lot now about what his motivations were.
I see shades of him in Jordan Peterson, or at least the people I see attracted to Jordan Peterson remind me of me when I was a big Hitchens fanboy. The whole idea is that this guy is providing "meaning" (Hitchens was kind of a crusader figure) and that we're always kinda "standing on the precipice!" Hard to explain.
My outlook on the world has changed a lot since then. In retrospect this profile after his death rings true to me: gq-magazine.co.uk
Another thing is that Hitchens was a social climber and his writing was peppered with people he knew, where he traveled, and on and on. His British accent and whole British "style" (which doesn't even really exist in Britain anymore) was attractive to Americans.
In retrospect I still have some respect for him. He did waterboard himself. It's easy to miss but he was pretty critical of Richard Dawkins, who degenerated into a huckster. And Hitchens' last words, scribbled on a piece of paper, were "Capitalism. Downfall." So he apparently had a Marxist moment when he took his last breaths in the Houston hospital right before he died.
Popper had nothing on Heidegger and Being and Time
fuckin oooof
At least the appeal, and some of the arguments they made/make. I'll see Peterson going on about fighting against "moral nihilism" which was also Hitchens' argument against religion. But Peterson thinks people should be religious? I haven't paid much attention to him.
At the time, I would've been all about Peterson probably. Hitchens was still smarter.
"Ex-Marxists" are mostly idiots that had no knowledge of actual Marxist theory to begin with and were only involved in radical politics as drunken college kids that wanted to fit in and feel good about themselves. It's a product of Anglosphere culture.
Karl Marx was an ex-Marxist.
My view of Hitchens is that he was incredibly intelligent and wholly amoral. He knew the truth and if it supported his argument his argument would be rational. If it ran contrary to his argument he would use personal attacks and non sequiturs to gain victory. Hitchen's great skill was winning arguments and he would do it at any cost.
I think the fraudulent debates with him and William F. Buckley were perfectly representative of both brands. Phony intellectuals who quibbled about irrelevant things for social status. Both men believed themselves to be righteous, but both were completely off base.
The fanboys are similar, but in truth both provide an academic veneer to shoddy arguments. I say this with no sense of approval, but Hitchens was the superior intellect.
It's ironic that Peterson believes that religion is good when Jung thought that moral nihilism in the form of a wholly subjective individual morality was the answer. I've taken the time to look into Peterson's favorite sources and he misrepresents all of them. I don't know if he is deluded or dishonest, but he is certainly wrong.
Wasn't he an imperialist neocon warhawk?
It's interesting that the most profound Jungian philosopher was Deleuze, who also called himself a staunch Marxist.
Not true, we had those in France as well, and they were dubbed the "New Philosophers"
Why not both? Peterson used to be very open atheist some years ago, but he has dialed down on that because it gets in the way of maximizing his income stream I guess.
He was a Neocon warhawk and an excellent one. His argumentation was skillful as it was wretched.
You said it better than I did.
I think you had better sources though.
...
those who abandon communism often do so out of ignorance of basic theory, and should be seen as evidence that it ideological education is severely lacking in the left today. Too many find communism appealing because "it helps the poor" and "makes society operate in a just way". While in a broad sense, these assertions are correct, they are similar claims made by all sides of the political spectrum. Fascist claim that they too love and support the poor in their time of struggle, except they make sure to look after their own rather then foreigners first, after all there aren't infinite amount of resources they can give out. Libertarians will always preach that they are the ones who champion a just society, one where the work of the individual is celebrated and never torn down by the jealous.
In order to better understand, support, and apply communism, we must turn to Marx, who unlike common belief, did not start 'Das Kapital' with an examination of societies injustices, before offering a solution. Rather, he analyzed the markets first, and how they operate, and in doing so created the Labor Theory of Value. This theory, provides grounding for the entirety of leftist theory, it is the bedrock that all our moral values are set upon. By lacking the basics of Marxism, by limiting yourself only to it's results and not it's methods, you make yourself vulnerable to conversion by another ideology which promises the same goals
Most of the young Marxists I've seen who have disavowed Marx are ancoms who don't understand theory.
It is an interesting point you make about Fascism. It makes use of a welfare state that is arguably socialist, without a Marxian quality. Fascism rejects class consciousness and thus sees welfare as a way of shoring up the nation rather than economic justice against the rich.
Libertarianism is itself just an artificial conflict between the individual and the state that follows a Marxian pattern.
One was a CIA double agent and the other two were trots. Pretty self explanatory.
Pic related is just asshurt that Communists tend to have a cohesive worldview. I know for some of you, you can barely sleep at night due to your mental gymnastics, but for me, Communist/Marxist philosophy has created an entire worldview for me. This guy in the picture is right, in a way. Yoy really can't convince someone who has a cohesive worldview that they are wrong. How do you convince someone that what they interpret isn't true when the evidence is exactly before them.
People struggle with this, and blame irrationality and what not, but it is far simpler than any idealist explanation. People have certain positions dictated by the world. Their class, their home life, etc… None of these things they can control, they can only react to them in the form of their politics, ethics, etc… To expect otherwise is to fall into a capitalist, antimaterialist trap wherein one forgets reality, and replaces it with the fun marketplace of ideas, but it always has the creeping implications of ignorance and some innate evil, or any other flaw that man is suddenly expected to be free of due to his own brainpower. Stupid belief system. Materialism is important.
Words are cheap; action is priceless. Guarantee these people were "communists" who fell hook line and sinker for propoganda, positively and negatively. Those guys that are Communists because "everythimg will be equal", and then are reticent when it comes to actual revolution(s).
My second guess is they realized, conciously or not, that it wasn't in their interests. Be a commie or be rich? An easy choice for some.
Awesome digits. Notwithstanding the merits of Marxism a coherent worldview isn't necessarily correct. Freudian psychoanalysis, Islamic fundamentalism, etc are all coherent worldviews that possess a plausible explanation for every occasion that are nonetheless incorrect. Coherence alone doesn't make proof.
Do you view action as revealing ideological purity or by creating a sunk cost attachment to the results no matter what?
A cohesive world view, to me, is ome that lines up with reality, not just the other ideas you have. That is why Communists have to argue with peoples root beliefs and not simply sperg out about exploitation.
I dont understand what you are saying here. I will just write some thoughts here.
I definitely believe that actions should reveal ideological purity. How can one change society if you have contradictory values? You wolr against yourself. All you do is create discord, and you end up reestablishing the present order. See anarchists and succdems for all the proof you need. If you need more proof, you have the digits of my post.
Moralism is Bourgeoisie
Why not both?
The consistency of his misrepresentations being not only completely off but often the fucking opposite of what was originally meant makes me think that his goal is to provide a "pop philosophy" version that lets his audience pretend to know shit without ever actually reading up on it. And because he does phony citations he's able to twist their words in a way that suits his interests and if his dipshit fans ever bother to check they'll find the one paragraph he quoted and think "yep, just like daddy said it was."
You start at Occidental tomorrow…
someone who claims to have been a marxist or communist was never really a marxist or communist. They didn't actually understand dialectical materialism or how free market capitalism's internal contradictions leads to depression and imperialism.
the facts are as clear as day. And only right wing hacks make the claim "i used to be a socialist, then i grew up". while un-ironically believing that socialism is when the big government forces everyone to share stuff.
just idiots who never actually understood what they called themselves in the first place. Because its blatantly obvious capitalism is inefficient and bad, its obvious there is a better way
Do you believe that no one who understands dialectical materialism ever disagrees with it?
well said comrade.
Its called a science for a reason
it really sucks being a liberal because i know the marxist worldview is 100% correct. class struggle and materialism are the underlying causes of everything that happens in society. why white people hate poor black people who came as slaves and were stuck being broke in a rigid class system that makes upwards mobility so hard. why we have wars. why wages have gone down while productivity has increased. why we had a financial depression as little as 10 years ago that we are still seeing the effects of. why the 3rd world is so broke even though they have so many sweatshops and "jobs". marxism explains literally everything perfectly.
it really sucks being a liberal and trying to jump through hoops defending capitalism.
Personally I think most liberals actually like socialism, but are too dumb to understand the mechanics.
but under communism, the redistribution of wealth and the means of production, literally everyone would be "rich" and would have to work less for more. Anyone arguing that they aren't a communist because they want to be rich has no idea what communism is.
Communism isn't a magical thing that abolishes the need for work. The USSR proved that. Communism may in fact be harder work, however it aspires to be fairer work.
the USSR was a poor country that jost lost a war 100 years ago in a time where everyone on the planet worked on dirt farms and only got better and became a super power because of communism. (meanwhile india, africa, and latin america remained shitholes)
America is the richest most technologically advanced country on earth (even if we did get that way because of imperialist hegemony), if america became communist it would be a paradise on earth for the proletariat compared to the USSR.
I agree with the first paragraph somewhat, but not at all with the second paragraph. That's way too optimistic imho.
you just gotta make all the reactionary elements go away that would sabotage your progress and all
but once thats done you're in a pretty good place
materially yes, but also the upperclass has fanned the flames on so many divides, for such a long time that you probably need a generational change to overcome it.
Neocons aren't "ex-Marxists". They're just Marxists in disguise.
...
He actually might have a point, let's semi-derail the thread here, have there ever been any Marxists who claimed they stopped being Marxists as a ruse?
Why?
Let's say we begin in 1917: US is developed nation and beyond the oceans. Foreign Intervention does not happen, Civil War peters out before it begins (without much damage).
Given that it is already industrialized, centralized, and educated, introduction of Central Planning can begin by 1920. It progresses much smoother and faster. Hardly unthinkable to suggest that by the end of first Five-Year Plan (1925) US is ahead of USSR in 1940 (if not 1950).
Fast-forward 15 more years of peaceful development (while the rest of the world suffers from Great Depression) and - by the time WW2 begins - Soviet US is *way* ahead of the curve. On top of it, US sits it out WW2 or easily defends its coasts from Capitalist attacks. I.e. no war damage.
By 1960 US could finish creation of highly-automated factories in economy managed by some sort of OGAS, cutting workday to 4 hours and severely weakening power of high-ranking administrators. You've got yourself proper Socialist state, where Proletariat can directly control state power (thus preventing revisionist coups a-la Perestroika). This is already above anything Soviets ever managed to achieve.
Now add 50 more years to this.
Short-term (while pretending to be some else) - plenty.
Long-term? Not that I can remember. Maybe Fidel could count as such, since he didn't immediately go full ML. But that was ~2 years, IIRC.
Maybe the spiked magazine
What are you talking about? His work is very much marxist.
It's true. Neocons saw the United States as their revolutionary vehicle to spread 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧democracy🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 globally and bring their communist world revolution. The reason Neocons were such ardent cold warriors is because they were Trots who were butthurt about rightfully being kicked out of the USSR by based Stalin.
It's not that they were Trots per se but the worldview easily transferred over to neocon world revolution. Which is why so many were ex-Trots. But a lot were also in the generally broader socialist movement. Jeane Kirkpatrick was in the Young People's Socialist League as a girl.
I'm a former Marxist and as you and I both know, according to Marxist theory you need capitalism before you can get communism because you need capitalism to build up the infrastructure. So is it really hard to believe that Neocons would be hardline capitalists until their world democratic revolution is complete?
I don't believe there were many neocons (and zero with any power or influence) who actually believed in socialism. A lot of them seemed to think that liberal democratic capitalism *was* the end-stage of history ala Francis Fukuyama. Sure, you might tweak the system a bit for it to be more social-democratic maybe. But before 9/11 most of these guys focused on China as the no. 1 enemy.
And I'm a former neocon.
There's a book all about it called "Stalin the enduring legacy" which is basically fascist apologetics for Stalin and an attack on neoconservatism. It talks a lot about the ⛏️rotskyites. You might want to give it a read. Even if you don't like the fact that the author is basically a nazbol it's still an interesting read.
Is anyone really a "former" Marxist though, is it possible? Disillusionment is one thing, but how the fuck do you go from believing in something as verifiable as class struggle and history to "inject the spooks straight into my veins" without a substantial amount of willfull self-delusion or at least apathy.
Eventually you realize the only way a workers revolution/state is possible is through the support of ultra-nationalism and the rejection of Marxian internationalist ideas
Well ok, but you can support socialism in other nations while still closing off immigration in your own. That's my version of internationalism anyway.
It's not a matter of verification, it's a matter of ordering things into conceptions. Such a conception can be the class struggle, it can also be a million other conceptions; to give one of them a position of ontological exceptionalism is circular ideology and incompatible with materialism. That you cannot even begin to understand that your symbolic order is not reason itself means that you're spooked to such an extent that you qualify as what spiritologists call an unintelligent haunting; a haunting in which the ghosts are not aware of their own spiritly status.
People can believe that spooks aren't really spooks if they get verified.
Are you kidding? If there's a single system that has a worse track record than communism it's Not Socialism.
Personally speaking it's not much about my spooks but the way you people react and confront those spooks.
Ok fuck ethno nationalism and fuck whatever. But the step from saying that to fuck age of consent and parenting is not something I'm willing to make.
Basically I think it's a losing horse without the soviet union. I'm not nazbol or some shit but since there is no USSR the only way to counteract redliberalism, idealism and sandal wearing juice drinkers is having a mildly social con.servative element in the movement.
Fun thing is that I actually don't give a shit about it, it's just public relations. I think you guys (specifically thia board) is a PR nightmare. The soviet union was able to counterbalance the more idealist element by being metal as fuck but also because of a rejection of western liberal culture.
The fact that people can freely support dengism, anarchist can freely call liberals harmless, post can unironically be pro imperialism ecc. All this without being banned, but disliking homos, queers and having a mild taste for conservativism it's a permaban proves my point.
I personally like Kim il sung, Lenin, Stalin and Gang of Four (the band). The idea that these perfect marxist will get shit on because of their social and even political (no one of these would support retarded third worldism or unironically make posts like that fucking self hating american christcom) is pretty fucking bad.
Also the total inability of self cirtique. Anything that is a critique comes from an outsider and destabilizing element.
I fucking hate most of you tbh. Total waste.
The main problem with the left today is that we started seeing americans as anything but enemies.
I think everyone can agree that Thief 1981 is an awesome movie.
Brah, it's still michael mann's best imho. Recently revisiting his filmography and it's still the fucking best.
Would there even be a benefit to pretend not to be a socialist?
Communist Taqiyya.
Except you're being misleading with this claim. Pro-imperialist posts get banned fast, they have been for a while, and these bans were part of the reason why Zig Forums gained traction with the more brainlet types. Dengist posts are also being monitored, now. As for the anarchist liberal thing, it's too early to tell if this was just plain retardation on the poster's part or some bannable offense. As for the "conservative side of things, yes, it happens - to an extent. Anons get away with calling trannies mentally unstable and in need of "rehabilitation." I could go on, but I rest my case.
Source? Feed pls.
Let me translate that into plain language:
Defenestrate yourself ASAP, you pomo spastic.
That's why social conserv.ative becomes social conservative ?
Also it's not just on here but on the outside world too.
Does the dot mean something here or am I on the wrong track?
No. It was word filtered until like yesterday. Don't know what happened
Walter Kaufman's essay on Popper's misrepresentation of Hegel:
marxists.org
Popper's misrepresentation of Plato:
reddit.com
These are the best I could find right now, but his entire work "The Open Society and its Enemies" is a long polemic in defense of liberal society full of dishonest quotes and misrepresentations.
The idea that a militia based society is equivalent to a militaristic one is a major mischaracterization, but understandable.