I see where you’re coming from — but I broadly agree with her tbh. Here’s a loosely edited meme that i think articulates things better than i ever could:
a worrying number of leftists are actually just Evangelical Christians with the serial numbers filed off
The world is sinful (a capitalist hellscape) but we just have to wait until the Second Coming (the Revolution) happens then everything will be magically fixed.
Any attempt to make actual progress makes you a lukewarm Christian (liberal) anything less than the Apocalypse (the Revolution) which we are forever waiting for btw is completely useless.
Also consuming certain media or makin certain lifestyle choices is sinful and unchristian (bad praxis).
ps: i still consider you (and all Marxists) to be comrades fighting for a better world.
The methods of dialectical materialism exclude idealism. So we as Marxist do not want to change the world because of some inexplicable evil but because it’s in the best interests of the working class to do so. While some may add their own religious spin the Marxism, that is revisionist and should be resisted as much as possible.
Thank you great piece. I think there are a few red flags (not good ones) in the politics of someone who claims to be for the liberation of many when they reject collectivism in the ideology. “I don’t join groups because…” feels like it could easily fit into a neoliberal frame, or concerningly she is happy to support this cause now, again on what philosophical grounds? As mentioned self interest is always the risk of relying on social media influencers in irl movements.
That’s another angle I didn’t even consider. It is highly individualistic and liberal-like to be concerned with your own needs above others to not join a group because of certain individuals rather than the movement as a whole. If that were the case that can be an excuse to not join any movement for anything.
I want to say that I have some sympathy with Caitlin when she said that "I’ve seen a lot of Marxists get super religious about it and close themselves off to whole aspects of human psychology and spirituality." (The "some dead guy" was unnecessary and disrespectful and I don't like descent into ad hominum attacks).
Getting "super religious about it" suggests to me being ultra dogmatic or fundamentalist.
I think there's room for psychology which operates on a different level I know but has explanatory power and is a refinement. I don't want to toss Freud out with the bathwater of idle Chardonnay socialism.
I think there can be an overlap between psychology and dialectical materialism. There is obviously the day the day experiences of capitalism which I feel many more “orthodox” Marxist tend to overlook and scoff at. I just don’t think that Caitlin should dismiss Marxism as a whole based on interactions with limited people she would never meet in real life. It’s intellectually disingenuous.
First, it's Johnstone, not Johnston. It's a small error, but if you're going to criticize Caitlin, at least spell her name correctly. It avoids confusion and other annoying things.
Second, and this may be a misperception on my part, you sound like athiests saying atheism isn't a religion or require an act of faith. I suppose it depends on your definition of religion, but the belief that there ARE no higher intelligences or afterlives or whatnot is still an act of faith, because we don't KNOW that they do not exist. Some athiests admit this, while others refuse to do so.
I'm a Marxist, and Marxism IS a science, which means it must be constantly tested and can evolve over time as we learn new things. It does not require an act of faith to observe that the prime directive of capitalism is More Profits Soonest, and all other considerations are discarded by the capitalists as soon as that prime directive is violated, therefore we need a better economic system.
It DOES require an act of faith to believe some of the individuals who claim they should be the vanguard of Revolution are in fact the best people to compose that vanguard. I'm also pretty sure you can think of some examples of this yourself.
And I think Caitlin Johnstone's reservations about Marxism might just be found in what I just said. They are not unreasonable reservations.
First, thank you I will correct her name. I must have read it quickly, made the mistake and kept it going.
Second, I think it’s your misunderstanding of what dialectical MATERIALISM is. I think you should read Socialism: Utopian or Scientific by Engels as a refresher to see what dialectics is, what materialism is, and how the two come together.
Materialism argues that the world objectively exists outside of ideas. Idealism argues that the world exists within the context of ideas. I am giving brief philosophical overviews of each but there is plenty more nuances than that.
If you’re a Marxist who adheres to dialectical and historical MATERIALISM you wouldn’t describe Revolution in terms of “faith” or “belief” but a set of processes brought about by material circumstances related to production. This is what separates Marxism from religious utopian beliefs concerning socialism.
I see where you’re coming from — but I broadly agree with her tbh. Here’s a loosely edited meme that i think articulates things better than i ever could:
a worrying number of leftists are actually just Evangelical Christians with the serial numbers filed off
The world is sinful (a capitalist hellscape) but we just have to wait until the Second Coming (the Revolution) happens then everything will be magically fixed.
Any attempt to make actual progress makes you a lukewarm Christian (liberal) anything less than the Apocalypse (the Revolution) which we are forever waiting for btw is completely useless.
Also consuming certain media or makin certain lifestyle choices is sinful and unchristian (bad praxis).
ps: i still consider you (and all Marxists) to be comrades fighting for a better world.
The methods of dialectical materialism exclude idealism. So we as Marxist do not want to change the world because of some inexplicable evil but because it’s in the best interests of the working class to do so. While some may add their own religious spin the Marxism, that is revisionist and should be resisted as much as possible.
That is a caricature of Marxism
I wholeheartedly agree with this comment and this has been my personal experience unfortunately.
Great read, thanks Jae
Agree with you. The refutation of a caricature is never more than a caricature of a refutation.
Thank you great piece. I think there are a few red flags (not good ones) in the politics of someone who claims to be for the liberation of many when they reject collectivism in the ideology. “I don’t join groups because…” feels like it could easily fit into a neoliberal frame, or concerningly she is happy to support this cause now, again on what philosophical grounds? As mentioned self interest is always the risk of relying on social media influencers in irl movements.
That’s another angle I didn’t even consider. It is highly individualistic and liberal-like to be concerned with your own needs above others to not join a group because of certain individuals rather than the movement as a whole. If that were the case that can be an excuse to not join any movement for anything.
I want to say that I have some sympathy with Caitlin when she said that "I’ve seen a lot of Marxists get super religious about it and close themselves off to whole aspects of human psychology and spirituality." (The "some dead guy" was unnecessary and disrespectful and I don't like descent into ad hominum attacks).
Getting "super religious about it" suggests to me being ultra dogmatic or fundamentalist.
I think there's room for psychology which operates on a different level I know but has explanatory power and is a refinement. I don't want to toss Freud out with the bathwater of idle Chardonnay socialism.
I think there can be an overlap between psychology and dialectical materialism. There is obviously the day the day experiences of capitalism which I feel many more “orthodox” Marxist tend to overlook and scoff at. I just don’t think that Caitlin should dismiss Marxism as a whole based on interactions with limited people she would never meet in real life. It’s intellectually disingenuous.
First, it's Johnstone, not Johnston. It's a small error, but if you're going to criticize Caitlin, at least spell her name correctly. It avoids confusion and other annoying things.
Second, and this may be a misperception on my part, you sound like athiests saying atheism isn't a religion or require an act of faith. I suppose it depends on your definition of religion, but the belief that there ARE no higher intelligences or afterlives or whatnot is still an act of faith, because we don't KNOW that they do not exist. Some athiests admit this, while others refuse to do so.
I'm a Marxist, and Marxism IS a science, which means it must be constantly tested and can evolve over time as we learn new things. It does not require an act of faith to observe that the prime directive of capitalism is More Profits Soonest, and all other considerations are discarded by the capitalists as soon as that prime directive is violated, therefore we need a better economic system.
It DOES require an act of faith to believe some of the individuals who claim they should be the vanguard of Revolution are in fact the best people to compose that vanguard. I'm also pretty sure you can think of some examples of this yourself.
And I think Caitlin Johnstone's reservations about Marxism might just be found in what I just said. They are not unreasonable reservations.
First, thank you I will correct her name. I must have read it quickly, made the mistake and kept it going.
Second, I think it’s your misunderstanding of what dialectical MATERIALISM is. I think you should read Socialism: Utopian or Scientific by Engels as a refresher to see what dialectics is, what materialism is, and how the two come together.
Materialism argues that the world objectively exists outside of ideas. Idealism argues that the world exists within the context of ideas. I am giving brief philosophical overviews of each but there is plenty more nuances than that.
If you’re a Marxist who adheres to dialectical and historical MATERIALISM you wouldn’t describe Revolution in terms of “faith” or “belief” but a set of processes brought about by material circumstances related to production. This is what separates Marxism from religious utopian beliefs concerning socialism.
Rubbish it’s FICTION by illiterate people.
Utopianly as far left as possible… she’s an utopian socialist