By failing to try to understand even the basic fundamentals they sideline what could and should be serious discussions about how best to organize and fight against capitalism in modern society
I can offer some help with one of the stranger comments by the author you are responding to:
The idea that Marxism is a form of Gnosticism is ripped from Eric Voegelin, who I had the displeasure of reading in my PoliSci courses in Munich because he spent a decent time lecturing at the LMU after Max Weber vacated his chair. He considered Marxism, along with half a dozen other ideologies that (according to him) strife for perfection and utopia, a sort of replacement religion for modernity.
To be fair, everything he wrote about Gnosticism as a kind of general human motif, is one of the things that even people who take him seriously tend to not take very seriously. Weber is far superior in my view because he doesn't fall back into total idealist abstraction.
I do respect not citing people you got your ideas from though, so really, I sympathize with the general vibes.
Right! That makes sense and I should have made the connection. I guess the social vs secular distinction threw me off. I've read Alasdair MacIntyre's take on Marxism as secular Christianity but am not familiar with Voegelin. Thanks for the clarification.
I'll check it out, I have a soft spot for non-Marxist readings of Marxism. It does sound very close to Voegelin's ideas, and the fact that you also cite Weber immediately made me think in that direction.
As a side note, the last comment wasn't sarcastic. I genuinely think people shouldn't try to make (obviously) non-academic platforms like Substack into pseudo-academia by keeping to citation standards that are clearly unfit for the medium. Ideas don't become more or less legitimate because you use citations, and every idea is more or less stolen or adapted from someone else, which is a good thing.
How about “the non 10% elite of the world unite!” For a few weeks during Covid everyone (except Atlas Networkers) really valued workers, then we forgot…
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? What does Marxism have to offer us?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Matthew 7, 16-20
Disclaimer: I am not a “Christian”.
There does seem to be some basic truth to these few verses from Matthew, as with all the myths that have survived the test of time.
Applied to Marx, both on the level of theory and on the level of attempts at its practical implementation, one could certainly argue that it is a tree that needs to be “hewn and cast into the fire”. Reading Marx, one cannot help but be impressed by the breadth of his reading, but his conclusions only arouse scepticism. Not to mention that his writing translated into English is boring, dense and bombastic. (It’s not so bad if I can shower after reading him).
In saying that I am supplying as much evidence for this claim as you have made for yours. You wrote this lengthy article about how “unserious” the critics of Marxism are, yet I am none the wiser at the end as to what Marxism (or was that the point?) or why I am unserious for disagreeing with Marx.
Your article produces more questions than answers. So please bear with me as I ask these questions. I apologise for all detractors of Marxism who don’t have intellects as sharp and deep as yours.
As you give no definitions of “Marxism” or “capitalism” or “socialism”, or anything else for that matter, could you please enlighten me? Your title tells me that there exists this fight against “capitalism”, but you don’t mention whose fight or why anybody would want or need to be part of this fight against this entity whose nature is not defined, either clearly or unclearly. If I don’t want to fight this very bad entity, is that okay? Could you explain please? As you know, you are a lot smarter than me, which means I need some help from my superior comrade?
You claim that Marxian theory has the potential to “organize and fight against capitalism in modern society”. Great news! How? Is it through historical inevitability? Or did I read that wrong in Marx? Or the labour theory of value, borrowed from Adam Smith, which means that everyone is exploited by the people they work for because profits are theft? Or through the absolute power of the State under socialism which will lead to its withering away? Or is that if we could throw off the chains of oppression, we would all be equal, the division of labour would disappear, and life would perfect. Please correct me if I have missed or misunderstood the more esoteric points of Marx, as you know I am not very clever.
I also have a question about the implementation of Marxism. In the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Castro’s Cuba, Cambodia etc, all of which claimed to be implementing Marxist principles, despite none of them being late-stage “capitalist”, In this implementation there was a loss of human life, caused by the State, that was hitherto unknown in human history. Bakunin was apparently able to predict that this would happen pretty accurately, in what is probably the best take down of Marx ever. Could you please write a response to Bakunin?
If these revolutions had happened, as they were supposed to according to Marx, in end-stage “capitalist” countries, would the results have been different. Could you explain to me how?
May I go off track a bit here? You mention that Jordan Peterson and James Lindsay are “professional grifters” and “pseudointellectuals”. I understand that you believe this because they apparently misrepresent Marx, and therefore agree with you. Am I right in understating that both of them were at one stage, at least, gainfully employed at university, one being a psychologist and one being a mathematician, respectively? Can you explain what makes them grifters? Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t particularly like either of them, I’m just curious to know why they are grifters but neither you nor Marx are not.
I enjoyed your comments about Christianity, as you mentioned it is nothing if not resilient. It also has a knack for reinventing itself as you mentioned, very much like Marxism. As regards the Christian hysteria about Marxism being evil, may I ask if you would concede that they may have got this idea from reading things such as the following quote in Marx?
“The Evil One is the satanic revolt against divine authority, revolt in which we see the fecund germ of all human emancipations, the revolution. Socialists recognise each other by the words "ln the name of the one to whom a great wrong has been done." Satan [is] the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.”
Although I appreciate that this was probably an Anto LaVey type middle finger to respectable, bourgeois society (which I rather like), would you concede that one can understand that it would be a bit scary to someone who believes that the Bible is a literal account of actual events in the material world? I have to admit to finding all that a bit scary myself, despite having personally tried (unsuccessfully) to summon the Devil at a crossroads.
Let’s not forget that Marx also openly called for the destruction of the family, economic institutions, legal institutions and conventional morality, which are all cornerstones of the modern, manufactured Christian worldview. Also, Marx’s personal and family life were hardly exemplary. And whilst wanting to avoid ad hominem attacks (maybe you try that, too), it is difficult to avoid being a little judgemental about that.
I also have a question for you about “neo-liberalism”, if you would be willing to answer it. You claim that neo-liberalism is based on “free-markets” and is “capitalism”. As I understand it, it is a political movement that has borrowed from various sources including classical liberal theory, monetarist/Keynesian economic theory and liberal democratic ideology. To paraphrase Roger Douglas when he punched New Zealand in the face with his agenda, if we wanted to keep our “welfare” state we had to bite the bullet. He then proceeded to sell State-held monopolies into the hands of corporate monopolies and told us that was privatisation.
The current John Key/Curly Luxon iteration of “neo-liberalism” is, apparently, very much favours and kickbacks for preferred corporate players through “deregulation” and lots of goodies for politicians who play along. No doubt there are bribes for those who don’t, too. Can you explain to me how that is a “free market”. I’m so puzzled.
It’s funny to me. But this is looking a lot like Oppenheimer was right about the State, and Marx was wrong. Curiouser and curiouser.
I am also curious about your personal connections to the State/Corporate complex – you know, Lo Stato Corporativo. I notice you work for one of the main medical universities in New Zealand. I have been given to understand that in edition to being tightly controlled by the State, medical universities also receive significant funding from giant pharmaceutical corporations, which get substantial legislative support and are largely immune from any ramifications for damage caused by their products. How do you justify this, considering your claims to want a better world with less oppression? I’m also curious as to how much funding YOU get from these corporations?
I finish your article and see that it’s a call to arms. But I am still in the dark about what Marxism is, what “capitalism” is and why I need join one and fight the other. It’s a bit like Christianity really, isn’t it. One thing I’m pretty sure about is that I probably hate neo-liberalism at least as much as you do, but for completely different reasons. I also know that you are part of the enemy class as much as any other political actor or State lapdog, which is a shame as despite being a bit stuck up, you seem like a pretty decent guy.
If this is still “unserious”, I apologise. I just see no use in and have little common ground with Marxists or Marxism. I suppose “serious” would be just agreeing with you. No way of that happening, ever. You DO NOT speak for me, and I will never bow down to the likes of you.
I leave you with a quote from Bakunin:
“It is in the nature of the State to break the solidarity of the human race and,
as it were, to deny humanity. The State cannot preserve itself as such in its
integrity and in all its strength except it sets itself up as supreme and absolute
be-all and end-all, at least for its own citizens, or to speak more frankly, for
its own subjects, not being able to impose itself as such on the citizens of
other States unconquered by it. From that there inevitably results a break with
human, considered as universal, morality and with universal reason, by the
birth of State morality and reasons of State. The principle of political or State
morality is very simple. The State, being the supreme objective, everything
that is favorable to the development of its power is good; all that is contrary
to it, even if it were the most humane thing in the world, is bad.”
Actually, Jason is making me think… Maybe there is a legitimate problem that he is surfacing. The call for workers to unite only works if we all realize we are the working class — yes, even if we make, say, $400K a year in Silicon Valley. The same divides that have always worked are at play with class solidarity: people have been convinced they’re in a class they simply are not. There’s just two classes when push comes to shove, but he rejects Marx for the same reason the people on the opposite end do: they’re convinced it’s irrelevant to them.
So anyone who disagrees with Marixm is unserious or a grifter, or a pseudointellectual? Lol.
For a start Marxist economics simply cannot work. Marx borrowed the erroneous labour theory of value from Adam Smith, and as his whole theory is predicated on this, it kind of makes any other discussion a waste of time. However, if we're making accusations of pseudointellectualism, Marx would be a great candidate.
Marx was right about one thing, there is a class of actors who oppress the rest of us, he was wrong about who they are, though - Oppenhiemer was spot-on on this. These are the State operatives. Unfortunately this parasitical class has grown at an alarming rate, and now includes such diverse groups as politicians, the state attack dogs aka the police, petit/petty bureaucrats, corporate employees, psychopathic medical practitioners, lawyers, state school teachers and university employess, HR "ladies", and the lumpen proletariat welfare recipients (not all welfare recipients).
You accuse others of being grifters (and you're probably right), but Marx himself was what one might call an uber-grifter, sponging off Engels and whoever else he could, whilst neglecting his own family. I'm struck that a daddy worshipper such as yourself would be impressed by Marx. But then, a guy who guy who works for an organisation that is an unholy alliance between the State and the corporate medical-industrial complex training a new generation of medical psychopaths to cause misery for others probably fits in the "grifter" category, too. I wonder if the irony of your position in smug, corporate middle New Zealand as opposed to your professed religion is wasted on you?
And let's be clear, Marxism is nothing but an Abrahamic religious heresy created by a rascist (another accusation YOU make against anyone who disagrees with) self-hating Jew.
And pray tell, how do explain away the fact that in the twentieth century the attempts to implement Marxism ended in bloodshed and the loss of tens of millions of HUMAN lives? Oh sorry, I forgot, "It wasn't real Marxism".
You write as if you are an expert on China, too. You must have spent a substantial amount of time living there, as I have, no doubt? Just in case that's not the case, let me edify you and inform you that China's problems have been mostly created by the Chinese State and government. And, for the record, China fits much more closely with Mussolini's definition of Fascism than with Marxism, thanks to Deng Xiaoping. Fortunately Deng Xiaoping cared enough about his country to give a bit leeway to let a hard-working, enterprising people try to build something on top of the tens of millions of corpses Mao left behind.
I wonder why a fat-cat university employee getting a nice salary all coutesy of the New Zealand workers would need the politics of envy and hate. And why would this fat-cat university guy want to push what has perhaps been the most destructive ideology ever invented by a human being? I can only posit that it's either ignorance or malelovlence. Unfortunately, after seeing how the organisation you work for delighted in Jackboot Jacinda's scamdemic regime, I tend to lean towards the later.
Thank you for reinforcing the point of this post so clearly. You have very clearly illustrated exactly the kind of unserious engagement with Marxism that I am talking about. Well done.
As for me being a "fat-cat" university employee, I support a wife and five kids on my salary. Hardly living large.
And by the way, if you really think Marxism will or coild bring anything of valuer to humanity, you're a fucking numpty and deserve every bit of suffering you get. Not to mention that all you pathetic authoritarians loved neo-liberalism when it making toxic fake medicines during the covid scam.
Um…. I think the people of the global south(195 countries), Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Korea to name a few may have something different to say about that neoliberal capitalism and imperialism is by far the most destructive ideology ever created bar none
one important aspect of neoclassical economics focused on utility and exchange was that it abstracted the social elements and class struggle out of economics. Marxists don't care that mainstream economics don't use their ideas. It doesn't invalidate them. Economics is not apolitical.
I can offer some help with one of the stranger comments by the author you are responding to:
The idea that Marxism is a form of Gnosticism is ripped from Eric Voegelin, who I had the displeasure of reading in my PoliSci courses in Munich because he spent a decent time lecturing at the LMU after Max Weber vacated his chair. He considered Marxism, along with half a dozen other ideologies that (according to him) strife for perfection and utopia, a sort of replacement religion for modernity.
To be fair, everything he wrote about Gnosticism as a kind of general human motif, is one of the things that even people who take him seriously tend to not take very seriously. Weber is far superior in my view because he doesn't fall back into total idealist abstraction.
I do respect not citing people you got your ideas from though, so really, I sympathize with the general vibes.
Right! That makes sense and I should have made the connection. I guess the social vs secular distinction threw me off. I've read Alasdair MacIntyre's take on Marxism as secular Christianity but am not familiar with Voegelin. Thanks for the clarification.
I'll check it out, I have a soft spot for non-Marxist readings of Marxism. It does sound very close to Voegelin's ideas, and the fact that you also cite Weber immediately made me think in that direction.
As a side note, the last comment wasn't sarcastic. I genuinely think people shouldn't try to make (obviously) non-academic platforms like Substack into pseudo-academia by keeping to citation standards that are clearly unfit for the medium. Ideas don't become more or less legitimate because you use citations, and every idea is more or less stolen or adapted from someone else, which is a good thing.
How about “the non 10% elite of the world unite!” For a few weeks during Covid everyone (except Atlas Networkers) really valued workers, then we forgot…
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? What does Marxism have to offer us?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Matthew 7, 16-20
Disclaimer: I am not a “Christian”.
There does seem to be some basic truth to these few verses from Matthew, as with all the myths that have survived the test of time.
Applied to Marx, both on the level of theory and on the level of attempts at its practical implementation, one could certainly argue that it is a tree that needs to be “hewn and cast into the fire”. Reading Marx, one cannot help but be impressed by the breadth of his reading, but his conclusions only arouse scepticism. Not to mention that his writing translated into English is boring, dense and bombastic. (It’s not so bad if I can shower after reading him).
In saying that I am supplying as much evidence for this claim as you have made for yours. You wrote this lengthy article about how “unserious” the critics of Marxism are, yet I am none the wiser at the end as to what Marxism (or was that the point?) or why I am unserious for disagreeing with Marx.
Your article produces more questions than answers. So please bear with me as I ask these questions. I apologise for all detractors of Marxism who don’t have intellects as sharp and deep as yours.
As you give no definitions of “Marxism” or “capitalism” or “socialism”, or anything else for that matter, could you please enlighten me? Your title tells me that there exists this fight against “capitalism”, but you don’t mention whose fight or why anybody would want or need to be part of this fight against this entity whose nature is not defined, either clearly or unclearly. If I don’t want to fight this very bad entity, is that okay? Could you explain please? As you know, you are a lot smarter than me, which means I need some help from my superior comrade?
You claim that Marxian theory has the potential to “organize and fight against capitalism in modern society”. Great news! How? Is it through historical inevitability? Or did I read that wrong in Marx? Or the labour theory of value, borrowed from Adam Smith, which means that everyone is exploited by the people they work for because profits are theft? Or through the absolute power of the State under socialism which will lead to its withering away? Or is that if we could throw off the chains of oppression, we would all be equal, the division of labour would disappear, and life would perfect. Please correct me if I have missed or misunderstood the more esoteric points of Marx, as you know I am not very clever.
I also have a question about the implementation of Marxism. In the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Castro’s Cuba, Cambodia etc, all of which claimed to be implementing Marxist principles, despite none of them being late-stage “capitalist”, In this implementation there was a loss of human life, caused by the State, that was hitherto unknown in human history. Bakunin was apparently able to predict that this would happen pretty accurately, in what is probably the best take down of Marx ever. Could you please write a response to Bakunin?
If these revolutions had happened, as they were supposed to according to Marx, in end-stage “capitalist” countries, would the results have been different. Could you explain to me how?
May I go off track a bit here? You mention that Jordan Peterson and James Lindsay are “professional grifters” and “pseudointellectuals”. I understand that you believe this because they apparently misrepresent Marx, and therefore agree with you. Am I right in understating that both of them were at one stage, at least, gainfully employed at university, one being a psychologist and one being a mathematician, respectively? Can you explain what makes them grifters? Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t particularly like either of them, I’m just curious to know why they are grifters but neither you nor Marx are not.
I enjoyed your comments about Christianity, as you mentioned it is nothing if not resilient. It also has a knack for reinventing itself as you mentioned, very much like Marxism. As regards the Christian hysteria about Marxism being evil, may I ask if you would concede that they may have got this idea from reading things such as the following quote in Marx?
“The Evil One is the satanic revolt against divine authority, revolt in which we see the fecund germ of all human emancipations, the revolution. Socialists recognise each other by the words "ln the name of the one to whom a great wrong has been done." Satan [is] the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.”
Although I appreciate that this was probably an Anto LaVey type middle finger to respectable, bourgeois society (which I rather like), would you concede that one can understand that it would be a bit scary to someone who believes that the Bible is a literal account of actual events in the material world? I have to admit to finding all that a bit scary myself, despite having personally tried (unsuccessfully) to summon the Devil at a crossroads.
Let’s not forget that Marx also openly called for the destruction of the family, economic institutions, legal institutions and conventional morality, which are all cornerstones of the modern, manufactured Christian worldview. Also, Marx’s personal and family life were hardly exemplary. And whilst wanting to avoid ad hominem attacks (maybe you try that, too), it is difficult to avoid being a little judgemental about that.
I also have a question for you about “neo-liberalism”, if you would be willing to answer it. You claim that neo-liberalism is based on “free-markets” and is “capitalism”. As I understand it, it is a political movement that has borrowed from various sources including classical liberal theory, monetarist/Keynesian economic theory and liberal democratic ideology. To paraphrase Roger Douglas when he punched New Zealand in the face with his agenda, if we wanted to keep our “welfare” state we had to bite the bullet. He then proceeded to sell State-held monopolies into the hands of corporate monopolies and told us that was privatisation.
The current John Key/Curly Luxon iteration of “neo-liberalism” is, apparently, very much favours and kickbacks for preferred corporate players through “deregulation” and lots of goodies for politicians who play along. No doubt there are bribes for those who don’t, too. Can you explain to me how that is a “free market”. I’m so puzzled.
It’s funny to me. But this is looking a lot like Oppenheimer was right about the State, and Marx was wrong. Curiouser and curiouser.
I am also curious about your personal connections to the State/Corporate complex – you know, Lo Stato Corporativo. I notice you work for one of the main medical universities in New Zealand. I have been given to understand that in edition to being tightly controlled by the State, medical universities also receive significant funding from giant pharmaceutical corporations, which get substantial legislative support and are largely immune from any ramifications for damage caused by their products. How do you justify this, considering your claims to want a better world with less oppression? I’m also curious as to how much funding YOU get from these corporations?
I finish your article and see that it’s a call to arms. But I am still in the dark about what Marxism is, what “capitalism” is and why I need join one and fight the other. It’s a bit like Christianity really, isn’t it. One thing I’m pretty sure about is that I probably hate neo-liberalism at least as much as you do, but for completely different reasons. I also know that you are part of the enemy class as much as any other political actor or State lapdog, which is a shame as despite being a bit stuck up, you seem like a pretty decent guy.
If this is still “unserious”, I apologise. I just see no use in and have little common ground with Marxists or Marxism. I suppose “serious” would be just agreeing with you. No way of that happening, ever. You DO NOT speak for me, and I will never bow down to the likes of you.
I leave you with a quote from Bakunin:
“It is in the nature of the State to break the solidarity of the human race and,
as it were, to deny humanity. The State cannot preserve itself as such in its
integrity and in all its strength except it sets itself up as supreme and absolute
be-all and end-all, at least for its own citizens, or to speak more frankly, for
its own subjects, not being able to impose itself as such on the citizens of
other States unconquered by it. From that there inevitably results a break with
human, considered as universal, morality and with universal reason, by the
birth of State morality and reasons of State. The principle of political or State
morality is very simple. The State, being the supreme objective, everything
that is favorable to the development of its power is good; all that is contrary
to it, even if it were the most humane thing in the world, is bad.”
Actually, Jason is making me think… Maybe there is a legitimate problem that he is surfacing. The call for workers to unite only works if we all realize we are the working class — yes, even if we make, say, $400K a year in Silicon Valley. The same divides that have always worked are at play with class solidarity: people have been convinced they’re in a class they simply are not. There’s just two classes when push comes to shove, but he rejects Marx for the same reason the people on the opposite end do: they’re convinced it’s irrelevant to them.
So anyone who disagrees with Marixm is unserious or a grifter, or a pseudointellectual? Lol.
For a start Marxist economics simply cannot work. Marx borrowed the erroneous labour theory of value from Adam Smith, and as his whole theory is predicated on this, it kind of makes any other discussion a waste of time. However, if we're making accusations of pseudointellectualism, Marx would be a great candidate.
Marx was right about one thing, there is a class of actors who oppress the rest of us, he was wrong about who they are, though - Oppenhiemer was spot-on on this. These are the State operatives. Unfortunately this parasitical class has grown at an alarming rate, and now includes such diverse groups as politicians, the state attack dogs aka the police, petit/petty bureaucrats, corporate employees, psychopathic medical practitioners, lawyers, state school teachers and university employess, HR "ladies", and the lumpen proletariat welfare recipients (not all welfare recipients).
You accuse others of being grifters (and you're probably right), but Marx himself was what one might call an uber-grifter, sponging off Engels and whoever else he could, whilst neglecting his own family. I'm struck that a daddy worshipper such as yourself would be impressed by Marx. But then, a guy who guy who works for an organisation that is an unholy alliance between the State and the corporate medical-industrial complex training a new generation of medical psychopaths to cause misery for others probably fits in the "grifter" category, too. I wonder if the irony of your position in smug, corporate middle New Zealand as opposed to your professed religion is wasted on you?
And let's be clear, Marxism is nothing but an Abrahamic religious heresy created by a rascist (another accusation YOU make against anyone who disagrees with) self-hating Jew.
And pray tell, how do explain away the fact that in the twentieth century the attempts to implement Marxism ended in bloodshed and the loss of tens of millions of HUMAN lives? Oh sorry, I forgot, "It wasn't real Marxism".
You write as if you are an expert on China, too. You must have spent a substantial amount of time living there, as I have, no doubt? Just in case that's not the case, let me edify you and inform you that China's problems have been mostly created by the Chinese State and government. And, for the record, China fits much more closely with Mussolini's definition of Fascism than with Marxism, thanks to Deng Xiaoping. Fortunately Deng Xiaoping cared enough about his country to give a bit leeway to let a hard-working, enterprising people try to build something on top of the tens of millions of corpses Mao left behind.
I wonder why a fat-cat university employee getting a nice salary all coutesy of the New Zealand workers would need the politics of envy and hate. And why would this fat-cat university guy want to push what has perhaps been the most destructive ideology ever invented by a human being? I can only posit that it's either ignorance or malelovlence. Unfortunately, after seeing how the organisation you work for delighted in Jackboot Jacinda's scamdemic regime, I tend to lean towards the later.
Thank you for reinforcing the point of this post so clearly. You have very clearly illustrated exactly the kind of unserious engagement with Marxism that I am talking about. Well done.
As for me being a "fat-cat" university employee, I support a wife and five kids on my salary. Hardly living large.
But still least you get to educate the next generation of psychopathic medical professionals while pursying jour hobby and sucking of the State teet.
And tut tut, big daddy Marx wouldn't approve of 5 kids in a nuclear family.
I know you did not just attempt to label something the most destructive ideology ever created by man when neoliberalism exits
And by the way, if you really think Marxism will or coild bring anything of valuer to humanity, you're a fucking numpty and deserve every bit of suffering you get. Not to mention that all you pathetic authoritarians loved neo-liberalism when it making toxic fake medicines during the covid scam.
Um…. I think the people of the global south(195 countries), Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Korea to name a few may have something different to say about that neoliberal capitalism and imperialism is by far the most destructive ideology ever created bar none
It may, well get there, but as yet neo-liberalism hasn't left tens of millions of human corpses and millions more ruined lives.
Mr Ward, how would you respond to the allegation that Marxism relies on the labour theory of value, which is dead?
I would say that it's only dead in neoclassical economics. Marxian economic approaches still very much use it in their analyses. But, as I've discussed here https://weareunderused.substack.com/p/how-the-ruling-class-abstracted-society
one important aspect of neoclassical economics focused on utility and exchange was that it abstracted the social elements and class struggle out of economics. Marxists don't care that mainstream economics don't use their ideas. It doesn't invalidate them. Economics is not apolitical.