Relationship of Marxism to Progressive Policies and the Virtues or Risks Thereof

[Myriad]

The problem I have with Marxism isn't about having a wrong plan for how society should be run. Everybody's got one of those! The problem is being wrong about how social change happens in the first place.

It and all its offshoots and derivatives and variations all spin the same narrative, the one Marx predicted was going to happen due to magical historical inevitability. First, an intellectual class figures out how to order and govern a society and writes a manifesto. Then, the working class and/or other oppressed underclass spontaneously rises up and eliminates the old oppressive regime. Then, they dutifully hand power over to the intellectuals to put their superior plan into effect.

In the real world, the working class is not fond of ideologies. They mostly want the government and middle management off their backs. They want a day's pay for a day's work, and they want to take it home, not just glimpse at it on a stub before it's deducted for the greater good. They want any cutting in line to be consensual and justified by pragmatic needs, not by abstract principles thrust upon them as non-negotiable. They want meetings at work to be about work, not self-criticizing their microaggressions or receiving advice on coping with stress from the same people causing the stress.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Other semi-related thoughts on the connection between modern progressives and marxists. Critical theory developed out of the Frankfurt Marxists, so sure there is that connection. As noted by others some of the folks who influenced modern progressive thought eventually broke from Marxism though.

Sometimes, the various branches of critical theory do basically sound like they did a search and replace of "class" for their school of thought. IE, swap out race for class or gender for class or what not. More a criticism of style than anything substantial.

It's of limited value to note that it's a criticism of style. The underlying philosophy of oppressed vs oppressor carries through, and it influences all of the downstream recipients of that style, because that style carries the narrative.

Even when it's well-intentioned, it has some easily foreseeable negative consequences. Like having elementary school kids do "privilege walks" and thinking that's somehow NOT going to make kids feel like they're guilty of some nebulous abstract evil over which they have no control.

 

[Emily's Cat]

They want meetings at work to be about work, not self-criticizing their microaggressions or receiving advice on coping with stress from the same people causing the stress.

I can't tell you how many meetings and other crap I've had over the past few years about "how to deal with change". It's not the change that's the problem - the change would be fine if you would just actually do it correctly instead of breaking things left and right, then leaving them broken because they're now "out of scope", or charging us huge amounts of admin costs to bring in ever more contract workers who then spend a year working on one of those broken things to just throw their hands up at the end of the year because "oh well, it's still broke but we're out of budget now!"

But yeah. Let's spend a day a month doing struggle sessions on managing change instead of letting us do the chewing-gum-duct-tape-paper-clip work we need to do to keep the business running. Sounds like a great investment.

 

[angrysoba]

It's of limited value to note that it's a criticism of style. The underlying philosophy of oppressed vs oppressor carries through, and it influences all of the downstream recipients of that style, because that style carries the narrative.

Even when it's well-intentioned, it has some easily foreseeable negative consequences. Like having elementary school kids do "privilege walks" and thinking that's somehow NOT going to make kids feel like they're guilty of some nebulous abstract evil over which they have no control.

In which of Marx's books did he propose privilege walks?

 

[Trausti]

In which of Marx's books did he propose privilege walks?

Who, whom?

 

[acbytesla]

Who, whom?

That you aren't familiar with privilege walks says something.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In which of Marx's books did he propose privilege walks?

Marx didn't, but it's also irrelevant.

It stems directly from the premise of oppressor/oppressed dynamics, and from the underlying assumption that privilege is unearned and therefore unjust.

 

[Helen]

Yes, somtimes privilege is earned (even if its often just the luck if the draw, ie inherited privilege), but it is very rarely earned in a vacuum, and often relies on oppression - the degree of oppression varies, of course, and in societies that do not disrrgard the needs of those who are less privileged, it works out reasonably well. But however much you have honestly earned your privilege, you could not have done so without relying to some externt on the rest of society.

 

[ahhell]

The problem I have with Marxism isn't about having a wrong plan for how society should be run. Everybody's got one of those! The problem is being wrong about how social change happens in the first place.


It and all its offshoots and derivatives and variations all spin the same narrative, the one Marx predicted was going to happen due to
magical historical inevitability. First, an intellectual class figures out how to order and govern a society and writes a manifesto. Then, the working class and/or other oppressed underclass spontaneously rises up and eliminates the old oppressive regime. Then, they dutifully hand power over to the intellectuals to put their superior plan into effect.


In the real world, the working class is not fond of ideologies. They mostly want the government and middle management off their backs. They want a day's pay for a day's work, and they want to take it home, not just glimpse at it on a stub before it's deducted for the greater good. They want any cutting in line to be consensual and justified by pragmatic needs, not by abstract principles thrust upon them as non-negotiable. They want meetings at work to be about work, not self-criticizing their microaggressions or receiving advice on coping with stress from the same people causing the stress.

That bit is what really gets me, then he calls it scientific socialism. Which was really just marketing as a way to denigrate other socialist thinkers. And so I look up scientific socialism.

The term was originally coined in 1840 by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in his book What is Property? to mean a society ruled by a scientific government, i.e., one whose sovereignty rests upon reason, rather than sheer will:

Which is what I think progressives really have most in common with Marxism. The belief that we could have some government based on the rule of science and reason, a true technocracy. Sort of forgetting or ignoring that the technocrats are still human and run into the knowledge problem.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, somtimes privilege is earned (even if its often just the luck if the draw, ie inherited privilege), but it is very rarely earned in a vacuum, and often relies on oppression - the degree of oppression varies, of course, and in societies that do not disrrgard the needs of those who are less privileged, it works out reasonably well. But however much you have honestly earned your privilege, you could not have done so without relying to some externt on the rest of society.

Why do you believe this to be the case? What makes you think that privilege relies on oppression?

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, somtimes privilege is earned (even if its often just the luck if the draw, ie inherited privilege), but it is very rarely earned in a vacuum, and often relies on oppression - the degree of oppression varies, of course, and in societies that do not disrrgard the needs of those who are less privileged, it works out reasonably well. But however much you have honestly earned your privilege, you could not have done so without relying to some externt on the rest of society.

From my perspective, when we talk about privilege we are simply talking about the advantages of one's birth. I'm privileged to be born white in the US where being born white in China it might not be a privilege. As I am being male, healthy and straight. It's also a privilege to grow up in Newport, Rhode Island or Medina, WA or Malibu or Santa Barbara, California. It's a privilege to have received a quality education. It's also a privilege to be well fed and dressed. These were all privileges that others may not have.

 

[acbytesla]

Why do you believe this to be the case? What makes you think that privilege relies on oppression?

You dont? Why not?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You dont? Why not?

Tall males get promoted more often and get higher salaries than short males. I don't think that short males are oppressed.
Pretty females get invited to more parties than unattractive females. I don't think that unattractive females are oppressed.
People with high risk tolerance are more likely to become millionaires than people with risk avoidant tendencies. I don't think risk avoidant people are oppressed.
Black males are materially overrepresented in basketball and football. I don't think white males are oppressed in those sports.

There are tons and tons and tons of attributes, characteristics, and behaviors that result in better outcomes and easier lives; the vast majority of those don't imply that other people are oppressed.

ETA: That view is one of my biggest overall disagreements with all of the various philosophical and academic approaches that have their origins in Marx. The presumption that oppression is the root cause of disparate outcomes is fallacious and shortsighted.

 

[acbytesla]

You're just

Tall males get promoted more often and get higher salaries than short males. I don't think that short males are oppressed.
Pretty females get invited to more parties than unattractive females. I don't think that unattractive females are oppressed.
People with high risk tolerance are more likely to become millionaires than people with risk avoidant tendencies. I don't think risk avoidant people are oppressed.
Black males are materially overrepresented in basketball and football. I don't think white males are oppressed in those sports.

There are tons and tons and tons of attributes, characteristics, and behaviors that result in better outcomes and easier lives; the vast majority of those don't imply that other people are oppressed.

ETA: That view is one of my biggest overall disagreements with all of the various philosophical and academic approaches that have their origins in Marx. The presumption that oppression is the root cause of disparate outcomes is fallacious and shortsighted.

I agree to all of this.

But oppression takes many forms. Like substandard incomes, poor or lack of education, poor housing, not to mention an absence of opportunities. A system of compensation that provides Elon Musk a half billion dollars, rewards stockholders far more than it does workers.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

How... can you earn privilege?

You can earn respect or trust.
But privileges are granted.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

People with high risk tolerance are more likely to become millionaires than people with risk avoidant tendencies

That is false, or at least deeply misleading: people who become millionaires tend to have a safety cushion whether they succeed or not.
They get to try again and again.
Poor people can't afford to risk everything, because they won't have anything left if they fail.

Let's of things on Emily's list are oppression: black people in sports are the direct result of efforts to keep them out of white and blue collar professions and positions of leadership.

If it's not purely genetic, it probably has a historical background based in a system of oppression.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Oppression is when you abuse your privilege.
You should always punch up, never down.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Alternatively, you could refrain from punching altogether.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I agree to all of this.

But oppression takes many forms. Like substandard incomes, poor or lack of education, poor housing, not to mention an absence of opportunities.

I haven't suggested that no oppression exists. But arguments from oppression get far overused, often in situations where there is no actual oppression in place. Low incomes, poor education, poor housing, and lack of opportunities aren't oppression. They suck, and they are sometimes a result of poorly implemented or poorly thought out policies, definitely. And sometimes they have been oppression - but not always, and mostly not today in current US society.

Lack of education for black people was definitely oppression in the first half of the 20th century in the US. In the second half of the 20th century (and in many areas continuing today), it's not oppression but it is poorly thought out policy. In a lot of places, public schools are funded based on property taxes... which means that in areas with low property value, there's very little for education. In some areas low property value overlaps a concentration of black people - but there are many areas of the US that have low property value and poor education as a result, but which are predominantly white.

Are you of the opinion that disparate outcomes imply oppression?

A system of compensation that provides Elon Musk a half billion dollars, rewards stockholders far more than it does workers.

I have significant philosophical objections to stock markets. But I still don't see that as being oppression.

How about we start with basics - what do you use as a working definition of oppression?

 

[Emily's Cat]

How... can you earn privilege?

You can earn respect or trust.
But privileges are granted.

When I was a kid, I had a list of chores as well as homework. I was expected to behave and not get in trouble. If I were extra helpful, I could earn special privileges, like picking what TV show we watched on Friday evening, or getting a donut at the grocery store if I helped my mother get the shopping done and steered the basket without bumping into things.