Grandpa:
It just clicked as I finished the last post, you carryfast and Rjan are the same person? Sockpuppets? The same content, the same method of reply, the same focus on issues, the same factual mistakes … With a tag-team approach? Note that what I’ve just said are in question form as I obviously don’t have proof, but it’s a strong observation.
Your problem is assuming you’re the only driver here who also knows a thing or two.
Think about it. You’re on a forum telling an ex-teacher in political science that your opinion is right and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about? YOU want to address me on political science?
You seem rather surprised to hear that the answer to that is yes.
What originally drew me in was the assertion that Marxism had moved on from class and into culture. That raises an eyebrow, because we certainly haven’t moved on from class society (although for a while we seem to have moved on from working class solidarity), and the concept of class is fundamental to, and interwoven throughout, Marxist theory.
And I’ve asked you to account for that. I’ve read what you’ve posted. I might be the only person to have actually read your paper - probably one amongst only a limited number here anyway. And I still see no justification.
It is true that Gramsci wrote of the ruling class maintaining their position through influence of dominant ideology and culture, and not simply through the mailed fist. But he clearly accepts the existence of the oppressive ruling class who use those means to maintain themselves. Class (as understood from a Marxist analysis) remains central in Gramsci’s approach.
Where is class in your analysis? I can roughly follow in your thinking the implied allegation that there exist a small cadre of intellectuals or revolutionaries in society (the “cultural Marxists”) who are trying to overthrow it and replace it wrongheadedly with a society run on different terms. But what means are they using to do this? Well, if you were approaching it from the Gramscian direction, you would say they are using the same means as the ruling class use to maintain their own oppressive position over the working class.
But you argue that the ruling class don’t exist anymore, and also that the “cultural Marxists” themselves have moved on from class. So where is the Marxism in this theory of yours? Where even does Gramsci come in, when he wrote about how the ruling class, the rich and powerful, maintain their power?
Not only do I say that you don’t know what you’re talking about, ex-teacher or no, but that your real agenda for spouting all this nonsense is simply to propagate the smear phrase “cultural Marxism”, when even you acknowledge at unguarded moments in your writings that it has nothing to do with Marxism.
And don’t pretend to be a friend of the working man. I spoke earlier about how the reason the London financier is rich and the London toilet cleaner is poor, is because the financier charges too much interest, spends too much on wine, and is charged too little for having their toilets cleaned. The implication being that if he charges a little less in interest, spends a little less on wine, and pays a little more for cleaning services, then that redresses the problem.
But like any right-winger, you’re not willing to have a situation in which the rich person isn’t permitted to exploit the working person by charging high and paying low.