I'm in complete agreement with your position regarding the fundamental tension self-referential incoherence of the anti-relativism position. However, it's counter-productive to toss around flippantly terms, as Jordan Peterson does as well, like "Marxism". The oppressor/oppressed unit is hardly unique to Marxist thinkers. In fact, under s…
I'm in complete agreement with your position regarding the fundamental tension self-referential incoherence of the anti-relativism position. However, it's counter-productive to toss around flippantly terms, as Jordan Peterson does as well, like "Marxism". The oppressor/oppressed unit is hardly unique to Marxist thinkers. In fact, under self-application, the argument you're making also has an oppressor/oppressed structure. Given that no ONE view of Marxism dominates, I don't understand why thinkers keep using it beyond a boring scare tactic that serves as a fist-pound on the table. The more accurate view is that a newish moralist ontology has emerged in which everything is reduced to a moral hierarchy advocated by "Culture." If anything this emerges as an interesting kind of Marxism in which "ownership of the means of production" is who owns the common infrastructure for ideological propaganda to repeat the cultural scripts for Identity. But again ownership of the memes of production isn't anything unique to Marxism. Even being skeptical of neo-liberalism or global capitalism, it doesn't follow that one is a Marxist. I don't get why we still fear this spectre and use it as some rhetorical unit. Its use seems ineffective and a neologism that more accurately depicts the situation. Not trolling. Enjoy the piece and the tone. From your other work, there's respect for the ideas. Appreciate that.
I'm in complete agreement with your position regarding the fundamental tension self-referential incoherence of the anti-relativism position. However, it's counter-productive to toss around flippantly terms, as Jordan Peterson does as well, like "Marxism". The oppressor/oppressed unit is hardly unique to Marxist thinkers. In fact, under self-application, the argument you're making also has an oppressor/oppressed structure. Given that no ONE view of Marxism dominates, I don't understand why thinkers keep using it beyond a boring scare tactic that serves as a fist-pound on the table. The more accurate view is that a newish moralist ontology has emerged in which everything is reduced to a moral hierarchy advocated by "Culture." If anything this emerges as an interesting kind of Marxism in which "ownership of the means of production" is who owns the common infrastructure for ideological propaganda to repeat the cultural scripts for Identity. But again ownership of the memes of production isn't anything unique to Marxism. Even being skeptical of neo-liberalism or global capitalism, it doesn't follow that one is a Marxist. I don't get why we still fear this spectre and use it as some rhetorical unit. Its use seems ineffective and a neologism that more accurately depicts the situation. Not trolling. Enjoy the piece and the tone. From your other work, there's respect for the ideas. Appreciate that.
Yeah, this is a good point. Gender ideology derives from postmodernism much more than Marxism, which is a separate strand of thought.