I would have one which is independent any ideological background: it is anachronistic. The notorious Critical Theory had developed about a century ago from the Frankfurt School, which was originally Marxist, but rapidly distanced itself from the nascent USSR and the underpinnings of Marxist sociology. This was before the USSR could be deemed a failure in any sense; Communists praising Stalin were a common strain at Western universities, as is clear from reading contemporary authors in touch with intellectual life, until after the war. Postmodernism and its core notions, such as deconstruction, had already appeared in their modern forms by 1970, that is, at a time when over half the world’s population lived in avowedly socialist states (including India, the Arab socialists…) and a third in Marxist-Leninist ones which showed no signs of their later faltering.
In the Marxian understanding, classes are not defined by wealth or income. Those who can, by the threat of violence (including the law), enforce their claim and control access to industrial infrastructure, natural resources and other things necessary to yield useful goods (‘the means of production’) form the bourgeoisie; those who own no such equipment and must therefore survive by selling their ability to work and receiving a wage from the bourgeois form the proletariat. (Professionals and tradesmen who own their own equipment and are often well educated, and are self-employed, are understood as forming an intermediate class, the petty bourgeoisie, whose economic interests might align with either other class.)Yes, except that didn't work because of bi-directional class mobility.
Having studied neoclassical economics formally at the undergraduate level, and Marxian on my own, I can attest to their differences. Marxian economics is derived from classical economics, and shares with it acceptance of the labour theory of value. What orthodox economics sees as its mainstays, such as the subjective theory of value, utility, scarcity and opportunity cost, were introduced since the late nineteenth century. Marxian economics rejects these (rightly, in my opinion) as assumptions embedded in bankrupt ideology, not laws of nature, and retains its own theory derived from Marx’s Capital, which still survives, to explain the workings of the capitalist economy and propose alternatives (such as a socialist economy reckoning prices by labour time). Marxists argue, and i would agree even while rejecting their precise, theoretical reasons, that neoclassical economics enjoys massive support thanks to concerted efforts by the bourgeoisie to persuade others to accept their organisational methods and dominance as natural and proper, not because it truly describes the world.a worldview that's completely illiterate about basic economics. Unless that's also now an evil capitalist conspiracy theory.
When economics is taught in the schools, it is orthodox, not Marxian economics which is almost always taught. The formerly democratic-socialist parties, such as Labour in Britain, had revised their manifestos in the nineties to disavow a genuine transition to socialism as intended policy. Other than tankies on the net, genuine socialists interested in politics are to be found in some marginal factions within the social-democratic, green and left parties of various countries.As we know, popular culture, the education system and media are all extolling the virtues of the free market, pulling oneself up by the bootstraps and becoming rich by working hard.
Now would be a good time to say that, beside its heathenish materialism and presumption that violence is necessary for social transition (also seen in other left-extremist ideologies like anarchism), I reject Marxism for its ergomania, as can be seen in The German Ideology and elsewhere: the work ethic which capitalism has nurtured has been preserved intact. The idea that one is what one does is among Aristotle’s worst poisons, but Marxism has imbibed the whole draught.
Marxists see this act of game-changing as false consciousness: distracting and dividing workmen so they will not suspect the bourgeoisie is behind their problems. Because such diversions as identity politics suit the bourgeoisie’s interests, the bourgeoisie can safely encourage it. It does not actually oppose them, so it is hardly leftist. Marxists are still playing the old game, even if it has become much less popular in recent decades; they think, on the scale of centuries, that it is the only game that counts and will have another round in due time.The rest of your word salad shows you ignored whatever I said about how modern leftism has changed the name of the game.
