It's nearly impossible to engage with 20th-century thinkers without encountering the influence of Marx. For many on the political right, even acknowledging Marx's contributions can feel like heresy. Yet, dismissing Marx outright without understanding his impact and the context of his ideas would be a mistake. To grasp why Marxism and other utopian ideologies gained traction during the turn of the century, it is important to understand the historical disruptions that shaped his thought and the subsequent integration of his ideas into various intellectual traditions, including those of his critics.
Also interesting, is the fact, that on much of social media in the last several years, has been this outreach to the left: You have the Eurasianists, with their Bolshevik nationalism, and then you have some on the 'right', advocating for some type of modern socialism, or outright communism, with an 'american flair' (Jackson Hinckle/X), always seems to be biting at the heels of a burgeoning nationalism, specifically, of the White ethnic, persuasion.
It is true, that we, all of us, have a dual nature, and this includes a social understanding of one's self, one's Family, and one's extended race; not only is this natural, it is mandatatory, as sentient beings are organisms of the natural strata, which make us all what we are. We owe a duty too, for instance, those who have gone before, who are elderly, or who are starting out their very lives - to not do this, would make us all...Anti-Human.
Jack London, one of our greatest Authors, as a fighting 'white man', but most definitely was an anti-capitalist, worked (and wrote) tirelessly for the Working man, and generally represented a healthy balance of a changing America.
Marxism, on the other hand...is none of these things.
I agree to a certain extent. Picking out any early 20th-century Western Philosopher engaging in Pragmatic Marxism with a conservative/libertarian/anarchic bend can produce the same relative effect. The Soviet influential post-revolution lies about the country's state made Marxism and Leninism attractive. Then, you apply that to the multi-dimensional aspect of postmodern philosophy and have what you see today.
To say that the "online right" is driven by "class resentment" and not necessarily "reaction from socialism," which would define why the right is becoming increasingly "fascistic," is not understanding the difference between order and chaos and their fundamental representations in the mind and abstractive expressions in behavior.
You are doing nothing but applying a Marxist lens to the evolving reactions by and large of widespread and ideologically violent Postmodern neo-Marxism. There are other interpretative schemas that explain what's happening in far more articulate detail, encompassing far more realms of human understanding. Ideas that encompass psychology, comparative religion, mythology, and a truly matured idea of what exactly a human being is: besides being comprised of multi-functional, multi-perspective sub-personalities that abstract out into thoughts and behaviors, and whether these sub-personalities are integrated or not will truly help one understand if the information provided is of real substance. Being able to pick out sub-personalities and label them per their archetypal behavior properly then follow that genesis to the guiding symbol that set the idea on its path in the first place. A very complex way of organizing the word. High cost. High payout. Always high risk.
I am not saying that the online right is driven entirely by class resentment, but in part. The motivations of the online right are multifaceted. I am saying that the "Marxist," lens is one that can be useful, because in many ways the exploitative nature of Managerialism is similar to the Bourgeoise class of the late 19th and early 20th century. The impulse to tear down the managerial class needs to be tempered and a clear distinction needs to be made that the right wishes to replace the managerial elite with a properly ordered ruling class.
By no means do I think that Marxism is the driving force of what we see today, it is a factor but it's not everything.
Just listened to your interview with MacIntyre - it was excellent.
Thanks. I am glad you enjoyed it.
I always appreciate the feedback.
Luckily Postmodernism is exposing materialism and Marxism as a stupid way of thinking. It’s Aristotelianism or nihilism
“our solution is a return to a properly ordered class structure.”
Who fleshes out the economic specifics so it’s not just vague chit chat?
Interesting piece.
Also interesting, is the fact, that on much of social media in the last several years, has been this outreach to the left: You have the Eurasianists, with their Bolshevik nationalism, and then you have some on the 'right', advocating for some type of modern socialism, or outright communism, with an 'american flair' (Jackson Hinckle/X), always seems to be biting at the heels of a burgeoning nationalism, specifically, of the White ethnic, persuasion.
It is true, that we, all of us, have a dual nature, and this includes a social understanding of one's self, one's Family, and one's extended race; not only is this natural, it is mandatatory, as sentient beings are organisms of the natural strata, which make us all what we are. We owe a duty too, for instance, those who have gone before, who are elderly, or who are starting out their very lives - to not do this, would make us all...Anti-Human.
Jack London, one of our greatest Authors, as a fighting 'white man', but most definitely was an anti-capitalist, worked (and wrote) tirelessly for the Working man, and generally represented a healthy balance of a changing America.
Marxism, on the other hand...is none of these things.
I agree to a certain extent. Picking out any early 20th-century Western Philosopher engaging in Pragmatic Marxism with a conservative/libertarian/anarchic bend can produce the same relative effect. The Soviet influential post-revolution lies about the country's state made Marxism and Leninism attractive. Then, you apply that to the multi-dimensional aspect of postmodern philosophy and have what you see today.
To say that the "online right" is driven by "class resentment" and not necessarily "reaction from socialism," which would define why the right is becoming increasingly "fascistic," is not understanding the difference between order and chaos and their fundamental representations in the mind and abstractive expressions in behavior.
You are doing nothing but applying a Marxist lens to the evolving reactions by and large of widespread and ideologically violent Postmodern neo-Marxism. There are other interpretative schemas that explain what's happening in far more articulate detail, encompassing far more realms of human understanding. Ideas that encompass psychology, comparative religion, mythology, and a truly matured idea of what exactly a human being is: besides being comprised of multi-functional, multi-perspective sub-personalities that abstract out into thoughts and behaviors, and whether these sub-personalities are integrated or not will truly help one understand if the information provided is of real substance. Being able to pick out sub-personalities and label them per their archetypal behavior properly then follow that genesis to the guiding symbol that set the idea on its path in the first place. A very complex way of organizing the word. High cost. High payout. Always high risk.
I am not saying that the online right is driven entirely by class resentment, but in part. The motivations of the online right are multifaceted. I am saying that the "Marxist," lens is one that can be useful, because in many ways the exploitative nature of Managerialism is similar to the Bourgeoise class of the late 19th and early 20th century. The impulse to tear down the managerial class needs to be tempered and a clear distinction needs to be made that the right wishes to replace the managerial elite with a properly ordered ruling class.
By no means do I think that Marxism is the driving force of what we see today, it is a factor but it's not everything.
🔥