Tumgik
#idk if this makes sense or I'm using even the right Marxist terminology since I stopped reading marxist stuff now i cant really be bothered
inqilabi · 9 months
Text
I think people misunderstand marxism / communism and I don't blame them. In the dominant public perception it's just a mix of vague leftist principles. And I do think that the ruling class did a great job at blurring the lines between actual Marxism and what is their own ideology - liberalism, through academia and involvement in "revolutionary politics" themselves. Yes the ruling class was very much involved in civil rights movement and onwards. The woke capitalist politics you see today are not a co-optation. It is the ideology of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeois is very much "revolutionary" in their optics.
So the writers strike of Hollywood eg. People think that this is what a leftist revolutionary strike looks like. No. Hollywood is an arm of empire. So from a Marxist pov these are petty bourgeois or labor aristocracy (the folks who benefit from imperialism) fighting for top dollar wages (which itself extracted from imperialism ie dollar hegemony).
In the north america, marxism would look like reinvestment in production. Since imperialism resulted in deindustrialization. Hence the entire economies of US and Canada are service based. Not based in productive output. So this means investment in agriculture, industry, infrastructure. Labor. This is usually your American that is not urban. It's the rural folks doing productive labor. These are the people when they strike will strike fear. Like the UPS strike.
Also tax the rich is a useless phrase. Taxing the rich wouldn't do anything. That's just even more powerful ruling class families making a couple of multi-millionares into a scapegoat for public placation. China has billionaires ever since market reforms but they answer to and are beholdened to the party. Taxing isn't the answer. It's a total overhaul of production and who owns they production.
160 notes · View notes