I didn’t say it had “nothing to do with Marx”. I said it has always defended the ultra rich… which is true. A single statement from a man who’s influence on modern Leftism can best be described as a thoroughly debunked thesis to the post-modern antithesis of the 60s and 70s does not a convincing counterargument make, my poor uninformed internet pleb.
Do enlighten us oh patrician of the interwebz, how exactly is any of Marxism a thoroughly debunked thesis, then?
…Least of all by post-modernists?
I’d genuinely love to hear this take because I hear it from the more centrist-to-conservative spaces all the time and some speakers like JP, but I do not understand it.
Sure, Marx was wrong in his prediction of capitalist collapse, but the overall principle of even that aspect is broadly agreed-upon as sound with things like boom and bust cycles etc. being the mainstream modern take based on his ideas and the same underlying principle which is very much a product of dialectical materialism as a whole.
Really he mostly couldn’t imagine information technology getting us so far, which I can’t exactly blame him for since he was born over 200 years ago…
I never said post-modernists debunked Marx. I said Marx is debunked (he’s a materialist, and recent developments in physics have shaken materialism to its core, like the double slit experiment and observer effect and collapse of the wave function), and that his influence on modern Leftism is that of the thesis whereas post-modernism is the antithesis (i.e., Marxism was a thesis, post-modernism was an antithesis - an overcorrection by Foucault et. al. in response to the failures of communism - and modern Leftism is the result).
he’s a materialist, and recent developments in physics have shaken materialism to its core, like the double slit experiment and observer effect and collapse of the wave function
None of these things are in opposition to materialism?
Marx’ Dialectical materialism was also primarily to do with what he believed were the forces that explained history - the relationship of groups to the means of production, as opposed to Great Man theory of history or more nebulous explanations, he was essentially explaining what motivates people and makes them act a certain way which is not really influenced by quantum physics in any way.
He was a scientific fella who believed in a shared material reality and objective facts as do most Marxists and leftists which is also a materialist notion but again this is not contradicted by physics, quantum or otherwise and neither the observer effect nor lorentz symmetry nor higgs boson or even spherical cows “debunk” those philosophical concepts in any way
Foucault is kind of on his own with his theories of knowledge power and whatnot and he himself rejected being labeled a post-modernist, at the same time he was also labeled a structuralist and identified as a Nietzsche simp and I don’t see how he has any real influence on leftism, so you’re going to have to be more specific there on what exactly you mean there.
these things are in opposition to materialism. materialism posits that the physical world is an atomistic reality separate from human consciousness. Things like collapse of the wave function and observer effect demonstrably prove that reality is influenced by human consciousness. Disproving materialism, which is the foundation on which Marx built his theories. End of story.
In physics the word observation in the context of observer effect refers to measurement which can be done with an apparatus, like in the double slit experiment itself and the moment of observation is that when a measurement is taken or an interaction occurs(!) with another thing, not when a human in particular becomes aware of it.
I don’t blame you for not knowing this though because the word “observer” is just an extremely poor choice, as always, scientists are bad at naming things.
Physics in no way is suggesting that material reality is shaped by human consciousness in any way nor is it in denial of material reality and even if it did that hardly has anything to do with Marx who’s materialism was a theory in regards to the evolution of ideas and socioeconomic structures that come from them being influenced by people’s relations to the means of production more than anything else.
Leftism has nothing to do with Marx, rather it’s defined by the NYTimes Op/Eds?
Ok, serious adult.
I didn’t say it had “nothing to do with Marx”. I said it has always defended the ultra rich… which is true. A single statement from a man who’s influence on modern Leftism can best be described as a thoroughly debunked thesis to the post-modern antithesis of the 60s and 70s does not a convincing counterargument make, my poor uninformed internet pleb.
Do enlighten us oh patrician of the interwebz, how exactly is any of Marxism a thoroughly debunked thesis, then?
…Least of all by post-modernists?
I’d genuinely love to hear this take because I hear it from the more centrist-to-conservative spaces all the time and some speakers like JP, but I do not understand it.
Sure, Marx was wrong in his prediction of capitalist collapse, but the overall principle of even that aspect is broadly agreed-upon as sound with things like boom and bust cycles etc. being the mainstream modern take based on his ideas and the same underlying principle which is very much a product of dialectical materialism as a whole.
Really he mostly couldn’t imagine information technology getting us so far, which I can’t exactly blame him for since he was born over 200 years ago…
I never said post-modernists debunked Marx. I said Marx is debunked (he’s a materialist, and recent developments in physics have shaken materialism to its core, like the double slit experiment and observer effect and collapse of the wave function), and that his influence on modern Leftism is that of the thesis whereas post-modernism is the antithesis (i.e., Marxism was a thesis, post-modernism was an antithesis - an overcorrection by Foucault et. al. in response to the failures of communism - and modern Leftism is the result).
Are you trolling? The double slit experiment debunks Marx that’s definitely a new one ngl.
Fun fact: This experiment pre-dates Marx by about 17 years https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frstl.1804.0001
None of these things are in opposition to materialism?
Marx’ Dialectical materialism was also primarily to do with what he believed were the forces that explained history - the relationship of groups to the means of production, as opposed to Great Man theory of history or more nebulous explanations, he was essentially explaining what motivates people and makes them act a certain way which is not really influenced by quantum physics in any way.
He was a scientific fella who believed in a shared material reality and objective facts as do most Marxists and leftists which is also a materialist notion but again this is not contradicted by physics, quantum or otherwise and neither the observer effect nor lorentz symmetry nor higgs boson or even spherical cows “debunk” those philosophical concepts in any way
Foucault is kind of on his own with his theories of knowledge power and whatnot and he himself rejected being labeled a post-modernist, at the same time he was also labeled a structuralist and identified as a Nietzsche simp and I don’t see how he has any real influence on leftism, so you’re going to have to be more specific there on what exactly you mean there.
these things are in opposition to materialism. materialism posits that the physical world is an atomistic reality separate from human consciousness. Things like collapse of the wave function and observer effect demonstrably prove that reality is influenced by human consciousness. Disproving materialism, which is the foundation on which Marx built his theories. End of story.
That’s not actually what the observer effect is.
In physics the word observation in the context of observer effect refers to measurement which can be done with an apparatus, like in the double slit experiment itself and the moment of observation is that when a measurement is taken or an interaction occurs(!) with another thing, not when a human in particular becomes aware of it.
I don’t blame you for not knowing this though because the word “observer” is just an extremely poor choice, as always, scientists are bad at naming things.
Physics in no way is suggesting that material reality is shaped by human consciousness in any way nor is it in denial of material reality and even if it did that hardly has anything to do with Marx who’s materialism was a theory in regards to the evolution of ideas and socioeconomic structures that come from them being influenced by people’s relations to the means of production more than anything else.
The post-modern antitheses to Marx were and are garbage[1].
at least we agree on this haha