Gouldner was wrong about the revolutionary potential of the new intellectual class. Yet in the current climate can we see a revolutionary potential in the proletariate ? Haven't we seen in recent times the defeat of the left along with its marxiam and its revolutionary potential ?
Another fine entry. Glad you came across Szelenyi. His book “The Intellectuals on The Road to Class Power” is much closer to the truth regarding the true nature of the supposed “New Class.” Another interesting book along these lines is Samuel Francis’s “Leviathan and Its Enemies”. A similar analysis to Gouldner regarding the conflict between managers and capitalists but also with different conclusions.
I like this, and I think it points towards a nice Marxist periodization of the 20th century. First half of the century: failure of the attempted proletarian revolutions. Second half of the century: failure of the attempted New Class revolutions.
(Really we could maybe say the desperate gasps of the attempted New Class revolutions are still going.)
You want to critique marxism but can only come up with a new version of it; at the end it's not a true "ruthless" analysis; it's a new iteration of "real marxism has never been tried"; with every failure of marxism the true marxism is born/discovered!
The only really dialectical ideology is Feudalism.
The problem with Marx/Marxism is the identification and equation of the duality/competition between its ideological/cultural aims and economic/material aims; these two are really distinct and really, at base, contradictory. To be concrete, it's not true that social-liberalism=economic progress, more often "to coom" and "to work" are too opposed things.
This is the first time I have to be critical. I don't think you have stated anything particularly incorrect BUT I just feel like you are punching down/wasting time here.
The idea that middle class intellectuals are a new/revolutionary class seems so idiotic/ahistorical/obviously wrong that it seems like a waste of time rebutting it. He's very quickly jumping from "some" to "all" which again is just kinda so elementary to catch.
Anyhow, I look forward to your writing, so if I am disappointed it is only because I was excited for your next post.
Gouldner was wrong about the revolutionary potential of the new intellectual class. Yet in the current climate can we see a revolutionary potential in the proletariate ? Haven't we seen in recent times the defeat of the left along with its marxiam and its revolutionary potential ?
Another fine entry. Glad you came across Szelenyi. His book “The Intellectuals on The Road to Class Power” is much closer to the truth regarding the true nature of the supposed “New Class.” Another interesting book along these lines is Samuel Francis’s “Leviathan and Its Enemies”. A similar analysis to Gouldner regarding the conflict between managers and capitalists but also with different conclusions.
I like this, and I think it points towards a nice Marxist periodization of the 20th century. First half of the century: failure of the attempted proletarian revolutions. Second half of the century: failure of the attempted New Class revolutions.
(Really we could maybe say the desperate gasps of the attempted New Class revolutions are still going.)
"house Marxists" lmao
You want to critique marxism but can only come up with a new version of it; at the end it's not a true "ruthless" analysis; it's a new iteration of "real marxism has never been tried"; with every failure of marxism the true marxism is born/discovered!
The only really dialectical ideology is Feudalism.
The problem with Marx/Marxism is the identification and equation of the duality/competition between its ideological/cultural aims and economic/material aims; these two are really distinct and really, at base, contradictory. To be concrete, it's not true that social-liberalism=economic progress, more often "to coom" and "to work" are too opposed things.
This is the first time I have to be critical. I don't think you have stated anything particularly incorrect BUT I just feel like you are punching down/wasting time here.
The idea that middle class intellectuals are a new/revolutionary class seems so idiotic/ahistorical/obviously wrong that it seems like a waste of time rebutting it. He's very quickly jumping from "some" to "all" which again is just kinda so elementary to catch.
Anyhow, I look forward to your writing, so if I am disappointed it is only because I was excited for your next post.