Marxist Scholars Circle

Zulanka in MSC wrote:

Apologies for the late reply!

No problem. We are all busy.

Zulanka in MSC wrote:

Just to be clear, I'm not a Third Worldist, I'm trying to give a more charitable view of Third Worldists in replying here for the sake of discussion and further education.

Honestly, I had a somewhat more charitable view of Third Worldism before I started watching Jason Unruhe. I know that he is not very popular with many other Third Worldists. Some of them have even accused him of plagiarism. (I am not in a position to judge the accuracy of that claim.) Unruhe seems to have a favorable view of right-wing governments, like Russia, Turkey, and Iran. He is even a political analyst for the Iranian government's English-language TV channel. It seems to be intentionally mimicking BBC News. Unruhe has also had other Third Worldists host his YouTube show (when he has been on vacation). They all appeared to share Unruhe's right-wing sympathies. It seems to me that he places his authoritarianism (a tankie for the sake of being a tankie) ahead of any Leftism. Now, again, I realize that not all Third Worldists agree with Unruhe. However, they all appear to question (without any evidence I have seen) any dialectical potential in the West. To me, that is a direct contradiction to Marx's internationalism.

Zulanka in MSC wrote:

I'm definitely sympathetic to criticism of Western Marxism, but isn't it somewhat idealist itself to point towards ideological defects as the main things that have held Western Marxism back from effecting substantial change rather than something in the base that serves as a material basis for issues there? The latter is part what I find compelling about Third Worldists, at least in introducing people to these concepts.

I just think that many Western Marxists took an unfortunate turn toward idealism. That culminated in the Frankfurt School and, more recently, with post-Marxism.

Zulanka in MSC wrote:

I don't see them as rejecting Marx's statement necessarily. I see their focus as giving Marxist political economy an update to reflect what they see as reality now. The conclusions that some may draw from that lead to views like what you mention but there's more nuance to them than that suggests. In groups like the Blekingegade Gang I see not an abandonment of the struggle but a different direction taken with a different emphasis than conventional political work we've seen in the West.

I am all for continuously updating scientific socialism. However, why focus on the Third World (unless one lives in the Third World)?

Zulanka in MSC wrote:

What I'm interested in regarding Gramsci in this context is his concept of cultural imperialism you mentioned previously.

Throughout all the turns I have made in my life, since 1968, I have always appreciated his theory of cultural hegemony.

Mark

Zulanka in MSC wrote:

I can understand not liking Third Worldism if you take Unruhe as representative of it! I had sort of the opposite experience as you since I didn't know of Third Worldism at all before I knew of him. I didn't respect the tendency as a whole for a long time after and engaged with other Third Worldist authors (like Cope as I mentioned) to sort of challenge myself. Reading them I quickly understood that my prior conceptions of Third Worldism were very limited and colored by Unruhe. There really is more diversity and nuance in Third Worldism than people just saying the West is worthless or fetishizing movements in the periphery.

I had engaged with the work of other Third Worldists before Unruhe. However, I suppose that Unruhe's knee-jerk right-wing authoritarianism put a bad taste in my mouth. Even so, I disliked the emphasis on the Third World even before watching Unruhe's commentaries.

Zulanka in MSC wrote:

Third Worldists do rely on hard data about discrepancies in trade, wages, etc. to back up their positions. While their analysis is not quite as rigorous as others already discussed and the conclusions they make from this data can (and should) be challenged, I don't see their work as intrinsically any more opposed to internationalism than Marx or Engels' own analysis of the labor aristocracy. I understand that recognizing these hidden hierarchies and forms of exploitation (like with racism or sexism) can be challenging, particularly for those who benefit from them. It can get even more divisive when there's a positive element involved in their deconstruction (ex: promoting black power against racism, affirming trans folks' genders while working towards abolishing gender, etc.). But I utterly reject what I see as the alternative, basically just a variation of the "color-blind" class-reductionist approach, of choosing essentially opportunism or what sounds good to the ear over a sober understanding of the world we live in.

Sure, but I think it makes more sense to use the work of, for instance, Kimberlé Crenshaw or Patricia Hill Collins, two of the seminal figures in intersectional theory. As I see it, intersectionality develops a sophisticated, nuanced, multidimensional approach to the capitalist world-system (borrowing from Wallerstein) without falling into the dualism of developing vis-à-vis developed countries. Certainly, relative degrees of development can be considered as one axis (or, as I call it, a single intersectional thoroughfare) of the matrix of domination (Collins' term), but there are many other axes as well. To me, Third Worldism gets caught up in a simplistic economism, which both Marx and, especially, Engels, were moving away from toward the ends of their careers. There is more to capitalism than development.

Zulanka in MSC wrote:

To clarify, my point wasn't necessarily that I disagree Western Marxism took an idealist turn. I don't mean to dismiss the importance of theory and strategy in the course of a socialist project either, of course there can be more or less effective lines in a given situation. What I'm objecting to is the emphasis on the ideas some folks have over the material circumstances surrounding them. I just don't think it's entirely convincing as a Marxist or materialist to point to such subjective factors like ideological issues as primary faults behind failures of the left in the West for example.
The majority of the working class is in the periphery now. Inquiry into their circumstances and how they differ from our own will become more and more important for contemporary Marxists in the West for this reason alone. When we consider how global economic changes have led to this situation and how those trends effect us (workers in the West) as well this focus becomes less a curiosity and more relevant regardless of any personal connection one might have to the Third World.

Yes, I think that the contrast between the core and the periphery, in the dependency theories, allows for greater sophistication than Third Worldism. To me, however, much of academic Marxism (of which I have been a part since 1980) has been so captivated by the Freudianism of the Frankfurt School and, more recently, the quasi-Lacanianism (poststructural Freudianism) of scholars such as Žižek that I wonder if academic Marxism, to which I have been committed, is, at this point, even redeemable.

Since we are a relatively small region, could we sponsor a reasonably scholarly debate on some subject? We could invite members of regions in which we have embassies (and perhaps others, too). It may attract more people to our region.

This place looks nice. Might come visit from time to time.

The liberalists you love wrote:

Anyone want to recommend me some leftist Youtube channels? I must admit that I stick to other websites (and podcasts) but I'm looking to watch some things. Thanks!

I have looked around myself. Most of them are not particularly good. However, if you say what tendencies you have in mind, I can offer some suggestions.