Well I don’t think that’s true at all. I mean Liberals are basically the core of capitalism. In a lot of ways the liberal Revolution was the capitalist Revolution. They’re an entire people that Define themselves by law order and property.
That’s not true, the critical analysis of the enlightenment overthrew the dominance of the church and suborned it to private property. There are several good liberal analysts and historians, in many cases Marxists depend on the analysis done by liberals. Liberalism is a scientific mindset.
But like Marx says in Theses on Feuerbach, as well as a lot of other places, the problem with enlightenment rationalism is it is too objective, like it turns everything, all relationships, all of nature, politics, history, and turns them into objects which have inherent qualities. As such there is a preference over “real” things that can be directly experienced. But as we know, capitalism delivers many false appearances which is where liberals get it wrong but Marxists, who see “things” as relationships created by human beings, can scientifically see much further and deeper than liberals. History appears to the liberal as an assortment of things, whereas to the Marxists we view history as relationships.
Dialectical materialism is a development on, and breaking with, the empirical, objective, enlightenment materialism that came before it. But the two share a common root, if not branch.
But I agree that 90% of liberal commentators are completely intellectually dishonest defenders of private property, and entrenched power; guys like Bret Stephens and Matty Ynglesias. Just completely dishonest grifters playing sophist games with history and events to justify class rule. Many academics like this as well, but I think in reality its more of a mixed bag.
If liberals ever critically analyzed reality they’d be marxists.
Well I don’t think that’s true at all. I mean Liberals are basically the core of capitalism. In a lot of ways the liberal Revolution was the capitalist Revolution. They’re an entire people that Define themselves by law order and property.
That’s not true, the critical analysis of the enlightenment overthrew the dominance of the church and suborned it to private property. There are several good liberal analysts and historians, in many cases Marxists depend on the analysis done by liberals. Liberalism is a scientific mindset.
But like Marx says in Theses on Feuerbach, as well as a lot of other places, the problem with enlightenment rationalism is it is too objective, like it turns everything, all relationships, all of nature, politics, history, and turns them into objects which have inherent qualities. As such there is a preference over “real” things that can be directly experienced. But as we know, capitalism delivers many false appearances which is where liberals get it wrong but Marxists, who see “things” as relationships created by human beings, can scientifically see much further and deeper than liberals. History appears to the liberal as an assortment of things, whereas to the Marxists we view history as relationships.
Dialectical materialism is a development on, and breaking with, the empirical, objective, enlightenment materialism that came before it. But the two share a common root, if not branch.
But I agree that 90% of liberal commentators are completely intellectually dishonest defenders of private property, and entrenched power; guys like Bret Stephens and Matty Ynglesias. Just completely dishonest grifters playing sophist games with history and events to justify class rule. Many academics like this as well, but I think in reality its more of a mixed bag.