You keep shifting the goal posts. I am talking about modern neo-Marxism, which is part and parcel with post-modern liberalism
I'm not shifting the goal posts lol, nice try. You said all modern radical leftists are neo-Marxists and that's just so patently not true it's almost ridiculous to indulge it with a response. Even then, neo-Marxism is not "part and parcel" with "post-modern" liberalism.
They are diametrically opposed systems of beliefs. Liberals are not on the left, "post-modernist" or otherwise. It's as simple as that. They adopt certain tenants from us while disagreeing that capitalism is inherently unsustainable and destructive. They think it can be tamed with regulations, stabilized, and made to benefit the people, we do not.
I don't have to explain the history of liberal philosophy
That's fine, I've already taken quite a few courses about political theory and philosophy. But then again, that was at a post-modern Neo-Marxist brainwashing center, so maybe you could grace me with the
real truth.
Neo-Marxism subjugates individual identity into group identity. Group identifiers take the place of individual autonomy. Notice how leftists proclaim their group identifiers whenever entering a conversation. Also notice how these qualifiers must always be assessed as part of whether or not a person's knowledge is deemed acceptable. Two people can say the exact same thing but one will be wrong and one will be right based on their group-isms.
Lot to unpack here. None of these statements really mean anything concrete. They're so sweeping and vague (presumably intentionally) that they're impossible to really address because I don't even know what the fuck you're actually talking about. They sound like they came from a Jordan Peterson quote generator. I have some ideas, but presumably any thread that I pursue will be met with "that's not what I met", which is a really standard argumentative tactic on the right. For someone who seems to love logic and precise language you're not really using any.
The only thing that immediately comes to mind that "Notice how leftists proclaim their group identifiers whenever entering a conversation" could possibly mean is preferred pronouns, which I mean if that's the case a person saying "actually I go by <nickname>" is doing the same thing. It's not a "group identifier", it's what they want to be called. Or do you mean people talking about their sexuality? Their ethnicity? What?
Ok, I think "Neo-Marxism subjugates individual identity into group identity" confuses individualism and individuality. No one on the left is saying that we need to be like the borg collective except black and trans. Pushing to collectivize ownership of the means of production and eliminate prejudice and bigotry does not imply the erasure of identity. This is slightly adjacent to the misconception that people on the left are pushing for equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. The former is obviously undesirable and unattainable. One of Marx's most famous quotes "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" fundamentally implies that human beings are naturally unequal and that they should contribute their unique talents and be provided with their individual needs.
"Also notice how these qualifiers must always be assessed as part of whether or not a person's knowledge is deemed acceptable" is presumably a misunderstanding of the idea that members of certain oppressed groups understand their own unique struggle better than people who aren't a part of those groups. That isn't to say that we can't talk about these issues, and no one legitimately thinks this. I can speak on black issues despite being white and women's issues despite probably not being one, I can recognize and fight against the subjugation of those in the developing world by imperialist nations like the US and China despite never having been to one. I just don't know
everything about these issues, and I'm not as intimately familiar with them as I am with issues pertaining to sexuality and gender identity, because those affect me personally every single day. All people ask is that you
listen to them, they aren't saying that what you think is less important, they might be saying that it's wrong, but it's not wrong
because you're who you are, it's wrong because it's wrong.
"Two people can say the exact same thing but one will be wrong and one will be right based on their group-isms.". Yeah this just doesn't happen. This is a sky is green and grass is blue type statement, there's no way to address it.
And just for fun:
For someone who values individuality above all else, you certainly do give a lot of credence to arbitrary and meaningless distinctions that society (a
collective) imposes on us. There is obviously, objectively a difference between sex and gender, and mom/dad obviously refer to gender, but even if you
don't believe that, which I'm going to go out on a limb and say you probably don't, why do you care so much what other people call themselves? Who are
you to say this? Are you a biologist? a psychologist? Sociologist? No, you're just someone who
feels something should be true. Reals over feels smh