You, like most left-liberals, are over-focused on language and its epiphenomena (values, morality, etc.) and insufficiently focused on a material analysis of social relations within society. I am reminded of Marx, commenting on the "radicals" of his day:
Liberalism (whether left or right - liberalism as the religion of the capitalist age) cannot admit to a materialist analysis of society. It can, occasionally, use pseudo-materislist analyses that postulate social relations that do not actually exist (as one finds in conspiracy theories,anti-establishment populism, etc.), but it can never actually center the real forces of relation within society- Capital.
You conceive, again, of Marxism as a prescriptive moral doctrine, that is, as a liberal doctrine. It isn't. Marxism is descriptive.
For example: what would it mean for FDR or Biden to "fail"? What would a fail-state be for someone whose function is preserve and extend Capital, other than the abolition of capitalism?
Quote:Since the Young Hegelians consider conceptions, thoughts, ideas, in fact all the products of consciousness, to which they attribute an independent existence, as the real chains of men (just as the Old Hegelians declared them the true bonds of human society) it is evident that the Young Hegelians have to fight only against these illusions of consciousness. Since, according to their fantasy, the relationships of men, all their doings, their chains and their limitations are products of their consciousness, the Young Hegelians logically put to men the moral postulate of exchanging their present consciousness for human, critical or egoistic consciousness, and thus of removing their limitations. This demand to change consciousness amounts to a demand to interpret reality in another way, i.e. to recognise it by means of another interpretation. The Young-Hegelian ideologists, in spite of their allegedly “world-shattering" statements, are the staunchest conservatives. The most recent of them have found the correct expression for their activity when they declare they are only fighting against “phrases.” They forget, however, that to these phrases they themselves are only opposing other phrases, and that they are in no way combating the real existing world when they are merely combating the phrases of this world.
Liberalism (whether left or right - liberalism as the religion of the capitalist age) cannot admit to a materialist analysis of society. It can, occasionally, use pseudo-materislist analyses that postulate social relations that do not actually exist (as one finds in conspiracy theories,anti-establishment populism, etc.), but it can never actually center the real forces of relation within society- Capital.
You conceive, again, of Marxism as a prescriptive moral doctrine, that is, as a liberal doctrine. It isn't. Marxism is descriptive.
For example: what would it mean for FDR or Biden to "fail"? What would a fail-state be for someone whose function is preserve and extend Capital, other than the abolition of capitalism?
