@ArjinFerman's banner p

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 626

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 626

Verified Email

Can you point me to some instances of people self describing in that way from the 70s and 80s?

Emily Hicks, Richard R. Weiner, Douglas Kellner.

If those are decent nutshell descriptions then let’s take “oppressor/oppressed analysis” for instance. What’s the justification for calling that Marxist specifically?

That Cultural Marxists themselves thought that they are taking inspiration from Marx:

We are, in Marx's terms, "an ensemble of social relations" and we live our lives at the core of the intersection of a number of unequal social relations based on hierarchically interrelated structures which, together, define the historical specificity of the capitalist modes of production and reproduction and underlay their observable manifestations. ”

— Martha E. Gimenez, Marxism and Class, Gender and Race: Rethinking the Trilogy

I’ve heard this term bandied about for years but never directly encountered someone who uses it.

Because people were using it back in the 80's and maybe late 70's, and when the term started attracting too much negative attention, they promptly started pretending it's a conspiracy theory.

Also, "never met someone who uses the term directly" is an argument that's applied extremely selectively.

Most of the “applied cultural marxists” and postmodernists seem to outright reject Marx and any similarities in their thinking (e.g., oppressor and oppressed) seem to pre-date Marx.

Critical Theory proudly takes inspiration from both Marx and postmodernism.

Some potential meanings I’ve considered and discarded:

Those are fairly decent nutshell descriptions, and there's no reason to reject them.

I wouldn't say the US forced him to abdicate - he was couped in the 1970's by his Prime Minister. But if the question is "why did the US not put Zahir Shah on the throne as part of their policy of building not-the-Taliban?"

Then you'd be wrong, and that's not the question. They forced him to renounce all future claims the throne.

then per Wikipedia

Please, no.

That the US deep state still (wrongly) considered Pakistan an ally who might have a better sense of Afghan politics than they did was obvious if you were paying attention in the noughties.

Maybe, but given this, and the decision to rebuild Iraq as a democracy seems to indicate ideological commitment, and your theory that it was all cynical is far from obvious.

But what the US was actually doing in Afghanistan was spending two trillion dollars to (unsuccessfully) spread not-the-Taliban,

So why did they force the king of Afghanistan to abdicate, instead if putting him on the throne?