Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
I view the centrality of class struggle to historical change as essential to Marxism, and so substituting race for class makes a theory non-Marxist. The fact that CRT uses a similar critical methodology to analyse society as Marxism doesn't on its own make it Marxist, although of course you can say it is influenced by Marxism, or has similarities to Marxism.
Until I started reading about the origins of CRT, and those responsible, I kinda had this same sentiment. I would often classify it as neo-marxism, as others had. I think there were a few of the founders whose goal was to repurpose/reframe Marxism into a different entity, or lens, which led to CRT creation. What's occured since is, people has embraced this repurposed/reframed version of it, as if its something different.
I can't ignore the parallels between how Marx describes the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat with how CRT proponents describe the relationships whites and POC. In essence, CRT are making a Marx based argument based on culture, rather than economics, which if you were a Marxist in the US, and you wanted to propagate the ideology, it would be a pretty good idea to rebrand (due to the negative views of communism that's prevalent in the US) and instead of focusing on economics, focus on race which was/is ripe for leveraging.
With all that said, whether we call it marxism, or marxist influenced, is not really that important, at least to me. The point is, it using methodology that has led to unimaginable destruction of human life.