LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Thermodolia]

"Marxists have overrun academia"

Read: "People who study things tend to be more leftist than I'm comfortable with and that makes me mad!"

Marxism is shit leftism anyway.

[Painisia]

I wonder why Ba`athism has never succeeded in the Arab world? Maybe its appeal wasn't strong enough or there were too many differences among the Arab people

[Ostroeuropa]

Marxists have long since overrun academia though, that's a matter of historical fact and the consequences have been largely negative. Plenty of people blame the death of the post-war consensus and welfare state on the right wing, but it was the Marxists and the new left who guaranteed its demise by working in collaboration with the new right to undermine it and the consensus it represented.

Over a period of about ten years we went from most left wing academics and officials supporting the continuation and expansion of the welfare state, to them insisting it was only there to prop up capitalism, and undesirable compromise, and so on, doing practically zero work to defend it or encourage people to defend it, no longer educating people on how to determine where welfare is needed, how to apply it and so on, but indoctrinating them with ideas wholly critical and negative about capitalism and the welfare state, thereby instead winding everyone up with their ideological dogmatism (Which has no useful application in terms of fixing societies problems) from their positions of authority and putting out tonnes of negative shit about how the welfare state was a failure and flawed, often their work was co-opted by the right wing to argue the state is inferior to the free market at providing services.

That's the history of the thing. The reason the welfare state ended up receding is that the number of people on the front lines for its continuation and expansion collapsed due to Marxists taking over the left wing. In return we got maybe 1/10th as many people actively in favor of outright replacing capitalism. The marxists also began the idpol shit and its anti-male tendencies due to their class conflict mentality meaning they routinely misdiagnose social problems and polarize things around a dysfunctional understanding of the world.

Both Marxists and Neoliberals took advantage of economic slowdown in the 70s to begin dismantling the welfare state consensus for their own purposes, both driven by ideological dogmatism and therefore hostility to the welfare state and its non-ideological consensus, and the victims have been the working classes and poor.
The application of Marxist mentalities to demographic politics have also been negative in terms of progress compared to alternatives.

For the same reason the post-war consensus and its Academic regime was criticized and overrun by Marxists, the new Marxist regime should be overthrown and their academics marginalized (I.E, it causes demographic inequality from its isolation on the basis of sex and race, it has only defended and furthered the interests of capital and wealth inequality and failed to mount a substantive offence against it.) along with the additional charges that it has polarized society by pushing a conflict mentality on the unfounded assumption that the poor would win such a conflict and no compromise was acceptable or desirable. (Hows that going, by the way?)

The things the Marxists said they could do better than the Fabians they have utterly failed at, and have been worse in practice. That is enough to say they are illegitimate since those things were the basis of their taking over.

It also appears that the new consensus is being built (I.E, the things the new right and the new left are normalizing as a thing supported broadly by both the left and the right establishment), the Marxist-Neoliberal consensus, that focuses on progressive Idpol and neoliberal capitalism, and we've seen how toxic and dysfunctional that is, as well as the sexist, racist, and classist results of it.

The same way, and for the same reasons (racism, sexism, failure to help the poor, demonstrable empirical failure of their model for understanding reality and fixing problems) Marxists drove out the post-war consensus crowd, the marxists must be driven out.

jesus christ ostro this is a bit daft tbh

How so?
It's a matter of fact and taught as much in social policy that there was a substantial shift in terms of the make up in academia and what the consequences were.
The collapse of the butskellite consensus and the rise of the new left and the new right and so on.

The consequences for that are in front of us for all to see.

"Marxists have overrun academia"

Read: "People who study things tend to be more leftist than I'm comfortable with and that makes me mad!"

Marxism is not the only form of leftism and we're specifically discussing how Marxists replaced Fabians and their tenure has resulted in worse outcomes. Pretending Marxism is the only form of left wing thinking is ridiculous. It's noteworthy that Marxists replaced "What matters is what works" as a governing principle of social policy with ideological assertions and dogmatism. You aren't further left if you're talking a bunch of nonsense that doesn't actually improve the lives of the poor and working classes. I was very specific in my criticism and you're just throwing out thought-terminating cliches rather than engage with the point.

Marxists have long since overrun academia though, that's a matter of historical fact and the consequences have been largely negative. Plenty of people blame the death of the post-war consensus and welfare state on the right wing, but it was the Marxists and the new left who guaranteed its demise by working in collaboration with the new right to undermine it and the consensus it represented.

As someone who has been a full-time professor since 1985 (part-time since 1980), I can tell you that what you said is incorrect. The only departments which are sometimes dominated by Marxists are sociology departments. In my sociology department, we have 5 full-time faculty. All of us are Marxists. Two of us are committed communists. The five of us are also the only Marxists at the college.

I'm discussing the UK and political academia, not necessarily academia in general, (Economics, social policy, and so on) I could have been more specific.

[Bakery Hill]

It's hard to know where to start, but 1) the collapse of the welfare state had nothing to do with Marxist professors. The intellgentsia don't make history, they are pulled along by it. 2) Even if they did, there has never been a "neoliberal-Marxist consensus" to suggest so is ludicrous and ignorant of both schools of thought 3) Marxists are now more than ever marginalised in most fields of academic study, they have done next to nothing to shift ideological hegemony in the past 40 years.

I am known to be the Anti-Academic by the Esteemed Professor who refuses to speak to me for this reason. But the rise of this Jordan Peterson style pseudo-academic attack on Marxist academia is really one of the stupider things I've seen in modern political culture.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's hard to know where to start, but 1) the collapse of the welfare state had nothing to do with Marxist professors. The intellgentsia don't make history, they are pulled along by it. 2) Even if they did, there has never been a "neoliberal-Marxist consensus" to suggest so is ludicrous and ignorant of both schools of thought 3) Marxists are now more than ever marginalised in most fields of academic study, they have done next to nothing to shift ideological hegemony in the past 40 years.

I am known to be the Anti-Academic by the Esteemed Professor who refuses to speak to me for this reason. But the rise of this Jordan Peterson style pseudo-academic attack on Marxist academia is really one of the stupider things I've seen in modern political culture.

1) Absolutely not the case and admitted as much in social policy. The collapse of the welfare state was in part due to Marxist professors and the shift in focus in academia. The shift from training up people to serve the welfare state and its expansion toward ideological criticism directly impacted the number of people trained and qualified to research reasons for its expansion and in to what areas, as well as changed the focus of society. The simultaneous assault on the welfare state by both Marxists and Neoliberals/Neoconservatives who rejected it on principle because it represented compromise on their vision of an economy is what brought about its downfall. The lack of defending the welfare state on its own terms and for its own values, the lack of institutions and academics and organizations doing so, was directly due to Marxists changing the focus of the left wing when it became the new left, allowing the new right to more easily attack it. The new right also appropriated Marxist work to argue the state was flawed and racist/sexist which markets wouldn't be.

2) Disagree. We're seeing the areas they are prepared to have consensus on in front of us as mainstream politics becomes more solidified.

3) Disagree. Thew new left is marxist in origin, character, and nature. I can go grab some references for you if you want. They have merely shifted away from a focus on class. Neo-marxism may be a more accurate characterization if you absolutely insist a marxist should focus on class. They use Marxism as a system of thought and framework for understanding issues. It's not necessarily "communism". (They view society as competing groups in a struggle for their own interests, pitched against eachother, and view society in terms of oppressor and oppressed and so on.)

[Bakery Hill]

Your understanding of neoliberalism is the issue here.

Neoliberalism is a set of economic policies that arose because the political elites in the West were faced with a choice during the great crisis of the 70s, when Keynesianism was discredited. Redistribute profits from the workers back to the owners or face economic ruin under an economic system reliant on private enterprise. To the political elites this was barely a choice.

This neoliberalism, a return to old school laissez-faire capitalism came to inform pretty much every major political party because of this fact. Marxist professors agitating for worker control had absolutely nothing to do with the collapse of the welfare state. The welfare state had to be destroyed because capital demanded it.

Neoliberalism was the ideology of Thatcher, Clinton, Reagan, Blair, Keating, Howard, Mulrooney etc. it has no position on social policy. Neoliberalism loves law and order and family values. Neoliberalism loves bleeding hearts and LGBT rights. Neoliberalism hates all of these things when it needs because under neoliberalism the role of the state is to support the market.

To suggest that a cabal of Marxist professors are even backing these policies makes no sense and there is no evidence for it. To suggest that they are they the ones responsible for the state of society today is beyond ridiculous.

[Ostroeuropa]

Your understanding of neoliberalism is the issue here.

Neoliberalism is a set of economic policies that arose because the political elites in the West were faced with a choice during the great crisis of the 70s, when Keynesianism was discredited. Redistribute profits from the workers back to the owners or face economic ruin under an economic system reliant on private enterprise. To the political elites this was barely a choice.

This neoliberalism, a return to old school laissez-faire capitalism came to inform pretty much every major political party because of this fact. Marxist professors agitating for worker control had absolutely nothing to do with the collapse of the welfare state. The welfare state had to be destroyed because capital demanded it.

Neoliberalism was the ideology of Thatcher, Clinton, Reagan, Blair, Keating, Howard, Mulrooney etc. it has no position on social policy. Neoliberalism loves law and order and family values. Neoliberalism loves bleeding hearts and LGBT rights. Neoliberalism hates all of these things when it needs because under neoliberalism the role of the state is to support the market.

To suggest that a cabal of Marxist professors are even backing these policies makes no sense and there is no evidence for it. To suggest that they are they the ones responsible for the state of society today is beyond ridiculous.

I'm not denying the right wing played a part, but you're ignoring the role of the new left in assisting in bringing about the downfall of the welfare state. Instead of the new right having to face institutions and organizations of people dedicated to the defense and expansion of the welfare state and who were educated and trained to operate with that agenda in mind and to justify it in economic terms, that simply wasn't there anymore because the left wing stopped educating people to think that way and operate with that agenda in mind.

[Bakery Hill]

In brief reply to your other post, if you don't centre class in your analysis and practice you are simply not a Marxist. You can't just read all of Marx and decided you want capitalism with McSafeSpaces for oppressed groups and be called a Marxist.

The other central point is that academia is simply not driving this to the level you think it is. Don't believe their talk about how important they are, matters of power come first, and when the men at the top need it, they'll go to a favourite academic to justify what they are already doing. The Third Way existed before Anthony Giddens, socialism and communism existed before Marx or any the utopian socalists, capitalism existed before Adam Smith. Academia is always describing events and tentatively prescribing various futures. If you are looking for a conspiracy I would advise you don't look there.

[Communist Xomaniax]

ostro you might do with showing some evidence to support your claims

[Bakery Hill]

Your understanding of neoliberalism is the issue here.

Neoliberalism is a set of economic policies that arose because the political elites in the West were faced with a choice during the great crisis of the 70s, when Keynesianism was discredited. Redistribute profits from the workers back to the owners or face economic ruin under an economic system reliant on private enterprise. To the political elites this was barely a choice.

This neoliberalism, a return to old school laissez-faire capitalism came to inform pretty much every major political party because of this fact. Marxist professors agitating for worker control had absolutely nothing to do with the collapse of the welfare state. The welfare state had to be destroyed because capital demanded it.

Neoliberalism was the ideology of Thatcher, Clinton, Reagan, Blair, Keating, Howard, Mulrooney etc. it has no position on social policy. Neoliberalism loves law and order and family values. Neoliberalism loves bleeding hearts and LGBT rights. Neoliberalism hates all of these things when it needs because under neoliberalism the role of the state is to support the market.

To suggest that a cabal of Marxist professors are even backing these policies makes no sense and there is no evidence for it. To suggest that they are they the ones responsible for the state of society today is beyond ridiculous.

I'm not denying the right wing played a part, but you're ignoring the role of the new left in assisting in bringing about the downfall of the welfare state. Instead of the new right having to face institutions and organizations of people dedicated to the defense and expansion of the welfare state and who were educated and trained to operate with that agenda in mind and to justify it in economic terms, that simply wasn't there anymore because the left wing stopped educating people to think that way and operate with that agenda in mind.

I don't know what you're talking about. Marxists denounced the welfare state as an unsustainable half measure, a compromise between capital and labour that would be rolled back whenever the opportunity arose, which proved to be correct. Then when the neoliberal assault started against the welfare state, Marxists were on the front lines defending the gains workers had made.

[Ostroeuropa]

(Quotes from sections of "Social policy in Britain, 4th edition". Bracketted is me providing context.)

Influential though these criticisms (Titmuss and other Fabian critics) were in questioning the success of the welfare state in meeting all of the goals of its Fabian protagonists, they remained to some extent within the overall Fabian framework of academic and political debate that continued to dominate social policy...

...By the 1970s however changes in Britain's welfare capitalist economy were beginning to create the climate for a challenge to the assumed desirability of the maintenance and gradual expansion of the post-war welfar state; and more critical voices were beginning to develop within social policy to challenge the Fabian domination of debate and research...

The late 1960s and 1970s was a period of reinaissance for Marxist and other radical debate within the social sciences in most welfare capitalist countries, refered to by many of the leading protagonists as the new left...

Marxist theorizing covered a range of different, disputed approaches to social structure and social policy but in general there was an agreement among many that the achievement of the welfare state in Britain and the consensus on the gradual and linear growth of welfare and state provision were neither successful nor desirable, as had previously been assumed...

Marxists argued that the welfare state had not succeeded in solving the social problems of those in poverty and the working classes and, in practice, operated to support capitalism...

the new left critics challenged the theoretical assumptions of the post-war consensus and the welfare state, arguing for a conflict model that saw welfare reforms as the product of class struggle and compromise rather than enlightenment.

[Ostroeuropa]

In brief reply to your other post, if you don't centre class in your analysis and practice you are simply not a Marxist. You can't just read all of Marx and decided you want capitalism with McSafeSpaces for oppressed groups and be called a Marxist.

The other central point is that academia is simply not driving this to the level you think it is. Don't believe their talk about how important they are, matters of power come first, and when the men at the top need it, they'll go to a favourite academic to justify what they are already doing. The Third Way existed before Anthony Giddens, socialism and communism existed before Marx or any the utopian socalists, capitalism existed before Adam Smith. Academia is always describing events and tentatively prescribing various futures. If you are looking for a conspiracy I would advise you don't look there.

It's not a conspiracy and i'm not alleging one. I'm alleging dogmatism and insularity in an institution when it became overrun with such people caused negative consequences.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm not denying the right wing played a part, but you're ignoring the role of the new left in assisting in bringing about the downfall of the welfare state. Instead of the new right having to face institutions and organizations of people dedicated to the defense and expansion of the welfare state and who were educated and trained to operate with that agenda in mind and to justify it in economic terms, that simply wasn't there anymore because the left wing stopped educating people to think that way and operate with that agenda in mind.

I don't know what you're talking about. Marxists denounced the welfare state as an unsustainable half measure, a compromise between capital and labour that would be rolled back whenever the opportunity arose, which proved to be correct. Then when the neoliberal assault started against the welfare state, Marxists were on the front lines defending the gains workers had made.

I disagree. Marxists were there crowing about class struggle. You even fall into their mindset here by framing it in terms of "gains workers made" rather than "institutions to fight evils in society." like the fabians did. They did nothing to defend the welfare state on its own terms in its own framework and from the perspective of the Fabians who created and expanded it (To destroy the five evils). That's the problem i'm discussing.

The shift in ideological framework and thus method for understanding and explaining reality meant the Marxists were not capable nor prepared to defend the gains workers had made under Fabianism. When they stopped arguing and advancing in Fabian terms and switched to Marxist ones, they became incoherent, class war driven, and unconvincing to the masses as well as undesirable to support.

When we used Fabianism as a framework and argued on that basis, the welfare state expanded and kept expanding, even in the face of people arguing Neoliberal and borderline an-cap stuff. It was easy to justify, to research arguments in support of, and to convince institutions and the public of its merits. Under Fabianism, the welfare state grew, because the framework was conducive to that happening. Under Marxism, that trend rapidly reversed because we were not using arguments or frameworks capable of sustaining a welfare state, but instead ones built around the goal of class war. Fabianism made a welfare state because that was the goal of the framework. Marxism made a class war because that is the goal, and the poor are losing it. When you try to use Marxism to get the results Fabianism produces, that won't work. It's like trying to use pumpkin seeds to grow roses.

It doesn't matter if Marxists were there "defending" things, the shift in ideologies is precisely what i'm criticizing and their inability to produce results. They are crap at defending it because their worldview is not very good. The inability to produce results from applying their framework is precisely what Marxists used to displace the Fabians, and its what should be used to displace the Marxists.

What has been the result of Marxism being tried and implemented?
It's uniformly shit and the left is in shambles. We need to get rid of them.

Another result of Marxist thinking is the class conflict model that denies protections to those outside the groups they define as oppressed, whereas a Fabian approach was dedicated to eliminating societal evils, Marxism is dedicated to conflict between groups. The way we think about problems has changed, and it has been for the worse.

When you organize society and its political conversation around conflict between groups instead of the elimination of suffering, this is the kind of society that results. The fundamental flaw in marxism is the same kind of nasty social darwinian tendency that defines the new right, rather than striving for solidarity against humanities enemies.

[Bakery Hill]

I'm finding it hard to understand your argument because you're not really engaging mine.

For clarity are you saying that the welfare state primarily failed because Marxists in academia adopted a Marxist critique of the welfare state? That they should have defended the welfare state while opposing privatisation instead of frankly telling the truth about the welfare state while opposing privatisation? How did that change any outcome?

That makes no sense to me, but for the life of me I don't understand why you're concentrating so much on economics and sociology departments of certain universities as the driving factor behind the destruction of the welfare state and not 1) global macro-economic changes 2) careerist politicians in major political parties 3) insufficient union organisation and perspective.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm finding it hard to understand your argument because you're not really engaging mine.

For clarity are you saying that the welfare state primarily failed because Marxists in academia adopted a Marxist critique of the welfare state? That they should have defended the welfare state while opposing privatisation instead of frankly telling the truth about the welfare state while opposing privatisation? How did that change any outcome?

That makes no sense to me, but for the life of me I don't understand why you're concentrating so much on economics and sociology departments of certain universities as the driving factor behind the destruction of the welfare state and not 1) global macro-economic changes 2) careerist politicians in major political parties 3) insufficient union organisation and perspective.

Not primarily, i'd say it was a necessary factor, but not sufficient. The other factors leading to the reduction of the welfare state could not have worked in the context of the left wing being united behind it and arguing for it in the terms that it had always been argued for.

I'm saying the ideology, the method of thinking and arguing, organizing around those principles and ways of viewing the world, that? It has results, measurable ones, and they are negative in comparison to those that came before.

This, basically:

I don't know what you're talking about. Marxists denounced the welfare state as an unsustainable half measure, a compromise between capital and labour that would be rolled back whenever the opportunity arose, which proved to be correct. Then when the neoliberal assault started against the welfare state, Marxists were on the front lines defending the gains workers had made.

I disagree. Marxists were there crowing about class struggle. You even fall into their mindset here by framing it in terms of "gains workers made" rather than "institutions to fight evils in society." like the fabians did. They did nothing to defend the welfare state on its own terms in its own framework and from the perspective of the Fabians who created and expanded it (To destroy the five evils). That's the problem i'm discussing.

The shift in ideological framework and thus method for understanding and explaining reality meant the Marxists were not capable nor prepared to defend the gains workers had made under Fabianism. When they stopped arguing and advancing in Fabian terms and switched to Marxist ones, they became incoherent, class war driven, and unconvincing to the masses as well as undesirable to support.

When we used Fabianism as a framework and argued on that basis, the welfare state expanded and kept expanding, even in the face of people arguing Neoliberal and borderline an-cap stuff (See the attempts in US and UK to advance neoliberal conservatism and the wipeout elections that resulted from it). It was easy to justify, to research arguments in support of, and to convince institutions and the public of its merits. Under Fabianism, the welfare state grew, because the framework was conducive to that happening. Under Marxism, that trend rapidly reversed because we were not using arguments or frameworks capable of sustaining a welfare state, but instead ones built around the goal of class war. Fabianism made a welfare state because that was the goal of the framework. Marxism made a class war because that is the goal, and the poor are losing it. When you try to use Marxism to get the results Fabianism produces, that won't work. It's like trying to use pumpkin seeds to grow roses.

It doesn't matter if Marxists were there "defending" things, the shift in ideologies is precisely what i'm criticizing and their inability to produce results. They are crap at defending it because their worldview is not very good. The inability to produce results from applying their framework is precisely what Marxists used to displace the Fabians, and its what should be used to displace the Marxists.

What has been the result of Marxism being tried and implemented?
It's uniformly shit and the left is in shambles. We need to get rid of them.

Another result of Marxist thinking is the class conflict model that denies protections to those outside the groups they define as oppressed, whereas a Fabian approach was dedicated to eliminating societal evils, Marxism is dedicated to conflict between groups. The way we think about problems has changed, and it has been for the worse.

When you organize society and its political conversation around conflict between groups instead of the elimination of suffering, this is the kind of society that results. The fundamental flaw in marxism is the same kind of nasty social darwinian tendency that defines the new right, rather than striving for solidarity against humanities enemies.

[Cekoviu]

There's only one Trotskyist in the American government that I can think of, and she's only a city councilor.

Who's that?

iirc she's from seattle

[Ostroeuropa]

Lemme see if I can frame it in a way to make what i'm saying easier to understand.

If in the immediate aftermath of gay marriage, the institutions and organizations dedicated to advancing gay rights abandoned their previous models and started saying "We need to protect gay marriage so we can summon Satan to earth, and that's a good thing."

the resulting destruction of Gay marriage would be due to the theocrats winning, much like the neoliberals, but the reason they become able to win is that the proponents of the model started arguing for something undesirable, using a system of understanding the problem that is antithetical to why the solution to it existed in the first place.

When Marxists started framing the conversation around conflict, they doomed the welfare state, a collaborative project.

[Bakery Hill]

What? So you are arguing if there less Marxists on the left and more Fabians, the welfare state wouldn't have fallen apart? It'd make more sense if you looked at the Fabians. They're entirely neoliberal, they helped sketch out the ideological foundations of New Labour in the 90s.

[Ostroeuropa]

What? So you are arguing if there less Marxists on the left and more Fabians, the welfare state wouldn't have fallen apart? It'd make more sense if you looked at the Fabians. They're entirely neoliberal, they helped sketch out the ideological foundations of New Labour in the 90s.

More Gaitskellites. Modern Fabians might be that, but that is not the original character of them nor the character of them for their most notable achievements.

[Bakery Hill]

Lemme see if I can frame it in a way to make what i'm saying easier to understand.

If in the immediate aftermath of gay marriage, the institutions and organizations dedicated to advancing gay rights abandoned their previous models and started saying "We need to protect gay marriage so we can summon Satan to earth, and that's a good thing."

the resulting destruction of Gay marriage would be due to the theocrats winning, much like the neoliberals, but the reason they become able to win is that the proponents of the model started arguing for something undesirable, using a system of understanding the problem that is antithetical to why it existed in the first place.

When Marxists started framing the conversation around conflict, they doomed the welfare state, a collaborative project.

The conversation was always around class war, it was around class war before there was really Marxism and long before there was a welfare state.

Western capital could simply not afford a welfare state during the 70s and 80s. That is why it was destroyed, it wasn't because Marxists overreached. All the progressive middle class kumbayah-ing in the world can't alter that economic fact. The welfare state was doomed to failure and many of the people that predicted how and why it would fail were Marxists.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I'm not convinced that a surging influence of hardline Marxist academicism had a substantial role in the rolling back of the social democratic welfare state.

It was more about the declining influence of the hard left as a political force as it became clear that the threat of revolution in Western Europe had truly passed. This was mainly because of the formalisation of the Cold War boundaries and the by-necessity gradual moderation of former communists following their post WW2 orders to engage in politics on a democratic basis only (the "Eurocommunist" strategy).

With the loss of a plausible threat of revolution, big business could invest in and lobby conservative parties towards a classical liberal economics that served their interests without needing to fret about their heads ending up on spikes when the old settlement, arising from the feeling of social solidarity brought about by war, was dismantled.

The left threw all its eggs into the Soviet basket case and in doing so turned the red flag into a white one. The academics didn't fire the shot, the Soviet Union instructed their puppets in the West to shoot themselves and the internationalist fools did it.

[Ostroeuropa]

Lemme see if I can frame it in a way to make what i'm saying easier to understand.

If in the immediate aftermath of gay marriage, the institutions and organizations dedicated to advancing gay rights abandoned their previous models and started saying "We need to protect gay marriage so we can summon Satan to earth, and that's a good thing."

the resulting destruction of Gay marriage would be due to the theocrats winning, much like the neoliberals, but the reason they become able to win is that the proponents of the model started arguing for something undesirable, using a system of understanding the problem that is antithetical to why it existed in the first place.

When Marxists started framing the conversation around conflict, they doomed the welfare state, a collaborative project.

The conversation was always around class war, it was around class war before there was really Marxism and long before there was a welfare state.

Western capital could simply not afford a welfare state during the 70s and 80s. That is why it was destroyed, it wasn't because Marxists overreached. All the progressive middle class kumbayah-ing in the world can't alter that economic fact. The welfare state was doomed to failure and many of the people that predicted how and why it would fail were Marxists.

That was a major factor yes. I'm not denying it was a factor. I'm merely also advancing the argument that another reason was that the attempted defense of the welfare state was made incoherent and incongruous to the ideas and narratives that grew and supported it.
I'm also alleging the shift to marxist models of thinking has led to other societal problems and failures in terms of social policy, most notably on mens issues.
(We should fix social problems, how do we fix poverty, how do we fix X, how do we fix domestic violence ---> We need to uplift women in their demographic conflict)

I'm not convinced that a surging influence of hardline Marxist academicism had a substantial role in the rolling back of the social democratic welfare state.

It was more about the declining influence of the hard left as a political force as it became clear that the threat of revolution in Western Europe had truly passed. This was mainly because of the formalisation of the Cold War boundaries and the by-necessity gradual moderation of former communists following their post WW2 orders to engage in politics on a democratic basis only (the "Eurocommunist" strategy).

With the loss of a plausible threat of revolution, big business could invest in and lobby conservative parties towards a classical liberal economics that served their interests without needing to fret about their heads ending up on spikes when the old settlement, arising from the feeling of social solidarity brought about by war, was dismantled.

The left threw all its eggs into the Soviet basket case and in doing so turned the red flag into a white one. The academics didn't fire the shot, the Soviet Union instructed their puppets in the West to shoot themselves and the internationalist fools did it.

This too was a factor.

[Bakery Hill]

I'm not convinced that a surging influence of hardline Marxist academicism had a substantial role in the rolling back of the social democratic welfare state.

It was more about the declining influence of the hard left as a political force as it became clear that the threat of revolution in Western Europe had truly passed. This was mainly because of the formalisation of the Cold War boundaries and the by-necessity gradual moderation of former communists following their post WW2 orders to engage in politics on a democratic basis only (the "Eurocommunist" strategy).

With the loss of a plausible threat of revolution, big business could invest in and lobby conservative parties towards a classical liberal economics that served their interests without needing to fret about their heads ending up on spikes when the old settlement, arising from the feeling of social solidarity brought about by war, was dismantled.

The left threw all its eggs into the Soviet basket case and in doing so turned the red flag into a white one. The academics didn't fire the shot, the Soviet Union instructed their puppets in the West to shoot themselves and the internationalist fools did it.

These are some good points. But I would say the reasons are primarily economic. And while during the 90s the lack of the Soviet Union certainly gave international capital more free rein, this started in the late 70s when the Soviets were still a major threat.

The fact is that everyone backed Keynesianism until stagflation. That was mainstream economic thought. And then suddenly the economy is acting in a way that the books say is contradictory. You can't have inflation and stagnation at the same time? What's going on? And now there's workers on strike and unemployment is on the rise and crime is going up and our profits are way fucking down and we're in serious shit here fuck okay let's give these Chicago boys a crack at it.

[Bakery Hill]

The conversation was always around class war, it was around class war before there was really Marxism and long before there was a welfare state.

Western capital could simply not afford a welfare state during the 70s and 80s. That is why it was destroyed, it wasn't because Marxists overreached. All the progressive middle class kumbayah-ing in the world can't alter that economic fact. The welfare state was doomed to failure and many of the people that predicted how and why it would fail were Marxists.

That was a major factor yes. I'm not denying it was a factor. I'm merely also advancing the argument that another reason was that the attempted defense of the welfare state was made incoherent and incongruous to the ideas and narratives that grew and supported it.
I'm also alleging the shift to marxist models of thinking has led to other societal problems and failures in terms of social policy, most notably on mens issues.

Well fundamentally the welfare state couldn't be defended because it was unworkable. From that point full employment, good services and an industrial economy were totally incompatible with capitalism from the late 70s crisis, regardless of whether Marxists coherently defended it in whatever debates they had at universities.

[Ostroeuropa]

That was a major factor yes. I'm not denying it was a factor. I'm merely also advancing the argument that another reason was that the attempted defense of the welfare state was made incoherent and incongruous to the ideas and narratives that grew and supported it.
I'm also alleging the shift to marxist models of thinking has led to other societal problems and failures in terms of social policy, most notably on mens issues.

Well fundamentally the welfare state couldn't be defended because it was unworkable. From that point full employment, good services and an industrial economy were totally incompatible with capitalism from the late 70s crisis, regardless of whether Marxists coherently defended it in whatever debates they had at universities.

What we have now doesn't seem much more workable.