I heard that Jones Manoel wrote the preface to the new Portuguese edition which was worrying and so I downloaded a PDF copy and skimmed it.
If you don’t know MWM is a patsoc ‘institute’, and though they try very hard to appear serious and legit they fail at that and endlessly trail behind other patsocs, namely a twitter celebrity and a twitch streamer. Must feel bad.
My thoughts are that… I don’t know who this book is for? The complete title is The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism, but it doesn’t really talk about Western Marxism as a movement. The author expects you to be familiar with western marxism already, i.e. having the same definition he does, and he never really expands on it. I mean, the introduction opens with the words “Western Marxism” and the definition of which is relegated to a huge footnote that honestly doesn’t really say much.
He essentially expects the reader to be familiar with the subject matter already, leading me to ask again: who is this book for? It doesn’t seem to try and revolutionize western marxism, so it’s not addressed to them to get them to change their views. It doesn’t seem to try and do anything really new, so I’m not even sure it gives arguments to people that are opposed to western marxism. If I’m already opposed to western marxism then I don’t need more arguments to convince me of it. And finally it doesn’t even try to excise possible remnants of western marxism in the reader?
It reads more like bourgeois philosophy. Needlessly complicated, expecting you to be familiar with the subject matter before you read the book, and being an exercise in showing the reader just how much the author knows and has read.
But don’t fear, because every little bit is cited… with no more explanation. If you want to learn more about the “Hitlerite forces [who] would have been able to – as the West expected (and hoped) – trample over the ‘Judeo-Bolshevik’ menace, destroying the first worker state and the notion that working class people could, indeed, rule themselves”, you will have to get a copy of Losurdo’s Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend because this is not explored at all in this book. I haven’t read Losurdo yet but I have to wonder if he was as roundabout in his writing as Carlos is.
The introduction, which I’m only talking about now, starts with a comparison to The Great Gatsby, which again I’m not sure is doing here. Is it to make the subject content more relatable, by comparing it to a book most people had to read in high school? It just feels haphazard and out of topic, especially as the author promptly goes into Zeno, Aristotle, Plato, Hegel, Engels, and even Darwin just to explain dialectics, because somehow western marxism’s false dialectics are rectified with overly unbearable dialectics. He’s not dethroning Politzer any time soon.
It offers no historical examples, no clear definitions and topical explorations, instead laying out a bunch of broadly-connected segues from one topic to the next, relying on a definition of ‘western marxism’ that will certainly speak to many people, but is never once established.
I’m including the whole page so you can judge for yourself, but this is where the author speaks for the first time about Adorno and Horkheimer. He expects you to be familiar with them and everything around them – the time period they wrote in, what they wrote about, who for, etc. The job of the writer is to persuade the audience. If you’re starting from the premise that we’re already persuaded, then, again, who is your book for?
The author insists that the two were western marxists, with claims such as:
This same duo, today promoted as Marxism par excellence in the academy, supported the US’s barbaric invasion of Vietnam with the sort of rhetoric commonly heard from the most far-right elements of US politics.
But why? Why is it important that they did that, and why did they do that? Why does academia today uphold them as ‘marxism par excellence’? Why is it important for the reader to know about them? Why did you choose to mention them – clearly you had a reason to pick these two over other examples?
We never get an answer. Instead, he segues into his next point like so:
The paradox here is that, on the subject of the Soviet system, the CIA was itself to the ‘left’ of these ‘Marxists.’ As a 1955 CIA document, accessible thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, says
Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team.[68]
The only link between his first and second point is the CIA. There’s no more explanation. This is word association; the CIA was mentioned in point 1, so we can mention it in point 2. But the two arguments are so different as to not be connected at all.
When I ask who is this book for, there is perhaps the beginning of an answer later on:
But, this is enough for one session and I will maybe look at all of this later in a second post. There’s also a whole chapter on China.
It’s actually interesting that this book has been translated to Portuguese (I assume for the Brazilian audience) because… I really can’t tell who this is for. Who will this speak to in Brazil. Who in Brazil will be familiar with The Great Gatsby and also care about US problems. To be honest I think they just wanted to show off on this with the Jones Manoel preface. Just like they show off with all the citations from Rockhill, Hegel, Parenti (which he cites more than 7 times almost consecutively), Prashad, etc. Very basic patsoc tactic complemented by the usual Dugin mysticism of being so broad and vague you can be interpreted in many different ways.
As the cherry on top, this book is 143 pages long in its official PDF format, including the references index at the end (of which there are over 200), and the word ‘purity’ appears 154 times – a little bit over one instance per page!
If you’ve ever listened to any of Haz’s streams, this seems to have his fingerprints all over it, such that I wouldn’t be surprised if he wrote sections of it. I used to check him out back in the day, because despite all his faults, he had a real knowledge of Marx and Hegel, and he would often come up with interesting interpretations – and even, at times, some genuinely good material analysis. Then his worst tendencies caught up with him, and he started spouting nothing but rightist nonsense and pseudo-intellectual word salad.
My sense of that whole group is that Caleb Maupin acted on them as a kind of moderating and grounding force, and that when they broke from him, they lost all connection with reality. This is because whatever his faults (and they’re many), Maupin does have actual experience in non-online activism/organizing, and has actually travelled and seen the various countries he talks about. When Infrared/MWM/ACP/whatever its current incarnation is was just the media wing of CPI, they were somewhat of a serious political organization. Now they’re just LaRouchite breadtube.
My thoughts are that… I don’t know who this book is for? The complete title is The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism, but it doesn’t really talk about Western Marxism as a movement. The author expects you to be familiar with western marxism already, i.e. having the same definition he does, and he never really expands on it.
This is pretty common among conservative books (and other media more generally). It’s produced to give people who already agree with it confirmation that they are right (“It’s in this very authoritative book!”), not to convince anyone or convey new or interesting information.
I will say however that certainly there might be tidbits of information that one learns for the first time in this book. Like some examples of Adorno being in bed with the CIA, or some of the stuff Zizek has said in the past. I just don’t think it’s very representative of anything broader, and that most readers are still at least vaguely familiar with the points he exemplifies. Maybe they won’t know that Zizek called for the bombing of his own country, but they will know that he’s a clown. As someone else said here they tried to explain diamat/philosophy with this book and found that it was just so superficial that their friend was not convinced.
I suspect as I get deeper into it (I posted part 2 yesterday) it will become clear that when he attacks western marxism he really just means to attack us, the portion that is not a ‘western marxist’ as per his loose definition but also not a patsoc. Because western marxists, as per his own definition, don’t care that their idols were CIA – they like the CIA – and they also don’t care about the Statesian war of independence. He wants us, principled MLs, to feel repulsed being associated with ‘western marxism’ and offers patsocism as the savior. Well, I’ll know when/if I ever get to it lol.
Carlos has published two other books through MWM and is set to publish two more next year, making it a total of five, and I just feel like they’re getting him to write books because first of all he makes money off this of course, and secondly because it cements them as a serious ‘institute’.
“The CIA is more left-wing than the Marxists” is an incredibly wild take holy shit 💀
I think the point is that they have better analysis or knowledge, but that’s still an absurd way to put it.
There really are some insufferable communist movements out there lol
It reads more like bourgeois philosophy. Needlessly complicated, expecting you to be familiar with the subject matter before you read the book, and being an exercise in showing the reader just how much the author knows and has read.
Schopenhauer reincarnated but he likes Hegel now. None of the examples are even particularly obscure though.
I haven’t read losurdo either but I’ve heard he’s good.
It’s kinda very online examples tbh. Someone else said reddit post and yeah, it fits.
Yeah, most “tankies” have heard of the cia thing, the anti-settlers bs, and so on, while the great gatsby and Zeno’s paradox are fairly common knowledge. Its totally unclear what he’s trying to accomplish, even how he thinks this would impress anyone.
It’s written like a reddit post. Deeply unserious book
Let’s look at some Amazon reviews too!
Explains roots of Americanism, their betrayal, and the need and time to re-radicalize them is now, in reality, not academia or sloganeering…
But the book is precisely doing academia and sloganeering.
Garrido’s book is a must-read for any Marxist in the west, especially in the US. It is philosophically rich and yet very accessible. It is only around 100 pages, the sort of book you could finish in a day or two.
Maybe I’m just a bad reader but nothing about this says “very accessible” to me.
This book perfectly addresses the shortcomings of Western Marxists. It’s a must read! Carlos is a great writer.
It reads more like a second draft that hasn’t gone through an editor.
Great read, really incisive against purity fetishists in the western “Marxist” tradition (see the latest Losurdo translation edited by Gabriel Rockhill for an even better analysis). I also love the parts on China. My only gripe is that the author gets into weird “patriotic socialism”-adjacent territory at one point and makes a show of praising Thomas Jefferson and the American Revolution as some sort of progressive revolution. …
No comment.
Garrido offers a succinct critique of the modern left with the intention of helping the left overcome its many contradictions. The book covers complex philosophical topics in an easy to understand succinct manner that left me with an enhanced knowledge of the historical development of philosophy. …
Nothing in the book ‘helps’ the modern left overcome its many contradictions. Unless you mean the part where he starts promoting patsocism.
This book can change the western left. If we engage with Garrido’s ideas, and treat them as the innovation of American Marxism that they are, they can act as a guide for creating change in the real world, overcoming the problems the left has, and winning a future.
Alright settle down he’s not the second coming of Marx.
I found the philosophical parts a bit thin and overcomplicated at the same time, tbh. I realised this when I thought I read something insightful, then tried to read/explain it to a friend who hadn’t read Marx or much, if any, philosophy – utterly lost them.
It all kinda tracks with him being a philosophy PhD student. So not only, ‘who is it for?’ A great question. But also, what steps are taken to avoid the pitfalls of WM?
Exactly, the book doesn’t really give one the tools to apply its thesis. It seems more like a whole justification for patsocism aimed at patsocs.
AmericanMAGA Communist Party should haven’t been existed in the first place.I had bought the dead tree copy but hadn’t gotten around to reading it. Then I saw how patsoc MWM was and decided that I wasn’t likely to get anything from it that I hadn’t already gotten from Parenti & Rockhill.
Rockhill and Radhika Desai had endorsed the book, which I think was why I bought it
Needlessly complicated, expecting you to be familiar with the subject matter before you read the book, and being an exercise in showing the reader just how much the author knows and has read.
That reminds me of how I found just the first page of Fredric Jameson’s Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism to be impenetrable. There wouldn’t be much point in my reading it now that I’ve come around to ML.
Damn, I didn’t know Rockhill endorsed it. He’s been giving some PatSoc vibes from what I know of him. I know he’s worked with MWM before claiming he “didn’t know they were PatSocs” when he got backlash as recent as 2024 iirc. I also read the intro he wrote for post-mortem release (which he edited) of Losurdo’s “Western Marxism: How It Was Born, How It Died, and How It Can Be Reborn” where he denounces decolonial Marxism as a western deviation of Marxism.
I haven’t read the full book but it put a sour taste in my mouth, like Fanon’s real life struggle alone is worth more than anything Rockhill’s done and certainly not western. Feels like there’s just a genre of books written by settlers trying to explain the failures of western Marxism without acknowledging the material reasons why it’s only ever worked in the colonized and hyper-exploited world.
He’s been giving some PatSoc vibes from what I know of him. I know he’s worked with MWM before claiming he “didn’t know they were PatSocs” when he got backlash as recent as 2024 iirc. I also read the intro he wrote for post-mortem release (which he edited) of Losurdo’s “Western Marxism: How It Was Born, How It Died, and How It Can Be Reborn” where he denounces decolonial Marxism as a western deviation of Marxism.
Could you please elaborate on that one a little bit? Do you have any relevant links or references? I mean, Rockhill does have some very good works, I never suspected anything PatSoc-y, and in Losurdo’s book I could only find this:
“Much of what Losurdo diagnoses in this book therefore applies mutatis mutandis to many other trends promoted by the theory industry, some of which are openly anti-Marxist, including postcolonial theory, decolonial theory, liberal feminist and queer theory, Afro-pessimism, and so forth.15”
Here’s what is probably being referenced: “Gaya Markaran and Pierre Gaussens, coord., Piel blanca, máscaras negras: Crítica de la razón decolonial (Mexico City: Bajo Tierra and Centro Centro de Investigaciones sobre América Latina y el Caribe-Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2020);”
Not to say he’s ontologically wrong, just that his class conciousness seems more generally aligned with the settler communist/labor zionist which makes sense for his material conditions. Mostly talking about this event he held plus other collabs he’s done with MWM like promoting this book (I’d assume which would require at least somewhat agreeing with its critiques)
I am referring to that quote and I think referring to decolonial theory as anti-marxist is strange and aligns with the common settler conception of attempts to move beyond some of the eurocentric biases in the Marxist tradition. By decolonial theory I think of Fanon and in the current day the EFF (among many others) that are only anti-marxist in that they don’t believe Marx came up with dialectical materialism/communism and just applied it and described it from a eurocentric perspective (and of course, how could he do anything but?)
That doesn’t mean their contributions aren’t respected or especially that dialectical materialism is thrown away but rather is an effort to transcend dogmatism and Marxist orthodoxy, rethinking conceptions of modernity/development, the linear progression of modes of production, and applying marxism (dialectical materialism) particularly to the colonial states and the conditions they face.
All that said, my investigation is thin. I have seen good interviews and Marxist analysis by Rockhill, but I have also seen this problem in many white/settler communists and generally am unsurprised when I hear one is unable to tell that MWM are actually just American labor zionists. I’m also unsurprised when they condemn decolonial critiques of western strains of marxist thought and the settler class. But for sure he should’ve known better than to collab for them and recommending this book is hella sus
I’ve had the misfortune of reading a lot of anti-Marxist
postcolonial theory, decolonial theory, [and] liberal feminist [theory.]
Not sure if I have any receipts as I dismiss it when I realise what it is. I can’t speak to the other fields mentioned but it’s a major strand of Western academic thought. Academic ‘decolonial Marxism’ sometimes fits into that category. In the same category is a strand of ‘decolonial’ theory that uses Marxist aesthetics while being anti-Marxist – often written by ‘radical’ academics, the kind of people who comprise Rockhill’s theory industry.
Rockhill could be referring to that literature. Given his usual target and starting point of French critical theory, I’d be inclined to assume that’s what he’s referring to. I wouldn’t assume that he’s talking about e.g. Fanon. I’d have to read his intro to the Losurdo collection to understand what he means by ‘decolonial Marxism’.
Fair. I mean “academic” Marxism in general is lol. In my mind supporting this Purity Fetish book is helping build an ugly picture but I’d have to see as well.
That’s so strange. Because Colin is now firmly placed as an anti-patsoc, from what I’ve seen.
Not too familiar with Colin either, I will say though there are those with settler marxist tendencies that will condemn PatSocs for being a little too obvious. CPUSA officially condemned them while still having many of the same problems that stem from the same sources.
I think it also reflects the fact that Hamas has made it so some kind of theoretical support for decolonization is a litmus test for any self respecting leftist, even the magacoms have to at least pretend to be pro-Palestine now. This theoretical support often fails to be applied to home in America though, most obviously with the ACP (thus condemnations from even the less advanced among us)
I heard that Jones Manoel wrote the preface to the new Portuguese edition which was worrying
Is there a known problem with him or do you mean it’s worrying that he’d get caught up being part of this book? The only familiarity I have with him is he’s the one who wrote the thing about factoring in Christianity’s influence into Western Marxist thought, right?
This book is a pale attempt to rewrite his perfect essay and patsocize it. It’s worrying that he’d get caught up in this nonsense and makes me question where his priorities lie.
Ohh gotcha, makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. I wonder how hard of a man he is to reach (with a polite question, not implying people should mass message him or anything). Could be it’s one of those things where it was presented to him like “hey, we’d like to do blah blah blah inspired by your essay” and he signed off on it without looking all that closely. If I’m going for best case scenario explanation.
He seems quite reachable, he has a presence on most social media. Also left PCB to form his own party recently. Just need to write him in Portuguese because I’ve never heard him speak English, but I imagine they got the translator first and they were able to contact him. If the Portuguese edition ever makes it to pdf I will try to find his preface and read it because I’m kinda curious what he says about it.