/lit/ - Literature

>>20157221

>>15432792
You only need one book. But it’s in Italian.
Del Noce’s main translator into English hash bunch of lectures on YT, a blog where he posts DN’s essays, and has released two books which contain similar ideas, but the one above is just brutal.

>>15400856

The thing that defeats Marx is Marx.

Can’t go back. The left can only get more bourgeois from here as a result of its ideological commitments.

>>13549796
>Marxism is anti-capitalist by definition, if you percive otherwise the fault is in your head.
Oh sweaty.

>>13539878
What comes after Marxism.

>>13531072
Unironically, this would be all of Marxism, from the big man himself to Gramsci and Marcuse. The Marxist periodization of history is exactly wrong.
Gommies out until you have read Del Noce.

>>13515630
More on this:
> To Del Noce, the symbol of the students’ debacle is the philosophical trajectory of Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse criticizes correctly the “one-dimensional society,” but cannot give up “the metaphysical and theological negations stated by Feuerbach and Marx,” and thus he “cannot stop at a mere critique of present reality as abnormal [because] he would be forced to start a process of rediscovery of a transcendent normative reality.” He needs a “new” revolution. Since neo-capitalism has neutralized the proletariat through mass consumption, he must imagine that the “transition to freedom will be achieved by eliminating the repression of instincts.” But then his proposal “is destined not to be very different, when popularized, from [Wilhelm] Reich’s theories about the sexual revolution.” And what could be more bourgeois than Reich’s idea of individualized sexual happiness? In Del Noce’s words:
> No revolution was ever a tool of its enemies as much as the one promoted by Marcuse’s philosophy, because its only victim was whatever remained of belief in the traditional values that the “system” had been unable to destroy. This task was carried out almost miraculously by the unexpected rebellion [of 1968]. The form of its failure enabled neo-capitalism to get rid of the onerous influence of the traditional values, which until then it had been forced to respect.

Have any of our Marxist friends read Del Noce’s critique of Marx?
It was astonishingly prescient, even prophetic in its time. Believing that post-Enlightenment philosophy (reactionaries like Maistre included) suffered from a terminal error, which he termed a “heterogenesis of ends,” Del Noce wrote that the philosophical tools available to moderns render us unable to clearly perceive our own times and our own history. For Del Noce, Marxism is best understood as an accelerant for a kind of hyper-positivist capitalism. The negations present in historical materialism would ultimately win out over the (contradictory) revolutionary dialectical faith, which, having cleared out all transcendent values, would pave the way for the totalitarian Societa Opulenta. He wrote this in the late sixties.
This is, of course, exactly what happened. The Marxist periodization of history was exactly wrong — socialism corresponded with rapid industrialization, ecological devastation, and the complete unmooring of the lifeways of the proletariat—essentially doing capitalism’s dirty work for it, from a Marxist perspective. Marxism, like liberalism (and fascism) all achieved the opposite of what they intended to, as a result of what Del Noce saw as the same, deep philosophical error.
What about it /lit/?