/lit/ - Literature

>>5369722

the greeks are both entry and exit level

you're a pleb. start with the plebs. don't skip them like a pleb

>>5369722
there is a problem
i think this is caused by the school system
everybody thinks you progress, like from grade 1 to university, then you get a doctoral degree
but really this is made up bullshit
there are no levels
is it good? yes. then it is a tool. there is no ladder
you are gathering tools and material to make yourself a house
then you will die in it

>>5369722
the situationists

>>5369845
This is a great post but a lousy poem.

>>5369722

>>5369868
or the Autonomists
or Socialisme ou Barbarie / Solidarity (UK)
or any of the subsequent mobs.

GLF (UK) is pretty cool. As are Homocult.
Processed World (US). WSM (Ireland). NEFAC. Radical Bowling League.

National socialism

>I heard frankfurt school is pretty entry level

If by entry level you mean "more twists than the average continental" then yes.

>>5369722
"post-structuralism", and nobody knows how to overcome it.
There's also speculative realism, but I think it only works by regressing to a point where "post-structuralism" didn't exist yet.

>>5370347
>"post-structuralism", and nobody knows how to overcome it.
Hermeneutics. Everyone in disciplines that involve reading have been laughing at you cunts. Even the "humanists." especially the humanists

I can see your "italian turn" like the wet cunted little whore you are for Federici.

Roman Catholicism.

>>5369722
>What's the next step up?
There is none, just more of the same old bullshit, exactly like the franfurt guys predicted.

>>5369905
This is a great poem but a lousy post.

>>5370789
>mfw this nigga knows what he's talking about

>>5370805
Fuck off back to house arrest negri

>>5370816
>negri
>implying

>>5370805
that is actually from a magazine deeply influenced by the frankfurt school, so lel

>>5370828
yeah i know, that was my point.

Titanic Magazin

Frankfurt University

berlin school

>>5370804
thanks, i did my best

Most of them are confirmed Jews. While there is nothing wrong with reading it--and in fact it might actually be helpful--beware.

>>5371138
>beware
why?

>>5371144
>trusting Jude

>>5371144
>taking his facetious anti-semitism seriously

you're too young to be here, baby

>>5371145
What are you trying to imply, do books written by jews cause dangerous thoughts?

>>5371147
oh come on, maybe i just want to bait him into saying something that gets him banned.

>>5371144
Any time in which Jews disproportionately dominate something (banks, business, communist movements) at least question why this is and what influence this might have on things, particularly given the fact that for most of history Jews were always seen as an "other" and were never properly assimilated into their host countries: they were essentially an international super-nation within their host countries, and always would naturally place their own betterment above ours.

>>5371150
I would hope so. I haven't trained in Judeomancy and Jewish Mind Control Techniques for the past two decades just so that I could write a dark realist novel about how yiddish food is more depressing than hamburgers.

>>5371147
>not taking the Jewish thread seriously

>>5371156
You don't get it mate. There is no such thing as disproportionately dominating something since we're always been very influential. Sometimes it was obvious, sometimes much less so, but there isn't a major thing in the past 2000 years that wasn't created or at least tolerated by our Wise Council of Zion.

>>5371156
So, are you suggesting there are traces of jewish supremacism in the work of the Frankfurt School, like some other people say that european philosophy is often implicitly whte suprmacist? While this doesn't seem plausible in both cases, yours is indeed an interesting spin on a staple of sjw talking points, and I'd like to see you argue for it in detail. So, which of ther works have you read, and where do you think they are trying to subreptiously advance an agenda of jewish supremacy?

>>5371159
>the Jewish thread
link?

>>5371164
As Prussia became more liberal so became its tolerance towards the Jews. For most of history Jews were rather persecuted against and when they achieved their freedom they began entering into higher social positions. By the time of the Third Reich and the Russian Revolution these Jews became top dogs who were very much a driving force of political events, leading the revolution in Russia, as well as the attempted revolution in Germany. The Weimar Republic itself was dominated by a Jewish influence, which had a completely subversive effect on the German people.

Essentially, it is this unassimilated Jewish otherness that is problematic. Since they always maintain a separate identity (of course many Jews assimilate, see Hitler's Jewish soldiers) they do not always coincide with the best interests of the people--sometimes they often contradict it.

>>5371172
I'm just suggesting that given that it is an organization of Jews, and given history, it is likely that once again their objectives are attributable to their Jewish otherness, and might not correspond with the cause of the West.

>>5371178
So basically a small subset of Jews, when in power, tend to behave like most small subset of people in power ?

Mind=circumsized.

>>5371184
>once again their objectives are attributable to their Jewish otherness
what kind of thing is jewish otherness, and what does it make people do? this sounds like tumblr identity politics to me.
>the cause of the West.
what is the cause of the west? i for one didn't even know the west had one unified cause, so now i'm under the impression that you are the one who tries to sneak in a supremacist ideology.

>>5371190
They act like such a case where the ruling case is of a completely different people than those they rule over (Russia, Norman England), promoting their own interests before the people they rule over.

>>5371196
Jewish otherness is distinctly that: it is the fact that these people are distinctly Jewish and are not assimilated to the national culture of the country in which they reside. As a result, they will favor their Jewish interests before the interests of the nation. It is the same reason for why the Founding Fathers were skeptical of Catholics.

The cause of the West is simply that: the cause of Western civilization and its peoples as opposed to Judaism.

>>5371201
> is of a completely different people

And how is that relevant, when ruler who come from the very people they rule can are just as likely to be self-serving and inefficient ?

I think you're making a very broad issue into a fuzzy racial issue for some misty nebulous reason. Perhaps you just like the idea and are engaging in poetical speculation. I can dig that.

>their Jewish interests before the interests of the nation

What is Jewish interest and in what it is different from personal interest, rich interest, aristocratic interest, nomenclatura interest, and so on ?

>The cause of the West is simply that: the cause of Western civilization and its peoples as opposed to Judaism.

Empty tautologies are empty.

You sound pretty vapid, like you were actually raised by Jews.

>>5369722
Yes they are entry-level. You should read the guy they plagiarized for their anti-science stance. Pro-tip: it was a catholic nobleman de Maistre.

>>5371212
The Jewish interest is their common cause to stay afloat in these foreign nations that they are in, while rising to a position of success and doing honor by their families. It provides for a great drive to succeed and then when they attain these positions of power their distinctly non-Western influence creeps in.

>>5371219
What are those non-Western influences ?
How are them manifested ?
How is it any different from any successful group of Western people ?

You need to learn to think more precisely if you want to be a true Westerner. Your level of reasoning is barely above that of an Arab.

>>5371219
>their common cause to stay afloat in these foreign nations that they are in, while rising to a position of success and doing honor by their families
isn't that, like, the motivation of everyone, for everything?
>their distinctly non-Western influence
be more specific, what is the distinctly non-western feature of judaism? after all, whatever western civilization is, it has spent the last 2000 years under the influence, so i don't thin you can safly divide the two.

>>5371268
You're going in circles. It's their non-Western Jewish roots that set them apart from the rest.

>>5371271
The Jewish influence is simply everything that is different about their religion, specifically those things found in the Talmud, and the Jewish identity. Specifically, it is a pro-Jewish interest rather than a pro-English, pro-German etc interest. They are as if their own country within others.

>>5371278
>The Jewish influence is simply everything that is different about their religion, specifically those things found in the Talmud, and the Jewish identity.
no you're getting more and more vague. to my knowledge, the frankfurt guys were explicitly non-religious, and never expressed any interest in concerns of identity.
>it is a pro-Jewish interest rather than a pro-English, pro-German etc interest
alright, and in what sense are the interests of german jews, for example, different from the interests of german gentiles?

>>5371295
Again, you're dancing around in circles. They are brought up within this different identity and aren't properly assimilated into the national culture. They end up forming their own cliques with other Jews, not only of their nation but with others. forming a sort of international nation-within-a-nation.

The interest of German Jews is different in that the are working towards the betterment of international Jewry, whereas Germans are working towards the betterment of Germany. Jews lack the German identity and, as evidenced by the Weimar Republic, actively work towards its demise.

>>5371307
>They are brought up within this different identity and aren't properly assimilated into the national culture.
Define 'assimilated'. how much difference between people are you going to allow?
>They end up forming their own cliques with other Jews, not only of their nation but with others. forming a sort of international nation-within-a-nation.
You mean, like catholics, or Irish people, or small protestant denominations, or mormons, or the upper class in general, or ideological groups, or clubs?
>Jews lack the German identity and, as evidenced by the Weimar Republic, actively work towards its demise.
You do realize what ultimately led to the demise of weimar germany, right?

>b-but everybody is racist once in a while
>jews are like other people
>they dont form more networks than other powerful elites

>>5371400
racists accusing jews of racism is probably the most heart-warming memory i carry over from my old days on /pol/. thanks anon for reminding me.

>>5371415
antipathy != racism

>>5371344
>Define 'assimilated'. how much difference between people are you going to allow?
Pretty great difference, such to the extent that the people would foremost identify themselves as Jews rather than Germans, English, etc.

>You mean, like catholics, or Irish people, or small protestant denominations, or mormons, or the upper class in general, or ideological groups, or clubs?
It's all contingent. Let's take a Catholic nation in which there is a small Protestant group: what are things going to be like? The Protestants, finding themselves in the minority, will likely be devout to the degree that they find themselves to be isolated, and their Protestant identity will be very important to them. If a Protestant became a ruler in this Catholic country they would probably bring a distinctly Protestant nature into effect. The Jews are no different.

>You do realize what ultimately led to the demise of weimar germany, right?
Twisting my words. The NSDAP thankfully ended that barbarous time, but the Weimar Republic itself was working towards Germany's degradation.

>>5371278
You're the one going in circles, my dense little friend. You keep repeating empty catchphrases like "Jewish root" and "otherness" without providing any attempt at a definition or any illustrative, not to mention demonstrative, example. I know you're probably trolling at this point, but you could be less monotonous about it.

>Specifically, it is a pro-Jewish interest rather than a pro-English, pro-German etc interest.

Why the English and the German out of all people ? Why not the Greeks, the Roman and Italian, the French, the Spanish ?

>>5371443
antipathy directed towards one race is pretty much one of the definitionsof racism.

>>5371463
Just because you're ignoring where I've consistently defined it doesn't actually change the reality o things that I'm consistently defining it.

Indeed, include all of those people: that's the value contained in et cetera.

>>5371463
no, racism is more exclusive.
antipathy doesnt necessarily lead to hate or contempt, especially towards individuals.

>>5371443
right, you're totally not racist.
>>5371446
>Pretty great difference, such to the extent that the people would foremost identify themselves as Jews rather than Germans, English, etc
no, i meant, how different can a person be from other persons and still be considered assimilated? how different from my fellow germans can i become before i stop being german?
>The NSDAP thankfully ended that barbarous time
wait, are you implying that germans shouldn't have democratic freedoms? as a german, i find this pretty fucking racist.

>>5371474
>no, i meant, how different can a person be from other persons and still be considered assimilated? how different from my fellow germans can i become before i stop being german?
If you're born into the culture then assimilation isn't even valid: you need to begin as not assimilated and then become it. If you are raised into German culture then you are by default culturally German. If you are a Mexican illegal in the US raised into Mexican culture, then you are not culturally American even if born there.

You will most likely always bear your original culture unless if you really move to a different land and utterly submerse yourself in that culture to the degree that your original one really erodes away.

>racist
Are you by chance a liberal?

>>5371491
This just shifts the problem to your parents: how conformist do they have to be, for you to be born into the majority culture? if they belong to a religious minority, are you born german enough? if they have hobbies less than 0,1% of the population enjoy, how german is the culture you're born into? if they exclusively eat french food, because they can afford it, can my peers reasonably demand that i assimilate to german dietary habits, by threat of being considered an outsider? if, finally, my parents, despite being german lutherans, enjoying only german things, and only eat german food, have zero regard for identifying with germany, being instead more sympathetic to the national ambitions of the french, and raise me in this conviction, how german am I? and when do i start being something else, say, a jew-as-opposed-to-german, which is already an antisemitic notion btw?
>Are you by chance a liberal?
No. German liberals are virtually extinct.

>>5369868
>situationists
The situationists are entry level as f.

>>5371469
Racism doesn't even have to be about hate or contempt. That is racial hatred, which is a subset of racist behaviour. Antipathy directed toward specific races is racism, just like policies grounded on differentiating people by their races is racist policy, even if it's not hateful. Racism merely means making distinction between people according to their perceived races, and behaving according to those distinction. A white guy thinking that Japs should be always directed toward computer jobs because they are so obviously naturally better at computers is being racist, but not hateful for instance.

>>5371465
You never actually defined anything. For instance, how do you draw the line between a western coutry and a non-western ? Is Algeria western from being close to Europe, a former part of the Roman Empire and a former (and still Frenchised) part of the French territory ? Is Russia Western (all of it, some parts of it, only during certain eras) ?

How do you tell a successful assimilated Jew from a successful non-assimilated Jew ? How do you tell a successful non-assimilated Jew that doesn't influence much power relations in his country from one who does ? How do you tell a pro-Jew behavior from a neutral or pro-German behavior ? How do you tell a community that feels isolated and threatened (even if it's not on a factual basis) from one that doesn't but might have occasional bouts of paranoia ? How do you tell influencing a country's politics out of pro-Jewish sentiments from casual, low-level communautarism ? Those questions might sound obvious, but they are the core of the matter.

FInally, what lead you to assume that, say, most German work for the betterment of Germanry (and what is Germanry in the first place) ?

Yes, there is a conspiracy theory that blames everything old rural people never liked about the city on the frankfurt school of social research. Which is rather silly considering the pre-war Adorno was oftentimes conservative and the post-war Adorno was even more so. He didn't like the student movement and he gave lectures against the USSR. It was your typical West German bureaucrat academic. He was not even opposed to the war in Vietnam or to Nuclear Weapons.

And his greatest fans who live today don't have any strong opinions on anything at all aside from that you should put more money into Adorno studies. Because he wrote a lot of barely coherent. This is what you do as an academic philosopher.

>>5371474
Aha. So it is just the people of a Christian extraction who are "German"?

>>5371519
>how conformist do they have to be, for you to be born into the majority culture?
It needs to be such to the extent that when you venture into the world along with your peers you have no cultural disadvantage among them: you shared the same cultural upbringing.

>if they belong to a religious minority, are you born german enough?
I'd say no, unless that is a minority that Germans themselves are accustomed to have been historically (Protestants vs Catholics). The religion only coincides with but does not cause cultural difference.

>if they have hobbies less than 0,1% of the population enjoy, how german is the culture you're born into?
Depends on if this takes away from their ability to share the same culture as the rest.

>if they exclusively eat french food, because they can afford it, can my peers reasonably demand that i assimilate to german dietary habits, by threat of being considered an outsider?
Are German dietary habits a necessary aspect of German culture, and, does eating French food take away from your cultural Germanness? If so, then yes.

>how german am I?
You are fully culturally German.

> and when do i start being something else, say, a jew-as-opposed-to-german
When you identify with another culture's language, religion, and way of life.

>No. German liberals are virtually extinct.
Ah, your misuse of the word "racist" set off a red flag naturally.

>>5371519
>No. German liberals are virtually extinct.
Could you expand on that? To me the Green party looks pretty much like the modern counterpart of your liberal fortschrittspartei. What's more you have social democrats and you have the Left Party. What other liberals is it you want? Or is it the Ron Paul type liberals you mean?
In the Russian parliament we have Fascists, Stalinists, Fascists and Fascists.

>>5371533
>For instance, how do you draw the line between a western coutry and a non-western ?
A Western country is one of those that fundamentally ties its cultural identity back to the Ancient Greeks as well as a nation that was in some way connected with Roman administration. In this way, Francophone, Anglophone, German, Nordic, Slavic, Italic, Latin nations are all Western.

Most countries now are Western-influenced (Japan, Korea, etc) but these are not Western nations.

The Western part of Russia is Western, though most of it is not.

>How do you tell a successful assimilated Jew from a successful non-assimilated Jew ?
Is successful defining their degree of assimilation or their degree of success? If the first, simply, a successfully assimilated Jew identifies fully with their national culture (Hitler's Jewish soldiers) and an unassimilated one still identifies with their Jewish culture.

>How do you tell a successful non-assimilated Jew that doesn't influence much power relations in his country from one who does ?
The one is actually in a position of power, the other is not.

>How do you tell a pro-Jew behavior from a neutral or pro-German behavior ?
The pro-Jew behavior is subversive to pro-German sentiments, generally being internationalizing compared to nationalizing. See Weimar Republic and degenerate art.

>How do you tell a community that feels isolated and threatened (even if it's not on a factual basis) from one that doesn't but might have occasional bouts of paranoia ?
The one feels isolated and threatened and acts it, or even seems to, and the other acts as if paranoid, or seems to.

>How do you tell influencing a country's politics out of pro-Jewish sentiments from casual, low-level communautarism ?
The pro-Jewish sentiments appear as distinctly in contrast with the pro-National sentiments.

>>5371522
But the girls love 'em.
You just take a look at the pussy riot trial. Whom have they been quoting? Debord

>>5371533
>FInally, what lead you to assume that, say, most German work for the betterment of Germanry (and what is Germanry in the first place) ?
Because pro-National politicians actually do this: since they are culturally of the nation they are representing, they are actually representing the whole of the people.

And if they are not, then this government is corrupt and worthy to be destroyed.

>>5371541
>Aha. So it is just the people of a Christian extraction who are "German"?
how did i imply that?
>>5371543
>cultural disadvantage
that sounds like something straight out of an sjw account of white privilege. i have no idea what it means.

Also, your concept of cultural identity is highly inconsistent: is it the stuff you do, or is it what you identify as, so that amerifat faggots like you can become trans-german?

>>5371565
What about Turkey ?

>The one feels isolated and threatened and acts it, or even seems to, and the other acts as if paranoid, or seems to.

Those seem pretty hard to distinguish.

Anyway, I'm glad we're getting to specifics at last. Now the question is, how do those non-assimilated powerful pro-Jewish Jews (that we are capable of reasonably singling out) actually subvert German nationality (for instance they encourage degenerate art, but what is the criteria of degeneracy in art ?) and what about people proud of their Jewish identities also sharing German national sentiments (since you decided to call pro-Jewish those who openly clash with nationalism and not merely the vocal advocates of the Jews) ?

>Because pro-National politicians actually do this: since they are culturally of the nation they are representing, they are actually representing the whole of the people.

That seems wrong for at least two reasons: equating politicans with most people is hasty, and claiming politicians represent their people on the ground that they share their culture (thus implying that politicans are primarily interested in representing the people) is rather uncompelling, if not ridiculous.

You've also ommitted to define Germanry. What are its practical distinguishing features ? Does it change over time ? Is it the same everywhere ?

You're much less fuzzy but the core of your argument seem to be stepped in empty languages games.

>>5371591
>that sounds like something straight out of an sjw account of white privilege. i have no idea what it means.
That's fair.

Basically, it means that when you emerge into the public, generally your school environment, you have been raised in such a way that does not put you at a disadvantage culturally with those among you: ie you have been raised in the same way and exposed to the same things to the extent that in interaction you are not left out or different in some way.

> is it the stuff you do, or is it what you identify as,
It is really everything, though I believe it's slanted more towards the latter. If you are residing in Chile and you eat Chilean food, watch Chilean television, yet strongly identify with the Russian identity of your parents and model yourself off of a character in Tolstoy or something, this indicates to me that your cultural identity is at least becoming Russian, or perhaps it always was.

>>5371601
>What about Turkey ?
Turkey is not a Western country, but a Westernized country. The fundaments of Turkey lie in Islam and Turkish/Ottoman culture: any Westernization has been adopted after the fact. Islam you see is not Western.

>how do those non-assimilated powerful pro-Jewish Jews actually subvert German nationality
Through central banking, corporate materialism, internationalizing, and all the other ills of the present. The people are held in debt to these bankers, their morals are dictated by these corporations, and their laws are subverted by these people who lobby the government & bribe them. Essentially, the controllers of the forces that matter in modernity are controlled by these subversive elements.

>what about people proud of their Jewish identities also sharing German national sentiments
I personally believe that these are a minority crowd. It is rare when a person will be proud to be Jewish yet also proud of the nation they live in. I would say that such a person wouldn't be threatening to the nation as a result, and there is nothing wrong with them--only given if their national sentiments are legitimate, however, and they place them of more priority than their Jewishness.

>That seems wrong for at least two reasons:
That maybe so, I suppose I was making my conclusion after the fact of the assumed faults of politicians in general. Insofar as politicians in general are self-serving, etc.

>>5371601
>You've also ommitted to define Germanry. What are its practical distinguishing features ? Does it change over time ? Is it the same everywhere ?
Germany is really the nation that comprises all those who speak German as their primary language (and which doesn't correspond therefore to arbitrary political borders). The practical distinguishing features of Germany is really the fact that the inhabitants of Germany are culturally and linguistically German: they identify with and actually practice German culture and they actually speak as their primary language German.

It does change over time, as the German people expand in area or contract in area.

It is the same everywhere: everywhere in what is Germany the people will identify with being culturally German and speak the German language or its dialects as their primary language, and if a person in Germany does not do these things, then that person is not German.

>>5371605
>you are not left out or different in some way.
but, do i have to tell you this,
you're all individuals!
You're all different!

And that is ok. that is not a disadvantage.

>It is really everything, though I believe it's slanted more towards the latter.
That's very interesting,, but here's the thing: I consider it part of my, let's call it german, or western culture, that people are free to be different, culturally, and even identify differently, and still be part of the same one culture. This isn't cultural marxism, whatever that is, btw, but Friedrich der Große: "Jeder soll nach seiner Fasson selig werden" meaning that everybody shall become happy the way he sees fit. Our culture isn't one monolithic block of obligations and principles, but rather a wide range of things, ost of them with some degree of jewish involvement. What would my culture, for instance, be without Heinrich Heine? He's just one example, but probably the best one, as he's irrevocably part of the canon of german culture. not that a plebby /pol/lack would know such things.
> If you are residing in Chile and you eat Chilean food, watch Chilean television, yet strongly identify with the Russian identity of your parents and model yourself off of a character in Tolstoy or something, this indicates to me that your cultural identity is at least becoming Russian, or perhaps it always was.
So if you then became a politician in chile, chileans should be worried? Or if you pursued an accademic career, should they suspect you of trying to destroy their culture? All the world would call them insane for that, and they'd be right.

>>5371474
>wait, are you implying that germans shouldn't have democratic freedoms? as a german, i find this pretty fucking racist.
Democracy shmemocracy. The national socialists have killed more Germans than any group before their times. But it was parliamentary democracy, coupled with an ailing but might war industry which brought them to power.
>>5371601
Since he failed to provide the basic definitions for all the adjectives he has he isn't saying anything at all. And all his exampleare terribly silly. If you act like Pierre Bezukhov or like Hadji Murad you will get more Russian. Hear! Hear! Burschenschaft Germania with their duels and matters of honor is the single most Russian on this planet then. Closely followed the Uzbek immigrant community in Moscow. And then South American television: The Russians love that stuff. How can the Russians suddenly become more Russian than they already are?

If he feels like discussing essentialism let him do it in a separate thread. Huntington is also literature. But as long he's not citing anyone in particular it is pol and not lit and it shouldn't be here.

And quit giving him fodder. Turkey has adopted it's Western laws and academic theories the same way as Russia, the same way as Japan. And that their bigots wave different flags to advance the same agenda their colleagues in Krasnodar and the American South. That's all there is to it.

>>5371651
You're really not doing anything but moving the goalposts with regard to what it means to be culturally German. That's fine: establish the goalposts as to where they ought to be culturally set. Then apply everything I'm saying after the goalposts are where you want them: it will have no effect.

>So if you then became a politician in chile, chileans should be worried?
Yes. And their worries will likely be confirmed.

>Or if you pursued an accademic career, should they suspect you of trying to destroy their culture?
Yes, or at the very least I am not identifying with their culture and interested in their cause

>>5371668
*pardon my English
No let's get back to the topic. I see we have a German here. What are the German opinion about what in the USSR was derided as "Freudomarxism"? Why is it Adorno and Horkheimer and not Marcuse and Wilhelm Reich who are the most popular (or: the sole remaining) classics of the Frankfurt School? What is your personal opinion about their writings? My theory is it is because Adorno is the blandest and hollowest reading you can get which befits academic philosophy. How close have I gotten to the "Kern der Sache"?

>>5371689
You seem to be under the impression that cultures are agents with causes, intentions and so on, when in fact cultures are little more than habits, stuff people do without thinking much about it. And if someone with different habits than you habitually writes a text which you habitually find compelling and allow it to influence your habits, has anyone suffered? Do habits have rights that supersede your own right to have any habit that you want? Are your modified habits not your own habits to the same extent as your original, discarded habits used to be?

>>5370872

lel

>>5371813
Why? Do you study there, German?

>>5371832

Nope. Just lel'd at the answer to the question. Do I have to explain jokes? OP asks what's the next step up after frankfurt school in philosophical elaborateness and then anon replied with "frankfurt university" as in OP asked what comes after school in education terms.

>>5371702
>What are the German opinion about what in the USSR was derided as "Freudomarxism"?
most people don't like it. i do.
> Why is it Adorno and Horkheimer and not Marcuse and Wilhelm Reich who are the most popular (or: the sole remaining) classics of the Frankfurt School? What is your personal opinion about their writings?
Marcuse is all right, but a bit too superficial to be on the same level as Adorno/Horkheimer. Reich on the other hand seems downright batshit insane with his kiddie-fiddling metaphysics.
>My theory is it is because Adorno is the blandest and hollowest reading you can get which befits academic philosophy. How close have I gotten to the "Kern der Sache"?
Not very close. Adorno simply had the broadest range of philosophical knowledge among the frankfurt people, and wrote the most philosophical books.

>>5371866
ah, the literal edge.

>>5370805
>bahamas

>>5371992
>not bahamas

my friend who's majoring in English is currently taking a Critical Theory class. Before I thought it was a joke on /pol/ to study how men are evil and white people are oppressors, but apparantly this is taught as FACT in many universities

Why don't the Jews teach the shit from the frankfurt School to themselves in Israel? They could seriously use some of that, considering how they forcibly inoculate thousands of Nigerians who live in Israel as well as the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian men women and children. Oh that's right, they won't because Critical Theory is for the GOYIM. You'll never see gay marriage legalized in Israel or open borders in Israel, that stuff is for you and me so that our countries become destabilized collapsed shitholes while Israel prospers. Yes I mad

>>5372055
>>>/pol/
Also, iirc, Moshe Zuckermann is teaching Critical Theory in Tel Aviv.

>>5372078
Is it the official position of their universities, media, governmental policies? NO, it is not and it never will, because it would be absolutely absurd for Israel to enact open borders. But YOU have to have open borders in Europe and the US so literally anyone who can physically get here can come, get drivers licenses and voter IDs and vote for more welfare and more gun control and more shariah law in Europe (already happening btw). You can tell me to fuck off all you want but this is whats happening, the Jews tell us we must be tolerant but they themselves are the most intolerant people on earth. what other modern country forcibly sterilizes black people just because they are immigrants?

>>5372109
>Is it the official position of their universities, media, governmental policies?
Critical Theory isn't anyone's position. It isn't even a position, but rather a methodological approach.

And seriously, take that shit to /pol/, your kind is not welcome here. Damn right, we discriminate.

>>5372044
I have a class where we need to recommend contemporary authors our college can invite as guest speakers. I went out of my way to make sure I had nine straight white men and Tao Lin. Got so many death stares.

>>5372117
Obviously I'm not talking about CT itself but the conclusions that it makes, ie
>society is unfair because white people are privileged
>society is unfair because males are privileged
>in order to make the society better we must make everyone equal, through the abolishment of national soveriegnty, ethnicity, gender roles, traditional family units, etc.

Many of these are the basis for actual laws in the US, such as affirmative action, the push for open borders, the constant LGBT being pushed in the media, feminism pushed in the media and legal courts and universities. This is the future and its foundations can be traced back to the Frankfurt school

>>5372007
I know an Antigerman who reads bahamas. The guy thinks Bush will go down in history as the best president the US ever had, accuses Obama of being too soft, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were acts motivated merely by the desire to liberate the respective countries' people, thinks the best thing Israel can do in regard to Gaza and Iran is to invade or at least bomb the shit out of them and of course Netanyahu is a good person. I don't think it's a coincidence that he reads bahamas.

>>5372135
>society is unfair because white people are privileged
If white people are privileged, society is certainly unfair in that regard. If they aren't, it isn't.
>society is unfair because males are privileged
Same as above. If you disagree, you should try pointing out how male privilege doesn't exist, instead of going off about jews, about half of which are repotedly men, even outside of Israel.
>in order to make the society better we must make everyone equal, through the abolishment of national soveriegnty, ethnicity, gender roles, traditional family units, etc.
If anything, capitalism is the thing devaluing all those institutions, as they tend to occasionally get in the way of profits.
>This is the future and its foundations can be traced back to the Frankfurt school
How so? Seriously, I've spent two years on that containment board of yours, and no one could ever explain how you derive identity politics from the teachings of Adorno and Horkheimer. I'm 100% confident that you won't be an exception.

>>5372156
>the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were acts motivated merely by the desire to liberate the respective countries' people
that is the only part i would somewhat disagree with, as obviously other considerations were involved, too.
Other than that, your buddy seems like a pretty cool guy.

>>5372156
I forgot, he deems Sir Arthur Richard Harris an antifascist because of his involvement in bombing Germany. I yet have to meet someone who can explain to me what is antifascist about choosing a career in giving the orders to throw bombs out of aircrafts.

>>5372193
Sigh. Bush the best president ever? What is No Child Left Behind, Guantanamo, not to forget those two invasions that went reallllly well. As for Israel attacking Gaza and Iran, I'm not even necessarily arguing that'd be 100% the wrong approach, it's just this bellicistic(is that even a word) attitude, "yeah let's hack everything to pieces because that's the easiest way LOL". And Netanyahu is just an asshole(conservative free market advocate, doesn't care about refugees, I'm sure there's more) who happens to be head of a state whose existence is rather worthy of protection).

>>5372270
Sir Arthur Harris is an antifascist because he fought against fascists, simple as that.
Bush had his flaws, so it's hyperbole to call him the best ever -the Bahamas people don't do that, either- but yeah, he's alright, and most of his policies are at least justifyable.
> it's just this bellicistic(is that even a word) attitude, "yeah let's hack everything to pieces because that's the easiest way LOL".
I think you underestimate the gravity of Israel's position. Sometimes pacifism is simply not an option.
And sure, Netanyahu is not a leftist, but he's still doing a remarkable job, and he's not the monster he's made out to be, either.

>>5372302
Netanyahu is not made out as a monster in the media. He isn't even Putin level.

>>5372310
>Netanyahu is not made out as a monster in the media.
Maybe not in the US, but here in germany?

But sure, Putin is worse, as he directly threatens our interests, while the jewish nazi-demon is just a nice diversion from the occasional stings of conscience.

>>5372302
>Sir Arthur Harris is an antifascist because he fought against fascists, simple as that
The implication being he is morally superior or admirable, which he isn't, because the only reason he ordered those bombs to be thrown on Dresden instead of London is that he happened to be born on the right side of the pont.
>Sometimes pacifism is simply not an option.
I never said it is

>>5372322
>Putin is worse, as he directly threatens our interests
Heul doch.

>>5372351
>The implication being he is morally superior or admirable
People who help defeat a genocidal tyranny are morally superior and admirable by default.
>the only reason he ordered those bombs to be thrown on Dresden instead of London is that he happened to be born on the right side of the pont.
Unless you have actual access to an alternate universe in which Harris was born in Freiburg im Breisgau, that claim is just conjecture and bullshit.
>Heul doch.
Alter, ich meinte schlechter für unser nationales interesse, welches mir am Arsch vorbeigeht.
That being said, fuck that bastard.

>>5369722
Phenomenology.

>>5372183
>How so? Seriously, I've spent two years on that containment board of yours, and no one could ever explain how you derive identity politics from the teachings of Adorno and Horkheimer. I'm 100% confident that you won't be an exception.

>b-b-but muh cultural marxism

>>5371533
Actually, that definition of racism was a jewish invention. It originally mean the subjugation of a people based on race. Anything less than that is just good business practice.

>>5369722
Frankfurt university

>>5370171
>Autonomists
This.
Read some early Negri.
But SI is pretty cool as well.

And if you want a good critique of the modern times, you can't go wrong with Foucault.

>>5376605
>Read some early Negri.
Fuck that sound, Bologna, Tronti, Dalla Costa

>Frankfurt scholars

>>5376605
>Foucalt
>right about anything

>>5372156
>thinks the best thing Israel can do in regard to Gaza and Iran is to invade or at least bomb the shit out of them and of course Netanyahu is a good person
And that isn't a common opinion in Germany?
You prefer what? the Hamas?
stay classy, Krauts.

>>5369845
true.

made this point before

>>5371522
Nah, the situationists are patrician as fuck.

Read The Society of the Spectacle and Revolution of Everyday Life. Then roll around in pussy all day.

>>5376799
>And that isn't a common opinion in Germany?
Sadly, it really isn't. Scheißendreck.

>>5369845
I blame the vidya

>this whole thread

>>5369722
>entry level
This isn't /mu/, mate.

i've read adorno's philosophy of the new music and he sounded like a real bitch with no actual argumentation
i can't deal with this babbling, better go back to my analytics

>>5376828
Not at all.
>implying I haven't read everything by Debord

>>5376831
>Sadly
>implying

>>5369845
It's called hegelian dialectics, ever heard of it?

>>5372420
>Unless you have actual access to an alternate universe in which Harris was born in Freiburg im Breisgau, that claim is just conjecture and bullshit.
Yeah, really fucking hard to believe that someone with such a personality wouldn't have executed Nazi orders just as happily.

>Alter, ich meinte schlechter für unser nationales interesse, welches mir am Arsch vorbeigeht.
>That being said, fuck that bastard.
Oh, achso :3

>>5376799
>You prefer what? the Hamas?
No, I certainly do not. Why is it so hard to get that just because one side consists of genocidal maniacs hoping for a Holocaust 2.0 it doesn't mean I have to adore those who fight them? Stalin fought Hitler and that guy was still an asshole.

>>5379512
>such a personality
what kind of personality are we talking about here?

>>5379535
The kind of personality that dedicates itself to receiving and giving orders.

>>5378535
>analytics
>cannot into aesthetic theory
surprise, surprise!

>>5379539
So, the kind of personality the allies could have never prevailed without?
Damn, it's shit like that that makes me understand why the Bahamas people hate the mainstream left.

>>5379548
I doubt that without such personalities there would have been a WWII in the first place, but that wasn't even the point.

>>5379512
Not that guy, but:
>Why is it so hard to get that just because one side consists of genocidal maniacs hoping for a Holocaust 2.0 it doesn't mean I have to adore those who fight them?
It''s not a bout adoration, it's about taking sides. In a situation like the one you describe, that shouldn't be hard.

>>5379559
>It''s not a bout adoration
It very much is so for many an Antigerman.

>it's about taking sides. In a situation like the one you describe, that shouldn't be hard
Yeah, no shit.

>>5372117
>And seriously, take that shit to /pol/, your kind is not welcome here
>Implying this board isn't filled with traditionalists along with your kind of bourgeois sunday revolutionaries and effeminates who feel threatened by actual values and masculinity
Ppic related, that's you.
In my experience leftism tends to go hand in hand with physical deficiency.

>>5379569
I don't know what the fuck 'actual values' are supposed to be, but indeed, I feel threatened by what I believe your concept of masculinity constitutes.

>>5379553
Exactly the kind of of bullshit anti-nationalist, anti-militarist drivel I mean. How hard is it to wrap your mind around the fact that while, yes, nationalism and war are bad things, there are also much worse things, against which they have to be supported? I bet you also self-describe as an anarchist.

>>5379577
Just to be clear I'm not the guy you were previously having what you call an argument and I call both sides shouting over each other.
>actual values
Tradition, honour, duty, courage, strength, ability; that people have a duty to their community just as much as community has a duty towards them, and the acknowledgment of the self-interest of the community (such as a nation) as a sign of health and good leadership.
>I feel threatened by what I believe your concept of masculinity constitutes
Why?

>>5379569
>Implying this board isn't filled with traditionalists along with your kind of bourgeois sunday revolutionaries and effeminates who feel threatened by actual values and masculinity
that has indeed largel escaped my attention, probably because that kind of person never makes valuable contributions to anything
>In my experience leftism tends to go hand in hand with physical deficiency.
did you just try to throw a 'do you even lift, bro' my way? also, are you now going to start posting iron pill comics?

>>5379596
>Tradition, honour, duty, courage, strength, ability; that people have a duty to their community just as much as community has a duty towards them, and the acknowledgment of the self-interest of the community (such as a nation) as a sign of health and good leadership.
I really want to meet people who say shit like that in actual conversation, shit would be hilarious. I mean cmon, your actual everyday nazi is less cringeworthy than that.

>>5379584
Adorno was right, though. Like Barthes said, fascism detests thought, doubt, consideration and nuance, it demands immediate and total assertion and commitment.

>>5379612
Yeah obviously he was right. That's why I tend to regard the mindless equidistant pacifism of people like the one I replied to as an expression of fascism living on.

>>5379603
>that has indeed largel escaped my attention, probably because that kind of person never makes valuable contributions to anything
Personally I have no trouble saying that there are intelligent people even on the left, and while our values differ, they act logically within those values. Don't you feel it a sign of insecurity that you have to dismiss your opponents so steeply? Either you doubt yourself or you are one of those idiots who would have burnt witches in the 17th century.
>did you just try to throw a 'do you even lift, bro' my way? also, are you now going to start posting iron pill comics?
Just pointing out that leftism is a psychological condition and not a political one. In my experience and by my observations it attracts people who feel that the world doesn't value them enough especially for their intellect. Small wonder that academics had such a fascination with it; and its pronounced intellectualism is often a symptom of physical and mental weakness.

>>5379603
lurk more, the /pol/-hating traditionalists are all here
in real life, when you meet us, you probably think we're joking when we speak about politics, because "nobody who has read books thinks that way"

>>5378535
>better go back to my analytics

implying you actually read analytics

>>5379611
>I really want to meet people who say shit like that in actual conversation, shit would be hilarious. I mean cmon, your actual everyday nazi is less cringeworthy than that
Well aren't you a cynical one. Don't you find all that irony awfully tiring? Personally I respect more even naivety than those smoke and mirrors you hide behind. I suspect that's the case with a lot of others, too. Honesty is refreshing. You should try it sometimes.

>>5379636
Not him, but your sweeping generalizations are characteristic of the simplistic and lazy thinking of self-proclaimed right-wingers. Laborers were never composed of weaklings; that's exactly why they are depended on for the jobs that they do. Perhaps you have never met someone involved in organized labor or any leftist outside of a university building.

>>5379611
>somebody talking about tradition, honour, courage, etc. is "cringeworthy"

If somebody mentioned those things in real life, nobody would bat an eye.

>>5379636
>leftism is a psychological condition
>>5379662
>the simplistic and lazy thinking of self-proclaimed right-wingers

cut this shit out. you guys are literally looking past each other.

>>5379584
>anti-nationalist
That I am.

>anti-militarist
I'd keep the army, it can be useful.

>there are also much worse things, against which they have to be supported
I don't need to be a nationalist to fight Nazis. Besides, that wasn't the point I made.

>I bet you also self-describe as an anarchist.
I do not, I self-describe as a communist.

>>5379596
>Why?
Because I believe what I assume to be his concept of masculinity breeds an emotionally stunted and violent society. Look at the world, most violence is carried out by men, look at 9gag and its pathetic sexism, "I shed some manly tears" and all that garbage. As if there was anything wrong with men crying. inb4 "lel faggot", I wouldn't care that you lot masturbate to the notion of "real men" and how that might very well bury you one day, but since I'm a member of this society, it also affects me negatively in various ways.

>>5379636
>Don't you feel it a sign of insecurity that you have to dismiss your opponents so steeply?
Maybe I've been on /pol/ too long, which has given me a bad picture of people like you. But no, I feel t to be a sign of understanding what they're about, which isn't really that complicated.
>Either you doubt yourself
of course I do, after all, that's pat of MY values.
>Just pointing out that leftism is a psychological condition and not a political one.
So, you dismiss a political position on the basis of conjecture, how very consistent with the things you said before.
>people who feel that the world doesn't value them enough especially for their intellect
I don't think anybody feels apprechiated enough, or deserving of the appreciation they think they deserve. It's really quite easy to figure out how this gives rise to all kinds of ideologies, including yours.
>its pronounced intellectualism is often a symptom of physical and mental weakness.
fascinating diagnosis. what kind of condition is anti-intellectualism a symptom of?
>>5379639
>lurk more, the /pol/-hating traditionalists are all here
maybe they should make more quality posts
>in real life, when you meet us, you probably think we're joking when we speak about politics, because "nobody who has read books thinks that way"
that's another thing: you think everybody is fucking stupid. joke's on you.

>>5379662
>implying I'm not from a labourer background
See, this is one of those lies you hold dear. Socialism has never been a project of the lower classes, but the middle classes and intellectuals. It's their way of claiming power they can't get by normal advancement in society.
I have more sympathy to old socialists, but once you took the side of immigrants and your self-made religion against your own, you lost all legitimacy in the eyes of the common people. Cue socialists losing their voters since the 70s.
In general social heirarchies are most important to lower classes. They get value and meaning to their lives from them. The plutocrats don't need them, and view them often as restraining. The modern left's alliance with those who they claim to fight against is in my view their most shameful side.

>>5379679
>If somebody mentioned those things in real life, nobody would bat an eye.
go ahead and try, mate.

>>5379649
But this isn't irony. I honestly can't take traditionalists seriously, especially when they start holding speeches that sound like something out of a fantasy novel.

>>5379690
9gag

Gay marriage is bad because it erodes our nations Christian values

>>5379697
That's a nice xenophobic narrative you have built yourself there. It's too bad that it is entirely factually inaccurate and anglocentric.

Leftism is not equal to socialism.
Immigrants have always formed the backbone of labor.
Of course my words mean nothing to you. Were I to provide you dates, statistics, and election results, nothing would change your mind because you are an ideologue. You are exactly what you claim to hate.

There is no benefit to the worker to live in worse working conditions.

>>5379690
>Because I believe what I assume to be his concept of masculinity breeds an emotionally stunted and violent society. Look at the world, most violence is carried out by men, look at 9gag and its pathetic sexism, "I shed some manly tears" and all that garbage
Violence and suffering are not necessarily the worst possible fate. Nihilism and humiliation, those are worse.
>of course I do, after all, that's pat of MY values
I don't mean intellectual honesty but an active, gnawing doubt.
>So, you dismiss a political position on the basis of conjecture, how very consistent with the things you said before
Yes. Marxism was never a logical philosophy, and it has consistently failed wherever it has been tried. There is no political need for leftism in its current form.
>I don't think anybody feels apprechiated enough, or deserving of the appreciation they think they deserve. It's really quite easy to figure out how this gives rise to all kinds of ideologies, including yours
Existential dread is one source, too. Ideologies are a tool to seek power: I'm saying that socialism is misguided and attracts the wrong kind of people (resentful and unused to authority), not that seeking power is inherently wrong.
>fascinating diagnosis. what kind of condition is anti-intellectualism a symptom of?
I should like to think I'm in the middle ground. Body and mind. Call it an aesthetical mindset.

>>5379720
Christian marriage is bad because it erodes our nation's gay values.

>>5379721
>anglocentric
Implying I'm anglo.
>Immigrants have always formed the backbone of labor
Horseshit. Immigration has rarely been practiced as it is now. European nation states had a class structure.
>Of course my words mean nothing to you. Were I to provide you dates, statistics, and election results, nothing would change your mind because you are an ideologue. You are exactly what you claim to hate
People dismiss by instinct that information which doesn't support their worldview, so that's never an option.
But consider this: I used to be something of a blank plate, with mildly leftist views. I deliberately chose what you call right wing (traditionalism or outright nationalism are better terms in my mind). If leftism was so beneficial and rational and good, why would I do so? My parents are those labourers you claim to side with, yet I don't side with you. That should not be the logical result in your worldview.
>There is no benefit to the worker to live in worse working conditions
Explain.

>>5379723
>There is no political need for leftism in its current form.
>liberal democracy in shambles
>espionage state
>automatization about to level the economy
>extreme inequality causing almost all problems in society
>rate of profit causing ecological devastation
>nation state failing
>all this because the left is weak
>no political need for leftism
LEL

>>5379759
>liberal democracy in shambles
True. Insitutions are not immortal.
>espionage state
The fact that state dares to cross the house door, something it never did before the 20th century, is entirely the result of those left-wing policies. Societies used to depend on local hierarchies more.
>automatization about to level the economy
I'm not a luddite.
>extreme inequality causing almost all problems in society
Only in the U.S., and it is precisely the nation state that is more capable of solving it. The rich are not willing to shoulder the burden of heavier taxation for the sake of people they have no connection with. That's one of the reasons why multicultural societies fail.
>rate of profit causing ecological devastation
Remains to be seen. So far economic development has gone forward in cycles, but the direction has been upward and steady for the past 200 years.
>nation state failing
Multiculturalism is the main reason behind that, together with unsustainable public sector and rising competition from Asia. In Europe, that is.
>all this because the left is weak
All this because of varying factors, one of the greatest being the influence of the left. People deserting the left is a symptom and not the cause. You have been in power, and you have failed.

>>5379723
Dude, the post you're replying to, and address in the first paragraph isn't by me.
anyway
>I don't mean intellectual honesty but an active, gnawing doubt.
for all ends and purposes, the latter is the price you have to pay for the former.
>Yes. Marxism was never a logical philosophy,
So, ok, you haven't read marx.
>and it has consistently failed wherever it has been tried.
so you haven't looked into the reaons for those failures, or tried to put them in relation to marx' philosophy, which you couldn't do in the first place, because you haven't read marx.
>There is no political need for leftism in its current form.
Actually, I agree. Neither the Frankfurt School nor orthodox marxism are characteristic of that current form, though.
>Ideologies are a tool to seek power
indeed. leftist philosophy at its best tries to destroy that tool.
>I should like to think I'm in the middle ground. Body and mind. Call it an aesthetical mindset.
I know I'm being unfair, but I can hardly shake my picture of people who call themselves traditionalists, and it includes trenchcoats, obesity and katanas. and fedoras

>>5379596
>Tradition
>implying you don't just nitpick whatever pleases you and disregard the rest of customs that were common in the past, but which you either think were preceeded or succeeded by more commendable customs

>honour
>implying it wasn't used as pretext in order to get genuinely good people to butcher themselves or slaughter innocents for the glory of some completely inane cause, pretty much adding a kind of cynical tone to it

>duty
See above

>courage
How is this threatening anybody?

>strength
What do you mean by that?

>that people have a duty to their community just as much as community has a duty towards them
This is so fucking vague, the vast majority of all kinds of political convictions would agree to that.

>acknowledgment of the self-interest of the community (such as a nation) as a sign of health and good leadership
One of the major advancements in public politics is actually the possibility to debate or question if a certain action or policy _is_ actually good for your country or ethically valid and it is a common practise all over the world. Posts that suggest otherwise usually tend to embrace more brutal means of politics. So, tell us: What means are justified for a nation's welfare and how do you define said welfare?

>>5379720
>Christian values
Please explain how a representative democracy is based upon Christianity and how and why it is different from many other christian societies that used to exist.

>>5379746
I didn't say you were Anglo, but your narrative very much is. There are quite a few places where self-proclaimed socialists continue to win national elections, even as heads of state, with frequency. When the labor movement in the US was in its infancy, the population of the US tripled. Nearly all of it was immigrant labor. Ironically, it was the farthest right of the early labor movement which was averse to immigration, while the socialists and anarchists, the farthest left, were often immigrants themselves. It wasn't until after the Haymarket Affair, when those voices were snuffed out by a concentrated effort to suppress them, that the labor movement here took a more xenophobic turn. Even then, the IWW was a clear example to the contrary.

Not all laborers work in their own self-interest, much less their silly kids. No worker not blindly adhering to a self-sacrificing propaganda of state or national ideology would ever value hierarchy or "meaning" over not getting overworked, underpayed, manipulated, locked out, paid well below living wage with no benefits to speak of, and laid off for no reason after putting in decades of loyal and backbreaking labor. If you think this wasn't the norm before the rise of labor or that it can't happen again without it, you are sorely mistaken. If you simply don't care, you can stop denying your privilege and just be honest about your financial situation instead of putting on working class airs.

The actual working class, what's left of it after the ideological state apparatus is through, does continue to fight for workers' rights and safeguard, as much as possible, the ones that have been won.

>>5379779
>The fact that state dares to cross the house door, something it never did before the 20th century
As if privacy hasn't changed dramatically in the past 20 years. And no, there was espionage of private persons back in the day as well, back when aristocratic Europe was afraid of popular uprisings in the wake of the Congress of Vienna.

>I'm not a luddite.
No, you're a moron if you actually think this is some kind of natural progression instead of a fucked up economic order trying its best to conceal its failure and to blame the ones that pretty much saved their asses when they fucked up.

>The rich are not willing to shoulder the burden of heavier taxation for the sake of people they have no connection with. That's one of the reasons why multicultural societies fail
Yeah, because in "purer" societies, the rich were so much more willing to pay their taxes. And you are quite contradictory here, declaring the US as the state that is most likely to succeed while consisting of one of the most multicultural society that ever existed.

>Remains to be seen.
Problems like tragedy of the commons are frequently discussed problems and very real, as is industrial pollution.

>Multiculturalism is the main reason behind that
How and why?

>You have been in power, and you have failed
Yeah, thank god all these worker councils will finally come to an end and the right will lead us to the promised land.

>>5379700
What shitty area do you live in where "courage" and "honour" would be seen as bizarre concepts?

The far left and far right agree that PC-liberalism/late-capitalist consumerism/post-liberal society is shit, but whereas the former blame the system, capitalism, the /pol/-faggots blame ideological figure of the Jew.

You guys are so close to each other, but yet so far apart.

>>5379835
The real world, were live is completely devoid of heroism, or even of danger that would call for heroes.
Were concepts such as the ones you mention are therefore easily recognizable as tools to bait the gullible into joining some bullshit movement.

>>5379844
>but whereas the former blame the system, capitalism, the /pol/-faggots blame ideological figure of the Jew.
that difference is quite substantial. also, we disagree about why it is shit, and what kind of thing should replace it.

>>5379835
One that immediate recognizes them as relative, platitudinous bullshit

>>5379790
Pic related.
Lenin couldn't make it work, Stalin couldn't make it work, but you could? Soviet Union, China, Yugoslavia, Cambodzha, Republican Spain, Vietnam, Albania, Poland, Chechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Afghanistan, East Germany, Cuba... It's madness to keep doing to the same thing and expect a different result.

>>5379792
>implying you don't just nitpick whatever pleases you and disregard the rest of customs that were common in the past, but which you either think were preceeded or succeeded by more commendable customs
So? Athens was built that way.
>implying it wasn't used as pretext in order to get genuinely good people to butcher themselves or slaughter innocents for the glory of some completely inane cause, pretty much adding a kind of cynical tone to it
It is only a byword for mores.
>How is this threatening anybody?
It has a martial undertone in most cases.
>strength
Physical ability.
>This is so fucking vague, the vast majority of all kinds of political convictions would agree to that
By community I mean nation. That naturally excludes those outside it. As opposed to, say, values based on pure ideals. All those values I mentioned are born out of early societies and struggle against outsiders or from limiting internal competition to productive ways.

>What means are justified for a nation's welfare and how do you define said welfare?
Any and all. If you mean violence, I'd say yes, within reason. In any case the debate about morality of it is without meaning if you can't introduce a source of morality, such as god.
My definition of welfare is necessary material wealth, justice that the people can accept, opportunity to do a meaningful contribution to the society and rewarding those contributions, limiting inequality through progressive taxation and maintaining liberty as long as it doesn't go too far against common good.

>>5379697
>Socialism has never been a project of the lower classes
Yeah, all those middle class people that used to form worker parties and unions is quite staggering...

>>5379862
As I said, it's quite easy to figure out what went wrong with Leninism and the whole franchise it started.
And i never said that I could make it work. In fact, the insight that we have no idea how to make this work is quite central to the Frankfurt School.

>>5379862
Do you know what the fallacy fallacy is?

Also,
>being the type of fedora that thinks you "win" arguments by playing spot-the-fallacy

>>5379822
>but your narrative very much is
I disagree. It is very much continental.
>there are quite a few places where self-proclaimed socialists continue to win national elections, even as heads of state, with frequency
Yet the portion keeps getting smaller and smaller. In the 30s socialists could form majorities in some countries almost on their own; now, they are by and large in a crisis throughout Europe excluding Sweden and possibly Spain and Greece.
>Nearly all of it was immigrant labor
Naturally I'm not talking about the U.S. when I'm talking about the nation state. We have different histories. But I would say that socialism in the U.S. has always been a lost cause for cultural reasons alone. ''Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.''

>Not all laborers work in their own self-interest, much less their silly kids
It's incredibly arrogant and presumptuous to go preaching for the lower classes about how you know what's good for them and they don't. People aren't stupid, they know it very well themselves.
>not getting overworked underpayed, manipulated
Hasn't been a probelm for at least half a century for us
>locked out
Not a problem for at least a century
>paid well below living wage with no benefits to speak of
the same
>and laid off for no reason after putting in decades of loyal and backbreaking labor
Romantic figures of speech aside I agree, that is a problem, and a modern problem at that. Globalism is a tool of the multinational corporations and capital as much as it is part of the left wing religion. When the owners do not have a connection to their workers and the society does not punish them for selfish actions, this is what happens. We used to have pretty good rich people, they took pride in doing their part
>If you think this wasn't the norm before the rise of labor
I don't. Like I said I have more sympathy for old socialists. But socialism is complete train wreck if it gets to hold power, and it has taken part of the cultural struggle, which hurts the indigenous lower class people the most
> If you simply don't care, you can stop denying your privilege and just be honest about your financial situation instead of putting on working class airs
I'm a student and I'll be out of the proletariat sooner or later. I don't deny it. But you brought it up yourself, and I don't see any reason to hide my background. I think I'm looking out for them more than you are. Not globally, of course. But the ordinary people form the core of the nation.
>The actual working class, what's left of it after the ideological state apparatus is through, does continue to fight for workers' rights and safeguard, as much as possible, the ones that have been won
Wonder why the National Front, Ukip et al are so popular among them and why many of them absolutely detest social democrat parties. The latter have degenerated to low-grade officials' party long ago.

>>5379873
>>5379892
Like it or not, Marxism has absolutely no credibility among the majority of the public or economists due to those failures. You can shout about fedoras as long as you want, but you can't make it popular.

>>5379966
Is that an appeal to the zeitgeist (the abstract entity, not the film/movement)?
Damn, you suck as a traditionalist.

>>5379834

>Yeah, thank god all these worker councils will finally come to an end and the right will lead us to the promised land.

>"guys we just need to murder more people, that's the way to true communism"

>>5379986
>being this butthurt about someone insulting their religion

>>5379996
>implying traditionalism is anything but butthurt organized into an ideology

>>5379862
>So? Athens was built that way
Well, good for them! But contrary to popular belief "The Greeks did it" isn't a valid argument on /lit/ or anywhere else.
Arbitrary choices of past customs and institutions according to somebody's personal preferences isn't such a convincing foundation of society.

>It is only a byword for mores.
So it is as vaguely defined as it can get, even to the point of having the opposite meaning of what it usually meant.

>Physical ability
So older men are exempt from masculinity?

>As opposed to, say, values based on pure ideals
And the affiliation to a nation is based on what exactly if not pure ideals?

>within reason
Every military action is considered to be within reason, or else it would be a giant waste of resources.
Let's use some concrete examples:
If one nation has access to a huge amount of resources, is it justified for another nation to attack them if they require those resources for their economy?

>My definition of welfare is necessary material wealth, justice that the people can accept, opportunity to do a meaningful contribution to the society and rewarding those contributions
This is all extremely vague.

>limiting inequality through progressive taxation and maintaining liberty as long as it doesn't go too far against common good.
This is pretty much your average liberal/social democrat's approach.

>>5380027
>Arbitrary choices of past customs and institutions according to somebody's personal preferences isn't such a convincing foundation of society
But tearing customs down or making up your own based on ideology before reality is?

>So it is as vaguely defined as it can get, even to the point of having the opposite meaning of what it usually meant
What is vague about that? Honour is a common concept in sociology and psychology. Generally it means acceptable or encouraged behaviour codes within your role, for example as a soldier or a mother.
Shouting vague at everything is not an argument.

>So older men are exempt from masculinity?
As strength is not the only part, of course not.

>And the affiliation to a nation is based on what exactly if not pure ideals?
Tribal mentality. Humans have an instinct to proto-nationalism. It is remarkably easy to build societies based on principles that are found in our natural behaviour instead of vague ideologies, such as communism and socialism.
Let's turn it around: how can socialism be considered anything but idealism?
>If one nation has access to a huge amount of resources, is it justified for another nation to attack them if they require those resources for their economy?
Yes. It would be reasonable.
Do you believe in objective justice, as you seem to do, and why, if you're a materialist?
>This is all extremely vague
Not an argument.
>This is pretty much your average liberal/social democrat's approach
Is it? How exactly does transferring wealth from middle class to immigrant voting blocks or tearing down the border in order to drive down the wages benefit the workers?

>>5379612
>Adorno was right

>>5380314
>implying he wasn't right about everything
>except for jazz

I don't quite understand what you guys are going on about. Both the hatorz and the lovers share one single inane premise, namely that Adorno is somehow relevant. To me it was just someone opposed to "negro music" in 1920s Berlin. And then they thought they didn't like the Jews either, so he had to leave for America and, just like Arendt, there he'd write essentialist definitions of such stuff as "fascism" or "totalitarianism". After the war he continued writing lofty nonsense prose which fit the spirit of the times.

Now, his books do not make any sense but since this is the ideology of the bureaucrat leeches in Europe and in America he is given credit for all the stuff that happened in the West after Hitler - from the emancipation of the American negro to the immigration waves that followed the labour shortage in 1970s europe.

>>5380899
He is certainly relevant to explaining the stupidity of people suchas you, how it could come this far, and why it means that things will keep getting worse.

>>5380907
Because the enlightenment has failed and now everybody's listening to negro music while reading horoscopes? My man, I know he can be used to explain pretty much anything. He's especially good for irrelevant stuff which you can't change but you can pride yourself in having a "negative relationship" to. It could be clothing, violence in gaming, music or, say, pubic hair in porn.
It could be anything except for the controversial or relevant things. That is too dangerous a topic for a professional tool. So: Save your explanations for the ring lectures you'll be paid to hold by the student organisations of one of your established caviar gauchista parties

>>5380955
>Because the enlightenment has failed
That simplfies the issue. Enlightenment hasn't failed, it reproduces second-order mythology.
>and now everybody's listening to negro music
contemporary culture is garbage, that's for sure
>while reading horoscopes
they're certainly not becoming more rational, and yes, too many are into some sort of esotericism
>It could be anything except for the controversial or relevant things
alright, which are those, and how does the frankfurt school fall short of properly addressing them?
>Save your explanations for the ring lectures you'll be paid to hold by the student organisations of one of your established caviar gauchista parties
yeah right, because there's big money involved in Adornite thought.
you strike me as the kind of person who has a che guevara shirt, poster, beret-with-star, and a flag with his face that you carry at antifa rallies where everybody hates your guts.

>>5379966
Ask yourself what an economist is exactly, and then critically examine why that might not be the type of person interested in the political-economic Marxian analysis. Afterwards, ask why I might then object to the relevance of this claim. Marx need not be accepted by mainstream economists to have a major impact on their work, something that has already happened and will continue to happen. Economists also don't need an understanding of particle physics to do productive work in their current economic frameworks. Yet it still fundamentally impacts that very work.

>>5380310
>tearing customs down
Yes, just because something used to be like this or like that back in the day doesn't mean you have to think of it as holy or something like this.
This is the great thing about Western thought though, its complete profanity, it questions everything and everybody to an almost excruciating degree.

And yes, there is a possibility of constructing an ethic and basical political frameset everybody can agree with to a certain degree. Kant pretty much set the foundation for this.

>acceptable or encouraged behaviour codes
No, that's just acting to your general role expectation. Most societies work according to that, yet you find a different emphasis and view of honour and you apparently find some societies working without any consideration of honour (like most societies of Western countries according to you).

>Shouting vague at everything is not an argument.
Using insufficient definitions isn't either.

>As strength is not the only part
So what are other "masculine" values and what seperates them from "feminine" values? And how is this society or how are leftists afraid of them?

>Tribal mentality
The tendency of people to have a different attitude towards their respective communities or peer groups as opposed to society as a whole doesn't mean tribal mentality. And then again why should I give a fuck about the blokes who I will never meet in real life and just based on the fact that their passport has one entry which is identical to the entry in my passport?

>vague ideologies, such as communism and socialism.
As diversely defined as those two terms might be, they are infinitely clearer than "our natural behaviour" which is a) defined in many, often outright contradictory ways and b) still inane when it comes to how the world should be in terms of political and economic organisation.

>how can socialism be considered anything but idealism?
What does this have to do with what constitutes nationalism as an ideology?

> It would be reasonable
Apparently, but what I meant was: would it be just?

>Do you believe in objective justice
Yes.

>why, if you're a materialist
Because of the universal personhood of all human beings and the process of recognition.

>Not an argument
If your intent was to outline a rightist approach to a just and good welfare for a state and its people, the points you mention were simply way too vague, since a lot of people throughout all political orientations would be able to agree with this.

>How exactly does transferring wealth from middle class
What? Where on earth do you think starts the income/wealth of your average middle class fucker?

>tearing down the border in order to drive down the wages benefit the workers
The thing is most social democrats hate those policies of their parties and still vote for them.
And to the actual argument: extensive progressive taxation was pretty much one of the cores of social democracy (and the New Deal if you want to add liberals).

>>5380899
>To me it was just someone opposed to "negro music" in 1920s Berlin
The reason Adorno disliked Swing and the nazis disliked Swing are completely different.

>>5381011
>That simplfies the issue. Enlightenment hasn't failed, it reproduces second-order mythology.
What exact non-issue did I just criminally simplify?
>contemporary culture is garbage, that's for sure
Of course. Fuck phil ochs and fuck tom lehrer. Schubert and Wagner - this is where the real thing's at. But hey, we're not fascists. We also acknowledge that the Zhdanov doctrine has produce many awesome Kunstlieder in the Socialist Block. We also have decent ballet from communist china and, to prove that we're not stalinists either, we also acknowledge the vanguard art movements of the beginning of the century. In fact we all are neoavangardist artists ourselves and also paint doodles and dicks.
>they're certainly not becoming more rational, and yes, too many are into some sort of esotericism
true übermenschen do not need a guiding hand in life. true übermenschen only need adorno and a future in the gauchist bureacracy.
>alright, which are those, and how does the frankfurt school fall short of properly addressing them?
what did adorno say of the war in vietnam? ditto. nothing. now, i'm not a adorno scholar. perhaps he said something about negro emancipation? You can't be sure. But he could have condemned soviet riot control in Czechoslavia. Yup. that sounds safe.
>yeah right, because there's big money involved in Adornite thought.
You can't get enough of it, eh?
>you strike me as the kind of person who has a che guevara shirt, poster, beret-with-star, and a flag with his face that you carry at antifa rallies where everybody hates your guts.
Ah, now you're getting personal? So i have guessed everything right? Ah, that's good. Now, for che: I thought it's people like who read the motorbike diaries because he's safe, he's fashionable and he's a gauchiste. Turns out you're some different group. And you hate them. How comes? Are they vying for the same feeding troughs as you?
I'm not a leftist and I pursue a different career than bureaucracy. I do not want to be a clerk. And to me as to a common citizen the antifa are much more pleasant than all bureaucratic filth.
>>5381100
Sure. There was a dozen of other "Conservative Revolutionaries" or "Cultural Pessimists", each with a different reason to hate everything that isn't Freischütz or the Wacht am Rhein. Too bad the nazis have regarded him as Jewish. Otherwise he would have found himself a place under sun. That's what happened to other Kathedersozialisten, to those with Christian roots.

>>5381149
>There was a dozen of other "Conservative Revolutionaries" or "Cultural Pessimists"
And Adorno was never part of them, even if he was heavily influenced by some of them and actually liked them.

>Otherwise he would have found himself a place under sun.
Very unlikely, since his work was already heavily influenced by Lukasc, Marx and Freud.

>>5381011
>That simplfies the issue. Enlightenment hasn't failed, it reproduces second-order mythology.
What exact non-issue did I just criminally simplify?
>contemporary culture is garbage, that's for sure
Of course. Fuck phil ochs and fuck tom lehrer. Schubert and Wagner - this is where the real thing's at. But hey, we're not fascists. We also acknowledge that the Zhdanov doctrine has produce many awesome Kunstlieder in the Socialist Block. We also have decent ballet from communist china and, to prove that we're not stalinists either, we also acknowledge the vanguard art movements of the beginning of the century. In fact we all are neoavangardist artists ourselves and also paint doodles and dicks.
>they're certainly not becoming more rational, and yes, too many are into some sort of esotericism
true übermenschen do not need a guiding hand in life. true übermenschen only need adorno and a future in the gauchist bureacracy.
>alright, which are those, and how does the frankfurt school fall short of properly addressing them?
what did adorno say of the war in vietnam? ditto. nothing. now, i'm not a adorno scholar. perhaps he said something about negro emancipation? You can't be sure. But he could have condemned soviet riot control in Czechoslavia. Yup. that sounds safe.
>yeah right, because there's big money involved in Adornite thought.
You can't get enough of it, eh?
>you strike me as the kind of person who has a che guevara shirt, poster, beret-with-star, and a flag with his face that you carry at antifa rallies where everybody hates your guts.
Ah, now you're getting personal? So i have guessed everything right? Ah, that's good. Now, for che: I thought it's people like you who read the motorbike diaries because he's safe, he's fashionable and he's a gauchiste. Turns out you're some different group. And you hate them. How comes? Are they vying for the same feeding troughs as you?
I'm not a leftist and I pursue a different career than bureaucracy. I do not want to be a clerk. And to me as to a common citizen the antifa are much more pleasant than all bureaucratic filth.
>>5381100
Sure. There was a dozen of other "Conservative Revolutionaries" or "Cultural Pessimists", each with a different reason to hate everything that isn't Freischütz or the Wacht am Rhein. Too bad the nazis have regarded him as Jewish. Otherwise he would have found himself a place under sun. That's what happened to other Kathedersozialisten, to those with Christian roots.

>>5381167
>Very unlikely, since his work was already heavily influenced by Lukasc, Marx and Freud.
So what? There were enough Marxists and Freudians who fared pretty well under the nazi regime. A bureacrat is a bureaucrat.
And what is there to take from Lukacs? The theory of a Socialist Realist novel? To write another "How the Steel was Tempere"d?
>And Adorno was never part of them, even if he was heavily influenced by some of them and actually liked them.
What do you mean he was never a part? He was one of the elitary tools who spoke a lot of pretentious nonsense about what they didn't like in the Republic

>>5381149
>What exact non-issue did I just criminally simplify?
you suggested that critical theory proclaims a failure of elightenment, when it doesn't.
>blah blah you like bad art
how did you arrive at that strawman? i said it's all garbage, and if it isn't that's by sheer luck.
>true übermenschen do not need a guiding hand in life.
i don't think critical theorists consider themselves übermenschen. but yeah, guiding hands are not a good thing.
>what did adorno say of the war in vietnam? ditto. nothing. now, i'm not a adorno scholar. perhaps he said something about negro emancipation? You can't be sure. But he could have condemned soviet riot control in Czechoslavia. Yup. that sounds safe.
He actually addressed Vietnam in his lectures on metaphysics, and he was clearly in favour of negro emancipation. the prague spring probably happened in a period that was too exciting in germany for hi to properly address it. also, he died a short time later.
but yeah, he was a philosopher and sociologist, so most of his thought was directed towards abstract issues that simpletons like you do not care about.
>You can't get enough of it, eh?
enough of what, the nonexisting adorno bucks?

And i'm not a group, i'm just some anon on this board, so stop projecting.

>>5381204
>but yeah, he was a philosopher and sociologist, so most of his thought was directed towards abstract issues that simpletons like you do not care about.
Yeah, he's like the New Hegel. Abstract nonsense that nobody cares about. Now I'm off to get the groceries.
>And i'm not a group, i'm just some anon on this board, so stop projecting.
What was it Guevara Shirts, again? Harm set harm get.

>>5381211
>all ths blatant anti-intellectualism
things you don't understand seem to make you very very angry.

>>5381203
>There were enough Marxists and Freudians who fared pretty well under the nazi regime.
Seriously?

>A bureacrat is a bureaucrat
Yeah, because the Weimar republic was so fucking leftist that every second administrative and academic position was occupied by a leftist, right?

>And what is there to take from Lukacs?
The synthesis of Luxemburg and Lenin (and a foreshadowing of Gramsci in a way).

>He was one of the elitary tools who spoke a lot of pretentious nonsense about what they didn't like in the Republic
>If I generalise some strawman that fits neither Adorno nor any of the Cultural Pessimists or members of the Conservative Revolution, maybe they will take it for an argument

>>5381211
Are you honestly claiming that nobody cared about Hegel?

Like, perhaps the most influential philosophers ince Plato and Aristotle? The founder of totalitarian state, nationalism, historical progress, progress, great men theory of history and so on and so on?

>>5381237
>The founder of totalitarian state
well yeah, maybe
>nationalism
nope
>historical progress
>progress
well okay
>great men theory of history
hardly.

Not saying that Hegel wasn't important, but you can't blame him for all of those.

>>5381222
It's not anti-intellectualism or pro-intellectualism. The intellect is irrelevant to a snobbish wing bag like Adorno. Try to get your hands on Schopenhauer's essay on academic philosophy. Adorno will never be the same.
>>5381228
>Seriously?
Yes.
>Yeah, because the Weimar republic was so fucking leftist that every second administrative and academic position was occupied by a leftist, right?
There were a plenty of ultraconservative academics in the 1920s who would employ Marxian verbiage, yes.
>The synthesis of Luxemburg and Lenin (and a foreshadowing of Gramsci in a way).
Really now? Can you elaborate on that is it just bullshit? Luxemburg was this vegan chick who didn't like the use of oxen for the war IIRC (in her letters). Lenin is a maniac murderer and Gramsci predicted a negro president in America (to colonise Africa, naturally). He also has a theory about organic and inorganic intellectuals. You see, Stalin butchered the Old Bolsheviks and replaced them with underclass morons and Gramsci has provided the excuse. Now how did you make the connections with the totality shmotality of Gramsci and, well, the other guys? Or is it just bullshit. Are you regurgitating something you have heared but didn't understand?
>If I generalise some strawman that fits neither Adorno nor any of the Cultural Pessimists or members of the Conservative Revolution, maybe they will take it for an argument
it's not my fault Adorno still has fanboys
>>5381237
Did you get that from propper? Did you get that from Adorno? Founder of X, founder of Y, "great man theory". Point is Hegel was a state philosopher and he wrote a lot of obfuscated nonsense, just like Genosse Wiesengrund.

>>5380848
>jazz
well, what does he tell about Jazz?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzScYtmg0yY

>>5381505
>Schopenhauer
yeah, because Adorno didn't actually catch an influence or two from that guy.
Also, was Schopi an activist? Was he as involved in everyday politics as you seemingly want philosophers to be?
And all his rants against the academy are just his buttfrustration that Hegel is more popular.

>>5381520
basically, that it isn't on par with twelve-tone music etc, and therefore a form of de-evolution of art in the name of mass appeal. and then some complicated stuff about music theory that i neither get nor care for.

>>5381505
>Yes
Name them then and more than a handful.

>who would employ Marxian verbiage
Who and in what context? You are moving goalposts here.

>Luxemburg, Lenin, Gramsci
At least you didn't even try to understand the points they made, it probably would have hurt. But ad hominems are great, aren't they? And it is great to lay blame to some theorist for something a dictator did, isn't it?
And overall: why should I even try to explain it to you if Gramsci is the nigger lover, Luxemburg the vegan cunt and Lenin the maniac. It is all the same to you anyway.

>it's not my fault Adorno still has fanboys
What the fuck do you even want to say with this?

>>5381542
It's spot on what he says about Hegel and the Hegelians and Adorno and all academic philosophy.
http://aboq.org/schopenhauer/parerga2/stil.htm
As to Schopi himself: well, he never worked a day in his life and pushed his maidservant down the stairs. That goes in line with his philosophy, yes. Adorno didn't have a philosophy; Just verbiage that's popular with hereditary bureaucratic robbers. Gramsci is popular, too, because he allows you to proclaim pretty much every activity to be clandestine trench warfare against some "bourgeois hegemony"
>>5381555
That's good. That sounds very much like the works of his that I have tried to read. However: not all of his papers are (harry g frankfurt type) bullshit. The papers he made in america are perfectly coherent. And the polemics against positivism are very fine, too.
>>5381578
>more than a handful.
There is Sombart for M and Jung for the PA. Just google their names you will get arsefull of their friends and colleagues. but why would it matter anyhow?
>At least you didn't even try to understand the points they made, it probably would have hurt. But ad hominems are great, aren't they? And it is great to lay blame to some theorist for something a dictator did, isn't it?
You cannot blame Lenin the theoretician for Lenin the dictator? Wow, you sound like a medieval gnostic. That's not the point. I'm trying to get you to explain how Lukacs "combines lenin and luxemburg to prefigure gramsci". This is why I picked their most obnoxious standpoints; to have you explain what you actually means. It looks like you don't mean anything.
>And overall: why should I even try to explain it to you if Gramsci is the nigger lover,
what's a "nigger lover"? how did you get this? Is this some weird interpretation of the fables he wrote for his kids?
>Luxemburg the vegan cunt and Lenin the maniac. It is all the same to you anyway.
You should paraphrase your ideas without all the namedropping then. :) Did you expect me to just stare at you in awe believing you said something sensible?
>What the fuck do you even want to say with this?
He's popular. That's why he isn't usually sumarised amongst the other conservative thinkers of weimar.

>>5369868

Isn't Guy Debord the only Situationist worth looking at?

>>5381700
>Just verbiage that's popular with hereditary bureaucratic robbers.
i'm trying really hard, but I can't even begin to figure out what you mean by this. aside from that one chapter about cultural industry, adorno's popularity within the academic establishment is close to non-existent.
>That sounds very much like the works of his that I have tried to read
ok, i'm curious now, what did you read from him, and what line of reasoning do you most strongly object to within those works?

>>5381895
>i'm trying really hard, but I can't even begin to figure out what you mean by this. aside from that one chapter about cultural industry, adorno's popularity within the academic establishment is close to non-existent.
come on! you won't be able to find a single bureaucratic cogwheel without some background in adorno studies. He is the safe authority used in all excuse-extra-curriculum activities pulled by the Jusos and the likes. It's not that they cared about what he had to say. They enjoy that there's nothing even demi-coherent in it. And of course they complain he is not popular enough. That translate to "gibe moni plox" so that they can do more "adorno courses" amongst themselves while there of course are proper also courses on Adorno in every single humanitarian university. His books are getting printed and bought and he's one of the very only thinkers to be cited by the caviar gauche press.
>ok, i'm curious now, what did you read from him, and what line of reasoning do you most strongly object to within those works?
What line of reasoning do you agree to most strongly in his works? I like the works where you can even find a line of reasoning. And that is extremely rare. Can you even summarise anything aside from what I've mentionned above? The rest of it is just a hollow mess intended to express exactly nothing and be forced unto ever new generations of students.
I'd like to have goodwill for him but it fades when you see him using, for example, the name of an art movement that you're well acquainted to and whose works and whose theories you know by heart as a metaphor evidently for something completely different. You see: OK there is nothing to understand. He's a windbag telling things that he believes sound more profound. And there is nothing else to say about him aside from what has already been expressed by good old Schops in §283:
http://aboq.org/schopenhauer/parerga2/stil.htm

>>5382112
>come on! you won't be able to find a single bureaucratic cogwheel without some background in adorno studies.
seriously, no. at least at my philosophic faculty, the higher you are ranked, the less likely you are to have any interest in adorno.
The only people who try to introduce him into discourse are some among the lower ranks of the asta, and their interest seems genuine. They organize independent lectures which are visited mostly by young far-leftists and older leftovers from 68, I've never even seen a professor go anywhere near such a thing.
>What line of reasoning do you agree to most strongly in his works?
I'd say 'Negative Dialectics' is both his most challenging and most insightful work. His account of the progress of knowledge necessarily involving a destruction of knowledge is pretty fucking brilliant.
Also, you have dodged the question of which of his works or thoughts you object to, which leads me to believe that you have hardly understood one word he has written.

>>5382209
>They organize independent lectures which are visited mostly by "young far-leftists" and "older leftovers from 68", I've never even seen a professor go anywhere near such a thing.
ah, yes, the"independent" "lectures" which are paid for from the tuition fees of the entire university. And of course they are "far-leftist" just like all the party youth organisations that are holding them. And the people who attend them are totally not just ASTA guise they are also totally not held by the ASTA guys from another university doing a circle jerk. That whole bureaucracy is more corrupt than anything you had in the GDR. In the GDR academia they would at least have to study their classics in earnest and not just drop some quotes they didn't have to understand.
>Also, you have dodged the question of which of his works or thoughts you object to, which leads me to believe that you have hardly understood one word he has written.
I have told you that I understood perfectly well that he has written nonsense on purpose except in his American works and except for certain short essays like f.e. against positivism
>I'd say 'Negative Dialectics' is both his most challenging and most insightful work. His account of the progress of knowledge necessarily involving a destruction of knowledge is pretty fucking brilliant.
MM and ÄT was bullshit. But it was praised in the very same terms as you are praising ND by the cleptocrats I know and by their heirs (in your euphemistic language: "older leftovers from 68" / "young far-leftists")

>>5381716
he gets me mega-wet

t.grill

>>5382326
>which are paid for from the tuition fees of the entire university
we don't have any tuition fees.

And also, what gives you the idea of Adorno being some sort of criminal kingpin wh was out to grab people's money?
And what makes young punks and studierende im alter into cleptocrats in your eyes?
Who is anybody stealing from, and what are they stealing? you're talking nonsense, no one can make any money talking about the frankfurt school.

>MM and ÄT was bullshit.
Ok, thus far I've skipped on ÄT, as aesthetics are too far outside my department. but please, I want to understand you, name one thing you really disliked about MM. This shouldn't be hard to do with a collection of short essays and aphorisms.

>>5382326
>For Marcel Proust. – The son of well-to-do parents who, whether out of talent or weakness, chooses a so-called intellectual occupation as an artist or scholar, has special difficulties with those who bear the distasteful title of colleagues. It is not merely that his independence is envied, that the seriousness of his intentions is doubted and that he is presumed to be a secret envoy of the established powers. Such mistrust is borne out of resentment, yet would usually find its confirmation. However the actual resistances lie elsewhere. The occupation with intellectual [geistigen] things has meanwhile become “practical,” a business with a strict division of labor, with branches and numerus clausus [Latin: restricted entry]. Those who are materially independent, who choose out of repugnance towards the shame of earning money, are not inclined to recognize this. For this he is punished. He is no “professional” [in English in original], ranks in the hierarchy of competitors as a dilettante, regardless of how much he knows about his subject, and must, if he wishes to pursue a career, display a professional tunnel vision even narrower than that of the most narrow-minded expert. The suspension of the division of labor to which he is driven, and which the economic state of affairs allows him, within certain limits, to realize, is considered especially scandalous: this betrays the aversion to sanction the hustle and bustle dictated by society, and high and mighty competence does not permit such idiosyncrasies. The departmentalization of the Spirit [Geist] is a means of abolishing such there, where it is not ex officio or contractually obligated. It does its work all the more surely, as those who continually reject the division of labor – if only in the sense that they enjoy their work – reveal, by this selfsame measure, their vulnerabilities, which are inseparable from the moments of their superiority. Thus is the social order [Ordnung] assured: this one must play along, because one could not otherwise live, and that one, who could indeed live, is kept outside, because they don’t want to play along. It is as if the class which the independent intellectual deserted from revenges itself, by forcibly pushing through its demands precisely where the deserter sought refuge.
Take this one for example, very first aphorism from MM, and it seems to be pretty much in line with all the things you dislike about the academy. So, objections?

>>5382473
>we don't have any tuition fees.
So who are you leeching from in your particular case? The Bundesland? The university? The party? If you are holding lectures for free with an open stage like in a pub, I'll drop you a visit. It might just work. It's like McDonalds giving hamburgers for free. I've gotta see that in person.
>And what makes young punks and studierende im alter into cleptocrats in your eyes?
The ASTAs are not Studierende im Alter and they are not Young Punks. They are the children of bureaucrats and they are going to (or: hope to) become bureaucrats themselves. Their parents aren't Studierende im Alter either.
>And also, what gives you the idea of Adorno being some sort of criminal kingpin wh was out to grab people's money?
It's not his fault. He was an academic philosopher. He was a bore. He is so popular with ASTAs because it isn't some Lenin or Mao or Saul Alinsky but he also sometimes drops a term from Marx, for the edge of it.
>Ok, thus far I've skipped on ÄT, as aesthetics are too far outside my department. but please, I want to understand you, name one thing you really disliked about MM. This shouldn't be hard to do with a collection of short essays and aphorisms.
wait for it. I'm trying to find it in my language and in German.
>>5382553
that translation is better than the original Adorno but it is still horrible. Unless you're stupid and easily duped by pretentious sounding nonsense, what is there to like? For now I cannot find it in my own native language on the internet. If you don't mind I will take the German text and come back to it tomorrow. But it is a very good example for all that is wrong with Adorno.

>>5382683
Ok, so far your reasoning goes
>i hate everything about all unversities and all people involved in anything there
>therefore, fuck adorno
amazing.
i, too have the german version lying right next to me, but i couldn't be bothered to type it out.
but seriously, what's the matter with you, there's a couple of lines talking about how there is little room for independent thought in academia, and you're completely unable to point out what's wrong with even one sentence, even one word.

>>5381542
Adorno is a scrotum-looking-faggot that called the police on his demonstrating students because he realized he looked like a scrotum and that he is a Charlatan.

>>5382706
>waaah muh brave student activism
i know that it's wrong, but i sincerely look down on people like you, despite never having achieved anything myself. i just can't help it.

>>5382716
You're retarded. No surprise you support adornohack

>>5382706

"Even practice is a theoretical concept."

>>5382721
>You're retarded.
No. You.

>>5382706
>>5382716
the other guy hate, Bru. The cult of 1968 looks very silly to me as well.
>>5382700
>but seriously, what's the matter with you, there's a couple of lines talking about how there is little room for independent thought in academia, and you're completely unable to point out what's wrong with even one sentence, even one word.
It's pretentious nonsense. Good for you if you could cleave out even that bit of sense: "independent thought in the academia". I don't see him mentioning the academia. He is just going about some inane hypothetical "rich family" intellectual artist worker who is suspected to work for the powers that be (and apparantely rightfully so). I'm sorry but it does not make any sense to me. Perhaps I have the wrong nationality and the wrong generation to accept this mixture of vulgar Marxism and pretentious references as something extremely profound. As I said I was going to give it a read again tomorrow.

And you've got tell me where you've found cleptocrats who do not steal. Unlike the entire oevre of Adorno this idea is both funny and intellectually stimulating. So: Where are you from? Is it Frankfurt? I could imagine there some true believers in Frankfurt. But they would be outmaneuvred by people who are in for the money and a career in the gauchiste institutions. Because for free you can read Adorno with friends in the pub and discuss him on facebook. There no need to take the hassle elbowing hereditory kleptocrats for their fabulous feeding trough if this obfuscated nonsense prose floats your boat.

Good night. See you tomorrow.

>>5382822
Here's the German text. I think it would work better in a lettrist painting than as a book:
>Für Marcel Proust.
intellektuellen Beruf, als Künstler oder Gelehrter, ergreift, hat es unter denen, die den degoutanten Namen des Kollegen tragen, besonders schwer. Nicht bloß, daß ihm die Unabhängigkeit geneidet wird, daß man dem Ernst seiner Absicht mißtraut und in ihm einen heimlichen Abgesandten der etablierten Mächte vermutet. Solches Mißtrauen zeugt zwar von Ressentiment, würde aber meist seine Bestätigung finden. Jedoch die eigentlichen Widerstände liegen anderswo. Die Beschäftigung mit geistigen Dingen ist mittlerweile selber „praktisch", zu einem Geschäft mit strenger Arbeitsteilung, mit Branchen und numerus clausus geworden. Der materiell Unabhängige, der sie aus Widerwillen gegen die Schmach des Geldverdienens wählt, wird nicht geneigt sein, das anzuerkennen. Dafür wird er bestraft. Er ist kein „Professional", rangiert in der Hierarchie der Konkurrenten als Dilettant, gleichgültig wieviel er sachlich versteht, und muß, wenn er Karriere machen will, den stursten Fachmann an entschlossener Borniertheit womöglich noch übertrumpfen. Die Suspension der Arbeitsteilung, zu der es ihn treibt, und die in einigen Grenzen seine Ökonomische Lage zu verwirklichen ihn befähigt, gilt als besonders anrüchig: sie verrät die Abneigung, den von der Gesellschaft anbefohlenen Betrieb zu sanktionieren, und die auftrumpfende Kompetenz läßt solche Idiosynkrasien nicht zu. Die Departementalisierung des Geistes ist ein Mittel, diesen dort abzuschaffen, wo er nicht ex officio, im Auftrag betrieben wird. Es tut seine Dienste um so zuverlässiger, als stets derjenige, der die Arbeitsteilung kündigt — wäre es auch nur, indem seine Arbeit ihm Lust bereitet —, nach deren eigenem Maß Blößen sich gibt, die von den Momenten seiner Überlegenheit untrennbar sind. So ist für die Ordnung gesorgt: die einen müssen mitmachen, weil sie sonst nicht leben können, und die sonst leben könnten, werden draußen gehalten, weil sie nicht mitmachen wollen. Es ist, als rächte sich die Klasse, von der die unabhängigen Intellektuellen desertiert sind, indem zwangshaft ihre Forderungen dort sich durchsetzen, wo der Deserteur Zuflucht sucht.

>>5382822
>I don't see him mentioning the academia
>chooses a so-called intellectual occupation as an artist or scholar
now you're just being deliberately stupid.
Seriously, what's not to get, the thought-stifling quality of the system is so pervasive that you can't even escape it if you
1. have sufficient funds
and
2. choose an occupation that is not only supposed to be some sort of search for truth and/or beauty, but also irrelevant enough to the working of the system that you'd expect it to be some sort of refuge.
This shit doesn't work, because, in a very strog sense, there is no escape, and in a way, the whole system and everyone within it works to make sure it stays that way.
I'm not from Frankfurt, one Bundesland further up north. What's your nationality btw, and how would it keep you from appreciating the frankfurt school?

Also, my interest in Adorno is, for the most part, private. The philosophical field I specialize in is analytic epistemology, and while the dialectic method has certainly shaped my understanding, i'd be best advised to never mention adorno in a truly academic setting.

>>5381700
>Sombart for M and Jung for the PA
Both Sombart and Jung ceased to be Marxist (it is arguable if Sombart ever was one by the way) and Freudian way before the Nazis took over.
So there is no "the spineless, cowardly intellectual is fine with National Socialism as long as he is well fed".

>You cannot blame Lenin the theoretician for Lenin the dictator
There is nowhere in this text where I actually said something like this. What I said is that if you want to judge a thinker's theory, you should be able to abstract from his occupation or irrelevant views.

>I'm trying to get you to explain how Lukacs "combines lenin and luxemburg to prefigure gramsci"
He tried to melt Lenin's party standpoint with Luxemburgs criticism
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/ch07.htm
And he started emphasising the importance of super structure as opposed to the orthodox economist approach of that time.
You know you could have gotten this information without the mud flinging...

>namedropping
How is this namedropping? You asked me who influenced Adorno and how. What am I supposed to do then?

>He's popular
As is Th. Mann. Or George. And that doesn't mean their thoughts are the same.

>That's why he isn't usually sumarised amongst the other conservative thinkers of weimar.
Yeah, because Spengler, Th. Mann and George faded into obscurity.

Adorno is pretty much a dead end. His entire project is one purely of critique done in the hopeless hope that such critique might one day allow its dialectical counterpart to shine through to our day of salvation. The problem with Adorno's capitalism is a psychological one.

Meanwhile, people are getting murdered in central american highlands for protesting multinational encroachment. And Zizek rallies against locally managed, fair trade operations for merely "prolonging" capitalism.

>>5383124
So, your answer is reformism, social democracy and charity?
And the critics should just shut up?
I mean, yes, obviously, there's a lot of places where this would clearly be the lesser evil, and absolutely necessary.
But that doesn't mean we have, in a stronger sense, anywhere to go. Not Adorno is a dead end, the societies we're living in are, and no one has any idea how to get out.

>>5383231
>So, your answer is reformism, social democracy and charity?

Your biggest problem under capitalism as it exists is "alienation."

A lot of the world's biggest problem under capitalism is getting murdered and dumped in a ditch.

Reformism and social democracy is a RADICAL step forward for much of the world.

>>5383244
>Your biggest problem under capitalism as it exists is "alienation."
No, it is the very real possibility of negative sublation, aka another shoa.
>Reformism and social democracy is a RADICAL step forward for much of the world.
I do not disagree.

>>5382868
You don't specialize in shit, faggot.

>>5383294
>specialize in shit
no, indeed, I do not. Do you?

>>5383314
Literal autism

>>5383318
Literal butthurt

>>5383341
Yes, indeed, you are literally butthurt...indeed

>>5370347
>"post-structuralism", and nobody knows how to overcome it.

It's easy, you just say it's not real philosophy and dismiss it. Problem solved.