/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16204095]

This is all fluffy leftist garbage, right?

[Anonymous No.16204110]

>>16204095
>Kant
>Neetch
>Whitehead
>Foucault
>leftist

[Anonymous No.16204153]

>>16204095
Very mainstream but not all is left

[Anonymous No.16204154]

>>16204095
Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, James, Whitehead, Deleuze, Foucault, Bataille, Arendt, Lyotard, Blanchot aren't.

[R. No.16204164]

Perhaps to a few, though the inclusion of ones such as James, Nietzsche, or Kant puzzles me. Not only to your message on it's left-wing basis, but to the image's claim of it being "theory."

[Anonymous No.16204315]

>>16204154
>>16204110
How is Foucault not a leftist?

[R. No.16204351]

>>16204315
Think they're referring to the fluffy garbage part.

[Anonymous No.16204356]

>>16204315
Oh, sweet summer child.

[Anonymous No.16204359]

ohnooooooo not the spooky leftists aaaaaaa heeeeelp meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee I only want to read liberal and reactionary philosophy aaaaaaa

[Anonymous No.16204369]

>>16204164
Kant is very heavily cited by leftists. Lukacs definitely does. Don't know about the others on this list, though.

[Anonymous No.16204379]

>>16204315
He's anti-materialist and post-modern. Marxism is modernist. That's why Foucault is so hated by the left.

[R. No.16204398]

>>16204369
Yeah he's cited a fair amount. Often in a very contradictory means from my experience, for a fair number embrace his idealism and also to an extent his ethics, yet bombard against virtually everything else.

[R. No.16204405]

>>16204379
Actually Foucault's relatively well-liked amongst a fair number to the left. Not by all, as with any of his kind, but is by no means hated. He's hated far more by the right than the left.

[Anonymous No.16204416]

>>16204095
Updated chart

[Anonymous No.16204429]

>>16204379
>He's anti-materialist
no he isn't

[Anonymous No.16204458]

>>16204095
Most of these guys--especially the post-structuralists--are at minimum crypto-reactionaries.

[Anonymous No.16204463]

>read theory
theory of what?

[Anonymous No.16204465]

>>16204095

[Anonymous No.16204468]

worsen your life without becoming any wiser: the list

[Anonymous No.16204475]

>>16204463
Critical theory, ie. the worst possible theory

[R. No.16204537]

>>16204475
Ehh, not really the worst. But by not means the best. Especially when it goes to the whole gender shit side of things.

[Anonymous No.16204540]

>>16204095
You have to understand that the "leftist" rhetoric of today has very little to do with Marxism. It's not about the theory/praxis dynamic and cares almost nothing for class warfare. It's in a sense phenomenally anti-intellectual and really does not produce works of any significant merit but subsists entirely on emotional weakness and masochism.

Unfortunately, that has not stopped it from appropriating the language of marxist institutions, and developing its own positions on these issues. It's an elaborate protective mechanism against the right wing. By creating a visceral reaction to this language among right wingers, they're less likely to engage with left-wing texts of any merit, and therefore to recognize the constructed nature of modern leftism.

Teach yourself, psychologically, to distinguish books like those in the chart from shitty mental masturbation works like *White Rage* and all that nonsense that the modern leftist movement produces for clicks and dollars.

[Anonymous No.16204551]

>>16204463
>>16204475
It's absolutely not Critical Theory. "Theory" in a marxist sense is a vague term for a body of philosophy which underlies their morals. It's similar but not the same as someone saying "Read the Canon" in reference to the Western Canon. Weber and Hegel are not Critical Theorists

[Anonymous No.16204570]

>>16204551
Nor are many of the French authors, even the leftist ones, critical theorists; they would not have called themselves that. Critical Theory in the strict sense was developed by, and is more or less synonymous with, the Frankfurt School, and then got generalized for all the vaguely politicized continental-light humanities work produced by Americans.

[Anonymous No.16204572]

>>16204095
Half of that chart is continental gibberish that has nothing to do with leftism.

[Anonymous No.16204577]

Why the fuck do people out anime girls on these charts

[Anonymous No.16204583]

>>16204315
He was a CIA asset, like most of those obfuscatory French fucks.

[Anonymous No.16204589]

>>16204577
It helps to recruit lonely dissidents looking for a cause. Triggers their dopamine receptors.

[Anonymous No.16204594]

>>16204405
leninists and tankies tend to dislike him, seeing him as a very neoliberal thinker (which is somewhat true) Its true that the right doesnt like him either but they usually arent that good with modern philsophy to begin with

[Anonymous No.16204602]

>>16204154
Neiter is Lenin

[Anonymous No.16204608]

>>16204577
weeb fandoms are one of the main recruiting grounds for retarded political causes

[R. No.16204618]

>>16204594
I find only Tankies have any sort of dislike for him. Leninists are here and there on him, depends on who you ask.

[R. No.16204623]

>>16204618
Dislike in any continuously prominent sense, I forgot to add.

[Anonymous No.16204661]

>>16204315
Foucault is a liberal.

[Anonymous No.16204662]

Check this out

[Anonymous No.16204700]

>>16204662
Stop shilling your shitty chart faggot

[Anonymous No.16204709]

>>16204662
Anytime I see someone say 'political economy' I know I'm dealing with a pseud who barely steps outside. Nobody in the real world calls it that.

[Anonymous No.16204723]

>>16204709
I think you've just self-exposed yourself as a pseud, 'political-economy' is a valid term.

[Anonymous No.16204729]

>>16204540
Marxism is dead though. Political theory from 18xx isn't that relevant to 20xx.

[Anonymous No.16204731]

>>16204723
If you're living two centuries ago

[Anonymous No.16204750]

>>16204729
No it isn't, Marxism is relevant as long as capitalism exists.

[Anonymous No.16204838]

>>16204729
>>16204750
It's an analytical methodology. Whether or not there are still movements around that want to apply the rules of Marx to governance is irrelevant, we as readers can still use the methods they devised to understand issues in the 21st century. You might as well say "Platonism is dead, it's just not relevant anymore". It doesn't matter whether large movements are using Plato's thoughts for governance. It's an analytical method. Just learn it and see how it works.

[Anonymous No.16204845]

>>16204416
What's the difference?

[Anonymous No.16204863]

>>16204594
>>16204618
>leninists and tankies
Oh fuck off. Foucault was a full-on neolib.

[Anonymous No.16204865]

>>16204583
t. glowie

[Anonymous No.16204877]

>>16204750
>zero predictive power
>apocalyptic fantasies don't come true
>only acts as a way for Liberalism to enter Illiberal societies
That last point is particularly damning. Marxism has done nothing but make life easier for Capitalism.

[Anonymous No.16204879]

>>16204662
This chart is a million times more useful than the OP's, and I'm not even a tankie.

[Anonymous No.16204887]

>>16204110
All still word salad retardation.

[Anonymous No.16204895]

>>16204709
>>16204729
>>16204731
>>16204877
Retard detected.

[Anonymous No.16204903]

>>16204877
>zero predictive power
False
>apocalyptic fantasies don't come true
False
>only acts as a way for Liberalism to enter Illiberal societies
False

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.16204909]

>>16204369
I think it's a mistake to worry about how the work is cited. Political pseuds of all stripes play that game. I bet I could find at least one thing in Marx that can be made to sound vaguely supportive of fascism and ethnonationalism.