/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16817027]

I recognize the value of Theory, but I have also noticed how it is distorted into its own parody in certain circles.

Is this book more of a "postmodernism is literally marxism" Peterson-style nonsense, or an actually informed exploration of the problem?

[Anonymous No.16817065]

>>16817027
postmodernism is literally marxism Peterson-style nonsense

[Anonymous No.16817069]

>>16817027
no, cultural marxism is indeed cultural neoliberalism... the thing is the marxist product of its dreamt state coincinde with the de facto utmost optimal state of affairs for neoliberalism

[Anonymous No.16817078]

>>16817069
word salad

[Anonymous No.16817085]

>>16817078
>word salad

[Anonymous No.16817092]

>>16817069
Doubt. Neoliberalism doesnt optimize worker control by any means. I wouldn't call critical theory marxism or neoliberalism. Perhaps Pink Capitalism or Twitter Liberalism.

[Anonymous No.16817102]

>>16817085
>the thing is the marxist product of its dreamt state coincinde with the de facto utmost optimal state of affairs for neoliberalism
Translate this for brainlets like me then:
>the thing is the marxist product of its dreamt state coincinde with the de facto utmost optimal state of affairs for neoliberalism

[Anonymous No.16817127]

>>16817027
what so you say all the the people seething about postmodernism are all pseuds??

Who would have thought....

it´s kind of hilarious, there is not much postmodern media and no postmodern power in the world, only modern.

[Anonymous No.16817136]

>>16817102
Ideal state for marxists = optimal state of affairs for neoliberalism

[Anonymous No.16817146]

>>16817069
word salad
>>16817078
that's what this board is about. retarded potterheads pretending to be philosophically apt just because their crappy hemingway books are in the same shelf as those greek books

[Anonymous No.16817155]

>>16817102
>>16817146

[Anonymous No.16817157]

>>16817092
do you read motherfucker? in marxism worker controls is the mean, the goal is social and human emancipation thru technology and over industrialised society... well that's the optimal neoliberal scenario.

People don't are compelled by passions, and those passions choose ideologies to materialise that passion in the phenomenical plane. That's why the left was liberal in the XIX century, Marxist in the XX century and neoliberal globalist in XXI century. The goal was always the same: use technology to destroy hierarchical structures and the metaphysical spiritual horizon.

The leftist faggots realise that seizeing the means of production means starving, not what marx predicted which was 3 hours of work per day wherever the fuck you want; so that emancipation from nature and social hierarchies is giving as a goal to transhumanist technocapital singularity.

[Anonymous No.16817165]

>>16817157
people are compelled by passions*

[Anonymous No.16817173]

>Modern universities have turned into churches. Instead of producing students who are able to investigate the author and his literary material, that is to say the text, they produce dogmatic ideologues who must adhere to the doctrine of the French sophists like Derrida and Foucault. These men have seduced, in large part, the American universities, and through their influence, the rest of Europe, with their sophistry. The followers of such a religion state that if you want to be a feminist literary theorist you have to be a woman to understand this gender's literary output. The subjective has triumphed over the objective; identity politics over the scientific. Imagine if the medical community required you to be a child in order to practice pediatrics or a plant to be a botanist.

[Anonymous No.16817183]

>>16817173
Maestro posteo es la mejor clase de posteo

[Anonymous No.16817212]

>>16817102
Do you really not understand?

[Anonymous No.16817226]

>>16817157
You've clearly never read Marx. Worker control of the workplace and wider society is the goal of Marxism. Emancipation via technology was a prediction, not a central goal of Marxism.

Sounds like you've read some psuedo-intellectual critique of Marxism and that you also fail to see that Neoliberalism is and always has been a right-wing philosophy. I don't care to do this song and dance over bullshit ideology and what some right wing autists states is objectice human nature and natural law despite having a less than fundamental grasp of either of those terms. I really don't care what YOUR view of the left or society is because in just two posts you've proven to me that you haven't seriously thought about this or engaged with any literature outside of /pol/ propaganda.

[Anonymous No.16817256]

>>16817226
>pseudo-intellectual
>grasp of either of those terms
>song and dance
>YOUR
>/pol/ propaganda

Are you a tranny? How old are you?

[Anonymous No.16817258]

>>16817157
>I don't read

[Anonymous No.16817272]

>>16817027
Funny how the thread got derailed two posts in.

[Anonymous No.16817312]

>>16817272
Well when you get a guy hopping in saying literally nothing in a paragraph then tying his nonsense together with. Neoliberalism = Marxism. The shit kinda spirals.

[Anonymous No.16817321]

>>16817102
Even if the point he's making is shit, are you really confused by what he said?

[Anonymous No.16817359]

>>16817226
you retard, you're missing my point nigger. The reason why people were inclined to marxism was that in the first place they were disinfranchised by the status quo... they hoped marxism would change that, it didn't, but hey, neoliberalism does a better job at that

[Anonymous No.16817367]

>>16817226
>neoliberalism is right-wing
pic unrelated, you remind me of those feminists who say "capitalism is inherently patriarchich" meanwhile, capitalism destroyed the two most patriarchich institutions in the West: the churcha and the monarchy.

[Anonymous No.16817378]

>>16817212
>>16817321
I was right in my reading of the OP, but it was so bizarre a statement that I thought I must have misinterpreted it. Other anons calling it word salad convinced me something was up with my reading.

[Anonymous No.16817385]

>>16817367
Not the other Anon.
Capitalism is a patriarchal system, an evolving one at that. Yes, a patriarchal system can accept trannies and fags, it can accept females in power, it places all of them under the power of the system. You're really stupid if you think capitalism isn't a patriarchich society.

[Anonymous No.16817386]

>>16817027
OP i am currently reading the book and if the authors intention was to shit on postmodernism, they did a terrible job. I am more interested in postmodernism after reading the opening chapters than before. They do an amazing job in separating postmodernism from the way it is applied

[Anonymous No.16817388]

>>16817102
gb2reddit

[Anonymous No.16817394]

>>16817385
tell me how it is patriarchal

[Anonymous No.16817402]

>>16817359
>>16817367
You're tiresome and boring.

Go back.

[Anonymous No.16817419]

>>16817378
In your defense it was both a word salad and an incredibly braindead take.

[Anonymous No.16817420]

>>16817394
Capitalism is the system that exerts absolute authority over the community as a whole i.e. a patriarchy. If they didn't accept the fags they wouldn't be able to make them play by their rules, that is, to make them consume as any other group.

[Anonymous No.16817432]

>>16817419
how was it a word salad? you must be braindead if you couldn't get what the post meant

[Anonymous No.16817436]

>>16817402
idk, trannies seem pretty happy that the pharmaceutical complex is mass producing hormones for them at extremely cheap prices; and that the god of capitalism has destroyed the metaphysical and christian obedience of the law, so now it is legal for a surgeon to chop a dick off and make an open wound to pretend it is a vagina, the tranny got his fantasies convalidated by capitalism and the surgeon got his money. The non-regulatory nature of world wide financial market allows for absurdly high profits, which can be taxed for gibs... so the poor see how the middle class can no longer buy property at the same time they receive gibs, so diminishing the class gap.

neoliberalism is the blessing for those envious and rotten souls which are inclined to be left leaning

[Anonymous No.16817442]

>>16817420
>Capitalism is the system that exerts absolute authority over the community as a whole i.e. a patriarchy.
so any authority which exerts control over a population is a patriarchy?

[Anonymous No.16817447]

>>16817432
It was a word salad because it used grammar incorrectly and added unecessary words to illustrate a point that sounds so far from an honest opinion that it makes you think twice if you understood the meaning the poster was trying to convey.

[Anonymous No.16817478]

>>16817420
That's a really retarded definition of patriarchy.

[Anonymous No.16817527]

>>16817436
Cute story. What does this have to do with the OP? Also, neoliberalism is a right wing ideology. Maybe you're lost. Pol is over there .

[Anonymous No.16817558]

>>16817527
how is it right wing when it has being the most revolutionary force in history? even marx in his manifesto recognises the revolutionary nature of capitalism. That would explain why the european countries which were for 70 years part of the USSR are today the countries which put up against the globohomo progressive wokeness (poland, russia, hungary) and the most progressive countries the ones who always were capitalists and liberals.

[Anonymous No.16817577]

>>16817558
Fair. Its economically right wing. Socially progressive.

[Anonymous No.16817606]

>>16817092
>I wouldn't call critical theory marxism or neoliberalism.
Some of it is absolutely Marxist, since most critical theory books include excerpts from Marx, Trotsky, Althusser, Gramsci, et al. But those are only a few writers amid hundreds. Likewise, some of it may be liberal or even neoliberal, but again those would be just a few writers (and I can't think of any examples off hand). That's the thing about writers like Peterson: even a passing glance at, say, the Norton Anthology of Literary Theory and Criticism would show that Marxist writers make up very little of the volume. This is why they have to fall back on the idea that feminism, post structuralism, post colonialism, queer theory, Michel Foucault, what have you are really just Marxism, because their arguments are too stupid for words otherwise. Even then, one has to be pretty dishonest to suggest Foucault's debt to Marxism, or feminism's debt to Foucault, means the whole theory canon is Marxist.

[Anonymous No.16817613]

>>16817136
Which is obviously wrong.

[Anonymous No.16817621]

>>16817256
>I think this is effective argumentation
Necking yourself would be easier than this dog and pony show.

[Anonymous No.16817629]

>>16817613
Yes, it is. I was just doing what >>16817102 asked, translating it to brainlet level.

[Anonymous No.16817630]

>>16817321
He wrote it in an intensely obtuse way. If he can't communicate ideas clearly, that's on him.

[Anonymous No.16817632]

>>16817577
A lot of people don't seem to get this, when conservatives say neolib is left wing they're correct, and when progressives say neolib is right they're also correct. They just differ on what they find most the most important issue (which is reversed from what you would expect somehow).

[Anonymous No.16817645]

>>16817386
>They do an amazing job in separating postmodernism from the way it is applied
That's a good sign, it aligns with my impression on the matter.

[Anonymous No.16817650]

>>16817367
You're misunderstanding a historical statement with an essentialist one. We can envision non-patriarchal capitalism. That's easy. But that doesn't change the fact that the creation of capitalism in the reality we find ourselves was beholden to a patriarchal system. It's the same way a church or a monarchy could conceivably be non-patriarchal, even if what we got largely weren't.

[Anonymous No.16817675]

>>16817606
This is a good post. I think an overlooked part of post-modernist critique is that culture will continue to evolve even outside of government effort or lack of official acknowledgement. Culture isnt tied to any one school of thought, rather it evolves contonously as human consciousness continues to evolve. That corporations latch themselves onto social movements just proves that they don't care at all about social issues, but will quickly assign themselves with the cultural left in order to make profit, avoid lawsuits, and prevent boycotts. IF culture was more conservative, I'm confident we would see corporations attach themselves to right-wing causes.

I personally believe that the left poses more of a threat to neoliberal hegemony than the right, I think that also lends to their quickness to champion left-wing ideals...to pacify the left from pursueing a leftward economic shift.

[Anonymous No.16817676]

>>16817386
How can you apply post modernity? Post modernity is an epoch defined by certain things (e.g. prioritizing ontology over epistemology, rebuking modernist narratives, central authority giving way to manifold voices). It's not a tool or a method. Lyotard wasn't applying some theoretical apparatus; he was naming the coming era.

[Anonymous No.16817690]

>>16817577
The former category undermines the latter. One cannot be socially progressive if their economic policies disenfranchise the very people they are upholding. This is the central criticism of neoliberalism; companies pander to identity politics while enshrining the practices that make it impossible for marginalized groups to materially progress.

[Anonymous No.16817701]

>>16817632
Culturally left-wing opinions from corporations are no brainers. It pacifies the only ones seeking to change their profit motive and fight for economic justice. They lose nothing by capitulating to the left, and if the right happens to win out, they get to keep their economic system and lose their lgbtq colored logo for one month of the year.

[Anonymous No.16817702]

>>16817447
Word salad or not, agree with him or not, you have to be brain dead to not understand him

[Anonymous No.16817717]

>>16817690
I agree. Wait....you mean corporations actually dont want Marxism. No way! REEEE

[Anonymous No.16817744]

>>16817701
>economic justice
>marginalized groups

No such thing, social constructs that exist in your mind only

[Anonymous No.16817745]

>>16817702
He's saying nothing of consequence in an annoying way that makes me think he has brain damage. Shifting the blame onto the reader is a stupid dodge.

[Anonymous No.16817754]

>>16817027
Just finished it yesterday.
It's a good exploration of all of the problems it mentions in the title with examples and sources. It also provides some resources on how to get more information about what's happening, for example it suggests authors and individuals to look into, who originally came up with the various ideas and problems we are now facing, if you wish to get more information on where these ideas originated from and how they are being used and interpreted.

I think I'm going to read it again just to have it sink in because this is definitely the most comprehensive exploration of the topics and there's a lot to take in. I ended it feeling both optimistic that I can now understand the problems more deeply and it gave me a sort of confidence to stand up to the mob, but it's also sobering that these problems go deep and they wont just go away on their own and if left unchecked things can get much worse.

Highly recommend it, it's a relatively easy read and you can even get the audiobook which is read by one of the authors (Helen, the one with the British accent) which is pleasant.

[Anonymous No.16817763]

>>16817744
>social constructs exist purely in the mind of a single individual
Ignoring that, being invented categories doesn't make them less real. You're like those idiots who say race isn't real because its a historical and societal invention, not biological. It doesn't matter from where something derives. If we've thought it collectively, it now carries real power.

[Anonymous No.16817776]

>>16817173
>Imagine if the medical community required you to be a child in order to practice pediatrics
basado

[Anonymous No.16817780]

>>16817744
Oh excuse me captain semantics. The left seeks to end their huge tax breaks and loopholes. To end their monopolization. To end their exploitation of their employees both domestic and foreign. They wish to end their political control and give more power and choice to the working class. The right seeks to let them do whatever makes them the most profit. Which group would you cater to and pacify.

[Anonymous No.16817788]

>>16817763
You have to straw man an argument because I’m right

Marginalized groups dont exist, poor people do though, and they exist and existed under every, EVERY, form of government, your inquiry into poverty is pretty shallow

Economic justice? Same shit different story, you’re entitled and not that bright

[Anonymous No.16817798]

>>16817780
Whichever one offers the most freedom, I have aspirations of starting my own business and then you can cry about my labor like you do other people’s

[Anonymous No.16817819]

>>16817798
Funnily enough Americas left wing candidates have policy that's better for small businesses. All of your precious freedoms came from Liberalism and left wing activism. Marxists support gun rights. Conservatives only pretend to.

[Anonymous No.16817825]

>>16817027
Reminder that this review utterly BTFO that book
https://www.liberalcurrents.com/the-cynical-theorists-behind-cynical-theories/

[Anonymous No.16817859]

>>16817819
All my precious freedoms came from slave owners who founded this great country and the guerilla fighters who opposed taxation and made it reality, George washington for example

[Anonymous No.16817868]

>>16817819
And left win candidates? This implies the DNC is more than a horse and pony show, if that was the case Bernie would have been nominated in 2016 and 2020 both

[Anonymous No.16817890]

>>16817868
Bernie was a left wing candidate. Democrats are right wing Neolibs just like Trump. What's so confusing about it?

[Anonymous No.16817900]

>>16817890
I won’t contest that statement

[Anonymous No.16817937]

>>16817676
>How can you apply post modernity?
The authors say you really can't. Postmodernism is inherently destructive and any application of it will result in its own destruction. Woke culture applies it by establishing certain ideas that are above radical skepticism and constructs their own narrative without seeing the cognitive dissonance in doing so.

[Anonymous No.16817942]

>>16817788
>You have to straw man
I was teasing you for a bad turn of phrase. Which is why I moved past it within two words. Your argument that poor individuals exist but groups of poor individuals don't exist smacks of Thatcherian obfuscation. The whole doesn't exist, but it's constituent parts do? Sure, whatever. I imagine what you are trying to get at is the idea that sufficient solidarity doesn't exist among the poor to constitute a group identity. That's slightly more interesting and likely arguable. If you want to make that argument yourself, I suppose I'll try a rebuttal. Finally, I find your invective of my shallowness (you're not even responding to a single person now) hilarious given your argument on poverty is a banal misapplication of inductive logic:
>poverty has persisted through our current set of examples of government
>this means poverty is endemic, natural, and pointless to consider ameliorating
How revelatory, such naval gazing.

[Anonymous No.16817950]

>>16817859
At least try with your bait.

[Anonymous No.16817974]

>>16817937
>any application
It's not a thing to apply. It cannot be applied. It's merely the era we live in. If you believe Lyotard, Baudrillard, Jameson, et al. anyway. We're free not to.

[Anonymous No.16818119]

>>16817825
Reading this review, I have to wonder how such sloppy, intellectually dishonest writing gets published. Well, likely because it sells to the Peterson crowd, especially when remembering the publisher primarily deals with applied psychiatry and psychoanalysis. So I guess I just find it depressing that such crap can get published.

[Anonymous No.16818591]

>>16817420
Please go back retard

[Anonymous No.16818625]

Why and when did Marxism get married to all of the tranny LGBTQ+ garbage?

[Anonymous No.16818766]

>>16818625
Around the time of the Occupy movement, as an extremely effective CIA campaign, although its roots can be traced back to way before that. Just like they successfully associated Soviet ideology with intellectual and spiritual rigidity through the Soviet realism - American abstract expressionism dichotomy, now they've successfully altered the last remaining positive or neutral views of Marxist thought in the minds of the people in general by associating it with annoying weirdos.

[Anonymous No.16818779]

>>16818625
>>16818766
In the west it really began in the 70s with the New Left

[Anonymous No.16819117]

>>16817420
Authority is patriarchy?

[Anonymous No.16819354]

>>16818766
>Around the time of the Occupy movement, as an extremely effective CIA campaign
this makes no sense whatsoever, because instead of just being a nuisance, this movement of crazies has grown exponentially from just being mere sideshows on peripheries like tumblr. trannies are now being elected into office.

[Anonymous No.16819495]

>>16817385
>>16817420
Dumbest posts I’ve seen in a while

[Anonymous No.16819535]

>>16817420
Holy shit fucking kill yourself immediately

[Anonymous No.16819540]

>>16817027
It's a good normie tier breakdown of postmodernism. It correctly sees postmodernism's hypocrisy regarding grand narratives and the use of language to get power, because postmodernism is the new Esklavenmoral using a grand narrative and language to gain power for the weak and retarded.

[Anonymous No.16819548]

>>16817173
he still got filtered by Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.16819553]

>>16817385
please please kys

[Anonymous No.16819667]

>>16817942
The other guy got btfo lol

[Anonymous No.16819860]

>>16817942
More straw mans, poor people exist and poor isnt an identity, cope

[Anonymous No.16819971]

>>16818625
Trannyfags are mindless corporatecattle purpose engineered biopolitical clientele for neoliberalism..

[Anonymous No.16820016]

>>16819540
>>16817173
Paul deman certainly one of the emblematic characters of the 20th century bigamist nazi collaborator, compulsive liar convicted for fraud in his native belgium latter made his name as a radical professor in Yale aka Boa deconstructor. In the antisemitic literary criticism paul de man wrote for his uncle henri's magazine during the occupation, he said it would only take a dozen jews writing under aryan pseudonyms in order to irrevocably contaminate the whole of european literature. mimetic panic, were you can't know for sure if you yourself aren't a faker. one of de man's colleagues at yale, harold bloom(self described 'gnostic jew', unable to believe in god after auschwitz) wrote a whole theory of literature based around the anxiety of influence, he's remembered as a traditionalist defender of the western cannon but actually fits in with the late 20th century zeitgeist of irony, subversive quotation, pastiche, etc., next to judith butler, another rebellious talmudist who studied under the yale deconstructionists. as we all know, the first culture war just like the first gulf war, never took place.

[Anonymous No.16820068]

>>16817173
>>16817754
>>16820016
Both the sjws and the cynical theories guy are degenerate retarded iterations of shit that was going on in the 70s=90s, not really much to do with foucault or derrida instead created by the powerful mimetic forces unleashed by social media. The liberal establishment is effectively an alliance between the security state alphabet people and the twitter alphabet people. Peter Thiel studied under rene girard at stanford for one, social media is effectively designed to monetize girardian scapegoat dynamics. Interesting to trace for example the influence of foucault and derrida in the lyrics of post hardcore bands of the 80s and 90s. Americans are too busy getting angry and taking things way too seriously instead they should relax and enjoy the fact they actually live in a wacky pynchon novel.

[Anonymous No.16820182]

>>16819971
What they’re a product of is obvious enough. But they seem to have contaminated left wing political movements

[Anonymous No.16820190]

Always relevant

[Anonymous No.16820593]

>>16819860
What a puny responses you've made.

[Anonymous No.16820598]

>>16818625
It never was except as a right wing boogeyman.

[Anonymous No.16821382]

>>16817890
Bernie was a left wing liberal Democrat

[Anonymous No.16821392]

>>16818625
Ted Kazcynski solved leftism. The whole spectrum is an ideology that worships inferiority and slave morality. Capitalism creates decadent conditions and atomizes people so naturally leftists just embrace the consequences of this social deterioration (transgenderism, LGBT, BLM). After the New Left solidified this direction in the 60s, Marx hardly had anything to do with it anymore. He might as well be the elderly grandfather who can’t recognize his own rainbow colored grandchildren

[Anonymous No.16821402]

>>16817420
Dude...

[Anonymous No.16821460]

>>16817069
spbp
lmaoing at the brainlets not understanding this, read adorno's take on the culture industry and then turn on the tv. read sunic's homo americanus.

[Anonymous No.16821476]

>>16817420
insanely retaded post, worse than anything butterfly posted even

[Anonymous No.16821504]

>>16821392
>Capitalism creates decadent conditions and atomizes people so naturally leftists just embrace the consequences of this social deterioration (transgenderism, LGBT, BLM). After the New Left solidified this direction in the 60s, Marx hardly had anything to do with it anymore. He might as well be the elderly grandfather who can’t recognize his own rainbow colored grandchildren
partly correct, the natural part of leftism following this decadence isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. historical leftism as in labour unions or the soviet union tended to be a lot more authoritarian and realistic when it comes to the cultural underpinning of their society/state (which is in-itself a deviation from pure-left point of view that stated the material conditions create culture, and not vice versa, if i remember that correctly). but the direction the majority of leftists took was that of cultural liberalism, which is more on the utopian side of things, but with the catch that (neo)liberalism enables this, and a lot better than real socialism (as in, the way it existed as a state ideology or manifested itself as such) ever could, for the atomizing, delocalizing and productive capabilites capitalism/liberalism shows are even more capable and stable than even marx though, leading to the absurd state that is the present: an utopian, individualistic post-socialism phase of hedonism without a goal that just skipped the crumbling of capitalism and dictatorship of the proletariat and instead manifested itself within a capitalist world. sorry if not clearly formulated, english isn't my native language and i'm a little tired

[Anonymous No.16821541]

>>16819548
>Nietzsche has useful answers to postmodernism
YOU got filtered by Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.16821584]

I read cynically theories two weeks ago. It’s a more nuanced description of postmodern philosophy than what you get from Jordan Peterson (it clearly distinguishes between marxism and pomo). Each chapter is pretty much just an explanation of the different academic wings that are based on Theory (gender/critical race/queer studies) and their history and then at the end they critique them based on enlightenment/liberal ideas.

I thought it was worth reading. The biggest problem I had was their wasn’t enough critique of contemporary postmodernism.

[Anonymous No.16821611]

>>16821504
yes and this is why most leftists today are just progressive liberals with a purely individualistic millenarian worldview, this is also why books like OPs pic are nonsense because they espouse the “cultural Marxism” shit without identifying liberalism as the real culprit

[Anonymous No.16821945]

>>16817027
>"postmodernism is literally marxism"
Marxism is when one class is dominated by another. The more dominated they are, the more Marxismer it is.

[Anonymous No.16821950]

>>16821392
>>16821504
I think we're overlooking the states role in completely silencing TRUE leftist thought in favor of these concessions in the cultural realm. Also the Liberal medias manufacturing of what is and is not acceptable thought. Sure, we see more leftist thought today in the wake of the internet era and honestly, in response to DJT as well as overall worsening inequality, stagnating wages, and looming environmental catastrophe. To think that leftists are accepting of neoliberalism to me at least sounds like a vast oversimplification. Espescially considering every movement that has sought to end or reform Neoliberalism has come from the left.

[Anonymous No.16821962]

>>16821460
The first sentence yes. The second assertion aboit Neoliberalism providing a Marxist Utopia is the most braindead and illeterate shit I've read my entire life.

[Anonymous No.16821995]

>>16821584
I agree with your critique. While it was good work in detailing the strange, and at times mind-boggling, development of Theory, the solutions that Lindsay and Pluckrose suggest are often a 'let's go back to the good ol days' but if we did I predict we would end up in a similar position agan in X years hence

[Anonymous No.16822028]

THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN MARXISM AND CRITICAL THEORY

I always suspected they were related, because of their obvious similarities but wanted to see it codified explicitly in marxist theory
which is found in the work of Lukasc, specifically 'History and Class Consciousness'
He dictates that the proletariat have access to superior wisdom that is out of the reach of the bourgeois. And that this superior wisdom is stored in the communist state apparatus (rather than appearing in an empirical proletariat person who may or may not agree with parts of marxist theory) and that this wisdom emerges in practical commitment rather than in any "contemplative" investigation. so that what produces truth is the political action of the communist party. In other words, by definition, the party is never actually wrong since it is the only mechanism in generating truth criteria.

Leszek Kolakowski cleverly illustrates this by showing the difference in the normative imperative statement like "A Christian never steals" meaning that a good Christian wouldn't or shouldn't steal. But when someone says "A Soviet never steals" he also means literally that it is not possible for stealing to occur as part of the soviet essence (doesn't this stink of the same mental gymnastics that SJWs go through).

So Lindsay, while being tactical by trying to seduce and full-blooded Marxists (whether this is in order to actually win them or rather, as I suspect, to provide an alibi against being labelled as right-wing or a reactionary) he is wrong to not see this link. Lindsay actually explicitly states that Marxists see the victimised classes as being damaged in terms of their epistemological capability but that's not true as we can see, Lukasc did not have to develop Marx's own thought by any large degree to reach his conclusions about class consciousness.

[Anonymous No.16822043]

>>16817386
Thank you for answering OP. I saw this in the store and have been debating purchasing it, but it sounds like an interesting book. I'll give it a read

[Anonymous No.16822113]

>>16817069
word salad

[Anonymous No.16822268]

>>16821950
Leftists wont achieve anything if they cant even tell the politically correct lgbtsjwtfnpc crowd to take a hike.for the most par theses people are all for consumerism endless wars and corporate rule as long as working class whites/christians/ heteros get the short end of the stick and their corporate masters agree to plaster rainbows everywere and implement mandatory diversity training

[Anonymous No.16822347]

>>16817027
If you want to read something good, its usually a good idea to skip books on conspiracy theories

[Anonymous No.16822353]

>>16817069
word salad

[Anonymous No.16822362]

>>16817157
If you're going to pretend to have a criticism of Marx, at least watch a documentary or something so you can pretend you've read him

[Anonymous No.16822381]

>>16822347
>conspiracy theories
Fuck off NPC

[Anonymous No.16822388]

>>16817069
Cultural Marxism is simply a way to subvert the west and take over but instead of class using gender and race, it has now morphed into intersectionality

[Anonymous No.16822392]

>>16822028
No.

[Anonymous No.16822398]

>>16817420
"everything is patriarchy therefore everything is patriarchy"

fuck off tranny

[Anonymous No.16822504]

>>16820598
No. All post 2000 leftists have fully internalized the ultra socially progressive tranny/Judith Butler gender nonconformity/whatever the fuck because it’s resistance against “oppression” even if these ideas of free self expression are very obviously based on liberal fundamentals.

[Anonymous No.16822550]

>>16818119
>>16817825
I also read the review, and it seems to me it's actually the reviewer who is faking ignorance by pretending the conclusions of authors aren't the natural, logical conclusions that can be drawn form the articles they had read.
You are merely arguing that postmodern text are open to wide range of applications, yet, in reality, they have been interpreted in a very particular way, thus the authors are absolutely right.

[Anonymous No.16822564]

If this book is not considered a good critique of critical theory -- by some, anyway -- then what is the go-to book?

[Anonymous No.16822646]

>>16817825
>liberalcurrents

[Anonymous No.16822695]

>>16822392
I am not going to reverse image search your literal whomst if you can't be bothered explaining your point

[Anonymous No.16822714]

>>16817825
This review is better
https://quillette.com/2020/07/20/the-truth-according-to-social-justice-a-review-of-cynical-theories/

[Anonymous No.16822744]

>>16818766
So a conspiracy theory. Nah people like underdogs and want to make bigger underdogs than just muh worgin clayss

[Anonymous No.16822746]

>>16822695
lmao what a pseud.

[Anonymous No.16822766]

>>16822746
now tell me what you really think

[Anonymous No.16822774]

>>16822766
lmao what a pseud.

[Anonymous No.16822775]

>>16822744
>uh'ts en cunspurahceh mayne streeme meteor told me so

[Anonymous No.16822785]

>>16818766
Soviet Union funded feminist and black identity movements in the 60s and 70s

[Anonymous No.16823533]

>>16822504
Leftists or Marxists may indeed hold ideas that are contradictory or incompatible with each other. That's a far cry from saying Marxism itself was married to those same contradictory ideas. That said, no one is actually a leftist or a Marxist in the west. There are those critical of neoliberalism, but no one actually wants to see capitalism overthrown, just its greatest trespasses mitigated.

[Anonymous No.16823575]

>>16822550
None of the paraphrasing from the authors was natural or logical based on the source texts. They've very obviously shifted the messaging to conform to the argument they want to make. Maybe they did so unconsciously, but I doubt it. Regardless, this book remains one more on the pile of poor scholarship by those with hobbyhorse against post modernity, feminism, post colonialism, queer theory, Marxism, et al. These things are hardly above reproach, but the authors provide neither insightfulness nor rigor with their critique. Incidentally, those who share this hobbyhorse, could just look to theory for substantive critiques of, say Butler, but I somehow doubt they will.

[Anonymous No.16823611]

>>16817027
up nietzsche or any western philosopher for that matter around your local lgbtsjwtfnpc marxust cattle? In no time you will see their little stupid cowlike eyes light up in panic. Soon enough they will start with the usual subhuman bleating "wasnt he sexist? Arent you being dangerously eurocentric? Why read books by dead white men when you could have been streaming the latest diverse and inclusive workplace comedies at netflix hulu and disneygo? You should know reading non YA literature is ableist against those who are too retarded to read. What are you a russian bot trump supporter? Have you been taking your SSRIs and HRT? it is very important that you take the medication dr goldstein prescribed otherwise we will have to report you to corporate for mandatory sensitivity training".I mean have you tried bringing up nietzsche or any western philosopher for that matter around your local lgbtqia leftist cattle? In no time you will see their little stupid cowlike eyes light up in panic. Soon enough they will start with the usual subhuman bleating "wasnt he sexist? Arent you being dangerously eurocentric? Why read books by dead white men when you could have been streaming the latest diverse and inclusive workplace comedies at netflix hulu and disneygo? Didnt you know reading is ableist towards people who are too retarded to read? Have you been taking your SSRIs and HRT? it is very important that you take the medication dr goldstein prescribed otherwise we will have to report you to corporate for mandatory sensitivity training".

[Anonymous No.16823653]

>>16823575
As a privileged white man looking to overcome internalized prejudices towards the queer community, tell me which theory should i read that could help me appreciate the diverse and vibrant culture of these most noble and progressive of creatures

[Anonymous No.16823662]

>>16822550
>>16823575
That said, I think the subtitle, at least, may be correct. I think identity politics (or wokeness, "social justice in action," or I'm not sure what exactly to call it), when married to an aggressive attitude toward policing transgressions, may be used as a tool to prevent class cohesion, and that its most slavish proponents (of which there are, let's not forget, few) will become unwitting operatives for the ruling class. But then I'm not a Marxist, and I don't think there is any room for human agency in our current economic (and likely post modern) landscape that isn't easily decried as base consumption. Apologies out there to anyone who fell for the consoomer meme.

[Anonymous No.16823681]

>>16823653
I can't help you there. None of the theory I've read has, as a goal, engendering appreciation in a marginalized bloc in its target audience. There is likely nothing you can do to "overcome internalized prejudices" unless you consider a continuous state of overcoming, where you remain prejudiced but open to the idea that you don't want to be.

[Anonymous No.16823733]

>>16823681
What have leftists done but replace christ on the cross for a pink haired faggot on a wheelchair? The queer wont even grant me eternal life or forgive me for the sins of my bigotted white ancestors so im just saying it would be pretty funny if we could get together two planks of wood and a bucketful of nails and actually crucify that fucker for real.

[Anonymous No.16823738]

>>16817027
The year is 202x under suspicion of being a white supremacist and a russian asset the house unamerican activities comitee has order you to attend a state sponsored screening of star wars XXVIII: avengers assemble, the latest disneygooglepepsico motion picture extravaganza. As you are escorted to the theater you pass by a daily prideblm mcdonalds parade with a fabulous troupe old 9-year-old boy catamites twerking before the phallic missiles of the lockheed martin float, missiles set to launch at midnight towards the eurasian heartland (mercifully) wiping the human race off the face of the earth.

when you arrive at the theater, alexandra ocasio cortez and bill nye, the science guy, strap you into a chair forcing your eyes open clockwork orange style, the screen flickers on but instead of space adventures or superheroes the audience is treated to what looks like blurry vhs footage of a pack of bluehaired fat positive queers raping an innocent white child intersped with blipverts for the latest techproduct. The brainwashed leftists in the audience bleat monotously in unison: YAS KWEEN SLAY at what they cant help but see as a beautiful and heartwarming display of diversity and progress. Oh god the queers have started ripping appart the child, feasting on its bloody entrails like rabid hogs at the through. You sit on the front row and think: "gee i shouldve joined the alt right before it was too late"

[Anonymous No.16823803]

>>16817027
Leftists are just being manipulated by the democratic party and corporate social engineers their goal is an homogenous atomized, and demoralized mass of human cattle who are afraid to think for themselves and always do what they are told.

[Anonymous No.16823952]

>>16823733
>What have leftists done but replace christ on the cross for a pink haired faggot on a wheelchair?
Have they done that? I get that this is the meme, but I don't think I understand the point you're trying to make. If what you're trying to say is that leftists have supplanted one person who is presumably above reproach with another, then I think I disagree. I don't see a sustained, concerted effort to suggest what is homophobic, transphobic, racist, or sexist isn't up for debate (i.e. real engagement, instead of dismissal). That said, we've likely all seen that kind of argument. The most recent exemplar is probably DiAngelo's book "White Fragility." But a single (not very good or useful) book and a handful of Twitter trumpeters constitute a concerted, let alone monolithic, push to stifle debate. I concede that even a few radicals are cause for alarm, but let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. While troubling, I do think at least some of the "stifle all argument" crowd is working through the frustrating work of seeing nothing much but dismissal and bad-faith argumentation dressed up as engagement, rationality, or whataboutism. It's absolutely lamentable that this cohort has retreated into an epistemic siege, wherein everyone outside their intellectual walls are not worth engaging with. I think this inclination, if allowed to fester further, constitutes the real danger Pluckrose and Lindsay misattribute; but I nevertheless understand it.

[Anonymous No.16823981]

>>16822766
lmao what a pseud

[Anonymous No.16823994]

>>16823738

[Anonymous No.16824035]

Why do leftists love to point out that immigration is used by the capitalist class and harms native workers but then turn around and defend said immigrants with all their might?

[Anonymous No.16824074]

>>16824035
Their whole worldview is based on doublethink

[Anonymous No.16824110]

>>16823952
These people are deranged, violence is the only language they understand. By this poin its pretty clear they want us dead broke our children raped and they think its all pretty funny.

https://youtu.be/jwFBH9G6JaE

[Anonymous No.16824144]

>>16823952
All major corporations
, universities, the democratic party most of the media dont constitute a concerted effort.

[Anonymous No.16824147]

>>16824035
Likely because one can simultaneously think immigrants are deserving of decency while decrying their debased status as tools of the capitalist class. Framed this way, in terms of treating people decently, the two views are hardly antithetical. That said, I don't think they can readily be attributed to leftists (or maybe only leftists); and maybe immigration in a capitalist system designed to debase immigrants is unethical. But I think this conclusion prompts a question: do we then end immigration, or do we disempower those who debase immigrants?

[Anonymous No.16824237]

>>16820190
based Pound poster

[Anonymous No.16824512]

>>16817420
>Capitalism is the system that exerts absolute authority over the community as a whole i.e. a patriarchy.
That's not what the word patriarchy means anon. please do us all a favour and never post on here ever again, you clearly have nothing of value to say.

[Anonymous No.16824527]

>>16817027
these kind of threads prove absolutely no one here actually go to university, please please please try and seriously cite Derrida and see how far you get

[Anonymous No.16824545]

>>16817027
fuck you for posting this offensively shitty barnes and noble tier pop non fiction trash for everyone on this board to have to see. you should be ashamed of yourself, OP. Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.16824566]

>>16817146
kek
>>16817027
account the extreme bizarre of academics as rule, as always. Shit tier strawman

[Anonymous No.16824582]

>>16817650
>We can envision non-patriarchal capitalism. That's easy.
Ok, so capitalism isn't inherently patriarchal then.

[Anonymous No.16824604]

>>16824545
t. Butthurt discord tranny

[Anonymous No.16824800]

>>16824147
>Framed this way, in terms of treating people decently, the two views are hardly antithetical
nice verbal acrobatics
Just like that leftist empowers those that debase immigrants by normalising and encouraging mass immigration and washes his hand clean.
He turns himself into the ideological veil of those that debase immigrants.
Typical hypocrisy.

[Anonymous No.16824960]

>>16817825
No it didn't, shill.

What ever liberal dim wit wrote that is either ignorant or lying about the book.

That whole review was basically a "no you".

"Pluckrose and Lindsay write, “we now have Social Justice texts—forming a kind of Gospel of Social Justice—that express, with absolute certainty, that all white people are racist, all men are sexist, racism and sexism are systems that can exist and oppress absent even a single person with racist or sexist intentions or beliefs (in the usual sense of the terms), sex is not biological and exists on a spectrum, language can be literal violence, denial of gender identity is killing people, the wish to remedy disability and obesity is hateful, and everything needs to be decolonized.” The authors don’t give citations for any of these radical claims" -They literally do. Whoever wrote this is lying.

On top of that the reviewer is pretending to not know all of the above has actually happened or been said by high profile figures and institutions multiple times beyond the books sources and pretends that the past 10 years haven't happened. It's a dishonest attempt at dismissing the book by feigning ignorance. Or whoever wrote the review is so out of touch with what's been happening that they need to be spoon fed on all of the events that have transpired over the past decade.

[Anonymous No.16824982]

>>16818119
The review is straight up lying and counting on people like you to ignorantly trust it.

>Well, likely because it sells to the Peterson crowd

Already exposes that you're primed to absorb the review at face value because it coincides with your preconceived notions of the kind of person who reads the book.

[Anonymous No.16825026]

>>16822268
Personally I think you may be suffering from the baader-meinhoff phenomenon, having subconsciously trained your brain to see anti-white sentiment within movements for social liberty. I don't think any human of regular class and income WANT those things, it's far more complex than that in my mind, rather these types are pacified and inculcated by Pink Capitalism. Hey being human beings we are probably both terriblt wrong though.

[Anonymous No.16825047]

>>16824147
Yes but if you try to organize against immigration you will find yourself assailed by claims of racism, nationalism etc. The contemporary left is far more concerned with ideas of personal freedom than they would like to admit

[Anonymous No.16825048]

>>16824144
Corporations, the academy, and democratic party aren't leftist institutions, but capitalist ones.

[Anonymous No.16825051]

>>16822775
Gr8 chart m8. I remember. Now tell them how around the same time period Stormfags took over right-wing internet forums and began spreading misinformation and clear psyoppery.

[Anonymous No.16825062]

>>16824110
>monoliths

[Anonymous No.16825076]

>>16822775
I remember there was an old /pol/ post where the poster talked about his first hand experience of Occupy being taken over by all sorts of “undesirable” types.

[Anonymous No.16825078]

>>16824582
>Ok, so capitalism isn't inherently patriarchal then.
I wouldn't say so. I also didn't.

[Anonymous No.16825089]

>>16823611
X

[Anonymous No.16825109]

>>16824800
Don't think I'm advocating for anything. I'm merely suggesting how one could hold those two positions without seeing a contradiction. My "verbal" acrobatics in that sentence owe to the quirk of risking over clarifying a statement.

>>16825047
I suspect that you would. I also think identity is a recurring issue in American thought, whether we'd like it to be or not.

[Anonymous No.16825119]

>>16824147
>But I think this conclusion prompts a question: do we then end immigration, or do we disempower those who debase immigrants?

It doesn't have to be a binary situation. Most moderate criticism of immigration is against mass-immigration. Only radicals want 0 immigration.

The issue is that it's become such a taboo topic of extremes and you illustrate this with your framing of the question as an "all or nothing" type of scenario.
Current immigration rates are arguable too high because they are replacing the native populations faster than they can grow naturally. This is a fact that most of the pro-immigration crowd doesn't even know. Another hidden fact that isnn't talked about in the mainstream is that the UN has "Replacement Migration" (literally the words they use) as a suggestion on their site. It's not some hidden agenda to replace European/white populations, it's out in the open and they are counting on mobs of ignorant liberals to shout racism any time the discussion is brought up.

Most liberals probably mean well but they are extremely ignorant and take a lot of their positions for granted which then exposes them to have their morals exploited. Then there are others who are openly destructive who say, without remorse, that they wish to eradicate the west and mass-immigration is a part of that process.

[Anonymous No.16825133]

>>16825048
Your efforts are valiant bud... It will fall on deaf ears most likely. Years of fear and indoctrination have lead to a significant number of people who believe that their truth is the only truth, they see only race and fear the destruction of something that brought them pride, unity, and comfort. This isnt an accident, it's a disunitt tactic our government and media institutions are quite aware of.

[Anonymous No.16825167]

>>16824960
I've read some of the texts the author of the review and Pluckrose and Lindsay quote or paraphrase. Provided the reviewer isn't making up quotations from Pluckrose and Lindsay (and it's very easy to check if you own a copy of the book), Pluckrose and Lindsay are guilty of the semantics hatchet job the reviewer claims they are, at least in the case of those texts I've read. Though, I personally think the reviewer should have done a more complete job of comparing what they are claiming the theorists wrote with what the theorists actually wrote. There's a lot of summary and paraphrase going on that may work for a review, but doesn't quite get to the rigor I'd prefer.

As for your quoted bit. Are there citations for those claims directly following those claims? If not, the reviewer is correct. I can't say myself, I don't have a copy of the book on hand. Does this mean no one has made these arguments? Absolutely not, but that's not what the reviewer is saying.

[Anonymous No.16825184]

>>16825119
>It doesn't have to be a binary situation.
I agree. I was trying to isolate the poles, not imply those were the only two choices. Mistakes were made.

[Anonymous No.16825195]

>>16825133
>Your efforts are valiant bud.
I'm mostly trying to make claims that reflect reality. I'm not terribly interested in convincing the peanut gallery. I know how internet discourse works.

[Anonymous No.16825259]

>>16825195
It's maddening. Reality is so much more complex than the typic 4chan worldview. I try to be logical rather than conspirational...but it seems like a comcerted effort.

[Anonymous No.16825290]

>>16825078
Ok, I want you to read this very slowly. Sound it out if you have to. If you can conceive of a scenario wherein X does not have the property Y, then X is not inherently Y. Since you can, by your own admission, conceive of capitalism not being patriarchal; it follows that capitalism cannot be inherently patriarchal. If you disagree, then you do not know what the word 'inherently' means.

[Anonymous No.16825291]

>>16825167
The entire book goes through, with rigorous detail, all of the claims made by the SJW crowd listed below. I could spend the next hour posting all of the sources I have, many of which are mentioned in the book, and many which are not.

>all white people are racist
>all men are sexist
>racism and sexism are systems that can exist and oppress absent even a single person with racist or sexist intentions or beliefs
> sex is not biological and exists on a spectrum
>language can be literal violence
>denial of gender identity is killing people
> the wish to remedy disability and obesity is hateful
>everything needs to be decolonized

Firstly, unless you're deaf, dumb and blind all of these topics have been in the news for years now. My news feed is nothing but day after day of some academic, company or institution making one of the claims above. Secondly, the entire book provides examples of all of these and goes into detail on who said what and why. The reviewer is just lying. Read the damn book.

[Anonymous No.16825326]

>>16825291
>all white people are racist
>all men are sexist
>racism and sexism are systems that can exist and oppress absent even a single person with racist or sexist intentions or beliefs
> sex is not biological and exists on a spectrum
>language can be literal violence
>denial of gender identity is killing people
> the wish to remedy disability and obesity is hateful
>everything needs to be decolonized
Who made these claims? I want names, not "the SJW crowd."

[Anonymous No.16825336]

>>16825290
I just explained how people use the phrase. Don't get mad at me for the phrase. I don't use it; I don't think it's useful.

[Anonymous No.16825340]

>>16825291
>>16825326
I’m extremely interested in if anyone can find an intellectual ancestry to this kind of shit

[Anonymous No.16825353]

>Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up properly.

[Anonymous No.16825362]

>>16825336
so your original reply is pointless then since you agree with him that feminists who call capitalism inherently patriarchal are being stupid. Granted, a worthless contribution is better than an incoherent one, but not by much.

[Anonymous No.16825403]

>>16824035
Leftists are far more concerned with perpetuating their white savior complexes and “defending minorities” from the enigmatic threats of “white supremacy” and “fascism” that they’ve mythologized. They only pay lip service to worker’s rights and spout mostly empty rhetoric about being for the people. This goes for many of the so called anti-idpol leftists as well.

[Anonymous No.16825488]

>>16825326
Start with


>>all white people are racist
>everything needs to be decolonized
Nikole Hannah-Jones
Robin diangelo
Ibram X. Kendi

>sex is not biological and exists on a spectrum
Literally just type that into google and watch what comes up. Tons of articles and "studies"


Philosophy that the SJW crowd uses to justify their positions comes from:
Angela Y. Davis
Jacques Derrida
Frankfurt School
Kant
Hegel
And more but I can't remember them all.


Scenarios:
The Evergreen incident
The Peter Boghossian incident
Antifa Riots
BLM Riots
Racial discrimination in schools
Laws where wrong speech carries a harsher sentence than rape/murder


>the wish to remedy disability and obesity is hateful
Look up how Anne hathway had to apologize for her role in a movie where she played a witch with 3 fingers.
Or the new thing called "Fat Studies" and controversy surrounding "Fat Acceptance"

>language can be literal violence
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-1.2/Language.htm
Or just look at all of the articles and examples on google.
Where I'm from you can get a harsher sentence for wrong speech than for rape/murder.

That's all I could come up with off the top of my head. I'm not going to spoon feed you anymore. This is more than enough to get you started.

[Anonymous No.16825506]

>>16825340
If you mean where this thought process originated from, or what made these thoughts possible and who said what, look into these people/subjects

Kant and his 3 Critiques
Hegel
The Frankfurt School
Critical Theory
Post Modernism
Angela Y. Davis
Jacques Derrida

[Anonymous No.16825524]

>>16825488
lmao has literally no one on this board read Derrida? ITS JUST HEIDEGGER YOU MORONS YOU FUCKING RETARDS HE'S LITERALLY JUST REPEATING HEIDEGGER WHERE DOES THIS MARXIST SHIT COME FROM YOU HAVE NOT READ DERRIDA NO ONE IN THIS THREAD HAS

[Anonymous No.16825542]

>>16825524
I made no claims about his writing. Only that he is sited and used by the crowd that supports those topics. Learn to read.

[Anonymous No.16825560]

>>16825542
please find me modern sociologists or anthropologists who extensively CITE Derrida. learn to spell retard

[Anonymous No.16825583]

>>16825560

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=0A_lO2UAAAAJ&hl=en

[Anonymous No.16825584]

>>16825362
>your original reply is pointless
No. It fulfilled its intended purpose. The fact you wanted to argue against something I didn't write is on you.

[Anonymous No.16825616]

>>16825340
Marcuse, Hegel, Angela Davis, postcolonial and certain readings of postmodern philosophy, and Marx, Sartre is all I can think of. Outside of Angela Davis there’s no clear lineage this sort of stuff has, it’s more of a cultural phenomenon than an intellectual movement.

[Anonymous No.16825658]

>>16825488
So after claiming people say a bunch of stuff without attribution and getting called out, you provide names for attribution for five of the eight claims but no text names or page numbers, and then you say it's my job to do your work for you. And you forward an additional claim connecting the SJW crowd to a bunch of disparate philosophers (which is supposed to say, what exactly?), some of which you can't name. You gave me a link, so credit where credit's due, and honestly, even attaching names to five of the claims is something. I get that academia is a meme, but you could at least try to approach the rigor expected out of all first-year students.

[Anonymous No.16825686]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-I3BRVqQO0

[Anonymous No.16825698]

>>16825658
>but you could at least try to approach the rigor expected out of all first-year students.

Where the fuck do you think you are? And who are you that I owe you an essay? If you need more then you're not smart enough to entertain this subject and should stop wasting your time. I gave you more than enough to get started. The book gives you even more. You want to be spoon fed and have everything simplified and compressed but this isn't a simple topic and you're asking for things that would take hours to compile. Go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.16825699]

>>16818625
>Why and when did Marxism get married to all of the tranny LGBTQ+ garbage?

The New Left was a broad political movement mainly in the 1960s and 1970s consisting of activists in the Western world who campaigned for a broad range of social issues such as civil and political rights, feminism, gay rights, abortion rights, gender roles and drug policy reforms.[1] Some saw the New Left as an oppositional reaction to earlier Marxist and labor union movements for social justice that focused on dialectical materialism and social class, while others who used the term saw the movement as a continuation and revitalization of traditional leftist goals.[2][3][4]

[Anonymous No.16825738]

>>16825658
This is 4chan not a university class you insufferable faggot

[Anonymous No.16825759]

>>16825584
And what was that purpose, exactly? it didn;t refute the position of the post you replied to, nor did it elaborate on the same idea. it didn't argue for a tangentially related position, it hardly made any argument at all. please, clarify what you intended to accomplish with that post.

[Anonymous No.16825802]

>>16825560
Just to nail home how much of an absolute faggot you are, Derrida has had almost as many citations since 2015 as Einstein has had EVER. And has over 200k more citations than him in total.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=qc6CJjYAAAAJ&hl=en

[Anonymous No.16825867]

>>16822775
People identify more with their bodily experience than they do with their economic class, what a surprise.

[Anonymous No.16825875]

>>16817027
OP here. Although I did get my answer while wading through all this shitstorm, I would also like to say that I'm sincerely sorry. I thought you're done arguing about this, that I would get some links from both sides and get told to fuck off. Looks like this is still not tiring for some anons. Again, I regret starting this retard olympics, my apologies.

[Anonymous No.16825897]

>>16825867
The last man has nothing left but identity that is consuming product and proudly getting fucked up the arse

[Anonymous No.16826071]

>>16825875
Kek. Did you order it? Lol.

[Anonymous No.16826117]

>>16825062
"We are not all like that" the same people who will not hesitate in tarring you as a straight white male

[Anonymous No.16826162]

>>16825875
Don't worry about, at least this thread contained some of the shit from flowing off into other parts of this board. Hopefully you got the book. It is a good read and gives a very fair view of postmodernism.

[Anonymous No.16826175]

>>16826071
It seems it's not what I was hoping for. I'm not interested in the antics of college kids, I'm interested in the perversion of Theory that some of their professors commit. And it seems that the authors of the book were sloppy in their scholarship, the history and logic of the movement that they draw is very flawed. However, I really want a book like they attempted, but good.

[Anonymous No.16826196]

>>16826175
Where did you get that from? That is the complete opposite perception I have and I am currently reading it.

[Anonymous No.16826202]

>>16817027
are there any other books that tackle this subject?

[Anonymous No.16826214]

>>16826175
Personally I hate the subject matter but you could read it just skeptically, should know within 20 pages or so if its utter shite

[Anonymous No.16826344]

>>16826175
Theory is itself perversion all those french postwar thinkers wrote book after book on the marquis the sade and then signed a petition to end theage of consent and absolve child molesters. Too much nietszchean raw power has left the perverse individual powerless and alone unable to indulge in much depravity atomization as safeguard, the sjw tranniesare pathetic result from the fallout of the inhuman subversion and perversion perpetrated by deleuze foucault burroughs and co. Up high the society of the friends of crime as it has always done reigns the epsteins and paedo blackmailers of the world.

[Anonymous No.16827345]

>>16825698
>And who are you that I owe you an essay?
Just your citations.

[Anonymous No.16827357]

>>16825698
>all this mad
You're adorable.

[Anonymous No.16828115]

>>16822028
I finished it last week and it did seem strange that the author was pandering to the neomarxists

[Anonymous No.16828136]

>>16817780
>The left seeks to end their huge tax breaks and loopholes. To end their monopolization
last i checked trump was the only one who was threatening to break up companies (big tech due to conflict between them)
pretty sure biden and kamala arent going to do jack, and the ridin' left has got the far left on a leash so...

[Anonymous No.16828226]

>>16825658
shithead

[Anonymous No.16828347]

>>16826175
I'm reading is and it's that, it's a normie-tier breakdown about how postmodernism is a hypocritical and logically inconsistent power grab from the weak.

[Anonymous No.16828366]

>>16821541
Nietzsche predates postmodernism, Nietzsche wouldn't even think about taking postmodernism seriously. It reeks of weakness.

[Anonymous No.16828398]

>>16817420
Please just end it right now, you had been given a brain after 4 billion years of evolution and you're spewing out more retarded shit than my ex girlfriend when she dumped me

[Anonymous No.16828962]

>>16828136
Yeah, I actually agree, even though it wasn't Trump spearheading the recent slew of Anti-trust legislation against Google and Amazon. He did at the very least voice it. You're probably correct that Biden won't even dare to do something even that trivial.
Also, a ton of leftists refused to vote at all or voted Green.

[Anonymous No.16829111]

>>16817069
You put soo much effort into this post but you didn't even use capital letters