Jacobin articles read like ISO leaflets printed by pink-washed dweebs at the local community college

Fucking idiot, the article is targeting post-structuralism, not the Frankfurt School writ large. Marx's philosophy is clearly an outgrowth of certain aspects of Enlightenment philosophy. You gotta believe in truth and reason, you know? A bourgeois superstructure uses cultural hegemony and coercion to obscure the true nature of being. Spencer and Jorjani are great to have around because they show that the philosophical core of post-structuralist identitarianism (or bourgeois postmodernism, whatever you want to call it) is as logically applicable to white/'Aryan' racial politics as it is to other, more conventionally tolerated race or gender identitarians.

Incendiary and plainly stupid remarks, like labeling a complex thinker like Heidegger a 'Nazi philosopher', or lumping anarchic Ernst Jünger in with the toadies of nationalism, detract from much of the fun I could glean from such a thing.

Actually, the right wing has been extremely post-modern for a while, sometimes capital seems to operate on nearly deleuzian inversion tactics, the news is that retarded white trash and weekend ideologues have discovered them as well.

Also, it's only a matter of time before we have right-wing critical theory, and it kinda baffles me it doesn't exist already, the Frankfurt methodology would fit certain right wing narratives very well.

>gotta believe in truth and reason
>depending on implicit belief this much
This just goes to show how rotten the concept of "Reason" is - Darwinism itself shows that the ecosystem isn't a fixed, "balanced" system but something constantly changing, and never in a predictable way. If you want to uphold the concept of Reason, you'll inevitably have to turn to flimsy metaphysical justifications instead of raw empiricism. Remember that humans are survival machines that happen to think, not thinking machines.

disliking Jacobin makes you a Nazi? the fuck?

if we give scum like you enough power, eventually everyone who doesn't lick the Dear Leader's revolutionary toes with 110% enthusiasm is some kind of reactionary fascist. Get fucked

I like jacobin

t. not lefty

It seems like many people on the right don't actually believe in anything, they are merely convinced there's a sinister, all powerful conspiracy against them. The content of the conspiracy doesn't matter inasmuch as the fact that it is a conspiracy. Maoists, Hillary Clinton, anarchists, IdPol hacks, the Soviet Union, normies who read adorno once, and anyone who disbelieves in the conspiracy partake in the conspiracy and are thus exactly the same. Even gibberish like 'the aryan race are the children of the sun' or politicised ancient astronaut gobbledygook are to be tolerated because their proponents have proved they stand against The Conspiracy.

To be fair, Heidegger was a nazi, and he was a philosopher.

>It seems like many people on the right don't actually believe in anything, they are merely convinced there's a sinister, all powerful conspiracy against them. The content of the conspiracy doesn't matter inasmuch as the fact that it is a conspiracy.
>implying the left isn't guilty of the same kind of persecution complex
You might as well dismiss things like "structural racism" on the same terms that you did. What's happening now is just an approppriation of left-style identitarian politics by the right wing (just like nazism strongly mirrored the Soviet Union), or if the Jacobin article is correct, a reapproppriation of them.

yeah, but at least he repented. Ideologues always think people can't change or adapt, which is one of the glorious things about humans

>yeah, but at least he repented.
lol

Hell, even Marxists are guilty of the same kind of persecution complex, dismissing anything that goes against them or their policies as "reactionary burgeois/fascist thought".

you don't think he was sincere?

The left is far from a monolith, there have always been left wing critics of 'identity politics', the USSR and almost anything you can think of. The right's narrative sees history as an endless succession of victories for 'the left'. Which is basically a result of taking the liberal narrative of symbolic-cultural progress at face value and conflating it with leftism. When actually we've seen a near total collapse of the labor movement and the welfare state, the resurgence of militarism and an increasingly totalitarian security apparatus, all aided and abetted by the liberal 'left' in collusion with capital and the electoral 'right'.

my point is it doen't matter if he was sincere. nazis are evil and should all be killed.

Do you have a source for your suspicions? I don't think he did, no, but I'm rusty on the bio.

He was far from an orthodox national socialist, but in the end he saw lots of potential in Hitler for some reason

>The right's narrative sees history as an endless succession of victories for 'the left'.
You're absolutely correct on all of your assertions, and this just reinforces my position that right-wing thought is a kind of twisted mirror to leftist thought (but never the other way around). It's funny how US conservatives harp on about the "good old times" when during the majority of the 1950's the tax on the earnings of the uppermost economic segments of the population regularly reached 90%.

>thinking that a leftism conditioned by postmodernism will survive re-entry into the rationalist, Enlightenment world-view

I don't want to be presumptuous about what beliefs this leftism contains, but many fashionable leftist viewpoints are just not going to survive contact with the results of sciences like economics and biology.

The leftists are also going to come into greater contact with the "trough-minded" crowd, who occupy the rationalist, Enlightenment world-view. These people are invariably moderates and right-wingers, and they will take absolutely no remorse in continuing to tear the left's viewpoints to shreds, and this time to a much greater effect, because the leftists occupy the same epistemological space.

>sciences like economics
haha oh wow

Biology is quite important and one only needs to look at the history of science in the Soviet Union to see how it can affect ideology and is therefore incompatible with a rigid ideologically motivated regime, but I'm pretty sure 75% of all of the opinins of economists can be safely disregarded as non-empiricist bullshit. The core of science is accepting the results from experiment regardless of how it violates any kind of first principle - a kind of rejection of rationalism.

>When will you realize that the left is not consistent in anything other than the intelligentsia's pursuit for absolute power.
>>pursuit for absolute power.

The disturbing thing to me is that people actually believe this conspiracy theory nonsense. Yes, of course, the leftist academics seek ABSOLUTE POWER, that's why they work for shit wages and talk about books with small groups of students... instead of, I don't know, running for political office, ammassing wealth or weapons, or do something that might actually give them POWER.

It's your own boogeyman. You have to cast the left as a vast conspiracy to rationalize your own politics.

Let me assure you, we're not taking over the world. I'm going to read some Baudrillard today and probably eat some food and masturbate and take a shower and hang out with some friends. Friends with all sorts of interesting backgrounds, friends I can call friends even though they might not look like me, or even share my same opinions.

>this thread

>and the award for incorporating the most spooks in one post goes to...
I doubt you or your friends are worthwhile people.

Have you ever heard of "the long march through the institutions"? And what kind of better institution to march through than the one that produces the majority of a society's academics?

In practice, 'the institutions' domesticated 60s radicals into managerial acceptability. Even stuff like identity politics originated in Lenin's theory of imperialism and Mao's third worldist epistemology, just notice, completely detached from their context in revolutionary communism. The 'great marxist conspiracy' was an unprecedented failure. Rightists and liberals exist within the same, purely 'cultural' plane, within which the political economy remains unquestioned.

That certainly isn't "ABSOLUTE POWER" though, right?

And it's not a conspiracy. It's people sharing their beliefs, ideologies, opinions, and doing so openly. There are plenty of traditionalists in academia as well. Lots of catholic colleges and conservative colleges. They function the same way, replicating knowledge/ideology. It's fine. There's nothing to be scared about any of that, it's the only way to share knowledge.

>When will you realize that the left is not consistent in anything other than the intelligentsia's pursuit for absolute power.

OP is right, the left is not consistent. There is a lot of variety to what he's calling the left. And we're certainly not joined together in some conspiratorial pursuit of ABSOLUTE POWER. There's lots of infighting and disagreement. Lots of competing forces.

I attended a very left leaning institution. If I had to describe it's power dynamics, I'd say the ideological struggles revolved around Formalism vs Absurdism/Nihilism vs Feminism(and other Liberation Ideologies) vs Multiculturalism.

Formalism probably had the upper hand, most of the professors were of that mind set, and of that generation of the 40s, 50s, 60s.

>"trough-minded" crowd, who occupy the rationalist, Enlightenment world-view.
AKA the youtube 'skeptic' community

This "small groups of students" is usually the future elite, so yes, they are pretty powerful.

Not to mention that the worldview of the academia trickles down to the masses through media and journalism, so whoever control the universities controls the future.

That's not me saying this, anyway, it's in the Port Huron Statement.

Neoliberalism doesn't changes this, as political power is above economical power, see companies toeing the SJW party line and hiring diversity consultants as example.

man, remember when the left used to like guns?
>captcha: AMMO TOUR

I swear to god half of you have never set foot inside a semi-prestigious academic institute in your life.

the naivety ITT is astounding

>Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.

Please enlighten us on the subject, then. Spouting useless platitudes isn't helpful at all.

I'll have you know college/academia is a bourgeois conspiracy

Trust me, we are not the future elite. Any degree where you actually spend time discussing post-modernism or leftist ideology does not prepare you to become a media executive or judge or a politician or a stock market broker or a doctor or have any career which could make you part of the "elite".

>Not to mention that the worldview of the academia trickles down to the masses through media and journalism, so whoever control the universities controls the future.

Again, this conspiratorial, "trickles down to the masses". NO SHIT, teaching knowledge spreads knowledge. It's as if education is some dark act!

>its another thread where crossboarders try to discuss postmodernism without ever reading its associated thinkers

WHOI WONT DEY JUSS STOP RUINING EVERYTHING!!?

More than 80% of academics are leftist today, with that number approaching 95% in places like New England. Most ideological opponents have been driven out. The university administration firmly abides by leftist values. You don't consider that a conquest with tremendous social implications?

What? I'm fully aware, for one, of how many, many /pol/tards would agree with half of what Adorno says if they ever bothered to read him.

So what you're saying is that leftism is stronger than ever, except that it has been left impotent in any way that challenges the inherent capitalist structure. Few conservatives would challenge that assertion. That doesn't mean that there aren't important economic, political, and social consequences to those trends. Now the government can conduct corporatist policy without fear of criticism as long as they can attach identity politics to it. Society has been debased in order to further commoditize it. This is a cancer that both non-identitarian Marxists and conservatives recognize... so why aren't we teaming up to fight it?

Lmfao what? If you're being taught that garbage at a top-tier university, then it directly prepares you for that career. You think that there's higher standards at an Ivy League? I've got news for you pal. Wake up.

The 'good ol' times' of the postwar era were obviously an anomaly in the greater scheme of things. Before the war, you had an active labor movement and a real prospect of revolution, the downfall of capitalism was seen as only a matter of time. By the late 60s, the whole structure was showing cracks, and by the time of Watergate and the OPEC crisis everyone knew the great decline had begun. The golden age of capitalism lasted at most 25-30 years, and that's stretching it. Not to mention how over romanticized it is-The archetypal 50s dad may have had crippling PTSD from the war. Both rightists and social democrats are really fixated on this post war ideal, even on the identity politics side of things you see this aspiration towards a middle class standard of acceptability that probably never existed.

>That's not me saying this, anyway, it's in the Port Huron Statement.
You are forgetting the most famous signatory of the Port Huron declaration. Most of those 60s radicals ended up either like him or sold out completely.

I think the biggest factor in the "golden age of capitalism" for the Western world, and the "golden age of socialism" in the Eastern Bloc which many Russians, Serbians and East Germans still miss, was the lack of Asian competition in manufacturing.

It was easy to maintain unproductive steel factories in Pittsburgh, Lille and Kharkov, giving everyone good jobs with decent salaries, before you had to compete with Koreans and Japanese (and later Chinese).

What makes the Asians exceptional for manufacturing in your opinion?

2000 years of tyranny broke their thirst for freedom and made them perfect slaves.

Honestly, the Left, specifically people like Sartre opened Pandora's box.

They deliberately misinterpreted Nietzsche, and then went on to rail against all the values of the West, thinking that it would actually produce anything good.

Instead it will inevitably destroy the West, and countries like China with their authoritarian capitalism and Russia with their pseudo-Bolshevism will take over.

Freedom, maybe, but the Chinese still have some standard for good ruling (even if it's one founded on a terrible "Might Makes Right" basis) with the Mandate of Heaven.

Quine pls

When will leftists realize class struggle isn't even remotely the driving force of history? When will leftists realize the transition from feudalism to capitalism didn't happen because people hit the streets?

Stop reading philosophers and read some actual history for fuck sake.

Good ruling + obedient slaves = Manufacturing prowess

How can Western unruly trade unionists even compete with the Big Asian Workforce?

The deconstruction of the West has been running ever since the First World War was over, though.

>The trouble was that by about 1930 there was no activity, except perhaps scientific research, the arts, and left-wing politics, that a thinking person could believe in. The debunking of Western civilization had reached its Climax and ‘disillusionment’ was immensely widespread. Who now could take it for granted to go through life in the ordinary middle-class way, as a soldier, a clergyman, a stockbroker, an Indian Civil Servant, or what-not? And how many of the values by which our grandfathers lived could not be taken seriously? Patriotism, religion, the Empire, the family, the sanctity of marriage, the Old School Tie, birth, breeding, honour, discipline — anyone of ordinary education could turn the whole lot of them inside out in three minutes. But what do you achieve, after all, by getting rid of such primal things as patriotism and religion?

>china and russia will take over

W E W that meme expired about 5 years ago son. Both countries with terminal demography, strong tensions between regions, growing separatism, shit economies, laughable militaries, and no capacity for institutional change or innovation

This. It's so obvious that the laws of history are brutal and amoral. That if we decide to throw our values away, it won't be replaced with sudden secular utopianism, but by the strongest guy in the neighbourhood.
We are constantly morally blackmailed by a small group which holds such anachronistic ideas about world order and history itself.

>russia
>psuedo bolshevism
LMAO

>Stop reading philosophers and read some actual history for fuck sake

reading philosphers that aren't pseuds is fine - which excludes the Marxists and their fellow travelers. But still, this deserves a (You)

Yes. Why do you think Putin invaded Crimea?

territorial ambitions

Dugin is a post-Evolian.

>The deconstruction of the West has been running ever since the First World War was over, though.

That might be true, but the point is that when you lose the ability to believe in certain values, you lose the ability to believe in values period.

Hence my admonition that they opened Pandora's box.

To save face after the humiliating defeat of having Ukraine snatched from the Russian sphere of influence.

Russia will be lucky if it survives the coming 50 years, it doesn't have any conditions of taking over the world.

You know, I think the article that OP linked deserves discussion. But I really doubt anyone has read it, based on the convo happening here.

If the alt-right is hijacking post-modern ideas, it makes sense. The radical left and radical right share some of the enemies.

I personally see no reason to return to enlightenment thinking, scientific materialism and democratic liberation seem like dead ends at this point.

>Dugin is a post-Evolian.

No, he's a closet Bolshevik who wants to return all the land that Russia lost after the USSR broke apart.

>When /pol/, flinging their arms around widely like retards still manage to best Veeky Forums's Post-Marxists
No wonder the progressive establishment is panicking, anti-intellectuals shouldn't beat intellectuals at their own game.

do you find that people talk down to you in real life? You're childlike understanding of geopolitics aside I think you should seriously consider a career cleaning windows with your tongue or sweeping sawdust into piles.

r00d dude, I actually read it. It's a very short and simple article.

>I personally see no reason to return to enlightenment thinking, scientific materialism and democratic liberation seem like dead ends at this point.

The error is thinking that we have anywhere else to go.

I read his work. And look at his interviews on YouTube. He hates Marxism.

Rortyan ironism is the serious thinking man's epistemic paradigm.

I didn't say he was a Marxist. I said he was a Bolshevik. Bolshevism is a nationalistic form of socialism.

Frankly, Bolsheviks must have hated Marxism too, considering how much they distorted it.

Do you think you're smart by employing literal non-arguments?

I don't want to misunderstand you. Are you saying "A return to Enlightenment Rationalism is the only way forward?"

Or are you saying "There is no need to go anywhere".

Because I think that the Enlightenment tradition does seem really focussed on the sense of "going forward".

But I personally think that this is all unnecessary. The post-modern position seems like a fine terminal state. I see no need to progress into some new mode, as this one still feels very rich.

Can anybody provide any evidence that the "Alt-Right" (who?) is actively employing postmodern tactics? Outside of Evola /pol/ is entirely unread.

your opinion doesn't warrant an argument or criticism. it only warrants ridicule and speculation about the tragic life of someone stupid enough to genuinely hold it.

I agree. The question is whether people go willingly (by getting over the insane psychology and mimetics of culture-war deadlock) or unwillingly (by being made obsolescent by automation).

>your opinion doesn't warrant an argument or criticism.

Which is what pseudo-intellectuals or faggots without an argument always say.

kellyanne conway is utilizing alternative facts to problematize metanarratives

As far as we are concerned, the liberal democratic and scientific paradigm is the end of human progress. Obviously, progress can still be made in further spreading and refining this paradigm.

I say, "as far as we are concerned" because it seems like the next level of human organization, if there is one, will be something only brought about by radical technological change, such as digital consciousness or whatever the hell. It's very, very far away.

And I don't mean to say that progress is inevitable. We are already stepping backwards into populist nationalism and post-modernism.

keep on thinking that champ. but picture this; A professional boxer could beat a child in a boxing match and it wouldn't be worth his time, after all he can't spend all his time fighting children or he would cease to be a professional boxer and he has nothing to prove, every intelligent person knows the child is dreaming and delusional and childlike. except the child of course.

That guy mentioned in the article, is knowledgeable of post-modern philosophy. Outside the United States, Alain de Benoist and the "Nouvelle Droite", which the alt-right tries to emulate, also refers to a lot of left-wing thinkers from the post-modern tradition.

It's too little, though. Most are still either in "leftists are dumb amirite" mindset. It's a pity. It's such an obvious possibility, an untapped potential right there in the political-cultural sphere, that I wish I was smart enough to be the one doing it.

Not him, but the problem with this is that liberal democracy and science are not pragmatic values.

Nothing about neither science nor liberal democracy tells individuals how to live their lives.

I could say for example, that liberal democracy is a good bedrock, but something further is needed.

Say, for example, that you have liberty. What guides you to use that liberty? At the moment, literally nothing other than maintaining the liberal democracy itself. Which isn't tenable.

It's almost as if liberal democracy is precisely what characterizes Nietzsche's Last Man.

>guys, we need to rethink our strategy, AGAIN, for the 139643133 time

Just stop it already.

Fukuyama pls. Liberal democracies don't have many tools to deal with political shocks like mass migrations, for instance.

Why aren't you guys becoming Muslims yet?

I see Lacanians already perceiving in Islam the missing pieces for their theory. Liberal leftists never ever have a bad thing to say about Islam.
Neo-marxists insist upon the Christian roots of its model, but wish to get rid of the heretical tendencies within it ( which could be averted in Islam ).

So, just convert already. You're crypto-muslims now anyways. Enablers. And you're willing to hollow out the less appealing parts of your ideology to fit the narrative of Islam.

>I see Lacanians already perceiving in Islam the missing pieces for their theory

links plz

Theism doesn't work within my pragmatic error theory.

>In truth, Jorjani does away with much of the traditional Western canon and draws heavily, if eccentrically, on Eastern thought, from Japanese Zen Buddhism and Taoism to contemporary anime.
> to contemporary anime
>anime

>nazis hate fun

that's not true though, that's patently false.

are you proselytizing to us? On the surface level, at least Jesus didn't want anything for himself materially, while Muhammed was clearly an alpha type who advocated plunder and everything to be under his thumb.

>lots of different variations of nihilist, communist propoganda designed to destroy society are competing to see which poisonous ideology is best able to destroy nations and cultures and peoples.