How come in the 21st century, theres been no new major theory, theorist, or ideology? also zizek doesnt count
How come in the 21st century, theres been no new major theory, theorist, or...
inb4 go back to Hegel
Why is there no new theorists besides these ones.
Gosh op idunno.
Really makes you think
zizek doesnt count
There's the alt-right
And also Zizek
Well, I could give you my ideology, but Holla Forums doesn't like spooks
But he has a sense of humor and public presence and that doesnt fit my idea of a philosopher
Because it's only 2016. This past generations of people born from 1980 until 2000 are mostly sheeps. Completely souless and capitalists. They have very short attention spans, they don't appear to have interest in abstract concepts, their only goal is to own a lot of shit. I don't really talk with much people from my age range, because i jus don't know how to. They all seem alien to me.
You have to wait a few more years until we will see people who actually born after 2000 which have lived this recent times as children and how will affect their perspective on the world.
I would say by 2025 onwards we will start to see how actually this century is going to be and what types of politics we will have.
But maybe this is just wishful thinking.
Wolff's theory is new
People are literally becoming cyborgs and we are still discussing about Stalin
My point is no one cares about ideologies anymore. (Yes, I know everything is an ideology)
inb4 a comment with the word "spook" on it
Wolff's theory is not new.
He is a normal marxists who pushes for co-operatives because thats about as much americans are able to comprehend before foaming and shouting about hamburgers and freedom.
1) Ain't nobody got time for that shit.
2) Philosophy is currently bogged down in worthless idealism.
we're not even 20 years into the 2000s we'll probably see some new stuff
remember communism is a dirty word to a lot of people because of cold war spooks
RDW incorporates Althusser's "overdetermination" for normies, tho.
Because history ended OP :^)
Who cares about theory that much?
White supremacist aren't new at all
jesus fuck how has no one mentioned him yet?
A ton of new theory was developed in the mid to late 20th century by the communist left and on the fringes of the anarchist movement, but apparently everyone either wants some non-sectarian broad left reformist shit, humanist idpol, or recycled tankie trash. 21st century hasn't seen new development because the mistakes of past revolutions are well understood and there hasn't been enough action in the 21st century for further development. It doesn't help that the handful of proper leftists around have failed to engage the working class for a years and the comrades they learned from aren't around to set them straight.
dude feelings lmao
also Kojima was right about knowledge and theory
István Mészáros, Antonio Negri, Fredric Jameson, David Harvey, Yalçın Küçük, Kojin Karatani, Terry Eagleton, Abdullah Öcalan, John Bellamy Foster, Andy Merrifield, Alberto Toscano.
Fucking why is everyone informed solely from memes here.
I wish this weren't true, but as a STEMfag who is out of school I wouldn't know where to start looking for this shit. I'm glad to have it disseminate through other users here, and who knows, maybe they can be disseminated to normies via memes afterwards.
Reducing Evola down to that isn't doing anyone favors. He is worth a read.
His stuff isn't really new.
lol most of those people are old and heavily influenced by earlier theories. I'm assuming the thread was a search for new political theories without any roots with the XX and XIX centuries.
what is the point in not learning from the past?
Marx made amazing contributions to theory - everyone agrees with this. I also believe Lenin and Mao did too. What is the point in discarding it all?
To be edgy and appealing to millenials. Soon entire books full of theory will be written in emoji.
We didn't bring in more illegal mexicans uncorrupted by the thoughts of dead, white men and didn't give more control of academia to jews.
Is left-communism the only tendency producing serious theory?
You either die a try hard or live long enough to see yourself become a stereotype. Being original is very difficult.
Because social science is class cucked. Oh no, we can't suggest solutions to the problems we describe because that will be politics and we shouldn't front politics because that will affect the legitimacy of our work, because politics is always ideology. Let's just, instead of describing, explaining, and solving issues by connecting the dots and painting a larger picture, let's just describe and explain all the details and pretend we can't see the bigger picture, let's not suggest solutions to problems that we know are created and reproduced by capitalism, let's pretend we can't see the big picture. Let's fool ourselves into believing that capitalism is the default economic system and that solutions can only exist within that system. Let's ignore the fact that literally ALL our research screams "capitalism is fucking us up!" and just end with a vague "more research is needed". We cannot seem like we have any interest in anything.
WAKE THE FUCK UP!
Sorry for the incoherent rant.
the alt-right is basically the KKK without the suites
read mencius moldbug
he wants a more [CURRENT YEAR!] theorist
Various Leftcommunists / post-anarchists / autonomists writers
Large contemporary currents developed around Deluze, Althusser, Baudrillard
Plenty of contemporary theory to keep you busy
It's not XXIth century theory tough.
Because there hasn't been a wave of serious proletarian struggle since the late sixties. Until we're in a revolutionary situation and are able to put theories into practice we can't develop new theories.
So we're sick to what the lessons from the sixties tell us. Leninism is right.
Because most leftists get too caught up in their pet strain of leftism and they form an orthodoxy where they just read shit by people with the same basic theory. There's very little cross-pollination from this and from the lack of new leftists or leftist discourse with non-leftists.
there is though.
classical marxism presumes capitalism is here to stay, and has to be contained to be defeated. post-capitalist theory reckons with the rwality of capitalism collapsing without a worker's revolution, and creates a whole new space for leftist theory.
a whole new space for leftist theory.
There is absolutely nothing new about reformism.
post-left theorists are pretty good
How come in the 21st century, theres been no new major theory, theorist, or ideology?
Because you need to surpass old theories. And for that you need to actually master those old theories: you can't have theory of relativity without classical mechanics.
But old theories are neither learned, nor taught en masse. They aren't new, they aren't fashionable, often - they are suppressed. Thus most of creative thought is spent on rediscovering those old theories again and again.
also zizek doesnt count
Only idiots think that Zizek is original thinker.
Because it's only 2016.
We have seven billion people. Two centuries ago we had one.
I.e. our 16 years are equivalent to 112 years of 1800s population-wise.
Wolff's theory is new
He is a normal marxists
Neither is true and you both know it.
mistakes of past revolutions are well understood
Exactly opposite is true. Situation is so bad, people are digging out old critiques of revolutions - that were proven to be false during their heyday - and are reanimating them, because there isn't anything else to go by.
50-60 years later
50-60 years later
50-60 years later
Le "NO I DON'T WANT CREAM IN MY COFFEE" man
Wow lads, just wow.
implying Lenin and Mao are even comparable to Marx
implying those are the mosst important breathroughs in theory
implying Zizek isnt an important theorist, even if not as influential
Lenin is comparable to Marx and Zizek is not an important theorist.
Remember: the point of philosophy is not to explain the world, but to change it.
the point of philosophy is not to explain the world, but to change it.
not him, but says who?
Theses on Feuerbach:
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
Thesis 11 on Feuerbach is a direct response to Feuerbachs "object"-based materialism. The point of the work is to show how human action should not be distanced from our interpretation, since we are active beings in the material world. It should not be regarded as a dissmissal of critiques, which should be evidence since Marx basically invented social critiques.
It should not be regarded as a dissmissal of critiques
It's is a dismissal of useless critiques.
Marxist critique of Capitalism created basis of Socialism. Gave an idea - expanded upon by Lenin - how and what things should be changed.
Lenin's critique of Capitalism and Revisionist (both Reformist and LeftCom) Marxism created basis of Soviet model.
Zizek's critique is useless.
Because the proles have smartphones now. Equal beet rations for all! Just isn't an appealing ideology anymore.
"muh you can only criticise if you have a solution"
Critiques are important regardless of whether or not you have a better proposal. Marx didnt create socialism, in fact, he talked about it very little in comparisson to how much he critiqued capitalism. Lenins critiques are nowadays much more relevant to the left then his solutions. Same is true for Mao.
Zizek is a realist. He knows he doesnt have an alternative, so he doesnt try to create it. And btw, lets not forget much of what leftcoms said would happen to the Soviet Union actually did happen, so perhaps their critique wasnt so bad afterall.
who are wolff and resnick
i don't know, the people who think reptilians control Earth have a pretty strong theory game
Because there's no reason to believe in lefters? Why would you waste time theoryzing about it?
implying the alt-right can read
Marx also said, in the German Ideology
Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as masturbation and sexual love.
Sounds to me like "interpreting the world" is great, but action is the real deal.
Me. I have this new concept called, super-freedom. It's like freedom but we should liberate ourselves from the confines of our bodies, and gravity, and the material universe.
Really he's not.