What relevant does this goober have to the Left?

What relevant does this goober have to the Left?

If he is relevant at all, he is an intellectual antagonist. We must be neomodernists — rehabilitate grand narratives against the aimless trance of postmodernity / late capitalism.

uhm….idk dude

deconstruction is fun

I still fail to see how postmodernism is necessarily any different from modernism itself. Both have a tendency to deny reality in order to build alternative narratives (aka "feels > reals").

The perfect example of the modernist narrative is Sorel's "national myth", which is in many ways a philosophical basis of fascism. Postmodernism is just the attempt to rework the model into a million incoherent pieces to avoid not only its extremes, but any sort of action plan.

Derrida's ideology is, by virtue of its inheritance, based around accomplishing literally nothing because there is no higher thing to believe in. It is a precursor to the now-faltering neoliberal facade of "no ideology, just rational management". It's cancer.

As for what to do in place of failed modernist narratives, Zizek's concept of ideology, being in practice a material regrounding of Stirner's concept of the spook, is a useful base upon which to find what is acceptable as a base for class politics if the "I want to be free, you want to be free, let's unite and get rid of what's making us not free" of anarchism isn't enough.

i feel like there is a more dialectical way to situate this. postmodernism as a way out of logocentrism is definitely useful in leftist thought? i do agree that its intense focus on intensification, deterritorialization and affect is by and large useful in only the strictest academic sense (most of deleuze is inherently reactionary at this point imo)

at the same time going back to modernism and "rehabilitating grand narratives" is just too facile. something like negri/hardt's empire tried to synthesize the two but i think failed in large part, though it was a worthy attempt.

regardless, i think it's important to keep the useful parts of postmodernism

Not very much, he's only useful for hermeneutic things that are only useful for like humanities grad students. I guess it might be useful though because one of the hip things to do is to say Marx is racist by vaguely citing Spivak. Or you could just ignore retarded grad school leftists.

Modernism, post-modernism, and other intellectual outcroppings of either grouping seem to have the same common characteristic of being really goddamn hard for the average person to understand and only really conducive to writing papers about whatever to stay tenured as opposed to politics. Which is to say that they both largely belong in academia and don't have much of a place in real world organizing, but then again who am I to say that? I'm just a poorly educated prole.

I think that keeping his writings simple was actually one of the few things that Mao got right. Leftists in contemporary America who otherwise view Mao as icky should internalize the fact that Mao at least partially succeeded at carrying out a revolution, and they'd be wise to at the very least pay heed to his practical skills in organizing.

you answered your own question. postmodernism is an reaction to modernism (which almost always oozes an ethic) and thereby follows the negative logic of any critique of an object (an ethic against an ethic). this is why postmodernism is a dead end.

the leap leftist ideology has to make is avoiding ethics and critique altogether

god spivak rots brains i swear. same thing with feminist freudians/lacanians they're all nitpicking a totalizing structure from inside the structure, thereby reifying it more. vulgar marxism ftw

Weird take but made me think

Explain.

of identity, territorialization, ecology and the minor always have an explicit danger of a reactionary turn, because there is no central engagement in human emancipation. whether this is essentialist or anti-essentialist depends entirely on the relationship to the universal of human emancipation and the relationship to power.

in themselves deleuze and deleuze & guattari are anti-dialecticians. not merely against hegel but against the dialectic itself. in the present crisis there is still no evidence that a non-hegelian revolutionary or radical thought will provide an emancipatory moment for humanity. + in most cases readers of deleuze maintain a liberalism, in the european sense of the term

I would maybe posit that his concept of "Hauntology" might be an useful tool in our critique of ideology (behind Zizek and Althusser of course). Hauntology postulates we're haunted by spectres, but here he means something different from Stirner. You see the truth is, it is too cryptic and I don't understand it. It might be the case that he writes in such an obscure style because he knows there's not much of substance to him.

Embarrassing, it just shows how no one here reads and how little consideration past memes and shit posting build your beliefs. No better than Holla Forums

Fuck average people

please explain whats bad

Oh do enlighten us.

As if pol would have any idea what is going on here.

The initial hope of post-modernism in a political sense or more specifically the "serious" ones like Derrida and Foulcault was that through smaller narratives we could achieve more than grand general narratives had achieved in the first half of last century. While this did lead to a lot of splinter movements that achieved a lot of short termed defined specialized goals even Derrida found that there was still an unresolved appeal in the grand narratives of the past. Very few of them wanted to accept the bleakness of Fukuyama paradigm and this is why he Wrote Spectre's of Marx.

Derrida would probably find it humorous if his philosophy had a contradiction in it, that modernism wasn't much different from post-modernism was not something he would deny. The whole idea of the Trace is that fractures and bad patterns already exist across broad philosophical movements or possibly a whole genre of knowledge. He would freely admit his work is not much different from what came close before. Radicalism is often a view projected on to others rather than self imposed.

The biggest problem I see are these retards who are advocating a "return to modernism" without having any consideration towards the epistemological and hermeneutic issues that the post-structuralists have raised in any attempt towards constructing an account of reality as if it could ever be both linguistically or even rationally reducible without by definition of how thought functions be ontologically incomplete.
If that's how you would like to orientate your attempt towards an intellectual project by all means do so but its as retarded so speak of simply backtracking away from the issues raised as it is for Holla Forumstards to fanticizing about going back to Paganism, there is simply only going forward in the dialectic.

Its especially prescient for anyone actually interested in working towards an emancipatory project today because otherwise you're just going to end up as a limp dick Trot thinking you have the universe figured out while being unable to win anyone to listen to them against the overwhelming atmosphere of marketing and desire producing industries which keep people absolutely enthralled because they give zero fucks about needing to construct or promote any coherent or structred conception of realiy and instead just hold people under a schizophrenic ideological bukake until they find what works.
Good fucking luck over coming that if you can't even overcome philosophical road blocks brought up in the 60s

Learn the difference between the terms post-modernism and post-structuralism

Holla Forums had philosophies?

Yeah like Stefan Molyneux

I agree that it has raised important questions, but it has also failed quite spectacularly to provide meaningful answers to them. Whatever bullshit it manages to come up with can only begin to make sense when viewed entirely within its reality bubble, like critical race theory. It is a logical paradox because, as much as it wishes otherwise, it is not exempt from the same problems that it wishes to address by simple virtue of being aware of them. All it has led to is assertions of nonsense by people unaware of their own fallibility.

Post-structuralists may have wanted to expand our understanding of reality, but the tools they gave us have only sucked the fun out of it while neoliberalism remains unchallenged.

They have expanded our understanding of reality by revealing our very limitations in understanding reality. Derrida did not fail to provide answers because he never attempted to do so, much of philosophy is simply orientated around questions, posing and reposing what we think are the issues in how we orientate ourselves to the issues in reality.
To that end I see the Critical Race Theorists as not a product of Derrida but rather one of the products of the problem itself that Derrida was elucidating and they wont just disappear because you find them silly.

Its always important to remember Marx emerged from Hegel and that influence is not something that should be taken as arbitrary or merely trivia. Hegel in his own time was seemingly a thinker that only posed detached examinations and questions of reality and one of his conclusions was the progress of knowledge comes from total breakdown and failure then reconstructing using the new awareness of the limitations of the past imagination, that the meaning of dialectics in a sense.

This is exactly the paradox I was describing. I am not criticizing post-structuralism's assumptions as much as I am criticizing its usefulness as a source of knowledge. It is starkly different from other schools of thought in that it is necessarily reluctant to consider the value of any point of view other than its own, like a philosophy of antiphilosophy, rather than building off on them. It is limited by the very limitations it seeks to overcome.

Post-modernism is considered post-modern in a philosophical sense because the things it was initially post like structuralism and existentialism were considered modern. You can get more into semantics with certain branches of philosophy and other academic disciplines but the difference in terms of what they were supposedly an advancement from was the question here and in that sense the semantics see a convergence in that question. Being post-modern and being post-structuralist are the same thing in this question. Or one is included in the other.

Wrong. Anti-Oedipus and a Thousand plateaus was meant to show the inherent tendencies within capitalism toward fascism and homogeneity, and provides us with the explanatory tools to see that and escape that.

What the hell is that image supposed to be.