When will you acknowledge that the Enlightenment was the single greatest mistake in all of Western history...

wow, you really convinced me, you stirnerite reject.

This isn't contradictory.

The Authoritarian Personality

nice summary of I.Berlin

...

he said a quote or line.

...

Here's a hot take from the same book by Horkheimer on why Fascism is a product of Liberalism.

I wish Adorno was my grandpa or uncle.

forgot the other part:

This is a great quote. Is that from Dialectic of Enlightenment? I've just started reading it.

Eclipse of Reason, all of my posts are from the first part alone. I've yet to read the other sections since I've been busy with class.

Socialism is a reaction to Capitalism and doesn't really seek to transcend it, in most forms accepting many of its premises as given. Communism was the most severe form of this mentality, while spuriously deriving the transcendent seed within Capitalism, convincing the world socialist movement to forcibly impose industrial Capitalism because it was a necessary step.

As opposed to the revealed """science""" in Marx and his perpetual vanguard who now solely exist to stand against the vulgarization and defamation of his inner teachings?

Postmodernists are hucksters. They simply "borrow" whatever they think they can "use", then try meme it into a presupposition as a fashion statement. "Univocity of being" is one such phrase.
Jewish Enlightenment is still Enlightenment, user.
This snobbish nigger didn't even into jazz.

Read Dialectic of Enlightenment.

No. Zizek is autistic/OCD and so he needs systematic closure, the hypocrisy of following German and French philosophical tradition and not identifying as Eurocentric would have been too much for him to take. Marxists tend to have no problem tolerating any amount of contradiction however. Critical theory in part was a response to the composition of capital changing, thus transforming from a class society, where class consciousness was tangible and possible (consider that Marx lived in England which is to this day a self-aware class society), to mass society, along with the advent of welfare state, professional managerialism, monopoly capitalism and the leveling effect of the merchandization of culture, where there was no simple dialectical distinction between worker and owner to be identified.

How about educating yourself beyond the party line?

As you can see from the inadequacy of this approach, this is why they turned to psychoanalysis to complete their account of the fash. They had taken the dissolution of social relations by capital, the inherent desirability of Communism as a solution, and the immanent collapse of Capitalism by its own logic, all as a given, rather than considering their may have been a dialectic here given the specter of actually existing Communism and its inherent shittiness.

Can you explain in detail, I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean.
are you referring to the social relations of production, or actual societal relations?

They were Marxists. They assumed Communism as an idea was perfectly good and rational, and all other solutions to the problems of the era unsupportable barbarism or fantasy, impossible to reasonably accept. To them, the existence of the Communist movement in Europe, with its abortive revolutions namely in Germany (see Spengler for an amusing account), was a confirmation of Marx's thesis, a sign of the impending collapse of Capitalism (as predicted by the superior level of development and other conditions interpreted by Marx and Engels who had anticipated the Slavs and the peasantry to be counter-revolutionary). Thus they interpreted the movements in the West, not as indoctrinated Marxist partisans, but a manifestation of an underlying apriori structure (material conditions), rather than a conscious, idealistic, ideological organization backed by a malevolent foreign power, attempting to install a draconian Year Zero dissolving the nation and on the basis of pure speculation (and who would be in a bettter position to critique post-Kantian reasoning than the Germans?). They couldn't interpret Fascism in any other way, not as a tragedy brought about by another tragedy, with the German variety as particularly perplexing as it had seemingly developed out of the same conditions and intellectual heritage that produced Marx, indeed Hitler himself had professed to have began as a Marxist and there was significant Marxian influences in the party, at least initially.
Yet they also felt the Soviets had also failed to deliver, producing a cold and inhuman society, and so instead of deciding Marxism was delusional and false, just rejected the Party hardline to recover the true foundations of Marx, critiquing DiaMat as a heretical revision, and undoubtedly suspect of the Party's bans on early Marx while pushing out texts such as German Ideology as the final word (which was based on a manuscript that Marx and Engels had abandoned). Thus they sought to recover the historical CONDITIONS of Marx in Hegel (as Lenin himself suggested) and other foundations, ultimately leading them to the Enlightenment and beyond. Yet they still accepted visionary Communism as the Ideal to which any "enlightened" person must agree to. So they set about to achieve it by other means, namely through ruthless criticism of all foundations of European society, including philosophy and humanities which they saw in part as covert secularized Christian dogma, merging it all into the aesthetized and normative critical (from Kant) "theory", while appending psychoanalysis as a development of properly materialistic science rather than a phenomenology.
Latter though there is not a clear distinction and this was markedly complexified by the new situation, which seemingly called for an expansion of Marxist theory and "praxis" (not even a thing, just from the one short screed ton Feuerbach, because Feuerbach had used the word himself, btw), in line with Marx's own view of it as a living, dynamic science rather than a austere and static doctrine (as per the Soviets).

Are you a communalist?

Was adorno really against enlightment?

The Classical philosophers conceived many smart things, but a lot of bullshit as well. They're not unerring philosopher-kings, neither did they have some transcendental property that made their seemingly backwards ideas actually superior. Everything worthwhile they produced has already been extracted and incorporated into Western or global philosophy, if you waddle through the rest you'll just find junk. I'll keep my allegory of the cave, you can keep your excrement wound dressing medicine, thank you.

Wat

He has some decent points and definitely worth reading especially his criticisms of Marxism, but "dialectical naturalism" is explicitly Marxism x.0. So no.

As a Marxist? What do you think? Polemically and selectively at best. It's a habit of German philosophers to do this, elevating themselves while smuggling in 90% of the edifice they've just summarily dismissed. He couldn't even really get around his commitment to subjectivity, let alone Hegel. His project was more to weaponize "bourgeois" thought to twist it back around into toppling Western mass society, the fact it's riddled with reflexive contradictions is pretty much the point.

Sure.

How do you figure?

...

How is this relevant to his conception of first and second nature? (besides being based on dialectics)

It's not. The only similarity would be Engel's observations on objective dialectics, I think. But Engels was not working with modern anthropology (i.e. neoevolutionism and dualinheritance theory).

Wouldn't it be an oversimplification then to state it's just marxism?

yes

Perhaps I was too hasty. From what I know of it, it seems probably the best leftist theory available today, and does go some way to correcting much of the deepest and perennial issues embedded in Marxism, but in line with the thread it's still committed to the "methodology" of historical materialism and transcendental ("dialectical"/"objective") logic however much Bookchin has contemporized, supplemented and amended Marx's original account, and as such I'm yet unconvinced there's no residual trace of the Communist Idea lurking in his system, as there was buried in the foundations of critical theory.

actually europe has been fucked since the black death

I believe he claimed to be a Social Democrat (which was the Communist party) for a short time in his youth, then decided it was shit and studied Marx to refute it, amusingly probably read more than many here (certainly more than Holla Forums). There were some Marxists unironically involved with Italian Fascism as well, if you think about it "proletarian nations" is just OG Third Worldism. I'd love delve into the Gentilean rhizomes but i'd probably just get accused of entryist horseshoeism by the "muh politics is a 1D line from good to bad" ecumenical council here.

this.

>It was all a big mistake, guys, we should go back to being illiterate peasants who think that their lord was appointed by God and die at the age of 30, that's when times were good
How about fuck off.

"An excessive degree of light dazzles and obscures, as Reason goes on the rampage and capsizes into its opposite. A glut of infinity can drive men mad, as Swift was sourly aware. Once Reason cuts loose from the sensuous constraints of the body, it turns on humanity like a lunatic and tears it limb from limb. A rationality unhinged from human fleshliness is a Lear-like form of insanity. Rather as God is portrayed by the Hebrew Bible as a destructive force, burning up all idols and pious illusions with his intolerably conditional love, so can reason murder and maim with its elegant abstractions. One can kill for all sorts of motives, but killing on a spectacular scale is almost always the consequence of ideas."

Well done. You've gone full circle and achieved peak scientism via a slightly different route.

Where are you getting this from?

"And so at the age of seventeen the word 'Marxism' was very little known to me, while I looked on 'Social Democracy' and 'Socialism' as synonymous expressions. It was only as the result of a sudden blow from the rough hand of Fate that my eyes were opened to the nature of this unparalleled system for duping the public." - Mein Kampf

"Hitherto my acquaintance with the Social Democratic Party was only that of a mere spectator at some of their mass meetings. I had not the slightest idea of the social-democratic teaching or the mentality of its partisans. All of a sudden I was brought face to face with the products of their teaching and what they called their WELTANSCHAUUNG. In this way a few months sufficed for me to learn something which under other circumstances might have necessitated decades of study–namely, that under the cloak of social virtue and love of one's neighbor a veritable pestilence was spreading abroad and that if this pestilence be not stamped out of the world without delay it may eventually succeed in exterminating the human race." - Mein Kampf

The closest Hitler came to being anti-capitalist was after meeting Gottfried Feder and ironically, he met him while working for the army through taking anti Marxist university courses and reporting on far left groups. Pic related

Wow, what a shit-tier take on Dialectic of Enlightenment.

Fucking garbage.

...

Interesting, do you think Marx's Dialectics are a warped version of Hegel's. I've been distancing myself further from HisMat, and seeing dialectics more as a sublimation of thought, rather than as a particular ongoing material process. I mainly started this thread since I think Marxism falls to the same criticisms Horkheimer himself is making regarding subjective reasoning, and I'm beginning to see these guys as more of Hegelian's than anything else.

You really have to be retarded to see any criticism as reactionary. I suggest you fuck off this board.

The FS were subversive Jews who tried to destroy Marxism from within.
t. stalinist

Why is he repeating conservative and reactionary talking points?

It is impossible to critique such a fundamental part of us as either a mistake or benefit. Trying to say that the enlightenment was ultimately either a success or failure is like saying to say the same as existence itself. You cannot, as it were, walk about its boundaries, view its construction, and judge its whole relation and affect on us: we are trapped within it, there are no windows.

You're so cute

The critical takedowns by this user are real.

Keep it up.

I want to read this dude, and evola some time in the future

Is this supposed to be a political cartoon

"warped" is simplistic. -ian labels are only illustrative and can serve to obscure as well. kant runs through everyone's shit, but the difference with m*rx (pbuh) is everyone has some kind of stake in what his name ultimately stands for.

The Enlightenment is still necessary.