Other urls found in this thread:
I can't believe Socialism was largely memed out of history, what the fuck. Does anyone think it is necessary for socialists to actually have a "memetic" presence??
Roland Barthes got killed by See Aye Hey under the guise of an unfortunate accident.
The market using the state is the real lyssenkist here
NationaI Socialism had Marxist backgrounds. The CIA has always considered us their #1 enemy.
shit like this makes me so angry
There was a real Marxist presence in Western academia for decades, and seriously important historical and social analysis was being produced in this tradition. Social history is basically a Marxist tradition, and writers like Frantz Fanon, Howard Zinn, CLR James, the German Bielefeld School helped us shrug the blinders of ideology and understand how modern class society developed.
then the 80s rolled along and liberals traded it all for postmodernism because "Stalin is mean"
no it did not
no they did not
Marxist academia's influence is vastly overstated. I'm glad they are gone.
"Post-modernism" (whatever you're even implying by that) was not "funded by the CIA" to "destroy Marxism". Stop blaming the fall of the left on alphabet soup boogeymen, it's anti-materialist as fuck.
None of this is unmaterialist.
What do you mean by a memetic presence? All I know is that if there are more Marxists doing historical research then we will gain a clearer understanding of history.
You sure about that? He seemed to be pretty buddy-buddy with them
Why? You're happy that cutting-edge academic research was replaced by liberal hand-wringing?
Read the article you dipshit, it literally was.
How is it anti-materialist to recognize that liberals were funded by bourgeois institutions to combat materialist research?
Nothing in the article even hints at the CIA "funding" post-modernists.
I have a feeling no one in the Right even know wtf post-modernism is. I also blame Kermit Peterson for making this popular to alt-reich's lexicon.
they think postmodern philosophy, literature, art, and architecture just means "confusing SJW stuff"
More like cultural capitalism.
You already need something like 4+ years of study to know what modernity properly involves then you can have an idea of what is postmodernity. It's difficult to sum up, 100% of Holla Forums's brainlets have no idea what they are talking about.
is there even such a thing as "modernity"? is it not just an umbrella term for things like evolutionism, particularism, and functionalism?
Are there ANY interesting Marxist academics writing history or anthropology today?
postmodernism is a period, not a movement – everything since WW2 has basically been postmodern
you're thinking of post-structuralism, the liberal phenomenon that "narratives" like Marxism are reductive so we should just uhhhhhhh… pretend that class does not exist and vote for Democrats
enlighten me pls
L I V E A N D L E A R N
From the comments:
Is the Frankfurt School a CIA op?
I TOLD YOU MAN
I TOLD YOU ABOUT ANTIMATERIALISTS
You miss the key concept
Zizek talked about how a lot of the Frankfurt Scholars were actually anti-communist. They incorporated Marxist analysis of capitalism but strongly opposed its abolition.
Okay here are the basics. Basically "modern" in the academical meaning means anything between 1453/1492 (Fall of constantinople/discovery of the new world) and 1814, battle of Waterloo. Before that is the middle-ages, after that is the contemporary era (up to now).
Modernity is basically the period where thinking changed radically, because of things like the discovery of heliocentrism, the protestant reformation, the emergence of political thought, absolute states rising, much more advanced political thought, all this sparkled basically by the rediscovery of greek/roman culture and rapid economic development.
This is basically an era that kept boasting about the use of rationality, reason and ended up bursting into stupid wars, awful exploitation and in marxist history, modernity is basically the beginning of the aristocratic decline (due to rising centralisation, absolutism) and rise/appearance of the bourgeois class.
Postmodernity, is pretty much the criticism of modernity. It's saying rationality doesn't mean objectivity. Basically, Kant is IMO the most important postmodern thinker because what he explains is that we can't actually study anything objectively because it is always designed through a certain framework built within the observer. In other words, liberals forgot they were making up bad theory only to suck corporate dick and they had no way to really notice it.
Which is basically why the bourgeoisie class is driving itself into decadence and we're about to see the rise of the proletariat as a conscious class.
I should add that he meant Frankfurt scholars besides Benjamin and Adorno. Maybe Horkheimer too, I don't know much about his theory or political activities
Technically yes, here's an article on on art history but there's a really good section on definition modernity. I recommend you all read it.
Postmodernism=nebulous and frequently contradictory set of movements
How are they? Stop playing semantics.
Yes. And says nothing about "postmodernism being literally funded by the CIA to destroy Marxism" as OP claimed.
important to recognize that a lot of these lefties (particularly Trots) were just apparatchiks hoping to gain fame and tenure by sticking toward the most popular currents in leftist activism and academia
Considering Benjamin, Adorno and Horkheimer were by far the most important and relevant Frankfurters, this significantly weakens his point…
I'm not playing semantics, you're moving the goalpost. First so you were saying the CIA didn't fund post-modernism, and then you changed your argument to funding post-modernists, two completely different things. And you're wrong on both accounts, pic related.
Except it's implied, the title says "THE CIA READS FRENCH THEORY: ON THE INTELLECTUAL LABOR OF DISMANTLING THE CULTURAL LEFT" The cultural left meaning marxists and inside the article it implies the CIA funded a cultural war
Am I arguing with CIA right now? My gott
you're forgetting the POS marcuse
Mussolini had Marxist backgrounds (Sorelianism and Nationalist Syndicalism), while NutSac is literally Hitler being a fucking moron and wanting a war economy in peace time though.
Hitler started the war because his "economic miracle" required it. It was quite rational.
Sure, but it sure as hell didn't have any base in actual Italian Fascism.
This is plain wrong. Where did you get postmodernism begin with Kant? Kant rather marks the beginning of the modern thinking, emancipating empirical sciences from representation by showing its incapacity of validating knowledge in itself. Kant that way separates the transcendental from the empirical and destroy the continuous table of knowledge that we had in the classical age.
In this context what is called post-modernism is a late 20th century movement (not a coherent one) that by denying any transhistorical or transcendental knowledge embraces epistemological nihilism. It starts to rise with the decadence and dissolution with the USSR and the defeatist position leftists start to assume in Europe and embracing of ideas like deconstruction and all this language bs.
Don't forget the latest example, Nazbol going from meta-ironic political shitposting, to the heart of NRx.
Regarding the Nazi economy, does anyone have a link to a particular blog (not an infographic, but a short blog) that I vaguely remember was probably written by a Holla Forums poster, briefly going over the history of Nazi economic policy, and how it was basically bog standard Keynesianism that shifted to credit fraud on an international scale during the runup to war?
Tbh the graph is a spurious connection at best. While I think Putin is a traitor to the revolution that that there probably is some form of collusion, this isn't the best way to show it fam.
I never really knew that Stephen Miller and Sphincter were uni pals though.
Foucalt described himself as a Marxist in the 70's and block quotes Capital in Discipline and Punishment. I'm not sure about his later years where he apparently became a Neolib but I'm not sure the antinomy between Foucalt and Marx is as stark as people say.
While at Duke, Miller and the Duke Conservative Union helped co-member Richard B. Spencer, a Duke graduate student at the time, with fundraising and promotion for an immigration policy debate in March 2007 between the open-borders activist and University of Oregon professor Peter Laufer and journalist Peter Brimelow, the founder of the anti-immigration website VDARE. Spencer would later become an important figure in the white supremacist movement and president of the National Policy Institute. Spencer stated in a media interview that he had spent a lot of time with Miller at Duke, and that he had mentored him; in a later blog post he said the relationship had been exaggerated. Miller says he has "absolutely no relationship with Mr. Spencer" and that he "completely repudiate[s] his views, and his claims are 100 percent false."
(Note that Miller is Jewish for the extra irony.)
fuck foucalt, he supported the Iranian revolution
Considering Session's blatant dog whistling, I'm not surprised Miller would work under him.
Tbh Jews shouldn't even be considered an ethnic minority at this point, considering 99/100 times they effectively consider themselves white before anything else.
This is a problem between english and probably I assume romance speaking world. "modern" can mean as 1st user say while in english speaking world there is just "early modern" era and "modern era" later with no contemporary era. Can a native english speaker confirm this for me? They told in a class of mine that this is how it works in english hystoriography and that this is a great source of confusion
Stephen Hicks probably. That is where people like Jordan Peterson mostly gets their understanding of Postmodernism from.
Why is that bad? Kicking out monarchs and imperialist stooges is great.
Iran has a lot of problems but it's so much better than it was under the domination of the shah and the Americans
The Iranians purged communists post revolution. Just because the Shah was bad doesn't make the new government good
Tbh I find this point moot considering the fact that Iran was fine until the US had a commie scare. It's really just your choice of reactionary poison.
Holla Forums disagrees
No shit they do, the problem is that Jews are notoriously racist against non whites, even against Ethiopian Jews [who are more Israelite than a bunch of Scythian are].
Communists were already being purged dipshit
The situation Iran was that a religious organization was a more effective revolutionary anti-imperialist organization. Had the revolution not happened, there is no indication Iran would be in its current state of liberation today.
Communists and other groups ranging up to moderate clergy made up a large portion of the Iranian revolution, the Moslem fundies under Khomeini deceived everyone else until after the revolution, whence they took the opportunity to shamelessly rebuke every other faction as foreign infiltrators and quash them without mercy. Just like the Bolsheviks in Russia, birds of a feather, eh?
the horrifying chimera of enlightenment philosophy and industrial society.
Calling a deconstrutionist/post-structialist/what-have-you a post-modernist is like calling marx a capitalist.
trots are mensheviks
I came to this myself out of my own thinking. Modernism is all about the object.
Modernism is all about the rising movement of rationalist, objective thought. It comes from a reaction to scolastic medieval thought, that was provoked by the rediscovery of Aristotle's texts that were transmitted by the Arabs whose civilisation flourished from the VIIIth to the XIIIth century and abundantly translated/commented on Greek texts.
Europeans get these texts that were criticized in-depths by arabic philosophers like Avicenna (called by St. Thomas Aquinas : "The Commentator"), Averroes, Ibn-Khaldûn etc. and western thought made a lot of progress. However, due to complex internal contradictions, Modernism found its limits in Kant who ended the optimism and positivism of people who, under the guise of reason, found ways to advocate the worst things, basically destroying the idea of objects.
Anyway, if you want to disagree about the precise start of postmodernism but this is purely my own semi-educated opinion.
Adam Curtis on the Iranian revolution & purge of leftists
A theoretical error is always at the root of an error of political tactics. In other words, it is the translation of the tactical error into the language of our collective critical consciousness. Thus the pernicious politics and tactics of social-democracy are reflected in the error of principle that presents socialism as the inheritor of a substantial part of the doctrine that liberalism opposed to the old spiritualist doctrines. In reality, far from ever accepting and completing the critique that democratic liberalism had raised against the aristocratic and absolute monarchies of the ancien regime, Marxist socialism in its earliest formulations demolished it utterly. It did so not to defend the spiritualist or idealist doctrine against the Voltairean materialism of the bourgeois revolutionaries, but to demonstrate how the theoreticians of bourgeois materialism had in reality only deluded themselves when they imagined that the political philosophy of the Encyclopedists had led them out of the mists of metaphysics and idealist nonsense. In fact, like all their predecessors, they had to surrender to the genuinely objective critique of social and historical phenomena provided by Marx's historical materialism.
"Real Foucault" only consists of his writings from the late 50's till his last ones in the 80's . What is known by "Postmodern Foucault" is nothing but neoliberalism with questionable real Foucault influence. When people try to argue that Foucault is not a real marxist, while saying that Zizek is, I can't help not to cringe because they are just as real marxists as Althusser (plus the pretentiousness). Real Foucault sounds ENERGETIC, POWERFUL and somewhat HATEFUL. Fake Foucault is weak, self pity and a failed attempt to direct energy and emotion into discourses of power. Some examples of REAL FOUCAULT are Madness In Civilization, The Order Of Things, Society Must be Defendend (in his lectures in College de France during the 70's) and the Archeology of Knowledge. Some examples of FAKE FOUCAULT are Judith Butler, Edward Said and David Halperinl FOUCAULT BELONGS TO MATERIALISM NOT TO POST-STRUCTURALISM, GENDER SUTDIES, POST-MODERNISM OR ANY OTHER BOURGEOISIE STUDIES
Nouh my god. This literally explains my life as an academic scientist. My biggest fault as an ardent Marxist is finding the time to play politics, the capital to buy guns, and the fear of being ostracized for being anything other than an SJW and a liberal. I work simply to provide intellectual capital to drug companies. Go figure. Fuck my life
Isn't this itself reductive?
PR rules. Sad, but i think it always did. "Scientific" people may lack social skills to understand significance of it. Yes we need memes. Short slogans and short emotional messages always win in PR, science you leave for later when you have the power and people dont know/care what you do anyway, as long as you have results.
KILL ALL SUCC-DEMS NOW
What will Post-Postmodernism entail?
They funded the anti-Stalinist left, yes. You're wrongly viewing this as an anti-Communist conflict and not an anti-Russian one.
Brainlets please go.
Read this book on meme cultural warfare, it's very informative.
memes are fascist
That's how you show you can't meme
"""Nazis""" today are fucking hilarious
inb4 "we are socialists" quote gets posted
what you anonymous imageboard posters seem to be neglecting is the 'intelligencia' class. talk more about that class, please. I believe it is fully dismantled, as a class, in the US, at least.
I keep wanting to find something good in this thread.. seems pivotal..
I remember g**gle image searching postmodernism in high school after my Austrian friend kept suggesting me it. Protip: there is no image that easily sums up the philosophical concept.
He suggested it in relation to Metal Gear. We were playing MGS4 at his house, after watching tons of b/w swedish films (you know the kind). MGS2 had been my favorite game growing up, but only for the gory interaction with guard NPCs. It didn't dawn on me until the time I graduated about how the game was postmodern. I still find myself unable to relate the concept without referring back to the game.
To me, it seems that postmodernism has a lot to do with playing on people's expectatons, purposefully deflating 'meaning', and 'substance' in order to highlight the fact that those concepts are missing in market-driven capitalist economies.