Post-leftism

Are post-leftists in the same group as neo-reactionaries and 'accelerationists'? Both want to destroy the left and right paradigm and are against dialectics, materialism, anti-statism and worker's ownership of the means of production. So is the post-left just a code word for neo-reactionary?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=OxmzGT1w_kk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I think post-leftists are worth reading on a certain level, because I do think they have a point with the whole "walking-dead twentieth century-left corpse" thing. Also, I'm not certain that all post-lefts are against dialectics, but I could be wrong. [gif unrelated]

No, the post-leftists, idealitic as they are, actually have theory and a revolutionary praxis. That makes them decidedly not reactionary, although their meaningless gobbldygook does discourage them from ever actually doing anything revolutionary beyond jerking their thing-in-itself to how amazingly powerful their own minds are.

Hating n1x is understandable, but let's not make such silly threads

They love dialectics provided it is of the idealistic hegelian variety.

Eh. Hegel > Marx tbh

"jerking their thing-in-itself"
this is the best thing I've read today, thank you for the laugh user.

Post-left just means critical of the left for certain values. It's not reactionary or necessarily accelerationist.

Not necessarily

Not necessarily, but if so thankfully

Um, wrong

Again, not necessarily.

Post-leftists have a lot to offer and can be useful to make the left re-assess itself.

this.

Post-leftists are too edgy for leftism tbh


Political economy > philosophy

youtube.com/watch?v=OxmzGT1w_kk

Get rekt tbh

You don't have to separate the two, they're a lot closer than you'd first assume. Also, there are Hegelian economists.

The best thing you can glean from philosophy is some kind of logical methodology, which is exactly what Marx did; the rest is superfluous. Philosophers and political economists have entirely different aims, you may as well compare painters and artists.

Name 'em, I'm curious.

...

Yes, that's what I said, well spotted.

If we're specifically talking about dialectic economists, there's Marx and all of his disciples, a few Anarchists, etc. If we want purely Hegelians who are economists, I remember there being one, but I forgot his name [I ain't bitching out, I'll post it here once I find it, he's really obscure].

Not necessarily. Also, Hegel went in all the directions Marx did and then some, tbh. The whole split Marx created between muh idealism and muh materialism was just dumb, especially given the amount of idealism-like items required in his own dialectical takedown of classical political economy.

Literally everything is superfluous to begin with if you want it to be. The word 'superfluous' is, in itself, a superfluous critique - it's shallow and useless. You don't even necessarily need political economy to live a decent life. You needn't know biochemistry, economics, anthropology, or anything else. Most people can go through their entire lives without really "knowing" anything. C'mon now.

I wouldn't say so. When some neoclassical Liberal talks about "raising the middle class," you might as well replace that with "I want more people to live the materialistic good life." This is why I say you don't have to separate them - understanding both is a prerequisite for investigation. I'll admit that economics under Capitalism innately has to take a semi-utilitarian formation, due to what Capitalism as an economic system is, but even then, that is still based in philosophy.

They're the same thing. Painters are artists, I don't see the dichotomy you're trying to present here. Are you saying comparing painters to the totality of all who could be considered "artists" is wrong-headed? If so, I can get behind that, but I really don't get whatchya mean.

So no one. Francis Fukuyama doesn't count either.

I guess Marx was superfluous then :^)

That's a long way of saying nothing at all.

Painters paint houses; artists paint canvases – one's speculative and descriptive while the other is practical, but I guess that was a metaphor too far.

Bye now.

1. I wasn't gonna say Fukayama
2. I still have to find him

Ay, he's your philosopher man.

That's a long way of saying nothing at all.

I assumed you were talking about artist-painters, not house-painters. Be more specific fam.

"Cheeky 'goodbye!' to show my superiority!"

The first one are just monarchist liberals and the second one are reform doom makers. (accelerationists are the other side of the coin of social democracy)

Not at all just Anarchy saying goodbye to leftism and not being reconized as anti-state leftists anymore but an actual thing outside leftism. Left and Right both are liberalism and fully compatible with the values of the current system thus making them un-revolutionary. (Something can only be revolutionary if the values of the revolutionary theory is incompatible with the current values thus making reformism out of question and revolution inevitable)

Marxian Economic Determinism commanding the course of history? Yes they are. Abstract history doesnt command the course of its change with the myth of Progression.

Meme

You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about do you. I would write a better responce with sources and points of what post-left writers say but your post is allreayd shit and hasnt got a grain of effort that i too wont put a grain of effort in your shitty post.

TDLR: post-left is a meme, stick to your idealogy and renounce your ideas when you are settled in society.

That shit has been a thing since Socrates left Anaxagarous.

Calling things a meme in place of an argument is a meme.

Assuming memes to be genuine and not ironic in itself is a meme.

Yee, and it's always been dumb tbh.

why do you always post the same pictures? get some variety if you're going to flagfag

(You)
Im not flag fagging, (you) dont know who i am and me neither and thats fine.

Nice choice, tbh

I love this poster.

Talk about an endorsement of dubious value.