/lit/ - Literature

>>14992023
Because the system adopted much of their output to strengthen itself at the cost of the people.

>>14992053
> to strengthen itself at the cost of the people.
literraly how?
they were critical of democratic socialism, which is what i think you are refering to

>>14992063
>which is what i think you are refering to
Nope.

>>14992073
then say what you were refering to

>>14992081
I could refer you to books on the subject which you likely wouldn't want to read anyway so I'd rather not, I know it's a waste of time. Their work had impact and you are free to figure out what impact it had yourself, how it was used by capital.

Frankfurt school is quite overrated. Largely because its ideas and theories are mainly just contrarian perspectives of previous established philosophy.

Hmmm, gee, I wonder why...
Totally a mystery OP.

>>14992125
agree
>>14992109
how do you write that much wihout saying anthing?
feel free to not reply anymore

>>14992109
>I could explain it but I'm not going to.

>>14992023
>So, ignoring everything they said they would do that has now happened, why do you think they did something?
>They dindu nuthin

>>14992023
No one on here actually reads so consequentially nothing true or reassonable ever gets said

>>14992155
He's not legitimately interested in knowing and neither are you, he's just another dumb stooge going against some strawman or old boomer neocon talking about the Frankfurt school as the seed of 'cultural marxism' or whatever. It's so tiresome, because there is a connection between neoliberalism and critical theory and it should be obvious to anyone. But you're just going to hold your ears and pretend there's nothing there.

>>14992223
what a retard

>>14992023
Because anti-semitism is an "Easy Think Conspiracy®" which requires no intellectual integrity or historical rigour, just a heavy case of apophenia.

I dont know anything about the Frankfurt School but I do have a copy of Sociology and Philosophy. Is it worth prioritizing on my reading list, and is it a good place to start with the Frankfurt School?

>>14992243
>which requires no intellectual integrity or historical rigour
It is however greatly enhanced by these.

>>14992109
God you're a fucking pseud poseur.

Edward Bernays had more impact on the downfall of the west than the Frankfurt school.

>>14992241
>>14992259
>angry NPCs

>>14992249
anything that isn't written solely by Adorno is readable in my opinion

>>14992243
trying too hard there, buddy

>>14992241
Calling someone a "retard" when you can't even write a proper sentence.

To the nu-marxists in this thread, have you ever looked into who funded this shit?

>>14992223
You can always identify a midwit by how hard he's posturing.

>>14992301
writing meaningless sentences with no substance and justfying it by how are they written

>>14992255
>>14992294
See what I mean? There is no reasoning with people like this. Everything confirms their pre-existing biases, even things which directly contradict their beliefs can be spun through a series of impressive mental gymnastics to serve their agenda. /pol/ has ruined an entire generation of men by convincing them to deny all their rational faculties and powers of skepticism. There is no careful parsing of evidence, or scrutinising of sources, or of weighing up variables– there is only one narrative, and the ways in which literally anything can be used to serve it.

>>14992243
ok rabbi

>>14992260
Redpill me on this chap

>>14992341
Seriously, what did you expect? You just burped out a claim, then you have the gall to act as if what you said is more rigorous than what the people calling you out said.

>>14992378
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04
this entire documentary.

>>14992340
>Frankfurt School work was adopted by capital and furthers the interests of the system and the status quo
>wtf, this is meaningless, explain at once how this is possibru! don't just say something without backing it up!
>*explain in great detail*
>cringe, cope, incel, tl;dr, etc
>*post a list of books about this*
>not going to read that lol, lalalalala, I'm not hearing you!
>by the way lads, there's no way to argue with anti-semites, they have already made up their minds lol
It's all so tiresome, you truly deserve the slavery which you perpetuate.

>>14992341
By the way, the line
>There is no careful parsing of evidence, or scrutinising of sources, or of weighing up variables– there is only one narrative, and the ways in which literally anything can be used to serve it
is pretty rich coming from who I suppose to be a /leftypol/ or chapo tourist.

>>14992395
They didn't call me out, they didn't even try to dispute the content of my post. All they did was accuse me of being jewish. It's literally a knee-jerk reaction at this point. I could talk about how the move from "jews hold positions in power" to "all jews are enacting a co-ordinated plan to subvert western civilisation" is a leap that is impossible to prove, but you'd rather focus on the lack of evidence for my more modest claim that these people only want to serve their predetermined biases? It's literally evident in the way they post.

>>14992436
Do you happen to hail from either one of these sites ? (>>14992413)

>>14992413
>I suppose
nice assumption. I am neither, but good effort.

>>14992455
Glad to hear that, my fellow 4channer.

>>14992411
How much internet a day a person needs to end up like this?

>>14992223
>There's an obvious connection.
No doubt, but if you know what that is you could have attempted to explain it in about as many words. You can make the assumption that I'm not actually interested based on my simple question, so I'm going make the assumption that you're a pseud on the basis that you have said nothing.

>>14992408
are we all cucked for living in another man's design and such a shitty one at that?

>>14992477
You only need to have met a couple of neoliberal bots posing as marxists to see the futility of trying to reason with them. They're the same in real life as on online, completely unable to think outside of their moronic corporate approved framework, their designated playpen.

>>14992513
I didn't know neets could get burnout

>>14992023
Diagnosis of a problem does not necessitate treatment. At best, they were useful idiots, at worst, they were willing tools driven purely by resentment against the culture which drove them out after they infested it so thoroughly that the antibodies went haywire and became an autoimmune disease.

Their essential role was the brainwashing of post-WW2 Germany, and the shifting of the narrative from concrete targets to abstract, nebulous concepts such as "capitalism". Essentially, it was their role to fill the narrative vacuum of post-war Europe, shape its mythology, and to ensure that it will produce the desired results through careful manipulation.

It's telling that relativism never manifests as an "anything goes" mentality, it just lets one create what becomes the social norms of the new era and if it's questioned on moral, cultural, or practical grounds relativism is used as a defense.

>>14992561
Thanks anon, appreciate the effort so far but could you back it up with historical facts or a few examples?

>>14992561
I would also add that even though the Frankfurt school was the origin of this school of social manipulation, their intellectual descendants were the ones whose work is infesting the institutions of our day and age. The mixing of hastily read critical theory, the bastardization of the ideas contained within middling translations of celebrity-worship oriented french pomo texts (that often didn't even agree with each other), and a desire to weaponize ideology against certain groups in the USA is the shit stew we're all slurping on either willingly or unwillingly.

>>14992561
>driven purely by resentment against the culture which drove them out after they infested it so thoroughly that the antibodies went haywire and became an autoimmune disease
you almost made a half-decent post here without referring to da joos, but then you had to go and ruin it by making a reference to viruses/ infestations. You really can't help yourself, can you?

That said, I'm genuinely curious to know what "concrete targets" you think should've been the focus of criticism, rather than "nebulous concepts" like capitalism.

>>14992615
>is the shit stew we're all slurping on either willingly or unwillingly
doesn't that mean that their works have importance even if we don't like them or even if we refuse to call them philosophers?

>>14992408

>>14992109
incredibly based

>Woah these frankfurt guys are dangerous, pol said they invented cultural Marxism which is being used to bring down the white race!
>read Minima Moralia
>250 pages of him referring to old German culture and folktales as far superior to all of the culture he sees around him in his day

Huh?

>>14992408
This is basically The Society of the Spectacle, which basically means "advertising is brainwashing"

>>14992023
after reading some stuff by them (various members) it really seems that they had some cool things to say, some retard things to say, and get a bad rap because of the losers who promote them.

>>14992622
>you almost made a half-decent post here without referring to da joos, but then you had to go and ruin it by making a reference to viruses/ infestations. You really can't help yourself, can you?

The degeneracy of the Weimar republic and the post-WW1 peace treaty that crippled German economy pretty much ensured the ascension of the nazis. It's not unlike why /pol/ is getting more popular day by day, actually : the harder you force people to choke on the degenerate neoliberal dick, the harder the pushback will be. That said, I think /pol/ is bound to get hijacked by midwits too, when it will become a veritable political force, just like the fascism of old. Modernity will again prove to be insurmountable.

/pol/, as it currently is, is just a swirling vortex of frustration, but there will come a day when the energies contained within it will be utilized to some particular end. There's just too much untapped /pol/ energy in society for it to not end up getting used in some way.

>>14992630
I don't know about you, but I don't consider weaponized ideology to be proper philosophy. Morals should stem from philosophy, instead of philosophy serving as the apology of presupposed morals.

>>14992736
>Morals should stem from philosophy
do you know any philosophers who actually worked like that?
>instead of philosophy serving as the apology of presupposed morals.
are you criticizing scholastic and christian philosophy?

>>14992053
How did the system adopted their ideas even remotely? It’s insane to think Adorno’s thoughts are taken seriously anywhere but in some academic fringes. The guy was basically hailing against American cinema, music and literature, and all we have today is exactly that. In a way, his worst nightmares became true.

>>14992736
>Modernity will again prove to be insurmountable.
Nothing lasts forever. Whatever the pushback will be this time it won't be the same as before. Perhaps we'll make it.

>>14992654
This is not what society of the spectacle is about. The book is a short treatise glossing over the role of mediation through images and its consequences in terms of alienation, starting from Marx’s critique of commodity fetishism.
It goes way beyond advertisement and media. This narrow reading of the book is all too common alas.
The longest section of the book is a history of left-wing movements; there is a whole chapter on urban planning. No section adresses directly or explicitly media.

>>14992561
If you read even 20 pages of Minima Moralia or The Culture Industry you'd realize how stupid you sound. Adorno is highly critical of relativism, which he associates with neoliberal market capitalism.

And in case you go "oh no, not Adorno actually Derrida" then I gotta say that even Derrida's deconstruction is not some apolitical relativism. Read Spectres of Marx for example.

>>14992736
lol the weakest critique of neoliberalism today comes from the Right. The Right has no historical consciousness to understand the tensions of the contemporary West beyond the lines of ethnicity and the State -- typical bootlicking.

Why can't you understand that anyone who is truly a Marxist is anti-liberal? And that Marx's critique of liberalism is much much stronger than fucking Spengler or whoever?

>>14992862
>still thinking in this retarded binary mode

>>14992862
Oh please, tell me how marxism is science, how there's absolutely nothing romanticist or Fichtean in talking about the collective consciousness of the proletariat. It's totally not just the gutted, re-pharisee'd, and secularized successor to christianity for a godless age, with an eschatology to match.

>>14992879
lol weak ass critique

You are implying a binary that I never describe, I do not suggest or think that Marxism is dialectically opposed to the Right.

And it's simply a fact that Marxism is (as its core principle) a critique of liberal economics. You'd have to be totally ignorant to not see that.

>>14992896
not the guy you are responding to
>Oh please, tell me how there's absolutely nothing romanticist or Fichtean in talking about the collective consciousness of the proletariat
there is?
How did Fichte influenced Marx?


kinda off topic but i'm not sure Marx ever used the term "collective consciousness", that's a term Durkheim used though.

>>14992896
Marxism is not a science -- dialectical materialism is. The critical techniques provided by dialectical materialism are basically an entire new language with which to understand history vis-a-vis economics. Nobody on the Right comes even close to the depth of Kapital. Certainly Marx is directly interested in Idealism via Hegel but his relationship to Romanticism was almost entirely as an antagonism.

Since you're interested in religious terminology, know that I'm not going to try to convert you. Because I don't care. It seems like maybe you have read the Manifesto and think you know all about Marxism now. Later Marx has nothing "eschatological" about him.

>>14992936
hey not the guy you are responding to
>Marxism is not a science -- dialectical materialism is
Althusser and Poulantzas say otherwise
they say that Dialectical materialism is a philosophy, the "science" part is Historical materialism.
>he critical techniques provided by dialectical materialism are basically an entire new language with which to understand history vis-a-vis economics.
that's why it has been said that Historical materialism couldn't be possible without Dialectical materialism, which came before (even if Marx didn't name it, he never used the term).

I love how socialists shadow box with this phantom of a concept such as "capitalism", when literally every first world country with few exceptions are borderline socialist already if not fully. Socialism used to be in contrast with the early 1900s "capitalism", the closest living representative of Capitalism there ever was, but when they essentially won with the government's further encroachment of private property and rights (note: this is a function of time, not because socialists actually did anything besides exist; governments, like tumors, tend to grow) they aren't satisfied with the conclusion their ideology has lead to. They reinvent the wheel, put more emphasis on cultural and racial aspects of socialism rather than economic, and label the product of a 100 years of their fuckery as "capitalism". Because a system where people exchange what are essentially worthless labor slips for products made by government-subsided companies and about 20 percent of earned salary goes to government agencies to be redistributed into shitty second-rate public services and into obese, negro single mothers' hands is the most capitalistic thing I ever heard of.

>>14992905
>You are implying a binary that I never describe
>the Right
Karl Marx was a moral philosopher that made some valid economic critiques, he's not the be all and end all, and everything that followed in his wake was either a failure or were subverted. Being a reactionary against liberalism he also accepted certain pillars of it himself instead of rejecting it wholly.

>>14992953
Cool I should read more Althusser, and I've never read Poulantzas, what would you recommend? I guess I was thinking of Lukacs and in some respects Jameson.

>>14992967
>Karl Marx was a moral philosopher

This is the quickest way to show everybody that you don't even have a basic understanding of Marx. Marx and Engels criticize Proudhon and utopian socialists mercilessly for trying to make communism a moral problem.

>>14992985
they are both closely related but Poulantzas has more "concrete" sociological work and deals, even in a limited way, with other sociological theories. Any of his works are accesible.
Lukacs on the other hand, i know he was a big influence but i find him too "proto" if you know what i mean, his work is like basic intellectual historiography, most of which has been surpassed but his takes are interesting.
i'm still impressed by the fact that he has 4 volumes on aesthetic theory, which he took very seriously.