/lit/ - Literature

>>15687889
>there is virtually no Marxist, anti-capitalist faculty in the universities
Y...you can literally just look up the professors at Harvard and Yale etc and see otherwise.
Plus anyone who *went* to university can tell you otherwise too.

>>15688021
What percentage do you think are Marxists and then give some names

>>15687889
Cringe

>>15687889
Didn't happen

>>15688113
You can literally google it dumb fuck

>>15687889
Anyone up for a smoke?

>>15688021
>Plus anyone who *went* to university can tell you otherwise too.
no

t. went to university

People get bogged down by the label marxist.
Fact is the people who teach tend to push certain ideas that end up being harmful and it's often in the trend of destroying tradition.

That can range from attacking the family structure, elevating certain works above what has been traditionally seen as canon(for hundreds, maybe thousands of years) and promoting diversity over a homogeneous society.

>>15688042
>What percentage do you think are Marxists
47.3%

>give some names
Richard D. Wolff, Stephen Marglin, etc, etc

>>15688116
Just did. Wow, would you look at that, it didn't happen.

>>15687889
I like Scruton. He seemed genuinely passionate about the issues he explored. I largely agree with Chomsky. Marxism is a dead doctrine. There are very few traditional Marxists on the left. The modern left is a post-Marxist one, focusing primarily on issues like feminism, anti-racism, gay rights, trans rights, and immigration, all of which are of little, if any, concern to traditional Marxists.

>>15688197
I mean at the school. Picking the one famous Marxist you heard one time is not what I'm asking for. Post the name of a popular school and then show me all these Marxists that work there.

>>15688206
Tend to agree. We aren't exactly arguing over industralisation or agricultural collectivisation anymore.

I'm basically left-libertarian, somewhere between a liberal and a democratic socialist. I've always liked Scruton a lot for his work on aesthetics, and I think his core points about the need to preserve art from those who would destroy it for political reasons is an important one. That said, Scruton has pretty repulsive ideas about both immigration and George Soros conspiracies.

While Jordan Peterson is a joke in politics, I think he has some value in pop self-help, kind of like a poor man's Joseph Campbell.

>>15688150
Did you study humanities? If not your opinion doesn’t matter.

You don’t have to call them “Marxists” as >>15688187 said. Chomsky is an idiot subversive loser who is delighted at the prospect of regime change. When he looks at university faculty he may consider that many of them are not ‘left of him’ and thus labels them moderates. They’re anything but. They’re egalitarians, most of them just don’t care about/understand/focus on economics and instead have shifted over to more abstracted fronts. Going to university after 2012 in order to study humanities takes an iron will but simply isn’t worth.

>>15688021
This. There are plenty of Marxists and anti-capitalists in universities. It's true that the faculty is mostly moderate liberals, but to say there are virtually no Marxists is laughable. Linguistics and computer science are probably as sedate as Chomsky is suggesting. But the humanities and social sciences have Marxists and other far left loons. I actually think the Marxists are some of the better ones.

capitalists are also marxists

>>15688021

Oh my god; Grow the fuck up you brainwashed moron.

American colleges are not "leftist." That was a lie started by W.F. Buckley Jr.. It was the red baiting of the 1960s.

American Universities are about as middle of the road as you can get. The are about preserving democracy and capitalism.

Newbies think American Universities are leftist because they come to college from fundamentalist christian racist homophobic households, that themselves are far more fascist or authoritarian than the country's identity states. Because of this, college seems left.

Trust me. Universities do not promote leftist ideas; they promote the myth of American equality.
If you just go by statistics, the overwhelming curriculum taught is business and science.
HOW exactly are they leftist?

This myth really shows how the fascists and libertarians of the James McGill Buchanan wing of the Republican party have completely replaced debate with lies.

>>15688231
>Did you study humanities? If not your opinion doesn’t matter.
Philosophy specifically. Marx's historical take was discussed. His ideology was not defended.

>>15688230
>a left libertarian

So, in order words, a very confused individual? Libertarianism and democracy are like oil and water.

>>15688221
Don’t be dense. The word Marxist is keyword for those who wish to uproot the traditional order. A Noel Igniatiev, for example, may not consider himself strictly speaking “Marxist” but his goal is to ‘overthrow’ a perceived social order. Same with someone like a Cornell West. ‘Marxist’ is basically an outmoded term. People on the left often like to feel like they’re uniquely rebellious so if they’re socially conscious they’ve likely switched to another term that is effectively the same thing.

>>15688206
>call it neo-marxist, post-modernism, cultural marxist
>nooo you can't do that you conspiracy theorist
>call it just marxism
>noooooooooo you can't do that it's not what marx himself preached
whats your problem?

>>15687889
How about Chomsky stop speculating and start looking at the data?

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.html

In the study mentioned, 17% of social sciences professors in the US identified as Marxist.
24% considered themselves radicals; in the Humanities, 19%.

Also, the study is from 2006. Can you imagine now?

Does anyone have more recent data? That study is what I found from a quick Google search (it's from Bryan Caplan's blog, who's a respectable guy, so it's probably a methodologically sound survey).

>>15688247
This is one of the most unhinged and wilfully, aggressively ignorant posts i have seen in a long time. Please get in touch with reality. Legitimately concerned for you.

>>15688256
>Don’t be dense. The word Marxist is keyword for those who wish to uproot the traditional order. A Noel Igniatiev, for example, may not consider himself strictly speaking “Marxist” but his goal is to ‘overthrow’ a perceived social order. Same with someone like a Cornell West. ‘Marxist’ is basically an outmoded term. People on the left often like to feel like they’re uniquely rebellious so if they’re socially conscious they’ve likely switched to another term that is effectively the same thing.
So don't call them Marxists call them liberals who disagree with me.

>>15688242
>Linguistics and computer science are probably as sedate
Do you think the closer it is to STEM, the less marxist it is? Linguistics still counts as arts, but it's definitely on the more scientific side of understanding communication.

>>15688271
Holy shit 17% omg we need mccarthy back

>>15688271
>17% of social sciences professors in the US identified as Marxist.
Are these employed, adult professors? Or just anyone with a two-year gender-somethings PhD?

>Overall, Marxism is a tiny minority faith. Just 3% of professors accept the label. The share rises to 5% in the humanities. The shocker, though, is that as recently as 2006, about 18% of social scientists self-identified as Marxists.

>>15688271
Forgot the pic.

Remember: it's from 2006.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g
Everyone watch this video.

>>15687889
>>15688206
>post-Marxist
realg good term. I think people railling against those who use the Term Marxist to describe achademia have an equal amount of mentally dissonances as the people they are critiquing.

It is blatantly obvious that the kind of people they are both talking about, call them “neoliberals” or whatever do trace a lot of their rhetoric and ideas genealogically from Marx and marxist thinkers, its dishonest to say otherwise. Of course it is not the only i fluence and liberal ideology is also a main part if the demographic, but if you look at achedemic papers of the type, like that famous feminist one responding to the making of the English working class are enherently marxist in.m their critique but add liberal ideals of the indivigual as well.


Personally, i think it is an interesting intersection of liberal capitalism and sociological marxist and leftist academia. Both perspectives have a point.

>>15688150
Come on. Really? Tell me, how many dued hairs were in the communist/socialist clubs in your university. Unless you went to some odd conservitive christian college.

>>15688250
Alright, so technically you did but Marx never took immense hold over the philosophy departments except through later European intellectuals. Philosophy is the most male dominated of the humanities and you can have professors who are basically teaching math courses. You’d need to check out every major universities English, Comp Lit, Gender studies, Racial studies department. Like I told other anons, ‘Marxist’ is essentially a term that is used the same way ‘nihilist’ was used in the 1800s. It means more in use than it does on paper. If by Marxist you strictly mean, one who promotes to the writings of Karl Marx then you’re missing the point. The university professors, especially the humanities professors, see themselves as a revolutionary force (their job is to educate the next batch of revolutionaries) that aims to dismantle the perceived hierarchy. For
Simplicity this is simply called ‘Marxism’ which I think it quite fitting and good shorthand. Look no further than Evergreen State university. You have a batch of extremist teachers and students and the ‘moderate liberals’ (far left by any normal persons standard but moderate compared to their more voca peers) who must capitulate in order to keep their jobs.

>>15688271
>>15688291
--additionally, how many people are even in these departments? Ten? At 17% that's like one or two marxists per uni.

>>15688288
Chomsky said "virtually none" and nobody is suggesting bringing McCarthy back. I am specifically refuting Chomsky's claim. He's been refuted.

Chomsky's claim that there are virtually no Marxists is empirically wrong.

>>15688282
Liberal is a far more loaded term than Marxist. Has many more associations and will cause far more confusion. Why in the world would I do that?

>>15688303
>I don't mean marxist I mean "cultural marxist" by which I mean gay blm people or something

>>15688271
Wow 17% oh no the jews are going to kill us

>>15688297
Yes, so now it is even less

>>15688281

Good ad hominem retort. Make sure you drink all your milk at lunch.
Next time bring a criticism and we may let you sit at the big table.

>>15688304
No idea. The survey is 76 pages long. Go and read it.

It's clear, however, that the "virtually none" is false.

>They both know very well that there is virtually no Marxist, anti-capitalist faculty in the universities

>>15688303
>words have actually different meanings because I say so
>uses the by far most extreme case as an example

>>15688287
I think that linguistics tends to select for more rigorous thinkers who need to apply knowledge, logic, process. You can be wrong in linguistics in certain contexts. Your ideas get tested against language use. STEM nerds in general express their politics through who they work for and how they apply their skills rather than communicating it in language or ideas as is more common in the humanities.

>>15688314
Yes. The sociological critique of marx and marx derived thinkers applied to the demographics you mentioned.

>>15688256
>The word marxist is a keyword for....
No. Stop being a retard and call them what they actually are.

>>15688315
>so now it is even less

Are you just trolling or are you mentally ill?

And who's talking about Jews? I am part Sephardic myself. You are ill.

>>15688312
The best term for them is 'progressive' since it applies to both Marxists and Liberals who concern themselves with all the race, gender, etc. stuff

>>15688308
3% is virtually none you retard

>>15688268
Not him but for one their post Marxists, not new ones, two, they're not Post Modern, at all, three, what do you mean by cultural marxist? If you mean Gramsci or the Frankfurt school they're nothing a like, if you mean the right wing theory that they do down social/cultural lines, not just class, that could work, but there already is a term for them, Neoliberals.

>>15688321
>It's clear, however, that the "virtually none" is false.

>Overall, Marxism is a tiny minority faith.

>>15688321
Virtually none is as false as 'our universities are infected with post-modern marxist ideologies and it is everywhere', to be honest 'virtually false' is even less false than the Peterson tier conspiracy

>>15688304
2006 was a completely different world from today in terms of university education. I had a professor in 2014 who was basically goading students into saying ‘nigger.’ That would never happen today. I can see you’re just a bad actor in all of this, attempting to down play what was already a significant statistic from over a decade ago and which has only seen itself increase. 1 in 4 social science teachers consider themselves a ‘radical.’ 1 in 5 humanities. Keep in mind, some of these people might say “I’m not a Marxist! I’m an anarchist-syndicalist’ or something equally stupid, which for the lay person is effectively the same shit. I can assure you none of that 20+% were right wing radicals.

>>15688332
Well there has been a steady decline of Marxism since the 60's, so it is justified to assume that this trend continued. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary? Oh yea, probably not

>>15688321
>No idea. The survey is 76 pages long. Go and read it.
>No idea. But it's probably in these 76 pages. I didn't read them.
Reminder to all that right wingers post unread sources as a deliberate obfuscation tactic to waste other people's time

>>15688314
>>15688327
>>15688330
>t. Triggered subversives
No, your unique brand of Marxism isn’t going to work either. Stay seething.
>>15688333
Progressives is fine. It doesn’t garner the same vitriol though.

"Marxist" is code for anyone who doesn't prostrate themself to free market nonsense and American civic religion.

>>15688334
Idiot.
The important bit is in the social sciences and the humanities.

Nobody is complaining about Marxists in Medicine school. Not even that idiot Peterson. When people complain about Marxists in universities, they are mostly referring to the social sciences and the humanities, because those are the courses which teach issues related to political life.

>>15688342
Radical is an extremely empty term and it is often understood by academics as 'going to the root (radix) of the problem'.

If they were really Marxists, why then not just identify as a Marxist?

Why are you surprised that people who study societies have ideas about how to change the society? How is that remarkable in any way? Why would there be a hidden political agenda behind professors with ideas?

>>15688358
Do you feel persecuted?

>>15688303
>If by Marxist you strictly mean, one who promotes to the writings of Karl Marx then you’re missing the point.
Based, people nowadays love to argue semantics to run away from the truth.

>>15688340
Yeah, Peterson is a conspiracy theorist. Who knew, eh?

So is Chomsky.

>>15688356
>abandons the debate when confronted with valid counterarguments
>proceeds to personally attack with zoomer buzzwords like 'seething'
Back to /pol/

>>15688356
>>t. Triggered subversives
That isnt how greentexting or t. works you tourist LARPer.

>>15688356
>SEEEEETHING
>I'm just here to garner vitrol and post studies I haven't read about how gay buttsex departments might have one or two not-actually-marxists

>>15688356
>garner the same vitriol
I don't see why you'd want to do this lol. The far Left are somewhat obsessed with distinguishing themselves from Liberals, so we need a word to group them together in so far as they will ally to combat people who appear fascist, racist, sexist, etc. since these are really the issues that are being fought over, hardly anyone even talks about economic class these days, anymore than the Right is agitating for Monarchy.

How did the goalpost get moved from "colleges are a bastion of Marxist thought" to "hey, I found one course on Marxism taught in an obscure philosophy department, and offered once every two years?"

The right wants you to think college is a threat so they can sell their authoritarianism. That is the only takeaway here.

>>15688358
That's not true, but the resentment in your words is so clear that makes me feel sorry for you.

>>15688358
big corporations are literally bending the knee to you

This thread is sheer Reddit.

>>15688385
I can't even begin to fathom this level of delusion.

>>15688385
>The right wants you to think college is a threat so they can sell their authoritarianism.

True. I cannot find a single drop of authoritarian thinking on the Left. They live and let live.

Bad side authoritarian and fascist; good side -- coincidentally, my side -- is impervious to this thinking.

>>15688360
Yeah but Chomsky didn't say in the humanities so how are you gonna say he is empirically wrong? 17% is virtually nothing too when you think about it. Most of the Marxists stick to specific schools like UMass too. When you think about how many schools there are in the US? 17% is virtually nothing. Majority of people won't ever meet a Marxist professor

>there are self-described communists in universities
>many of them, in fact
This is correct.

>most of these self-described communists are actually Liberals
>Noam Chompsky is a Liberal
>Liberals use Communism as a pet-project to feel good about themselves as long as it doesn't affect their personal consumption and/or lifestyle
This is also correct.

>>15688361
>often understood by academics to mean...
Citation needed.
>if they’re really Marxist
Because they don’t define Marxism the way their opponents do. From the ‘inside’ there is a world of difference between an intersectional feminist and a gender fluid theorist. Technically some of them don’t even like Marx but Marx is bigger than Marx because theory is a conversation between many view points across multiple generations. They all started at Marx and veered off song the way. From the outside we can just call it all Marxist trash.

You’re coming across as very naive on this last point,
>why would there be a hidden political agenda
It’s not hidden. Existing will often be involved in hiring decisions, sometimes the decision is entirely up to them. We’re talking about a classification of people who consider anything to the right of them ‘nazi.’ I don’t think they’d like to work with such people. Public schools systems are now implementing various training workshops on implicit bias and other thought policing measures which are laughably shaky but remember, if you speak out against them, that’s your fragility talking.

>>15688385
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRPTZF5zSLQ

>>15688391
Yes, corporations tend to say or do whatever might bring them more money. It's amazing how the right wing intelligentsia sees grand conspiracies against them but are completely oblivious to the fact that large companies might act in bad faith once in a while.
If you ignore the secret police attacking protesters, or the cops covering their badges, or the tear gas, or the military helicopters, and then squint your eyes really hard, it almost seems as if the establishment is in support of "Marxism".

>>15688407
>17% is virtually nothing

Chomskyite math.

>>15688370
Peterson is someone who intuitively understands certain important changes in metaphysical values in Western societies but he lacks the knowledge and vocabulary to really think through and express what his intuition tells him. This is why he needs a boogieman because his followers do not know shit about anything anyway, and they will just eat up anything that he tells them.

Peterson is also very lazy and vain. He could have taken the time and effort to actually understand what he criticizes (postmodernism, Marxism) yet he never did so while making painfully obvious he lacks even a Wikipedia-level understanding of these subjects.

Peterson would rather speak and have people admire them, then being the honest intellectual he pretends to be. He is driven by vanity rather than the quest for truth. He knows this deep down inside which is why he pumps himself full of downers and is now dying in Russia but hey let's all listen to this guy who literally drugged himself to death because he couldnt handle reality as a source of life advice

Is there an infestation of Marxists or postmodernists who try to subvert academic curricula and do not tolerate other viewpoints?
No

Is academia out of balance due to the majority of them being leftists (especially in social sciences), and is growing intolerance in academic debates a problem?
Absolutely

Problem is when you tell people the second situation, you cannot go on a world tour where fatherless losers will adore you as if you're JC himself.

>>15687889
Why does /lit/ give a fuck about what that faggot gnome fuck Chomsky has to say anyway

>>15688328
You make me feel all fuzzy about my linguistics degree <3

The thing about college and rich people is...why the fuck would you ever go to college if you were rich?! Just buy whatever you were going to buy with the money you would make from the job you would get after college. The answer to this question is that unlike state schools and community schools, elite universities have little to do with education and everything to do with producing social relations and intellectuals who preserve the status quo. Literally every problem academia is currently experiencing has been plainly visible on the horizon for at least 20 years.

For decades, universities have been slowly and quietly oversaturating the academic labor market, devaluing intellectual labor, and making their laborers interchangeable (academics are workers, by the way, contrary to their grand liberal delusions). The more systematically universities devalued intellectual work and pedagogy, the more aggressively academics internalized the neoliberal fetishes for novelty, trends, sensationalism, and quick turnaround. All kneejerk, zero response. The university is an institutional mechanism that preserves the wealth and power of the upper classes by training a special cadre of middle and upper-middle class "intellectuals" who serve as the priests and technicians of knowledge. It has always been this way. Always.

The response from academics is always the same genteel hand-wringing. "Crisis! The system urgently has to change! But...like...can we wait until after I get tenure?" Merit is a real thing but meritocracy is always a myth because institions don't select for ability, they select for compatibility. The point for tests isn't to see how smart you are, it's to see which department you go to. I’ve been waiting for so long for students to realize that private universities aren’t charities and they are *customers* of a corporation.

How do marxists who insist "marxism" is a fixed term cope with the fact that in the beggining the theory was that the proletariat would naturally rise to take the bourgeoisie down and after the failures led by communists the theory became that the revolucionary movement would have to put the revolutionary spirits in the hearts of the proletariat? Aren't those two opposite thesis? Then why are both still "marxism"?

The term marxism always was an umbrella, but just because right-wingers pointed that out, marxists started to deny this fact.

>>15688425
>Yes, corporations tend to say or do whatever might bring them more money.
I don't believe at all it brings them more money to do that. They will inevitably alienate people by posting BLM stuff, and at least a handful of them would try to corner the market on anti-BLM.

>>15688381
If your opponent doesn’t like what you’re calling them it is generally a good thing. They call themselves progressives which is a soft sounding term for what they actually are.

>>15688425
yes, the establishment does support Marxism when elites decide to set up donation funds to bail out Marxist rioters who burn down entire neighbourhoods while proudly waving Anarcho/Marxist flags.

The reason the establishment is doing this is because the police force remains one of the few remaining pieces of the establishment dominated by the right. They want to abolish it in order to rebuild it in their image with their own foot soldiers. See: Minneapolis where they are currently under way to do exactly that. See: the CHAZ in Seattle which is a Marxist Ruby Ridge that receives approval from Seattle's own Mayor.

>>15688419
>Because they don’t define Marxism the way their opponents do.
Uhm Marxism is pretty clearly defined and intersectional feminism and whatever is not part of it. Just because you want all your political opponents under the same banner so you can easily attack them with non-arguments, does not mean others should adhere to that. You cannot just change the definition of the word. In fact, can you tell me what is 'Marxist' about the things you just listed?

>We’re talking about a classification of people who consider anything to the right of them ‘nazi.’
You're confusing the real world for Twitter. Maybe going outside more will help?

>>15688206
this

>>15688425
It was proven that it doesn’t give them more money. See Gillette and try again. The establishment is in support of ‘Marxism’, not your dream world version though. They know that’s fake. But yes, extreme left-wing groups are the useful idiots of the powers that be. That’s the great irony of being a progressive ‘radical’

>>15688419

>We’re talking about a classification of people who consider anything to the right of them ‘nazi.’

You're talking about anarchists, not marxists.

>>15688425
>>15688459
Imagine believing the American elite is Marxist in any way
LMFAOOOOOOOO you people are deluded on a whole 'nother level. Luckily you never come outside so your delusions will never be a threat to any normal person

>>15688440
I would assume that Marxists, who view their position as a scientific one, can disavow particular predictions made by the use of the theory, so long as they remain committed to the basic tenets of the theory.
Basically the stuff that Lukacs says in 'What is Orthodox Marxism?'

>Hey! Stop calling me a nazi, I'm a third positionist monarchist esoteric cameralist traditionalist poopooist peepeeist
>Every university professor who disagrees with me is a Marxist judeo bolshevik subversive communist!!!!

>>15688430
The majority of leftists in the academia are marxists or postmodernists. All the other types are a minority in the leftist movement. The fact that they're brainlets who won't read Karl Marx and Jean-François Lyotard does not mean they don't adhere to their ideas. That's the thing about dump people: they don't even know where their ideas come from.

Scruton has added absolutely nothing to the field of literature. To the field of tobacco smoking and ethics therein, a lot. He's shown his true serpentine craven face like a jewish cretin.

>>15688477
so these are those famous left wing memes I've heard so much about!

>>15688473
>Orthodox Marxism
This term makes it obvious that 'Marxism' is an umbrella for a bunch of left-leaning ideologies.

>>15688463
No the establishment uses social questions as a way to sell their products. It has literally nothing to do with Marxism, or companies adopting an ideology. Companies do not have an ideology, they sell whatever is trendy. You can pretend Marxism means what you want it to mean, but it really does not. It's kind of embarrassing to be honest.

>>15688478
Nice projection, because postmodernism is not an ideology and it is largely understood as a meaningless term in philosophy. I can absolutely guarantee you that you have no idea what this word means.

>The majority of leftists in the academia are marxists or postmodernists
Multiple statistics ITT have shown that to be nonsense, you're basing this on nothing. Unless you do have proof? I'll wait.

>>15688463
>The establishment is in support of ‘Marxism’
That's good to hear, can you simply point out to me where Jeff Bezos has discussed his plan to abolish wage labor? Take your time

>>15688460
You can change the meaning of words. Evidently a lot of people understand what I mean when I say ‘Marxist.’ A turn of the century (19th into 20th) understanding of socialism/nihilism as merely ‘subversion’ has been lost.
The term that came into popular use was ‘cultural marxist’ which was coined by those who saw a common thread (a common enemy) in various left wing philosophies. Basically, a multi-angled attack. This term has been used as of late to gaslight opponents of the leftist by making it a ‘conspiracy term’ at worst or simply ‘a term for the uninformed’ at best. Intersectional feminism is certainly a part of that clique. You take Marx’s basic point: “The history of...is a history of class struggle.” and only need to change out the last two words with whatever the new flavor of the decade push is. Whatever aspect of the society you wish to dismantle now. It always comes down to white Christian society bad, destruction of white Christian society good.

>>15688467
Functionally there’s no difference. Politics is more a game of ‘enemy identification’ than anything else. Marxists, anarchists align exactly in that regard. There’s no need to differentiate them except to confuse the issue.

>>15688459
how mentally ill are you? what does "marxist" mean to you; hoarding wealth and property?

>>15688531
What about liberation theology?

>>15688441
Of course it brings them more money. They get media points and celebrities to do propaganda for them. If you support BLM, you can more easily get Lady Gaga and Emma Watson to use your product.

Also, those companies sell for non-white countries too, so pretending not to be racists is a way of virtue-signalling to potential Indian, Latino, African or Muslim customers who hate Trump. This is important, because for those companies white Americans are a minority, for their internet posts are seen by the whole world.

>>15688558
>Of course it brings them more money.
I have never seen much data about this. And the fact that there are *zero* large companies that try to sell to the very large demographic of people who don't like BLM and would happily switch over strikes me as an indication that there is more going on here.

>>15688531
So basically the term means "anyone who disagrees with me" except you've replaced "me" with "white christian society" which doesnt really mean anything either.

>>15688495
Clearly not true. Time and time again companies lose in showing support or solidarity with leftist movements. Often times appealing to those people who are not even within their consumer base. Being apolitical, especially in a country like USA where either side flips out at the slightest support of the other, is generally bad for business. At the very least an unnecessary risk, as you never know if the progressives will even accept your offering. See something as recent as Ben and Jerry’s donating to BLM related ventures only to find people have dug up some antiBDS work of theirs and now they’ve got the good left trying to ‘cancel’ them. It’s clear many companies do have an ideology even if they don’t realize they do.
>>15688520
You’re right Jeff and George don’t subscribe to your particular brand of Marxism in their private lives. Though they will prop up your groups and fund you through various means in order to get what they want, further control. Keep fighting the good fight anon!

>>15688546
hoarding wealth and property has been the principle of every Marxist elite

>>15688531
>You can change the meaning of words.
Uh not when those words refer to an ideology

> Evidently a lot of people understand what I mean when I say ‘Marxist.’
Well no, that's the whole problem. Philosophers have a different understanding of the word 'Marxism' than shitposts in Youtube comments or threads on /pol/

>The term that came into popular use was ‘cultural marxist’ which was coined by those who saw a common thread (a common enemy) in various left wing philosophies.
Oh you mean the term that got popularized by Anders Breivik, the coward mass murderer who killed 90 kids on an island?
Let's see how wiki defines it:
>In contemporary usage, the term Cultural Marxism refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims that the Frankfurt School is part of an ongoing academic and intellectual effort to undermine and destroy Western culture and values.
So anon, can you tell me something about the Frankfurt School? How does Adorno's Dialectics of Enlightenment adhere to the subversion of Western culture? Can you name some examples? How does Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man advocate the destruction of Christian culture? Oh what is that? You have never heard of these books and these writers? You have actually no idea what the fuck you're talking about? You're just a bored guy with issues who likes to project his shit on others?

Can anyone explain to me the pervading trend of not reading your intellectual opponents, and instead straw manning some basic principles of your political opponents that are often inaccurate? All these anti-Marxists literally never read even a Wikipedia article on him. Same goes for atheists (Marxists are atheists by the way, in case you did not know this most basic fact of Marxism yet) who criticizes Christians with the most banal and ignorant strawmans anyone with introductory knowledge on the subject can only laugh about

>>15688021
Anyone that thinks academia is full of marxists is a moron who has never set foot in any university.
Thinking that supporting BLM or using tranny pronouns is marxist just shows how fucking ignorant the average right wing american is.

>>15688569
>white Christian society
>doesn’t mean anything
The state of /lit/.
You can close your eyes and pretend it’s not there but that doesn’t make it not exist.
>>15688552
What about it.

>>15688256
lmao you're just talking about leftitsts who disagree with you. cornel west is a lukewarm progressive, not remotely Marxist lmao

>>15688600
BLM and LGBT are post-Marxist theories

>>15688586
that is inherently contradictory to marx's teaching, have you read anything by him?

>>15688612
are you an idiot or simply naive?

of course it's contradictory to Marx's teachings, but it doesn't stop it from being the reality of every attempt at practicing Marxist theory.

ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A CULTURAL MARXIST JUDEO BOLSHEWIK POSTMODERNIST SEETHING TRANNY SUBVERSIVE JEW SOROS GRETA SUPPORTER LIBERAL ANTIFA KEK

I HAVE WATCHED OVER 1000 HOURS OF LIBERALS GETTING OWNED BY BEN SHAPIRO ON YOUTUBE. NONE OF THEIR MARXIST ARGUMENTS EVER HELD UP TO THE FAST TALKING JEW wait a second

>>15688628
haha wow you're mega funny dude

>>15688587
>philosophers have a different understanding
Who cares? What’s your point?
>popularized by Breivik
Maybe that’s where you learned it.
>quotes Wikipedia to prove some point
No idea what you’re trying to say. Adorno and Marcuse aren’t obscure.
>the pervading trend of...
Yeah, we learned it from you guys in rules for radicals.

Well, you tried.

>>15688568
Many of the companies who voiced faux support for blm also quietly donated to Trump, the ones who are against blm just dont say anything because condemning blm after a cop kills an innocent man might make people upset with them.
>>15688585
So if a company paying lip service to BLM is "control", what would you call police and military tear gassing protesters?

>>15688608
BLM is a social movement that organizes protests. It does not have a theory. LGBT refers to individuals who are lesbian, gay, bi or transgender.

You literally make up words and you have no idea what they mean, it's fascinating.

>>15688608
Marxism is fundamentally concerned with the material conditions of the working class and a scientific analysis of historic progress.
Gender ideology/idpol is a bunch of marginalised people pushing for advocacy and social capital in the degenerate capitalist society we live today.
Absolutely no relation. Pick up some marxist theory.

>>15688622
holy shit you're a brainlet, you haven't read anything by the man and your "critique" is peterson-level "i have read the communist manifesto once when i was 20"

why can't americans read? are they all retarded or what

>>15688639
>might make people upset with them.
Yeah but what does this mean? That doesn't sound to me like it's purely about figuring out who to sell to with what messages. That sounds like there would be consequences for them if they did that, which is a different dimension of power.

>>15688606
You just KNOW he worships Franz Fanon. And yes everyone far enough left of me is just going to be called a Marxist. There’s no practical reason to differentiate. How nuanced as unique as these people like to think they are, their philosophies all boil down to one thing. I won’t be confusing the issue by learning 100 different names for the same stupid shit.

>>15688640
BLM founders have literally said they were trained marxists though.

Would you be skeptical if a right wing organization leader said he was a trained nazi?

>>15687889
>They both know very well that there is virtually no Marxist, anti-capitalist faculty in the universities
LOL
eternal jew

>>15688640
>>15688641
do you simply not comprehend the term post-Marxist?

Marxist thought in the 21st Century no longer concerns the fight for egalitarianism by the hammer and sickle wielding proletariat, it has moved on to parody itself in the form of racial and gender identity rather than economic class.

I'm not a marxist because I don't think the stateless society at the end of history and the new man that should be formed for it to exist, are possible, they strike me as borderline religious ideas.
Totalitarian dictatorships that killed millions of people, even a third of its own population as Pol Pot did, failed at creating a new man, when the URSS fell there was a black market of smuggled Bon Jovi tapes, the gulags were for nothing.

But I don't think marxism is worthless as a historiographical framework.

Americans being indoctrinated by their own cold war propaganda will never stop being funny.

>>15688302
Yes, Marx was extremely concerned with the existence of racist monuments, the freedom to openly practice alternative lifestyles, and the incidence of misgendering. Today's left has almost nothing in common with traditional Marxism, so it's more accurate to describe it as post-Marxist. Had you tried to discuss something like "gender" in a gathering of any post-WW2 European communist party, you would have been booted out faster than you could say "the rhetoric is similar." That people like Jordan Peterson must use the term "Marxist" whenever some dude in a dress insists on being called a lady is more indicative of their deficient political vocabulary than of the presence of Marxists.

>>15688268
Semantic squabbles are the first line of defense for the marxist: he believes if he denies your label of him, then any criticism you make of him will be invalidated because youre not referring to him with the right sound

>>15688674
Dude, what work of Marx have you actually read? It seems like there is no specific, concrete way you can link what you evidently hate; trannies, BLM, etc, with Marxism in general or specifically.

Why are you retards incapable of having a discussion and instead resort to smug petty reddit sophistry? What a waste of everyone's time.

>>15688639
Let’s start by admitting that paying lip service to BLM does nothing for the company’s bottom line. Having black lives matter on the back of every football jersey runs the risk of alienating customers. Your average BLM supporter still hates the NFL for what they did to the original kneeler and no amount of pandering will ever been seen as enough. Gillette got so much shit over it’s stupid political ad. It’s pretty clear that the risk of political involvement far outweighs any potential reward. Especially because nothing is ever good enough for those who have political demands (they only express a small fraction of their demands in truth, so even if you give them exactly what they want they almost feel cheated that they didn’t squeeze out more).
>what would you call
Poor trigger discipline. You do realize that cops are at odds with most of their local governance now. As in, city council and mayors are voting to defund them. You have a cop or group of cops who are in a high stress situations, they exceed appropriate measures and are now being removed from the job and in some cases facing charges.

>>15688640
>BLM is a social movement that organizes protests. It does not have a theory.
https://youtu.be/HgEUbSzOTZ8?t=51
The 'intellectual' leadership would disagree with that.
The thugs smashing shit up probably couldn't quote the communist manifesto, but that's never mattered in a revolution. The USSR brought a lot of black americans over to Russia on scholarships for ideological training. They didn't do very well, so it was mostly abandoned in favour of converting US academics.

>>15688674
Then so what? There are no marxist in academia which is what Chomsky is saying and anyone who is familiar with any university can tell you.
Those things you classify as post marxist are as foreing to Marxism as social/liberal democracy, which have co opted those narratives.

>>15688637
>Who cares? What’s your point?
I think most people would take philosophical study over internet conspiracy theories any day

>Maybe that’s where you learned it.
Yes, because he popularized it

>No idea what you’re trying to say. Adorno and Marcuse aren’t obscure.
Of course they are not obscure if literal incels can formulate an entire boogiemen conspiracy theory about them by barely even reading Wikipedia. Yet you did not answer my questions, because you do not know. If Frankfurt School truly undermines Western societies, can you give me some examples from their works like I asked you to. Why didn't you give those examples if you are convinced this is in fact the case?

>Yeah, we learned it from you guys in rules for radicals.
Literally never heard of this book. Is it some boogieman thing that gets blown out or proportion in terms of influence?

>You guys
I'm actually a Christian conservative who is anti-capitalist. I just really dislike intellectual laziness and dishonesty. If you speak about a book YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO READ IT. Maybe that is very radical these days, no?

Just be honest to yourself and admit you want to hurt your opponents by using all tactics necessary, however deceiving these may be. But don't come here and try to pretend you're taking part in an honest intellectual debate while you do not even have basic understanding of basic philosophical concepts. Just admit you're filled with irrational hatred about your own life with which you cope by being an edgy larping neo-reactionary who just wants to be different from what the main streams says and believes so you can feel some sense of feeble identity and superiority over 'the crowd'

Why is it that these alt right weirdos claim themselves as defenders of Christianity, while none of them actually practice the faith? Why try to save a culture that seems untrue to you anyway? Is it because it is just one big performative LARP as a way to cope with a rapidly changing world? Are they just stupid or in denial? Do they just pretend to be retarded? I will never understand or know.

>>15688692
>It seems like there is no specific, concrete way you can link what you evidently hate; trannies, BLM, etc, with Marxism in general or specifically.
not the anon you were replying to but of course there is, in fact there are many types of links possible
-marxism as preached by marx himself favored an acceleration of capitalism to the singularity point, subsuming everything from sexuality to race to whatever else in Capital, which we're seeing with every major corporation "supporting" trannies, fags, and niggers and simultaneously commodifying those identities, all this is to overload capitalism and break through to the Next Stage)
-the actual people behind these ideologies, meaning philosophers over the course of the last hundred years, and obviously the activists at core of the movements, were always either avowed marxists or in circles of avowed marxists, so there is a social delineation from marx all the way down to the figureheads and impresarios of current movements like tranny feminism and black supremacy
-just behaviorally speaking, marxists are found among the trannies, not among the reactionaries; among the blax, not the cops; among the fags, not the stable nuclear families. This is perhaps the most damning link of all just for how obvious it is

there are so many possible linkages that it would dizzy you, should you take a moment to actually consider a counterpoint to your worldview, which i guess i dont expect that much on the 4chang

>>15688681

Something that does happen is:
-People worried mostly with gender and race do identify as marxists.
-Outside of the USA it's very common for that kind of people, who are generally college educated and middle class, to go on vacations to Cuba
-In Cuba they get offended by how old style marxism doesn't care much for gays, or how their approach to race is colourblind, making race irrelevant
-Cuba ends up adapting the ideas of the modern left obsessed with race and gender in order to not offend their tourists (progressive first worlders from Europe, Canada and some wealthy but leftist latin americans)

So, not even classic marxism can escape postmodern marxism

>>15688206
When we call it neomarxism the leftist faggots flip their shit

>>15688759
So in other words, there is nothing you can specifically link to Marx and whatever you hate? Just some psychotic ramblings? What of Marx did you read?

>marx himself favored an acceleration of capitalism to the singularity point, subsuming everything from sexuality to race to whatever else in Capital

Can you cite this so I can read this in Marx his words?

>>15688656
Americans larping by pretending they're 'trained' (whatever that means) Marxists does not actually make them Marxist. What counts for the rightwing conspiracy nuts also counts for them: you can't randomly change the definition of a word especially not when the word refers to a 150 year old ideology.

>Would you be skeptical if a right wing organization leader said he was a trained nazi?
Well the whole thing about nazis is that they always pretend they're not nazis. This is because nazis are cowards who can only exert force in a group of large numbers. Also national-socialism is not really an ideology anyway. Hitler just combined the words of two popular ideologies for PR reasons. Nazi's lacked a coherent ideology other than muh aryan superiority, they were opportunists.

>>15688726
>The thugs smashing shit up probably couldn't quote the communist manifesto, but that's never mattered in a revolution.
Oh boo fucking hoo some guys smashed up a Target, nothing changed in history if not through violence and destruction. Go cry about your Wendy's somewhere else stupid American

>The USSR brought a lot of black americans over to Russia on scholarships for ideological training. They didn't do very well, so it was mostly abandoned in favour of converting US academics.
Yes unlike Americans who would just CIA coupe a communist country and establish a fascist dictatorship that genocided the intelligentsia.

>They didn't do very well
BeCaUsE tHeYrE NigGeRrS

>>15688715
Gillette lost money because they didn't pander to their demographic of (mostly) men. It's important to realize that no company really *believes* anything at all, they just provide a good or service. The woke advertising campaigns are the result of advertising departments trying to make companies seem human. This can backfire or it can profit spectacularly. Gillette pretending to be woke lost them money, Chick fil A being unwoke gained them money. Neither razors nor chicken sandwiches really hold political weight to them, it's all marketing.

>>15688735
What in the world are you on about? You’re the only one who brought up books. I never mentioned any book until Rules for Radicals which you unsurprisingly never heard of. As for Adorno and Frankfurt involvement. Look no further than their early publication of The Authoritarian Personality. You don’t have to go deep into their theory to see what they wanted. It’s in that plain to read book. As for lazy, you quote Wikipedia to make arguments. As for what you say about being Christian, that’s like advising me by saying the only real way to be a Christian is to learn the specific talking points of each and every demon against Christ. Please take a good long look in the mirror. The Catholic Church was onto these clowns from the very beginning and unfortuntely Russia was not consecrated in time (according to the 3rd secret) so things will get worse before they get better.

>>15688806
The cope to my nazi comparison is very funny.
You have people literally telling you they're trained marxists and you don't believe it.

Meanwhile you try to mind read and label people nazis according to that.

I'm not deep into this discussion because it's pretty autistic, but this was funny.

>>15688681
Thats why i said they can trace their geneology of thought to marxist thought, not that it necessarily IS marxist thought. Thats why i said neo-marxism is more accurate. I would say two of the most quoted achademic articles of that sort are Hegel and Hati and the marxist-feminist response to The Making if the English working class, both are most definitely marxist works, they say as such from the authors perspective.

>>15688761 also this.

>>15688814
>What in the world are you on about? You’re the only one who brought up books.
Uh no you mentioned an ideology which is described, surprise surprise, in books.

>As for Adorno and Frankfurt involvement. Look no further than their early publication of The Authoritarian Personality. You don’t have to go deep into their theory to see what they wanted.
Uhm anon, you're basically admitting your own ignorance now because you refuse to read their other works of which you do not know the contents. And you STILL did not give me any argument or quote how the Frankfurt School subverts (as in: is actively trying to) Christian culture. Maybe because you never read the book and you're full of shit?

> As for lazy, you quote Wikipedia to make arguments.
Ah yes I forgot, Wikipedia is controlled by jews

>As for what you say about being Christian, that’s like advising me by saying the only real way to be a Christian is to learn the specific talking points of each and every demon against Christ.
Sorry but I really do not understand what this means.

>The Catholic Church was onto these clowns from the very beginning and unfortuntely Russia was not consecrated in time (according to the 3rd secret) so things will get worse before they get better.
Uh okay

>>15688761
I know of people who identify as cats. It would nevertheless be improper to bring up their behavior in discussions on feline habits. When assigning epithets like "Marxist" to people, the only relevant question is, "what in their thinking and analysis of various issues resembles/tracks Marxist thought and analysis?". The answer in the case of the college-educated leftists Peterson loves to hate is - virtually nothing.

>>15688819
I tell you I am an elephant, does that make me an elephant? No

>Meanwhile you try to mind read and label people nazis according to that.
Uh no, my point was that actual nazi's would never admit that they are nazi's, not that all right wingers who deny that they're nazi's are nazi's. Get it? Reading comprehension is hard if you never do it in the first place, I understand.

>>15688819
You take what people say at face value huh? Even dumber than you sound

>>15688808
Dude you’re so smart. You figured out what every exec at Gillette couldn’t, that their customers are mostly male. You could have saved them a ton.

Your example of Chik-fil-a isn’t great. It shows that being the opposite of progressive gets you money. Chik-fil-a wasn’t well established in many East coast (liberal) cities at that time and Chik-fil-a was touted as the best chicken (fast food) before their political involvement. A rare case of an allegedly superior product + understanding their demographic. Can you name companies that profit off of being alienatingly progressive, as many companies are choosing to be? From tech companies to razor companies? Anyone who tries it usually gets criticized by both sides. The right for obvious reasons and the left for not going far enough or for ‘missing the mark.’ (See Kardashian Pepsi ad). What you say of some companies trying to manufacture an image is true but notice how that image is the vast majority of the time progressive at the cost of dollars. Though you neglect to realize that many company heads are, in fact, ideologically possessed and see it as their duty to promote things even at personal cost. Bezos isn’t one of these people but a Jack Dorsey is.

>>15688867
compelling argument, someone saying they're a trained marxist and someone saying they're an elephant are equally as ridiculous.

>>15688853
Why do they all read marx then? Its extremely common for them to quote the manefesto.

>>15688299
Seething that everyone ignored me desu.

>>15688853
Why do people like you attribute all criticism of Marxism to Jordan Peterson? You're aware his public history on this goes back what, 3 years? Does your memory extend beyond that?

>>15688879
Probably because they were assigned in some course, not because they're fascinated by Marxist analysis. In fact, if someone does quote the Manifesto, that's pretty much evidence that he's not really into Marxist thought; the Manifesto is a garbagy political tract, a typical pamphlet with very little substance.

>>15688247
I know this is a tourist redditor but how disconnected do you have to be?

>>15688851
I recommend you screenshot the post. Someday it will make sense to you. It will probably be too late by then to help you though.

I think this will be my last reply to you as it seems you’re struggling. Ideology is not limited to books. I never mentioned any books until you brought some up. I haven’t read the specific books you want me to read and I’m too busy to/I want to read other things instead. I have given you two books you can check out since you’re big on reading books of this nature (it seems). You may even find that you have a high f-score in which case I will expect you to check your privilege and change your implicit biases or at least flagellate yourself when an unclean thought occurs. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and yes, the articles tend to have a bias against certain ideas in my opinion. I wouldn’t cite it as a source in the future if you wish to be taken seriously, especially if your position is ‘people don’t read yet feel the need to speak on things.’ That’s basically what you’re doing. As for the thing about Christ, I can’t explain it to you any more simply. Just know you cannot be a commie and a Christian.

>>15688336
that the opposite of the truth, truth is they are post-modern, Marxist, Gramsci, Lukacs, Frankfurt school salad. they got something out of all those ideologies.

>>15688887
Where have I attributed "all criticism of Marxism" to Jordan Peterson? Peterson was used not as an example of a detractor of Marxism, but rather as an example of someone who has the unfortunate habit of misusing and abusing the term.

>>15687889
Source on Chomsky being Scruton's fanboy? Not that it surprises me, Scruton proved instrumental in the fall of the Eastern Block via setting up underground circles.

>>15688918
But still like i said before, i gave examples of fundemental “college neo-libral texts” and most of them have a strong marxist influence. Tell me both feminizin and the rqce identity politics draw heavily from the marxist tradition.

I like his documentary on art and beauty. Explains well why the "hurr durr art is subjective" idiots are wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc

Also, his book on the Aesthetics of architecture is great.

>>15689028
Art is subjective, any attempt at objectivity is a subjective evaluation with some emotional garbage attached.

>>15688356
The absolute state of /lit/ contained in one retarded post.

>>15689056
Keep telling yourself that while the culture respects a literal can of shit

>>15688874
What the fuck is a trained Marxist even supposed to be? A Marxist who is able to run the marathon?

Also I'm not suprised many intelligentsia of the Afro-American community are Marxists, because a lot of black philosophers (most notably Fanon) were Marxist because the black struggle is often historically linked with class struggle

>>15688927
This is embarrassing. I asked you for one (1) idea of the Frankfurt School that actively has the purpose to subvert Christian / Western society and all you do for the last five posts is trying to dodge that question. Your depiction of the f-score is completely inaccurate, so you could not even do the most basic stuff. F-score is not about privilege, but to what degree people are susceptible to demagogic authoritarians. For example men who lacked a father figure in their lives often compensate this by demanding the authority they missed in the home from the state.

> I will expect you to check your privilege and change your implicit biases or at least flagellate yourself when an unclean thought occurs.
This is literally all you had to say about the f-score? You could have actually made a good point here, moron.

>Anyone can edit Wikipedia and yes, the articles tend to have a bias against certain ideas in my opinion.
Not anyone can edit Wikipedia, many articles are moderated and regulated so that's bullshit. And I specifically mentioned Jews, ironically, because I knew simpletons like you would fall for it easily.

>I wouldn’t cite it as a source in the future if you wish to be taken seriously,
Unlike you, who has cited zero (0) sources.

>especially if your position is ‘people don’t read yet feel the need to speak on things.’
I have no idea what this means. Your lack of literacy is showing.

>As for the thing about Christ, I can’t explain it to you any more simply. Just know you cannot be a commie and a Christian.
Of course. But you should know that you cannot be a Christian and some internet fascists who thrives on hatred of minority groups at the same time.

Why not be honest and admit you're not looking for an honest debate but you'd rather try to throw up a smoke screen by mentioning completely irrelevant stuff to distract the fact that you got owned and I showed your lack basic knowledge about the Frankfurt School? Again, show it. Do it. It's not that hard. Come with passsages of texts that confirm the conspiracy theory you referred to. You simply can't, because it's all a big crock of shit and you know it damn well. You just uncritically believe what the other alt right types believe because it gives you a feeble sense of group identity, you're literally an uncritical NPC who gets his information from JPG images and /pol/ threads. When you mention the Frankfurt School your discord echo chamber will no doubt agree with you without being able to point at Frankfurt on the map, but that shit doesn't fly with people who actually know their basic philosophy. Of course information outlets are biased, you fucking mongoloid. But there is no conspiracy theory behind the bias. Some people just have a different opinion than you do. I know that is hard to accept if you're a man baby, but it is what it is.

You're a little man filled with hatred. Go back to Christ, who only knows love.

Jesus: Love thy enemy
Larping secular Christians on the internet: I hate literally everyone who is not me

>>15688853
This

>>15688879
Maybe because he was one of the most important philosophers/economists/sociologists of all time? Just a guess. Reading someone does not mean agreeing with them, but if you are an illiterate moron that's probably hard to understand

>>15688887
Before that the 'criticism of Marxism' (read: bogus rightwinger conspiracies that there is a secret group with a secret agenda that tries to subvert shit) was mostly a niche interest for extreme right wingers, see Anders Breivik. Peterson continued with the bullshit sentiment because he knew it would give him an audience of young disillusioned men who are confused, without actually making specific what he means with Marxism. So yea, Peterson basically made this bullshit mainstream. He never criticized Marxism because he never actually engaged with it. He just selectively identified some worrying trends in academia, made them bigger than they are and just called it Marxism because Marxism bad

>When you mention the Frankfurt School your discord echo chamber will no doubt agree with you without being able to point at Frankfurt on the map, but that shit doesn't fly with people who actually know their basic philosophy.
This is a typical characteristic of right wing American conservatives who are obsessed with debating. They're only prepared to debate unstable college freshmen because then they can use rhetorical tricks to make it seems like they OWNED with FACTS and LOGIC those SNOWFLAKES. They're always looking for easy targets: naive emotional students, journalists who have no idea about any academic debates, random people on the street. The rule is always: if you become emotional you lose. It's entirely performative. Yet when they go head to head with someone who actually knows their shit, they embarrass themselves. Then their fast talking tricks and pseudo-melancholic speeches do not work anymore, and they're exposed for the frauds they are.

Just look at Peterson vs. Zizek. Peterson got absolutely buttblasted by Zizek, it was embarrassing to watch. Why? Because Zizek is an actual philosopher who does not have any shit to sell, and Peterson is a drug addicted self help guru who only read some Jung and maybe some Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky. Peterson's lack of knowledge was stunning. No one on some internet podcasts will actually tell him that 'postmodern Marxism' does not really exist, which is the reason why these hacks are able to continue to peddle their bullshit to a greater audience.

Same goes for that debate between Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro. Even though Sam Harris is an arrogant and ignorant moron, also a self help guru, and very far from an honest intellectual, he destroyed Shapiro simply by staying calm and challenging him on all his factual statements. He dismantled Shapiro's fast talk trick pretty easily by making him justify what he was saying.

I would love to see any right wing or centrist talking head face off against Chomsky. They'd get destroyed.

>>15687889
Chomsky is a prime example that genius in one field (linguistics in his case) does not in any way lead to even a basic level understanding of any other field.

>>15688021
They don't even teach Marxism in any economics department
t.econ student

I prefer Peter Hitchens to both of them in terms of conservative writers

>>15689506
They don't need to, its principles are already entrenched in the system

>>15688247
lmao

>>15688021
I think the disconnect comes from a clear picture of what you're allowed to talk about and what these people call themselves
Anything to the left of Trump and you basically have to acquiesce on
>Trans issues
>Women's issues
>Immigration
>IQ and hereditarianism
>Colonialism
>White privilege
>Multiculturalism and diversity
>The nuclear family

>>15688021
I'm a postgrad and literally only had one class with a professor who seemed Marxist-adjacent. 90% of university professors are radlibs who will throw some Marx into the curriculum out of some historic duty, back couldn't give a shit about any socialist theory.

>>15687889
My film professor showed us a Zizek documentary. Does that count?

>>15689525
>I prefer this journalist bullshit vendor to an actual philosopher or kermit the frog

>>15689248
>unironically a Christian in the 21st century

>>15689248
>...you cannot be a Christian and some internet fascists who thrives on hatred of minority groups at the same time.
Yeah? Says who? Go fuck yourself.

>>15688256
Holy shit you're a fucking moron

>>15687889
Anyone who has gone to college in the 2010’s should realize that Chompsky is right. Even the ones who call themselves Marxists, are almost always liberals. I took a philosophy class on Marx and the professor offered a 30 minute trigger warning about how Marx was an antisemite before we read “On the Jewish Question.” It was laughable. At every chance she got, instead of explaining his thought, she offered basic IdPol criticisms of his work.

>>15689950
This really happened? That sounds like a shitpost someone on here would write

Faculty have not been literal Marxists since the 20s - 30s. Many found their Soviet preoccupations unfashionable with Stalin in power, others transitioned to barely-crypto-communists during the red scare. The modern progressive professor has a clear cladistic relationship with these Marxists, and a nontrivial ideological heritage from them.
Today's professors are preoccupied with enforcing political correctness, a term originally associated with those enforcing communist party doctrine. Ironically they are essentially derived from the New Left movement, of which Chompsky himself could be cast, so such professors are more aptly considered Chompskyite than Marxist

>>15688247
Either bait or genuinely retarded.

>>15688885
>posting cosplay shit
you don't deserve anything else

>>15688885
>published 2011
Late to the party desu, Bezmenov is old news, people are not replying because everyone on lit watched it already 5 years ago. Also jezebel-posting is a capital crime. Now amend your ways - you won't be spoon fed again.

>>15688247
unwell? Are you unwell?

>>15691383
>>15690719
He's right and you know it.

Can anyone of you actually named a single professor that is a communist?

>>15687889
>there is virtually no Marxist, anti-capitalist faculty in the universities

>>15689506
>They don't even teach astrology in any astronomy department
>They don't even teach creationism in any biology department
>They don't even teach flat earth in any geology department
>They don't even teach Lysenkoism in any genetics department
It's a real mystery.

>>15691549
It is well documented that the social sciences and humanities have many marxists and leftists and has been for a while. He’s obfuscating the point by bringing in STEM and business schools. I’m a humanities postgrad at a high level university and every other person I meet, student or faculty, is either immersed in Marxist, classical and modern, or French New Left theory and is also personally and morally advocating for them. They also use class consciousness but replace proles with PoCs and women and bourgeoisie with white males. This enters into modern social studies via post colonism, which has been co-opted by middle aged white women to attack patriarchal western Christian civilization and perform armchair activism. We could split hairs all day over whether or not the newer developments are really “Marxism” in the old sense of the word, but the ideological genealogy is very self evident.

Also Chomsky is a senile charlatan.

>>15687889
Chomsky never said that. I just googled it.

>>15688247
Please stop posting here. You contribute nothing.

>>15687889
>Chomsky calling Peterson a fraud
Get a load of this guy.
The fraudulent part of Peterson is that he was pushed forward by media people in an unnatural strategic fashion to be some kind of non threatening, acceptable, intellectual persona of conservative thought just because he has debated against militant feminism and mindless SJW claims. Really these are just common sense positions, and Peterson is just an interesting academic personality, and not a political entity at all. He's a professional psychologist and educator, not a politician or journalist. Part of his training involves understanding the gender differences in the mind and in human behaviour, and that was his entry point into the present day arena. He is at least quite interesting in his own right.

Chomsky is a fraud, in a very similar situation to Peterson but much worse. A linguistics professor who has waded into a field not his own, rambling about war and geopolitics for decades with no real training beyond what the average person could access and read.
This is a man who openly praised Chairman Maos China on television in the 60s as the place was collapsing into cannibalistic famine in real time, and had been under seige by the most evil oppressive government the world had ever seen for at least 20 years beforehand.
>They both know very well that there is virtually no Marxist, anti-capitalist faculty in the universities.
This is what Chomsky is. He has described himself as a libertarian socialist, and has displayed his Marxist bias in his work.
He has criticised the USA and their interference abroad at great length, but makes no mention of the Soviet funding behind the opposition in many of the historical theatres. Soft power American influence in the form of business and investment is a great evil according to Chomsky. This is aimed at developing a nation in the long run, even if it doesn't always go to plan, and America will make profit in the process,m. America has abused it's power in the past, and in certain places criticism is needed, but there is an element of intended mutual benefit that is ignored every time.
If a tank flies the hammer and sickle as it crushes villiagers under its tracks then all is well, and Chomsky has no comment.
Again, this is a man who cheered the most apocalyptic state failure in all of human history as it was unfolding.

>>15691838
You fucking liar.

https://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/92972/in-conversation-with-noam-chomsky-part-1-american-culture-and-politics/

>>15692196
Chomsky is also derided in Linguistics. Generative grammar is retarded and his own original notions of syntax were disproven by his own wife's research in L1 acquisition.

>>15688021
In in my experience, everyone is a liberal. All the teachers give off the vibe that the completely agree with values in The Economist. It isn’t Marxism, it’s ‘woke capital’ that dominates universities

Can anyone explain why social sciences (specifically sociology) and almost every academic I see on Twitter are so left wing?

>>15692269
Because you didn't listen.

>>15692281
CIA shill paid off by the John Birch society.
Turncoats of any colour are scum

>>15692313

If he's a shill why is he right?

>>15692313
This is the same poster
>>15691838

Who paid you off?

>>15692313
The fuck are you talking about? The CIA hated him.

>>15692211
>>15692333
It didn't come up when I googled it. Apologies.

>>15692339
Whatever you say fed

>>15692357
My digits do not lie, but this man does.

>>15688242
>Linguistics and computer science are probably as sedate as Chomsky is suggesting. But the humanities and social sciences have Marxists and other far left loons.
It's the exact opposite of what you're saying. The mathematicians and scientific philosophers are the Marxists. The rest of the humanities (Literature, 'Cultural studies', Poli Sci, etc) are stocked with either liberal socialists (soc dems) or raving idpol radlibs.

>>15688230
You’re clearly a retard

>>15691714
The neoclassical economics taught in Economics departments is unfalsifiable pseudo-science. Only Marxist economics is scientific.

>>15692320
Former defectors get paid nice cash sums to layer their stories with extra bullshit you need it to sell stories

>>15692269
They aren't. They exist to promulgate elite ruling class propaganda.

>>15688397
Based. I was wondering if I was even on the right website without some of the sot-fuelled shit I’ve been reading. I come here for my comfy conservative echo chamber, not to see pseuds LARP as if they are smarter than Noam Chomsky or Jordan Peterson

>>15692393
>Only Marxist economics is scientific.

>>15692513
Not an argument. Academic (((Economics))) in the US is on a par with Astrology.

>>15692548
>supply and demand
>astrology
>32 collapsed Marxist nations and counting
>scientific

>>15692548
you clearly haven't read a micro-economics textbook. read one and get back to us.

>>15692196
You're right.

Peterson is epistemically bad, but coming to think of it I don't remember ever seeing him supporting any anti-democratic idea. He seems to genuinely believe in personal rights, freedoms, and democracy, so at least he is a decent person who doesn't wish to impose his views on others. I may be wrong, but that's the impression I've got from watching his videos.

Chomsky, however, is always ready to support the next South-American caudillo and then distance himself from the man once he becomes a dictator (which everyone knew he would try to). It's despicable.

>>15687889
Scruton actually was an expert on something, and his detractors happen to be people who think that thing doesn't (or should not) exist.
Petersen is a guy who got famous for a failed protest of a screamingly obviously wrong government policy.

Scruton was, still is, a fucking gem. You don't know what you had until you missed it. Still a fucking travesty that he had to go through all that drama in the last years of his life because of leftists. Despicable actions on all fronts.

>>15692269
>Can anyone explain why social sciences (specifically sociology) and almost every academic
Because you have to go with the flow or you get ousted. You don't get to sit on a comfy tenure position by not conforming to whatever new fad is in.

>>15688021
Name a SINGLE Marxist economist outside UMASS Amherst.

>>15688256
>The word Marxist is keyword for those who wish to uproot the traditional order.
I don't believe you've read a single book in your life, get the fuck off this board lmao.

>>15689624
>>15689629
>>15692235
EXTREMELY underrated post. I entered a university known for its left wing activism as a Marxist and was immediately confronted with the fact that almost everyone is a radical liberal.

>>15692384
kill yourself

>>15688247
Depending on the department, individual professors may be Marxist or similarly leftist. However, professors don't run universities or drive university politics, administrators do; and administrators are not leftist.

>>15688256
>"Marxist" doesn't mean Marxist
Jesus Christ, /lit/.

>>15693211
>I don't believe you've read a single book in your life
So right in line with 90 percent of this board.

>>15688021
>>15687889
Academia in the US is overwhelmingly liberal (in Chomsky's usage). There are so few conservatives, especially in the social sciences, as to be silenced.

>>15693367
Administrators are overwhelmingly conservative, as are faculty in all but liberal arts colleges (even then, sometimes). This idea that colleges are leftists strongholds is simply false. If anything, they're strongholds of neoliberalism, espousing leftist sensibilities to placate more radical observers while doing nothing substantive to change hegemony. This is because a true upheaval would see universities crumble.

>>15688247
>American Universities are about as middle of the road as you can get. The are about preserving democracy and capitalism.

Where'd all those braindead morons burning down the cities come from then?

>>15693406
Who'd have thought people trying to destroy the established order would need to come from outside the houses of the established order. There's a reason why school is one faucet of hegemony (an ideological state apparatus, to borrow a phrase): they indoctrinate individuals into productive citizens.

>>15693293
This guy gets it.

>>15693418
I have no idea what your argument is.

>>15693418
Based Althusser reader.

>>15693459
>I have no idea what your argument is
This is the most quintessentially /lit/ statement.

>>15693459
Stop getting your 'facts' (ideology) from social media, zoomer.

>>15687889
Can't find a source for that quote.

>>15693389
https://econjwatch.org/articles/faculty-voter-registration-in-economics-history-journalism-communications-law-and-psychology
Sorry, you're wrong.

>>15693418
So where'd they get those ideas from?

Chomsky takes the "muh evil corporate fat cat" line of thinking so often. I don't necessarily think that he is entirely wrong, but I've heard him say some pretty crazy shit about Afghanistan compared to what I've read in books like The Wars in Afghanistan and Ghost Wars. Does Chomsky ever write about the corporations? Or what books does he cite often as ones people should read?

>>15693726
How is that not conclusive evidence that the professoriate is overwhelmingly liberal rather than leftist?

>>15693700
ahahahahahahaha
>>15692211

So what is the difference between a 'liberal', a 'radical liberal', and a 'marxist'? Because I've been reading these posts and this entire thread seems to be a whole lot of nothing.

>>15693885
Marxist = radical anti-liberal.

>>15693389
this is peak boomer mindset. the middle class hollowed out by deporting industry jobs and importing low wage quasi slaves. universities pumping out marxist ideology that capitalism is attempting to integrate by commoditizing it, but it can only integrate so many schizophrenic inconsistencies. the legal world is being absolutely rocked by marxist ideas - multiplicity of valid identities contemplated under CRA (freedom of association is a paper tiger if you're a conservative), bail reform movement is a booming(see the filthy rat Krassner in Philly), the vomiting of violent mostly minority criminals from the penitentiary back unto the streets, soon we may see the defunding of police in all blue cities (if you give me enough time i could wargame a plausible legal route whereby that policy is forced upon all communities), blue DAs deciding not to prosecute self-proclaimed "revolutionaries" who riot and promote racial division and hatred, yet shows of force against them will be met with an iron fist.

the shit that's been rotting on the vine in academia is finally beginning to splatter upon the ground.

For the bubble-bound boomer conservative, I suggest reading pic related for a first step into enlightenment.

>>15693885

I'd sure go with your gut on that one - this entire thread really is a whole lot of nothing.

When people are more concerned with the label or belonging to one group or another than they are at the functionality of the definition, you know you are in deep shit.

Just the very idea that liberal, from liberty, could have anything to do with any form of authoritarianism such as communism or anything the right has to offer is absurd and shows you just how thick these people are.

>>15693909
Thank you for explaining nothing. What is the difference as far as what they believe should be done about our country/world?

>>15688206
the "real" marxists of a century ago were also crying for the mutants of society to be recognized. marx, engels, and co similarly discussed those issues to, which is the source of the ideologies you call post-marxism: making it just a collection of the lesser discussed aspects of regular marxism.

Why would anyone care? Chomski's brain has been melted goo for at least a decade now.

>>15693965
Liberals are focused on protecting "individual rights" above all else. They call that "freedom". Such rights include capital property rights (capitalism), trans rights, etc.

The left is concerned with correcting unjust power relations (hierarchy) that result in the irrational allocation of material resources.

The left hates the neoliberals (aka "the right") because they prioritize capitalism above the rational allocation of material resources.

The left hates the radlibs (aka "SJW/woke Idpolists") because they prioritize "muh fee-fees" above the rational allocation of material resources.

>>15693937
ice cold takes everyone has already heard but coming from a retard?

>>15694034
>irrational

>>15688794
Not the fellow you were responding to, and "favouring" might be too strongly put, but...

1. Capital (embodied in the bourgeouise, or an expression of the interests of the bourgeouise [these are just semantics of 'autonomy']) is nihilistic/revolutionary

"The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.


The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind."

2. The consequence of this nihilism is a movement towards a point were Capital undermines itself (what the previous called "singularity")

"The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians."

All materialists get a bullet: capitalist, communist, whatever.

>>15694058
And yet only a materialist could formulate such a statement.

Speaks like a modern, walks like a modern, lives like modern...

>>15694034
3 guesses as to where this faggot places himself

>>15694058
So there should be no economy at all? I agree that bugmen (capitalists) should get the rope, but at a basic level, people need to grow food and exchange it for equipment etc.

>>15693885
That's the question of the fucking month isn't it?
I'll preface by saying I have limited experience in poli sci, so take this with a grain of salt.

The liberal tradition as I understand it is that you should have relative freedom to decide your own destiny. Basically Locke and Rousseau and all that jazz. This is a liberal.

Marxism is much more complex, and you can only really understand it full by reading Marx to fully get what they're saying, but the gist is basically that people who are wealthy associate as a class, and use their money to control access to capital. Because of this, they can dictate the terms of how other people live, since they control access to resources. This is traditionally represented as stealing some portion of the workers' "rightful wages", so that the money they make is not really representative of the value that each worker creates in labor, but it does get more complicated.

A "Radical liberal" is essentially the bastard child of marxism and liberalism. It combines the class struggle structures Marxism proposes with the focus on identity and the self that liberalism proposes. The result is a bizarre screed which posits that a person cannot really achieve what they want and become the person they "truly are" because of structures imposed from the top down by a group united by a particular identity. Rather than being class, it's generally race and sex. Black people cannot be what they want to be because white people control the capital and force them into subservient roles. Women cannot be who they want to be because men control access to capital and force them into subservient roles.

It's in vogue in the non-neocon right to lump radical liberals and marxists together. This isn't that ridiculous. The theory underpinning radical liberalism is, I'd argue, more similar to Marxism than liberalism. I'd contrast this with conservatives who are """"ignorant"""" in the literal sense of non-religious arguments for conservatism, who reject Marxist theory as a whole and generally don't care that you're a Cultural Marxist as opposed to an Economic Marxist, they just see a big mass of Marxists. But a bluecap from the 1930's would see cultural marxists as being as much heretics as any capitalist swine, and they really shouldn't be lumped together.

>>15694066
Above is a perfect example of ____________ 'logic'.

This whole thread is absurd levels of cope, pilpul and no true scotsman. The actual marxists are saying the cultural and post-marxists aren't marxist and they're actually neo-liberals and postmodernists. They can somewhat delineate one group from the other but can't name anything they disagree about, just about how to achieve it. It's funny and telling when someone as milquetoast as Peterson tries to label even one subset of leftist thought and nail it down definitionally, it slithers away like smoke. They reject any label put to them and yet distort the classical definitions of political movements at their convenience.

In any case, I recall an English professor I once had, a woman, who would go on and on about Guevara and feminist theory during class time. She was harmless, though. To me at least. I suppose if you aren't inoculated to ideas, someone might have come out of that particular class, I think it was classical literature or something, wearing a beret. Nowadays I suppose the radical feminists are teaching white theory or white privilege or whatever other nonsense, so it riles people up more.

I think some professors were recently tweeting, worried about 'right-wing' people getting their hands on lectures or slides from their classes after they put them online. Really makes you wonder what's actually being slipped into the minds of the proles these days. Nothing 'right-wing', you'd have to conclude. Though don't try to label it, it doesn't exist, comrade.

>>15694052
pretty loose anon. Even as someone that doesn't particularly subscribe to Marx.

>>15694052
im not buying his critique of bourgeois and the family. isnt it he that wanted desperately abolish the family?

>>15694084
>deductive
what dictates in your previous statement whether something is rational or not? What constitutes, for example, a rational allocation of material resources, and what constitutes an irrational allocation?

>>15694065
Cope

>>15694074
t. communist bugman
growing food is not materialism.

>>15687889
>>15688021

>>15688256
This. Most avowed Marxist and Marxism-influenced academics, never mind random uni students, were never really legit Marxists even as citing a Marxist concept.

Thinkers and ideologies are fuel for leftists to LARP, destroy and negate. It's always been 'just so' for the purpose of removing opponents (often opponents to liberal economic hegemony) and acquiring social status. Bourgeois leftism has been in this mode at least since the late 19th century The leftism (and rightism) of non-academics, such as workers, is what has made good leftwing-flavoured changes for the people. Nothing an academic leftist has ever done was for this end, only to create a fantasy world to satiate their deathly bored and sickly minds. These days it's completely over as academics even force non-academics to conform to their nonsense, submit to multinat corps and international agenda.

>>15694066
plebbitor, specifically stupidpol?

>>15694034
Thank you for the reply but you lost me at liberals protecting “individual rights.” As everyone of these groups can be framed as “protecting rights.”

So the liberals, as you call them, care about these rights but “the left” correct unjust hierarchies by appealing to peoples rights. In example, the right to a living wage, the right to free healthcare. As for the neoliberals who you call the right, if they promote capitalism then they promote property rights (I assume). That’s basically the cornerstone of all libertarian and ancap economics. And lastly the radlibs. I see nothing different about them in your description compared to the liberals.

>>15694146
>the right to a living wage, the right to free healthcare
what a farce. what made people so weak?

>>15694146
You won't cause that other Anon described leftism in terms of intent which is frankly stupid and as you've done its easily conflated with any other group if going by intent.

>>15694163
leftism welfare culture

>>15694129
>growing food is not materialism.
So, in your /x/-deranged mind, eating and digesting a bowl of spaghetti is not a material activity? There is secretly a spiritual component that cannot be accounted for by chemistry? Uh, okay.

contributing to the end of this thread
get

>>15694174
>still can't understand what materialism is
fuck, even if you don't care to read something on the topic you could at least look up the term or some shit.

>>15694180
a

>>15694146
>Thank you for the reply but you lost me at liberals protecting “individual rights.” As everyone of these groups can be framed as “protecting rights.”
Lol, no.

>So the liberals, as you call them, care about these rights but “the left” correct unjust hierarchies by appealing to peoples rights.
False.

>In example, the right to a living wage, the right to free healthcare.
"Rights" are human constructs -- means to the ends of human well-being.

>As for the neoliberals who you call the right, if they promote capitalism then they promote property rights (I assume). That’s basically the cornerstone of all libertarian and ancap economics.
Correct, and... ?

>And lastly the radlibs. I see nothing different about them in your description compared to the liberals.
They are driven by IdPol and self-flagellation.

>>15694186
Walk it off, bugman.

>>15694180
continuing

>>15694198
imagine being like this lol

>>15694163
They think they're entitled to utopian ideals because they were born at a certain stage in history when humans could even comprehend such things for more than two seconds and not be eaten by a wild animal. They're weak because they're disconnected from nature by necessity, otherwise they would be devoured. They demand rights because they rebel against competition. They are willing to share hell because they know they would lose a war for heaven.

tl;dr they're just cowards

Accelerationism is like a 4chan thread. The more contributions made to the capitalist system the closer it gets to its inevitable end. Then socialism is the slow death to page 10 and communism is what takes over in the abyss. god lbess .

>>15688021
As someone who went to COLLEGE (not university, foreigner) at one of the most seemingly-liberal universities in the world, Chomsky is correct. Most faculty are pandering moderates, not radicals. Keyword: pandering.

Grow up.

>>15694202
seething

>>15694223
as someone who went to university at one of the most good universities in the world, Chomsky is incorrect. Most faculty are pandering leftists, and many are radicals.
Keyword: pandering.

Grow up.

>>15688477
This but unironically

>>15694223
someone who panders to an ideology is not appreciably different than its actual dogmatists. Pushing ideas insincerely is still pushing ideas.

>>15694233
I can do it without shedding an exoskeleton.

>>15694259
go back

>>15694198
This anon >>15694079 did a far better job than you.

>>15694240
How do you explain this: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/12/radical-academics-judith-butler-kamala-harris-donation

>>15694264
>he doesn't know

>>15694291
I don’t

>>15694298
It's a faggot trolling

>>15694262
Into the lobster tank??

And so this thread ends not with bang but with whimper
Happy frog jpeg

>>15688315
>>15688288
That is a huge percentage for such a categorically disastrous ideology. And that was 2006.

>>15694320
Which one?

>>15688288
>>15688291
>>15688297
>>15688304
>>15694334
Look at all these ancap trannies chiming in to confirm that so-called "self-identification" is all that matters -- not the material reality. Lol, good shit.

>>15688021
Here's your Bait of the Week award.

>>15694351
It seems their congregation has become controversial to you. Why?

My guess is that Scruton and Peterson both agree that the continental tradition is full of nonsense, even if their motivations are very different.

>>15687889
>They both know very well that there is virtually no Marxist, anti-capitalist faculty in the universities.
I almost shit myself laughing so hard at this. HOW fucking DELUDED can one person be?

>>15694371
Ironically, so do all leftists.

>>15694388
You're kidding right? Name a SINGLE Marxist economist outside UMass Amherst.

>>15688654
Exactly. Leftists play this game of shifting words and categories as if that changes the underlying structure. The difference between a leftist and a liberal? It's there. But is it enough to say they are in opposition? Or to say that leftists have transcended liberals? Absolutely fucking not. It all just boils down to the system regulating it's own opposition that will always be consumed. They are just falling for superficial word games while never really deeply looking in the mirror.

>>15694426
This is a parody right?

In this cruel world, you are either a liberal or a leftist. You either support concentrated elite power in the form of capitalism etc., or you oppose it. It's that simple.

>>15694426
Is it really surprising that these leftists are so anal about their exact ideological labels when they invented infinite pronouns and demand everyone respect them? These people don't know what they are or what they believe, they would argue with their own reflection in a mirror, as trannies often do.

>>15694473
Nice try, glownigger.

>>15694451
in your view being a lefty (i infer) do you consider the sociological arguments alluded to ITT to be a dispute between two different camps of liberals then?

>>15694487
>do you consider the sociological arguments alluded to ITT to be a dispute between two different camps of liberals then?
Which 'sociological arguments' are you referring to?

>>15694479
>increasingly nervous tranny marxist tries to reach bump limit for the tenth time this thread
I know you better than you know yourself, nigger.

>>15694492
the "cultural marxists" undermining muh christian values- based society

>>15694480
That's a no-brainer. Trump is the most *flagrantly* corrupt president in US history. But the consequences of his corruption are far less than what GWB 'non-corruptly' inflicted on our country and planet in his two terms. At least so far.

>>15688358
>"Marxist" is code for anyone who doesn't prostrate themself
LITERALLY not true if pictures are to be believed

>>15694508
>LITERALLY not true if pictures are to be believed
Somebody screencap this gem.

>>15694401
Every single person in my English department at NYU, they all have Marxist sympathies and constantly introduce related sentiments into otherwise unrelated material. Fuck off with your casuistry you evil cunt.

>>15694473
Lmao, it's always enjoyable to point out their self contradiction and hypocrisy.

My favorite "angle" here so to speak is the types who claim western academia is colonized and somehow excludes other sciences or realities found in other cultures. Well, if science is Eurocentric, then why does it need non Europeans? If everyone has their own brand then no-one needs outside brands, after all each group has their own, is it not then appropriate that said sciences contain their own groups? These faggots love to play fast and loose with specious language precisely because they have no substance or empiricism to rely on, they are laughably easy to defeat in logical terms but they don't seek to prove, only to convince and outrage the ignorant.

>>15694533
>they all have Marxist sympathies
Wearing a Che t-shirt doesn't mean you can explain the temporal single-system interpretation, or even what the transformation problem is.

>>15694547
You sound like a hardcore leftist.

>>15694547
They are logically inconsistent - that's why they don't debate and would rather just teach the next generations their lies behind closed, public school and university doors. The Eurocentrism meme is attacking science, literature (attack on the Western canon), pretty much every field the White man excels (all of them). It's cultural relativism whose logical endpoint is segregation, but of course they pull back from that as well.

>>15694556
Nothing he said was leftist you bot goon faggot.

>>15694393
There's plenty of leftists who are Foucauldians, Derridians, etc.
Chomsky thinks they're full of shit, but he doesn't represent the entirety of the left.

>>15694550
Please tell me more about my reality and everyday experience and about people I know and work with everyday, please, tell me more about the shit you pull out of your ass because it upsets you to hear someone say something that threatens your ideological bubble. Fucking idiot, lmao.

>>15694608
>There's plenty of leftists who are Foucauldians, Derridians, etc.
No, there are not. CIA-financed AIDS-stricken obscurantist liberals are not leftists.

>Chomsky thinks they're full of shit, but he doesn't represent the entirety of the left.
He absolutely does represent the Left. He's not an orthodox Marxist but he's a libertarian socialist, so he agrees with orthodox Marxists in rejecting immaterial mystical 'muh fee-fees' Idpol horseshit imposed by glowniggers of the likes of you.

>>15694103
underrated post

>>15694550
Neither of which is required to either support or antagonize your respective "groups". Of course when I say support I mostly mean proselytize under threat of violence, and when I say antagonize I mean harass via threat of violence. You know, political activism.

>>15694648
I'm geographically closer to you than you think.

>>15694672
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... ok?

>>15694673
embarrassing

>>15694680
Indeed.

>>15694451
Your reality Is so small.
You have constrained every opposition and belief into the prevailing authority. You are it's gatekeeper making sure no one escapes while you prance about mumbling about capitalism. As if all forms of authority are Capitalism. Yet this liberated "every man for himself"attitude feeds capitalism...
But of course you are goin to drag me down into some particular hyper theorized capitalism so as to escape larger and more general understandings.
All society operates on an aspect of elite authority. hidden or not.

>>15694451
>No that's liberals not me!
>It can't be me!

>>15694110
What is loose about this 'reading' (i.e. summaries 1 and 2)?

>>15694115
What do you mean you're not "buying" it? You think its insincere/contradictory? Or you don't think that capital works against societal ideals in favour of naked self-interest?

Here is Marx on the family:
"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous
proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On
capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only
among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the
practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public
prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement
vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their
parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we
replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social
conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of
society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented
the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character
of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling
class.
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed
co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by
the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn
asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and
instruments of labour.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the
whole bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears
that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, natur-
ally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all
will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with
the status of women as mere instruments of production."

>>15692377
Wrong in my experience. I found way more Marxists in the latter. Most STEM people don't talk about their politics as openly, so I'll give you that there might be some Marxists among them. But the implication that Marxists sit in the halls of mathematics and science is nonsense. They go to literature and poli sci precisely because their shit doesn't fly in STEM.

>>15695343
No, the exact opposite is true. The poseurs in Lit/"Cultural Studies" departments are elite-polishing radlibs to their core, and hate the Left with every fiber of their being. As a mathematician, I know that every big name in the field is either a Marxist or anarchist. Look into the Sokal hoax if you don't believe me.

>>15695392
I don't disagree with your description of useful idiot radlibs but I saw and experienced Marxist professors teaching these exact subjects at university. By comparison, professors in Math subjects, Comp Sci, etc showed no obvious political persuasion and focused on teaching course content. I would not know if they were Marxists or not.

I view the Marxist pretensions to scientific methods very sceptically and your efforts to assert Marxists as these masters of mathematics and science makes me laugh a little. Most Marxist influence is felt in social sciences and the humanities.

What is your point about the Sokal affair?