/lit/ - Literature

>>18660032
>serious just means things I like
>based and redpilled just means things I like
>give me some books to agree with
Don't you get tired of this?

>>18660032
i'm not sure what exactly you mean by "critical theory", but if you are talking about shit like the frankfurt school and after, you can find plenty of critiques against marxism in this work. same the other way around, just a bit less so.

>>18660032
Baudrillard on Marxism
I don't know much about CRT though, I have no idea how it became so mainstream in the past few months

>>18660042
The fact I am currently looking for a book I happen to agree with does not imply I only read books I agree with.

>>18660054
>you can find plenty of critiques against marxism in this work
What work? Did you forget to add an image?
I'm interested in crititcism of the Frankfurt schhool etc

>>18660032
Schopenhauer retroactively refuted Marxism when he refuted Hegel

>>18660032
What does Carl Schmitt have to do with CT and Marxism?

>>18660032

Schumpeter, Capitalism Socialism and Democracy is the book you want

>>18660061
yeah the only person who crituques CRT directly (i.e. refuting direct quotations) is james lindsay but he is very, very, very, very cringe and just cuz its cringe i wont listen to him
then you have the whole ben shapiro "i did not choose to we white" criticism of CRT which is even worse

>>18660068
yeah i was looking for something newer in the last 100 years

>>18660072
nothing, i just happen to agree with schmitt on a lot of things. he did a pretty good job dimantling liberalism and im looking for a marxist alternative

>>18660032
Leszek Kołakowski [1960s] Main currents of Marxism 3 vol

Limited on left coms kapd workerists
Obviously useless for post 1950 left com and lib com and trots

Kolakowski detests Marxism from a Central European catholic liberal perspective which means he is obliged to be scholarly in his detestation.

As a libcom Marxist from the operaismo/ kapd positions I endorse its use in intellectual self training for left wing workers.

>>18660077
this looks good
but i heard that it is written in a kinda of ironic way
idk can you tell me more?

>>18660032
Keith Woods made great videos about Marxism recently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smtv4qIEWz0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXzvx3wdqRk

>>18660082

He concedes a bunch to Marx, trying to steel man his position while subtly pocking holes to the stuff. He also concedes that the normie way of understanding capitalism is cringe and defends monopolies while shitting on "muh competition". Then he also shits on democracy and says that socialism is inevitable because we are creating an upper class of overeducated losers who have no actual useful skills. The coolest thing about the book tho is that Schumpeter was unironically super well read and he writes in a very fun way, the book just feels good to read.

>>18660032
Communism is the only ideology that has successfully opposed the liberal-internationalist order. Fascism was reacting to the same problems communism was and in many ways was similar, but its naive warmongering lead to its demise, amongst other things. Consider that the country turning out the most Schmitt scholarship today (while almost everywhere else he’s denounced as a nazi) is China. Two of the right’s favorite theorists, Schmitt and Strauss, are huge in Chinese political philosophy. If Schmitt were around today he’d recognize the great efficiency by which China governs.

This doesn’t mean you need to become a China dick rider, all I do is observe the quality of China’s statecraft and understand why it works, then compare it to the increasing failures of my country, the US.

What’s funny is rightists often say the say the same thing as leftists regarding China, that it’s “not real communism.” If you ignore all the anti-communist agitprop (which never seeks to educate, rather only to leverage the power of the masses towards pragmatic ends) and observe how the government behaves, I think it’s clear Xi has the same goals that were stated by Mao and Stalin.

>>18660190
China is hardly a model society you should be looking up to, what has modern China contributed of value to the arts and sciences? Their entire modern culture is copy pasted from western capitalism and even then it's on the inferior side.
I hate the China dickriding so much, your post basically reads as "Schmitt would like China because they are based and redpilled".
Schmitt and every self respecting nazi would loath the cultural irrelevance of Chinese society

>>18660190
Cringe. Stop posting this shit in every thread.

>critical theory

>>18660032
The best criticisms of Marxism will be made by Marxists. Everyone else is retarded.

>>18660032
It's impossible to skeptical of skepticism without descending further into skepticism. This is why there is no one critical of critical theory. The best way to "refute" them is simply to ignore them.

>>18660190
The popularity of Schmitt and Strauss in China probably have a lot more to do with their critique of liberalism. It is especially noteworthy that their critiques are focused and not easily applied to the Chinese system, whereas most critiques of liberalism typically are (for example: anarchist, neo-Marxist, and postmodern critiques of ruling classes, social control, capitalism, etc). In other words that they are two of the extremely few that do not criticize authoritarian rule probably has as much to do with their popularity than any measure of their profundity.

>>18660313
Idk about sciences but they are making some excellent movies right now, while in the US all that's being made is capeshit.
>>18660345
>In other words that they are two of the extremely few that do not criticize authoritarian rule probably has as much to do with their popularity than any measure of their profundity.
I think Schmitt is profound, as do many other anons

>>18660032
Critical theory is a framework and as such is helpful to have and use just as any framework is. It's application however can all too easily function as simple power reductionism. You see this most clearly and in its most base form in its bastardization into CRT: existence of disparities in sentencing/crime in blacks is evidence of whites oppressing blacks. Sure that is one theory, but others are just as viable or believable. A much more convincing application is the existence of disparities between blacks and whites under slavery, but that's banal. Adorno and Horkheimer, even Marcuse, typically make very extremely convincing cases, but are definitely not without fault. Read The Culture Industry. Criticism of critical theory is ridiculous. You have to engage with the specific arguments instead.

>>18660380
I'm sure he is, but Chinese Academia clearly has ulterior motives.

Why the fuck do you ask for critiques of stuff you haven't read you fucking pleb

>>18660392
Ulterior implies there’s something hidden going on but I see no such thing. Theorists like Jiang Shigong are interested in Schmitt because his writings provide a strong argument for a more authoritarian government which Jiang is interested in legitimating. What here is ulterior? They are honest in their desire to provide a theoretical foundation for the ccp’s authority.

>>18660422
To further cement my world view and leave it unchallenged, is that not why everyone browses /lit/

>>18660428
>are interested in Schmitt because his writings provide a strong argument for a more authoritarian government which Jiang is interested in legitimating. What here is ulterior? They are honest in their desire to provide a theoretical foundation for the ccp’s authority.
Maybe the term disingenuous is more apt, but ulterior probably works too. Unless Jiang would blatantly state if asked that his interest with Schmitt was achieving legitimacy for the regime he is a part of; implicit is the notion that it is not. Working backwards from a preconceived conclusion is typically not acceptable practice in theoretical or academic pursuits.
In a Machiavellian foreign policy sense it may be expedient but it is the rough equivalent (or even worse) of interpreting historical data in the most self-serving way possible to support your political agenda in the same way that many contemporary "academics" do.

>>18660485
>Unless Jiang would blatantly state if asked that his interest with Schmitt was achieving legitimacy for the regime he is a part of; implicit is the notion that it is not.
I of course do not know how he would respond to such a question but here is some of his work if you wish to evaluate his integrity as a thinker.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.880.9718&rep=rep1&type=pdf

>>18660485
>Working backwards from a preconceived conclusion is typically not acceptable practice in theoretical or academic pursuits.
Literally everyone does it, it's just a matter of who admits to it or not. That is why I actually respect people who are honest more.

>>18660032
Leszek Kołakowski Main Currents of Marxism (I think the original version - 2nd edition)
Julius Evola Anticomunismo positivo. Scritti su bolscevismo e marxismo (1938-1968)
Gustavo Barroso - Bolshevismo e Judaismo (1928)
Elizabeth Dilling - The Plot Against Christianity

>>18660190
>but its naive warmongering lead to its demise, amongst other things.
the jews destroyed all movements against liberal-internationalism. Communism is totally compatible with liberal judaism read Tax in Kind by Lenin

>>18660032
Marxistische Gruppe — The 10 Most Popular Dogmas of Critical Theory
https://libcom.org/library/10-most-popular-dogmas-critical-theory-marxistische-gruppe

>>18660528
As long as Schmitt has been on my list I can't admit to having read him or of having more than a passing familiarity with his work or ideas. Even moreso for the politics of China. I am not equipped to evaluate Jiang or Schmitt's influence on him.
It does seem like a very genuine work from the first two pages though, I'll read it, though I'm afraid I know how it will inevitably end.
>>18660529
I understand the sentiment, and there is certainly something to be said for people that wear their biases on their sleeve, but you're being overly cynical. There are plenty of thinkers who have presented a totally new idea and had elaborate and mostly sound argumentation for it, regardless of their discipline. This is totally different than someone who is intent on justifying an existing state of affairs, especially when that someone apparently has a vested interest in that justification.
Many liberal nations have the additional of having had their principle of legitimacy established before and not after the formation of their state.

>>18660610
>the jews destroyed all movements against liberal-internationalism.
By liberal-internationalism I meant the governments of the US, Britain, etc. Globalism.
>Communism is totally compatible with liberal judaism
Well liberalism has come to define so much of what is now the norm in all governments that it’s difficult to define with specificity what liberalism exactly is, but communism opposes several key aspects commonly held as liberal. Perhaps the most principle being that of the free market. The liberal understanding is that all men are rational actors, so when they participate in a free market they are selecting for what commodities have the greatest cost-benefit equilibrium. Therefore through a Darwinian style of selection, the economy is theorized to justly produce commodities calculated for the perfect benefit of society.

Capitalism demonstrated this to not always be the case with tons of useless, overpriced commodities being produced that are then sold to the masses through coercion. The communist critique was that commodity production is beholden to profit rather than the benefit of society. What is most profitable is not always what is most beneficial to society. Therefore the communist is a proponent of central, controlled planning rather than the liberal conception of the free market.

>>18660645
>This is totally different than someone who is intent on justifying an existing state of affairs
We're not talking about an existing state of affairs specifically. We're talking about justifying some irrational desire through the guise of rationality, whether it be the status quo or some idealist utopia, or anything inbetween.
This is not cynical, it is simply the state of affairs given the intellectually honest appreciation of the development of academic philosophy and its culmination with Nietzsche's (among others) insights into the reality of human psychology and rationalizations thereof.

>>18660645
>though I'm afraid I know how it will inevitably end.
How’s that?

>>18660607
Your later contributions are both esoteric and systematically right wing in a positive way rather than as a critique as such.

Does he even address critical theory? Critical theory tries to argue that aspects of culture in a very specific lens that is critical of a certain 'power structure'

Don't most people know that only absolute retards look at the world like this and critical theory is only useful if you use it like a too land not as your world lens.

Carl Schmitt mostly argues about political states not really society.

>critiquing the main theories and ideologies of the 20th century from a critical position
>engaging with them fairly while also refuting them

OP, I believe it is time you took the Ratzinger Pill.

N I E T Z S C H E

>>18660032
Karl Marx and the Close of His System by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. You need to understand some economics though.

Bumpym

>>18660042
Do you hold yourself to this standard when you talk about things you intensely dislike, like fascism or religion? How many books by fascists or about fascism have you read before you decided that you don't like it?

>>18662307
Lol how young/dumb are you? Why would you have to be an anti-fascist or an atheist to think it is narrow-minded to look for books you already agree with? If OP hates Marx or critical theory so much he should actually read Marx and critical theory instead of books arguing against them, and form his own opinion based on information rather than just huffing imageboard/discord/twitter fumes and looking for more sophisticated arguments than the based/cringe he has hitherto relied on to get (You)'s from his fellow cretins

>>18660336
Would it be fair to say that critical theory to be nihilist, troll ideology? I kinda feel that progressives sort of latched on to critical theorists not because they actually have read them and liked them, but because they are the only ideology that justifies homosexuality, etc. I don't think many critical theorists were the most politically correct people in the early 1900s.
I find it interesting how paedophilia is something still considered taboo by progressives but something justified by critical theorists.
It's like the path has been paved, but nobody has yet walked down it.
I find it difficult to argue against critical theorists because it is sceptical of everything, and when you criticise a point someone comes along and says "well akshually" you did not understand what the author meant. A lot of these critical theorists and these French postmodernists write in very obtuse, vague but also incredibly detailed ways.

>>18662332
Why are you avoiding the question?

>>18662355
What, someone who considers reading Evola and Guenon to be "books about fascism" is attempting to grill me on the subject? You got your answer. If you just "don't like x" you should read about x instead of going straight for anti-x.

The Second Sex - Simone de Beauvoir

>>18660529
>>1866066
this is retarded. "prove" it

>>18660032
Baudrillard destroyed Marxism when he wrote “The Mirror of Production “.

>>18660032
Austrian School of Economics

>>18660081
>As a libcom Marxist from the operaismo/ kapd positions I endorse its use in intellectual self training for left wing workers.

Cringe.

>>18662810
Critique is cool and all, but what did he propose?

>>18662944
Seduction as resistance. And he’s not talking about pick up artist bullshit. Look it up.

>>18660032
Keith Woods
Peter Sloterdijk
Father Seraphim Rose

>>18662991
So his idea is pure edonism in order "troll the auths"? France just keeps letting me down.

>>18660032
Retards like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are placed in the limelight on purpose in a deliberate attempt to make all right wingers and dissenters against progressivism, marxism, CRT, etc., look like morons.
There are lots of highly intelligent right wing intellectuals but they get no attention in mainstream media.

>>18663042
>There are lots of highly intelligent right wing intellectuals but they get no attention in mainstream media.
name them. as a right winger i would like to read/listen to them

>>18660032
Just read shit from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouvelle_Droite

>>18663042
>lots of highly intelligent right wing intellectuals but they get no attention
Who?

Kenneth Minogue

>>18663173
Peter Sloterdijk
Aleksandr Dugin
Julius Evola
Roger Scruton
Keith Woods
Jay Dyer
Father Seraphim Rose

>>18663173
>>18663199
Edward Dutton
Michael Woodley

https://youtu.be/Smtv4qIEWz0

The intro is a joke by the way for all the retarded leftoids with no sense of humor.

>>18663199
Paul Gottfried is the only intelligent conservative writer, knowing full well that conservatism is doomed under a managerial state which embraces a therapeutic, guilt-peddling form of government.

>>18663292
He's not bad for a jude, but there are much better and smarter conservative intellectuals than him.

>>18663292
>guilt-peddling
Who is pedalling guilt?
The progressives who shame people who do not accept transgenderism?
Or the conservatives who shame premarital sex?

Conservatism/right wing in USA is totally castrated and balless and that is why the progressive left has dominated popular culture for so long. You see anons, boomer neocons totally gave up any attempt at conserving traditional values, and instead retreated to a milquetoast libertarian position on social issues, like "Well, it's your right as an individual to be a gay/tranny if you want to" for instance, because they are so cowardly and they no longer stand up for what is right.
Meanwhile, as the right becomes increasingly milquetoast libertarian on social and cultural issues, the left becomes increasingly bold and authoritarian. The right completely gave up on enforcing standards and controlling the culture, and thus, the left took its place as the domimant cultural and social enforcers.
In some ways, cowardly boomer "conservatives" are as much to blame as the left is for the disastrous state of society today.

>>18662435
Not him but I don't understand why you're so butthurt when reading critiques is a way to further your knowledge on the theory you're studying. Unless you want to be a militant then fine just read Marx and enter the cult. Otherwise it's just dialectical.

>>18660335
That's too advanced for this website

Even Jean Baudrillard BTFO Marxists and feminists.

>>18660335
>>18663339
Wrong! Marxists might be able to make some critiques of their own system, but nevertheless, they are still stuck in their "Enlightenment", rationalist, empiricist paradigm. They have no metaphysical grounding for any claims that they make.
Marxists aren't that different from classical liberals. Both are Enlightenment individualists. They just disagree on the most effective way to """liberate""" the so-called individual from the "oppresive" traditional hierarchies.

>>18663313
shame is distinct from guilt
retard

>>18663236
>Keith Woods
>Jay Dyer
Bait

Socially acceptable, milquetoast conservatives are trapped in the left's paradigm. They allow the left to make the rules and they can only debate within those rules.
They argue that trannies are bad because it undermines womens' sports and feminism.
They argue against CRT by saying that it's actually bad for black people and the left are the real racists.
They argue that China is bad because they are oppressive to minorities.
They argue that Muslims are bad because they oppress women and faggots.
These spineless "conservatives" are a joke and it is no wonder the left dominates them.

>>18663398
No, not at all. Why do they filter you so hard? Because they are not establishment shills? Because they don't get promoted in mass media? What is the problem here?

>>18662435
>someone who considers reading Evola and Guenon

Who are you even talking to? I was thinking of scholars like Stanley G. Payne, A. James Gregor, Roger Griffin, Ernst Nolte, and such. Read some Giovanni Gentile and Sorel on the side as well, look into futurist art, read some Schmitt, Jünger, Spengler, and Heidegger to get a feel for the epoch and its issues from a right-wing (but not fascist) perspective, look into post-Risorgimento Italy and Weimar-era Germany, maybe read up on your post-Revolution French royalism as well, Orléanism, Maurras, Action Francaise, all that.

Though I'm sure you did all that, you wouldn't be so unreasonable as to just judge something without even knowing what it is about, or just avoiding it because you don't like it, right? You would never be such a narrow-minded ideologue, certainly not a good boy like you, right?

>>18663421
I have in fact read Payne, Spengler, Schmitt, Goodrick-Clarke, Gottfried, Hawley... Regardless I still maintain that it is the height of midwittery to seek out material you agree with in advance so that you can assign clever explanations to your opinions. But more importantly are you seriously recommending someone study post-revolution French royalism to understand contemporary neofascism on the internet and its kabuki theater routine against CRT? Yes let's demuseum the Bourbon dynasty and all have a drink that will show the marxists how serious we (literally who?) are about political theory.

>>18663037
Nope, that’s why I told you to look it up. His definition of seduction doesn’t have anything to do with hedonism, if anything it’s a state of danger and discomfort.

>>18663361
>Marxists just disagree on the most effective way to """liberate""" the so-called individual
actual Marxists:
>The original content of the communist program is the obliteration of the individual as an economic subject, rights-holder, and agent of human history
https://libcom.org/library/original-content-communist-program-obliteration-individual-economic-subject-rights-holde

>>18663653
>Marxists are inconsistent and dishonest
Yes I know. Another trait they share with classical liberals.

>>18663665
you're retarded. you assume that liberals who contradict Marxism are Marxists and you read (I'm kidding) Marx like they do, and then based on that you say that Marxists are inconsistent liberals.

>>18660032
Honestly I don't think you'll be able to find what you're looking for. All the good critiques of Marxism come from other strains of leftwing thought.

>>18663699
>you're retarded.
No, I am exceptionally intelligent and well-read.
>you assume that liberals who contradict Marxism are Marxists
Liberals and Marxists are almost entirely the same. Only someone who cannot think outside of the modernist, Enlightenment rationalist, materialist worldview sees liberals and Marxists as the opposite of each other.
The American and French Revolutions were proto-Bolshevism. They were even controlled by the same groups and for largely the same purposes.
Read something that isn't materialist propaganda for a change, fatty.

>>18663710
>Honestly
reddit tier prose
>All the good critiques of Marxism come from other strains of leftwing thought.
what a stupid meme

>>18663710
>I don't know what I'm talking about, now let me tell you all about this

Leftists think that any criticism of Marxism or other left wing thought must be coming from some kind of Fox News tier, neocon talking head. They cannot comprehend that some people are outside of this dialectic entirely.

>>18663710
>Honestly I don't think you'll be able to find what you're looking for.
You obviously have never looked.

>>18663717
>>18663721
>I don't like your post, but I can't name a good critique of Marxism coming from a Schmitt type either.

>>18663764
I have given several examples throughout this thread.

>>18663764
Since I know you don't read, at least watch this as a starting point. And like I said, the intro is a JOKE in case you are too dumb to understand that.
>>18663285

>>18663712
liberals and Marxists are in historical opposition. the former stand for the conservation of bourgeois society, the latter stand for its abolition. the former have liberated the individual, the latter will destroy it.
dialectical materialism has knocked down the enlightenment philosophies: vulgar materialism, idealism with one stroke, and the communist revolution will demolish them in practice.
read something that isn't divorced from the real world and history, larper, and you're recognize yourself as a pathetic cryptoleftist who defends the capitalist social order on an imageboard

>>18663789
Would you just stop, this is embarrassing. I am so tired of you.
Like I said, liberals and Marxists ONLY seem like opposites within the wider materialist paradigm. Once you see beyond that, you realize they are mostly the same.
For one thing, liberals overturning the aristocracy and the traditional monarchist system in favor of capital, individual liberty, and progress is hardly any different from Marxism.

>>18663803
Oh and I forgot to add my final point here, that democracy/republicanism is just proto-Marxism.

>>18663782
I wouldn't have expected any other response. A youtube video from some rando. Truly on the same level as Marx and Schmitt

>>18663789
>dialectical materialism has knocked down the enlightenment philosophies
No, quite the opposite. It is the continuation of Enlightenment thought.
>vulgar materialism
Marxists ARE vulgar materialists just as much as capitalist classical liberal types are. But maybe an IQ above 90 is required to understand this.

>>18663823
I have given you several authors to read and a well-made, concise video as a starting point since reading is too much for you. If you cannot even handle this then leave.

>>18663808
Exactly, Marxism is the next stage in the dialectic
>>18663827
>It is the continuation of Enlightenment thought.
*the sublation of enlightenment thought

>>18663835
None of the responses to me include book suggestions. There's one guy saying he posted some books above as if I'm supposed to guess which of the above book suggestions are by him or not by him in which case they may even be books he disagrees with. If that is also you congratulations your retarded.

>>18663913
What's your definition of leftism that viable Marxist critiques apparently all fall under?

>>18663945
I don't know why I'd need a definition. There's plenty of non-marxist leftists. Some of which have engaged in direct critique of marxism.
The obvious ones are for one the critiques coming from anarchists.
This even goes right back to marx's own time. I think marx even got Bakunin banned from their conference, because he was to much of a bitch to take criticism.
The other obvious ones are critiques coming from the french poststructuralists.
Both of these movement have "serious philosophers", but their not "based and redpilled". At least not in the way OP is was asking for.

>>18664010
M*rxists and f*minists alike remain assblasted by Jean Baudrillard to this day.

>>18663803
>Like I said, liberals and Marxists ONLY seem like opposites within the wider materialist paradigm.
there isn't a "wider materialist paradigm". you really show how "exceptionally intelligent" you are when you reveal that you understand a thing by its label and not by its content. all idealisms stand on the same side as vulgar materialism. dialectical materialism is the only possible opposition to them.
>For one thing, liberals overturning the aristocracy and the traditional monarchist system in favor of capital, individual liberty, and progress is hardly any different from Marxism.
overturning capital, individual liberty and progress in favour of a unitary and free to consciously direct itself communist society can hardly be more different from liberalism

>>18663827
>No, quite the opposite. It is the continuation of Enlightenment thought.
not at all. Marxism denounces all the glorified and supposedly eternal products of Enlightenment thought such as the individual right, the democratic principle, nationalism and similar as mere ideological reflections of the conditions of the social domination of the capitalist class and proclaims that they will soon be overcome in practice. Marx:
>The sphere of circulation or commodity exchange, within whose boundaries the sale and purchase of labour-power goes on, is in fact a very Eden of the innate rights of man. It is the exclusive realm of Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham.

>Marxists ARE vulgar materialists
quite the opposite. vulgar materialists constrain themselves to the sphere of individual human physiology, leaving the higher developments in human minds as well as within entire societies to the free reign of equally vulgar idealism -- idealism which sees such ideas as free-floating and divorced from material reality; idealism which sees those ideas as shaping society due to their eternal objectivity and normative force. this is in fact nothing but a secular adaptation of how God was seen to shape the human world in the Christian medieval times.
yes, Enlightenment philosophy is a continuation of Christian philosophy. it only replaces God with eternal moral and rational truths (and soon later it even sneaks him back in! -- an exemplary degeneration of once revolutionary thought).
Marxism opposes all that by showing that the historical development of society and of the ideas this society has of itself derives from the circumstances to which it the society had to adapt in order to survive through generations. in this way it both overcomes vulgar materialism and leaves no room for its concomitant idealism.

>>18664056
literally nobody cares about Baudrillard besides some heterosexual philosophy students

>>18664060
>>Marxists ARE vulgar materialists
>quite the opposite.
NO!
Marxists have an entirely materialist worldview with no grounding in metaphysics. They start with the same empiricist presuppositions as Enlightenment liberals.

>>18664060
>innate rights of man.
What is this? Where does it come from? Show me an innate right.
You CANNOT. A filthy materialist like you has no grounds for making claims about so-called """innate rights""".

>>18664102
how illiterate are you? stay larping, you're too stupid to reason with anyway. for those who can read, I already explained enough

>>18663398
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXzvx3wdqRk

>>18664116
Keith Woods is too based for this site.

>>18664060
>>18664111
You utter fool. I wipe my ass with your posts.

>>18664060
>there isn't a "wider materialist paradigm".
Yes there is. Modernists like you, whether you are the Marxist type or the SLIGHTLY different classical liberal type, all assume a materialist worldview and you cannot even consider the possibility of thinking outside of it.
That is the problem. In fact the problem started with nominalism. Nominalism set the stage for the anti-truth agenda of modernism.
If you deny that there exists a transcendent metaphysical Truth, if you deny Platonic Forms and essentialism and you say that everything is just arbitrary collections of particles then everything falls apart. Nothing means anything anymore when you go down the nominalist path. Nothing has an essence. There is no such thing as anything anymore except whatever we choose to call something.
This is why people today obsessively call everything a "social construct". That is what happens when you follow the assumptions of nominalism.
Nominalism is a lie.

>>18664152
I'm not surprised. what else could an illiterate chimp do with them?

>>18664185
meds

>>18664217
>meds
Wow great rebuttal, faggotron.

>>18664224
can't rebut a "no u" followed by a half-schizo rant on something unrelated. not that I would want to

>>18664240
>schizo
You are not interested in truth.

>>18660032
You could extrapolate (or rather interpolate) Schmitt's system in Concept of the Political onto the orthodox Marxist conclusion: whereas the concept of the state presupposes the concept of the political, the concept of a non-state (the apotheosis of Marxist history and historiography) does not exclude the concept of the political. At its core, does Marxism presuppose man to be by nature good or evil? That sounds like a fine starting point. Obviously there would have to be some original research because of Schmitt's engagement with liberalism (-> individualism), but many fair parallels could be drawn.

>>18664292
no, that wasn't even half-schizo. I initially gave you too much credit. but I do like that you've proven me correct by doggedly defending the very basis of Enlightenment philosophy:
>there exists a transcendent metaphysical Truth
because that philosophy is entirely based on eternal metaphysical moral Truths like Justice, which is why it precludes a truly scientific approach to history and society, leaving bourgeois "social sciences" reduced to a combination of empiricism (statistical surveying) and idealist philosophising

>>18664185
thomist tranny

>>18664356
>thomist
Not at all.

>>18664353
Platonic Forms are the opposite of nominalism and Judeo-Masonic "Enlightenment" philosophy.
You are so illiterate it's unreal.

>>18664356
is that even a thing

>>18664356
Trannies are inherently nominalist. Denying gender as a real truth and pretending to be something you are not is a nominalist point of view.

>>18664353
So now you deny truth, refuting any other claim that you make and rendering your whole argument invalid and worthless.
Materialists are inconsistent and incoherent.

>dude there aint no such thing as truth bro
>now let me tell you why you're wrong and I'm right

>>18664366
>Platonic Forms are the opposite of nominalism and Judeo-Masonic "Enlightenment" philosophy.
no, they both posit fantasies that fit their premade conclusions as universal transcendental truths and keep affirming them until they convince themselves they're real

>>18664404
>So now you deny truth
no, I only deny truth supposedly derived from fantastical ideal entities. this is not truth, but historically transient interest pretending to be eternal truth in order to enforce itself better
I affirm truth that's derived from the real world and proven by successfully changing that world on its basis

>>18664455
>empircism
Even Hume BTFO you simpletons.

>>18664463
Hume BTFO himself, empiricism cannot justify its reliance on human observation. This is literally why Kant wrote CPR.

>>18664060
>Marxism denounces all the glorified and supposedly eternal products of Enlightenment thought
And the reason he does that is because they were unsuccessful in delivering the rational and egalitarian society that the enlightenment promised. The fundamental premises of marxism and enlightenment philosophy are identical, the only difference arising from marxism had an extra 100 years of history to develop more accurate methodology.

>>18660032
Just talk about Keynes, they'll start seething uncontrollably. Foam coming from the mouth

>>18664498
Like I said, classical liberalism and Marxism have the [[[goal]]]. They merely disagree about how to reach that goal.
Egalitarianism is anti-truth.

>>18664487
Yes I know. Empiricism and logical positivism are trash. Now tell that to this marxist idiot.

>>18664498
>And the reason he does that is because they were unsuccessful in delivering the rational and egalitarian society that the enlightenment promised
no, that's not the reason. I have already explained the reason: because Enlightenment promises such as "equality" were discovered to be only merely ideological reflections of the conditions of the social domination of the capitalist class, which is historically transient due to its inherent contradictions, making its promises irrelevant past that point
what's more, the truth is the opposite of what you claim. Marx was explicit that bourgeois society HAS realized equality as much as it's possible realize it, and he criticized pseudo-socialists for thinking that there's some true equality to be achieved beyond that:
>What this reveals, on the other side, is the foolishness of those socialists (namely the French, who want to depict socialism as the realization of the ideals of bourgeois society articulated by the French revolution) who demonstrate that exchange and exchange value etc. are... a system of universal freedom and equality, but that they have been perverted by money, capital, etc. Or, also, that history has so far failed in every attempt to implement them in their true manner, but that they have now, like Proudhon, discovered e.g. the real Jacob, and intent now to supply the genuine history of these relations in place of the fake. The proper reply to them is: that exchange value or, more precisely, the money system is in fact the system of equality and freedom, and that the disturbances which they encounter in the further development of the system are disturbances inherent in it, are merely the realization of equality and freedom, which prove to be inequality and unfreedom.

>>18664553
My mistake anon. I forgot that marx advocated for the right of kings, privileges for the elite classes and a society based on religious myths.

>>18664574
no, my mistake for assuming you can think beyond the Enlightenment opposition between bourgeois equality and feudal privilege. you're really stuck in the Enlightenment paradigm, as that other anon here would correctly describe it

>>18664359
Which flavor of anti-modernism are you?
>>18664372
>>18664380
Belief in non-evident alternative beings. They have to be believed in since they cannot be given factually. To believe in your transcendent being is to believe in mtf or ftm.

Stephen Hicks explaining post modernism

>>18664596
> you're really stuck in the Enlightenment paradigm
From my perspective you're the one who's stuck in it. I really don't understand why you marxists are so intent on denying the influence of the enlightenment on your thought. I know you're ashamed of it because it was full of bourgeois libtard cringe but to insist that marxism was a complete opposition of enlightenment thought is delusional.

Marxism is bourgeoise.

just read plato and aristotle

Just read Plato and Heidegger.

Marxists are liberals who pretend to not be liberals and get really asshurt when you remind them that they are.

>>18660190
>adopts private property, wage labor, money, the State, etc.
>Communist
Not this shit again...
At this point leftists just view China as being on the wholesome chungus team because they're not the US (as opposed to the US who is on the racist, not very nice team). It's the same sort of thinking that makes Western right-wingers view Russia as some sort of messianic entity.

>>18665110
But leftists also hate China as much as right wingers do, only for different reasons (muh minorities, oppression, etc.)

>>18660032
>Marxism
>critical theory
How are these two related THOUGH

>>18660190
>Communism is the only ideology that has successfully opposed the liberal-internationalist order.
But communism is a form of liberal internationalism.
The true opposition to liberal internationalism is monarchy.

>>18665194
Critical theory comes from the {{{Frankfurt school}}} who were Marxists and were recruited by the CIA. You seem to believe in the false dialectic of the cold war and that because they were opposed to Soviet communism then they must not be Marxist. You are wrong. It is all theatrics.

>>18665201
>The true opposition to liberal internationalism is monarchy.
Opposition has to exist to be opposed to something

>>18665211
Okay then parentheses man. Now take your meds.

>>18665211
Why'd the CIA hire Marxists? What part of this is theatrics?

>>18665211
>country that rescues a marxist empire from conquest by fascists is pro-marxist
Gosh who knew. But I don't see how you get CRT from that. It's like you're skipping over the fact that the promised equality of the US civil rights movement and corporate compliance with anti-discrimination laws failed to deliver so now the only option is to tear down instead of build up in order to preserve faith in the regime. You probably agree more with Horkheimer-Adorno hostility to mass media than you do with wokeist rainbow corporate twitter accounts.

>>18665227
>>18665231
It is well known that they were glowies, this isn't some kind of baseless "conspiracy theory"
Also Marcuse was a fag enabler by the way

>>18665247
Are you people really this ignorant of your own ideology?
Well I suppose that makes sense. Only an ignorant and naive person who doesn't understand Marxism could actually believe in it.
>the fact that the promised equality of the US civil rights movement and corporate compliance with anti-discrimination laws failed to deliver
WTF????
Are you actually insane?
Mass media is literally a cult of minority worship.
>You probably agree more with Horkheimer-Adorno hostility to mass media than you do with wokeist rainbow corporate twitter accounts.
Another false dialectic. They are both wrong.

>>18665269
>everyone who disagrees with me is an x
Try to read my post again slowly instead of jacking off to how smart you think you are. CRT is not some import from German immigrants, it is a controlled response to the last pseudo-egalitarian ideology promoted by the government and its corporate/media branches. Get excited for the new product. I must be talking to one of our resident Orleanistes otherwise you couldn't be this dense.

>>18665283
The anon I responded to first said critical theory which came from the Frankfurt school.
CRT came after that and like you said it is corporate liberal propaganda, and it is a direct extension of critical theory.

>>18665303
referring to this post
>>18665194
They are related because the demonic people who shat out critical theory were Marxists.

>>18665283
>"German"
not really

>>18665317
>marxists critique the government/capital/elite in liberal countries
>the latter turns around and starts speaking like the former, praising the very people who loathed them
Baudrillard called this out decades ago. It's not new. You can blame your liberal elite for investing in all its rivals so as to own their disciples in a generation. It's worked for over a hundred years. You're an even more useful idiot in all likelihood than the marxists, since you probably larp as something so irrelevent they can both performatively despise it without ever being threatened, which only tightens their grip.

>>18665322
Yeah 2016 called and it wants its arguments back. You still haven't read any of them anyway.

>>18665347
>Baudrillard called this out decades ago.
I know this. I already mentioned it and the marxists could only cope.
And I am NOT an idiot!

If op means critical race theory than marx himself would be a critique of it.

>>18665370
>marx himself would be a critique of it.
Hmmmmmmm. Is he??
All of the marxists that I know are proponents of CRT. What is your critique of CRT from a marxist perpective

>>18665378
Let's hear this, since it will be the official ideology in 10-20 years and CRT will be reactionary-conservative.

>>18665378
man you're fucking retarded. How old are you? I thought the same way you did when I was 16. An orthodox Marxist critique would go something like: focusing on retarded shit like race obscures the real issue, in other words class issues.

>>18665384
elaborate on this
>>18665388
Oh, is that it? Well then yes I agree but I thought you had something more complex than just that.

>>18665384
Conservatives are just the progressives of five years ago.

>>18665388
They've been saying that since before CRT and it didn't stop the idpol train.
>>18665397
I was hoping for a juicier take, like that CRT was going to be replaced by some kind neo-anti-racism, e.g. deconstructing white people becomes problematic because it still privileges whiteness as the standard of excellence, and therefore white self-abjuring should be discouraged because it allows for whiteness to decriminalize itself at the expense of poc who continue to be victimized through the hermeneutics of white supremacy. And then conservatives would be like "we renamed Washington, DC to Kamalaville, [State of] Obama because we believe in racial justice"

>>18665378
CRT turns the class struggle into racial struggle, so orthodox Marxism is naturally opposed to it. It would be seen as something that obscures class struggle and consciousness. Karl Marx would likely disregard it as garbage. Modern Marxists lining up behind CRT is expected though. It is the natural development of the Frankfurt school and New Left.

>>18665431
Zizek has said something kind of like what you are describing
https://youtu.be/472lCEy4dBw

>>18665449
Yeah this is pretty much correct. The white liberals are the priests Nietzsche describes as inventing sins. With control of evil they have control of deviance from their good.

>>18665449
Hello same anon here!
I will tell you some of my thoughts on Zizek now.
His worldview is totally wrong but to some extent I appreciate him partly because he is kind of funny sometimes and partly because he makes very clear the logic of materialism, marxism, progressivism, liberalism, and so on. His telos, as he says in the video, is universalism. He sees existence as the struggle for universalism. In that sense he is the same as liberals and progressives. He shares their goal, but simply critiques their methods of reaching that goal.
Universality is in fact the problem. Modernists have the assumption that boundaries must be dissolved and differences must be equalized. You see this everywhere, from national boundaries to gender. They want all to become one. A sort of atheistic monism.
Globohomo is a very accurate name for them. It is evil and anti-truth.

>The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists Are Murdering Our Past by Keith Windschuttle
>Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science by Paul R. Gross
>The Devil's Pleasure Palace: The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West by Michael Walsh
>Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left by Sir Roger Scruton
>The Knowledge Machine: How an Unreasonable Idea Created Modern Science by Michael Strevens

>>18662824
Cringe all you like mate, I'll be fucking your Dad in his arsehole over here.

>>18665493
this is literally all there is to it. Modern leftism does not go any deeper than simple ressentiment

>>18665827
>Windschuttle
May as well read Quadrant for the prose section.

>>18665857
>modern leftism
That's no way to describe the 2040 Republican Party platform!

>>18665378
>All of the marxists that I know are proponents of CRT.
can you name some?

>>18666478
Angela Davis, Kimberle Crenshaw, I could go on

>>18666493
>Angela Davis
>In the 21st century, Davis has supported the Democratic Party in presidential elections, endorsing Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden.
HAHAHA. some epic Marxism. she was a Western Stalinist, i.e. like a regular social-democrat with the difference of supporting the Russian imperialist camp instead of the US imperialist camp. the only reason those people have adopted a Marxist aesthetic is because the Russian government came from the degeneration of a genuine proletarian party after the proletariat has been defeated in the Stalinist counter-revolution. as for the content of their activity, they're typical bourgeois liberals: parliamentary, democratic, peace-mongering, with a lucrative career in bourgeois ideological institutions and with presence in bourgeois media.
>Davis signed a letter supporting Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn describing him as "a beacon of hope in the struggle against emergent far-right nationalism, xenophobia and racism in much of the democratic world", and endorsed him in the 2019 UK general election.
she's a model militant of the left-wing of capital. that's why now she's so preoccupied with race and with factional bourgeois struggles rather than with the workers struggle against bourgeois society as a whole. this makes her _more_ anti-Marxist than both bourgeois right-wingers and monarchic internet larpers.

>Kimberle Crenshaw
what's Marxist about her? does she proclaim that the proletariat must constitute itself into a class party and conquer political power to establish its class dictatorship, or something? or did you hear that she's a Marxist on Fox News? she looks like she's similarly leftist to the one above, except with no connection to Marxist aesthetic because she only became active as the Cold War was ending

>>18663421
>>18663524
Thanks guys, that was a good read.

>>18663712
>No, I am exceptionally intelligent and well-read.
>Liberals and Marxists are almost entirely the same.
Good post

>>18667260
Yes.

>>18665186
No they don't.

>>18660190
Liveral-internationalism is the same thing as communism, they just want things to go slower, China is not commmunist, they shit on minorities and workers

>>18660032
Kolakowski, former Marxist.

>>18667315
Oh

>>18660032
A lot of post-modernists critiqued Marxism. Baudrillard comes to mind.

>>18663336
Because OP did not read Marx and likely wants to 'drink sjw tears' instead of forming any opinions about the topic by actually learning it. It's tough love

Pareto is the ultimate antidote to Marx, and he wrote extensively against him and his ideas while putting forward his own which are essentially a right wing version of the same things Marx deals with but leads to completely opposite conclusions. You can learn more about him from other ex-Marxists like James Burnham in his book the Machiavellians.

>>18665201
>But communism is a form of liberal internationalism.
This is historically objectively correct but also something that communists themselves can never and will never acknowledge. But you only have to look into Marx's support for free trade, all Labour movements historical opposition to national protectionism, and the obvious connection between Trotskyism and neocons to see it. The Cold War is really "the Anglo-Soviet split" as MM put it.

>>18664142
I don't like him. He falls into the same trap as Sargon of being extremely online and trollish, he has brain damage due to needing to find the most epic contrarian takes on things for status points without having properly grappled with anything. I hope it's just due to him being young and naive.

>>18663653
>the US liberated Iraq
>the US obliterated Iraq
seems consistent to me

Leo strauss, not being ironic either

>>18667635
He is nothing like Sargon at all. Sargon is just some basic classical liberal type like Jordan Peterson. Keith Woods is way beyond all that.

>>18667901
He's not, he's still a smelly little internet troll that gets easily tricked by ideological language.

>>18667901
why do you people know all those eceleb shitters and pretend like they're important? are you fucking 12?

>>18668135
Cool it, pal.

No one, apparently

>>18660032
You haven't read any Marx or critical theory, therefore you're not going to understand any worthwhile critiques of them (mirror of production, destruction of reason, etc )

>>18660032
I dont think they criticized marxism directly, but Oswald Spengler and Leo Ziegler come to mind.

>>18660032
>Hannah Arendt, The Modern Challenge to Tradition: Fragmente eines Buchs
Her 1000 page unfinished critique of Marx and Marxism.

> Hans Jonas, The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age
The later chapters critique Marxism, especially Ernst Bloch.