/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16739673]

>Neoliberal
>Late stage capitalism
>Micro-facism
>False consciousness

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16739694]

>>16739673

[Anonymous No.16739709]

what's your problem

[Anonymous No.16739733]

>>16739673
Neoliberal and Late Stage Capitalism are just synonyms for [The Current Political and Economic Organization of the West], like "Globohomo", "The Cathedral" and whatnot. We should honestly create a neutral term such that will not reveal your own political biases when used. Something like "Poltergeist" (Politics + Zeitgeist)

[Anonymous No.16739738]

>>16739673
What about it? Merely posting a green frog doesn't tell us what's on your mind other than being smug or taking some kind of high-ground over others

[Anonymous No.16739742]

>>16739738
>Merely posting a green frog
title of my upcoming novella

[Anonymous No.16739747]

>>16739742
i wanna read it when its done, post discord or throwaway email

[Anonymous No.16739845]

>>16739733
Neoliberal and LSC are perfect neutral terms. The only people who don't like it are MAGAtards who don't understand that the radical Left is on their side.

[Anonymous No.16739886]

>>16739845
Not really. Neoliberalism is an economic term that is unable to capture the specific cultural elements we live in the midst of, in my opinion. Corporate vapidity, for example, while an aspect of Economic Neoliberalism, does not seem to capture the corporate fetishization of minorities qua minorities. (Muh market appeal does not explain it sufficiently).

This would not be an issue if Neoliberalism were not a term used to refer to the general political Zeitgeist. The fact that it is used by lefties to explain cultural and political phenomena means that it is supposed to be this broad of a term, and in this case it fails because of its economic focus; it is the converse of Chud's complete ignorance of the profit motive.

This is why I think a more neutral term is needed. Similarly with LSC. The reduction of the political dimension to economics is inherently Marxist, and insufficient (empirically) to explain the Zeitgesit. So we shouldn't use these terms in such a way.

[Anonymous No.16739899]

>>16739694
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.16739902]

>>16739673
>privilege
>fragility
>micro-aggressions
>intersectionality

[Anonymous No.16740017]

>>16739886
I see what you mean, and how neoliberalism doesn't explain woke capital. I'd say that, with actual Left academics, neoliberal is used correctly and specifically. Certainly I'd agree, though, that the common leftist does definitely over-egg it with the neolib/LSC bomb.

I like your idea of an overarching term for the entire woke capital neoliberal phenomenon, a catch-all. I think the issue is that, at least at the moment, a coalition of interested parties hasn't materialised yet. I think the Biden presidency is the perfect occasion for a reactionary Left-Right coalition, using a Punished Trump figure as lightning rod for cross-aisle politics. Whether one needs to support Trump is irrelevant, I envisage him becoming a martyr figure who will capture that zeitgeist you talk about. I think that, after that, a term may appear organically.

[Anonymous No.16740042]

>>16740017
Maybe, though I'm not sure if Trump is a strong enough figure for this to occur. I do hope you are right though.

[Anonymous No.16740046]

>>16740042
True, a Bernie-Trump hybrid would be ideal.

[Anonymous No.16740158]

>>16739673
Late-stage capitalism is the most embarrassing term here. It's a cop-out cope for lazy commies who don't want to put their backs into regime change and expect (hope) that it'll happen without any work on their part.

[Anonymous No.16740259]

>What I would call the present age? The regnum quantitatis, of course