Jesse sounded puzzled about why people on the left would endorse terrorism. As someone once married to a Leninist it's obvious to me. I totally repudiate these views but when I was younger I heard a lot of these views.
Lenin argued that power must be attained by any means necessary. Terror is a key tool. If we define terrorism as murderin…
Jesse sounded puzzled about why people on the left would endorse terrorism. As someone once married to a Leninist it's obvious to me. I totally repudiate these views but when I was younger I heard a lot of these views.
Lenin argued that power must be attained by any means necessary. Terror is a key tool. If we define terrorism as murdering civilians in noncombat circumstances, that is merely asymmetrical warfare. This is a belief in the ends justifying the means. The ends, in this case, also happen to be nihilistic, but those supporting the recent massacres are often sure that no other means exist.
This ex of mine was also active in Palestinian activism for a while. He was disdainful of liberals or anyone who thought negotiation and compromise was valid. Like other intellectuals, he saw it all as a power game, and the oppressed must injure the oppressor.
This article on Lenin's strategies might be useful here:
I think that the modern leftist view is also heavily informed by Derrida and his Deconstructionism, which is descended directly from Marxism. Everything has to be a battle between oppressor and oppressed, even language. You always have to be rebelling against the oppressor, even if it's language itself. 😖 And once someone gets into this mindset, they are automatically looking for the "good guys" in any discussion. It's so braindead and black and white.
Oh, and if somehow you enter into power? You are now the oppressor, so you have to rebel against yourself and your own party! Which is why they can't resist attacking the center left.
This is ludicrous "cultural Marxism" ranting (albeit entirely typical of the "my politics are neither conventionally left nor right" crowd)-- stop reading Conceptual Jimmy. Nobody cares about Derrida.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Conceptual who? I do know what the Cultural Marxism thing is though...
You're like one of those braindead obnoxious ultra leftist dipshits who calls anyone farther to the right of them a Nazi. The same people Jesse and Katie make fun of all the time. The same people I know in real life who go to Antifa, DSA, etc, meetings, and absolutely talk about Marx, Derrida and Foucault all the time.
"Conceptual Jimmy" is a reference to the Twitter handle of James Lindsay (Conceptual James). His New Discourses podcast, YouTube channel and website is a wealth of information about this sort of thing.
Here's his glossary entry describing the origins of the term "Cultural Marxism," along with its various conflicting definitions and attendant controversies.
(Note that the first paragraph is a quote from the cited source -- it should really have formatting or quote marks to indicate this more clearly.)
On the rationale for the term "cultural Marxism: "the underlying oppressor-versus-oppressed analytical dynamic utilized in Marxism proper is re-appropriated out of the economic context and into the cultural context...In many regards, this application of Marxian conflict theory to cultural phenomena is, in fact, what neo-Marxism is about and is also what Critical Social Justice is about."
On problems with using this term: "For one thing, “cultural Marxism” might imply to many hearers that “Marxism” is the relevant part of the phrase, which is somewhat inaccurate where both neo-Marxism and Critical Social Justice are concerned. Both of these ideologies are highly critical of Marxism, in fact, in their own fashion...."
He also addresses the "conspiracy theory" meaning of the term: "Complicating matters further, because many of the members of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory were Jewish, a genuinely anti-Semitic conspiracy theory known as “cultural Marxism” has arisen....who believe the Frankfurt School to be yet another attempt by (evil) Jews to destabilize Western society for their own gain...."
It doesn't matter whether people have heard of a particular philosopher. If a particular thinker influences the shape of society to a sufficent extent, eventually their ideas will trickle down to the everyday level. Re "cultural Marxism," that's one of the best canards out there, promoted by the kind of people who would say that it's anti-Semitic to criticize a group of men who were ethnically Jewish but whose ideas had nothing to do with being Jewish, but it's *not* anti-Semitic to call for Jews' extermination if it's for the right cause.
The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.
The depth of your analysis is impressive. But "full of shit" describes that Wiki entry, which is written from the perspective of what I call the *actual* "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory: to wit, that any critique of the Frankfurt School agenda as "Cultural Marxism" is a dog whistle for anti-Semitism.
In reality the fact that the men of the Frankfurt School happened to be Jewish is not important, especially b/c Judaism played very little role in their lives and virtually none in their thought; in fact, their Jewishness is important only to anti-Semites and to people who use that accident of birth as a protection against criticism. It's true that the Nazis and other far-right groups in Germany used the term "cultural Bolshevism," but that has nothing to do with any serious present-day anti-Marxist critique of the FS men and their values. There's also the fact, often cited, that the mass murderer in Norway in 2011 blathered about "cultural Marxism" in his manifesto. So what? The Unabomber critiqued environmental destruction, but his crimes don't invalidate the fact that environmental destruction deserves to be critiqued.
In fact, if the term "cultural Marxism" were used in a positive way and had a more celebrated history, I imagine many intellectuals would embrace the notion. It's a good way to describe an objective the men from the Frankfurt School articulated many times and many ways: making Marxism viable in the West, not as a political system but rather through the culture.
I suppose that's fair, I shouldn't crap all over Deconstructionism as a whole. I was thinking specifically about later Derrida and how he actually applied his philosophy to sovereignty in Rogues, and how anarcho-socialists view his messaging.
He didn't have to be "a Marxist" to think very much in line with Marx. Marx wasn't "a Hegelian" either, but Hegel had huge influence on him. And Derrida would no doubt approve of Marx's famous exhortation to "criticize all that exists."
Jesse sounded puzzled about why people on the left would endorse terrorism. As someone once married to a Leninist it's obvious to me. I totally repudiate these views but when I was younger I heard a lot of these views.
Lenin argued that power must be attained by any means necessary. Terror is a key tool. If we define terrorism as murdering civilians in noncombat circumstances, that is merely asymmetrical warfare. This is a belief in the ends justifying the means. The ends, in this case, also happen to be nihilistic, but those supporting the recent massacres are often sure that no other means exist.
This ex of mine was also active in Palestinian activism for a while. He was disdainful of liberals or anyone who thought negotiation and compromise was valid. Like other intellectuals, he saw it all as a power game, and the oppressed must injure the oppressor.
This article on Lenin's strategies might be useful here:
https://newcriterion.com/issues/2019/10/leninthink
I think that the modern leftist view is also heavily informed by Derrida and his Deconstructionism, which is descended directly from Marxism. Everything has to be a battle between oppressor and oppressed, even language. You always have to be rebelling against the oppressor, even if it's language itself. 😖 And once someone gets into this mindset, they are automatically looking for the "good guys" in any discussion. It's so braindead and black and white.
Oh, and if somehow you enter into power? You are now the oppressor, so you have to rebel against yourself and your own party! Which is why they can't resist attacking the center left.
This is ludicrous "cultural Marxism" ranting (albeit entirely typical of the "my politics are neither conventionally left nor right" crowd)-- stop reading Conceptual Jimmy. Nobody cares about Derrida.
As someone who went to college, people care a lot about Derrida.
As someone who also went to college, you're completely full of shit.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Conceptual who? I do know what the Cultural Marxism thing is though...
You're like one of those braindead obnoxious ultra leftist dipshits who calls anyone farther to the right of them a Nazi. The same people Jesse and Katie make fun of all the time. The same people I know in real life who go to Antifa, DSA, etc, meetings, and absolutely talk about Marx, Derrida and Foucault all the time.
"Conceptual Jimmy" is a reference to the Twitter handle of James Lindsay (Conceptual James). His New Discourses podcast, YouTube channel and website is a wealth of information about this sort of thing.
Here's his glossary entry describing the origins of the term "Cultural Marxism," along with its various conflicting definitions and attendant controversies.
https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-cultural-marxism/
(Note that the first paragraph is a quote from the cited source -- it should really have formatting or quote marks to indicate this more clearly.)
On the rationale for the term "cultural Marxism: "the underlying oppressor-versus-oppressed analytical dynamic utilized in Marxism proper is re-appropriated out of the economic context and into the cultural context...In many regards, this application of Marxian conflict theory to cultural phenomena is, in fact, what neo-Marxism is about and is also what Critical Social Justice is about."
On problems with using this term: "For one thing, “cultural Marxism” might imply to many hearers that “Marxism” is the relevant part of the phrase, which is somewhat inaccurate where both neo-Marxism and Critical Social Justice are concerned. Both of these ideologies are highly critical of Marxism, in fact, in their own fashion...."
He also addresses the "conspiracy theory" meaning of the term: "Complicating matters further, because many of the members of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory were Jewish, a genuinely anti-Semitic conspiracy theory known as “cultural Marxism” has arisen....who believe the Frankfurt School to be yet another attempt by (evil) Jews to destabilize Western society for their own gain...."
It doesn't matter whether people have heard of a particular philosopher. If a particular thinker influences the shape of society to a sufficent extent, eventually their ideas will trickle down to the everyday level. Re "cultural Marxism," that's one of the best canards out there, promoted by the kind of people who would say that it's anti-Semitic to criticize a group of men who were ethnically Jewish but whose ideas had nothing to do with being Jewish, but it's *not* anti-Semitic to call for Jews' extermination if it's for the right cause.
Wikipedia:
The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory
You are also completely full of shit.
The depth of your analysis is impressive. But "full of shit" describes that Wiki entry, which is written from the perspective of what I call the *actual* "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory: to wit, that any critique of the Frankfurt School agenda as "Cultural Marxism" is a dog whistle for anti-Semitism.
In reality the fact that the men of the Frankfurt School happened to be Jewish is not important, especially b/c Judaism played very little role in their lives and virtually none in their thought; in fact, their Jewishness is important only to anti-Semites and to people who use that accident of birth as a protection against criticism. It's true that the Nazis and other far-right groups in Germany used the term "cultural Bolshevism," but that has nothing to do with any serious present-day anti-Marxist critique of the FS men and their values. There's also the fact, often cited, that the mass murderer in Norway in 2011 blathered about "cultural Marxism" in his manifesto. So what? The Unabomber critiqued environmental destruction, but his crimes don't invalidate the fact that environmental destruction deserves to be critiqued.
In fact, if the term "cultural Marxism" were used in a positive way and had a more celebrated history, I imagine many intellectuals would embrace the notion. It's a good way to describe an objective the men from the Frankfurt School articulated many times and many ways: making Marxism viable in the West, not as a political system but rather through the culture.
Have you actually read Of Grammatology? I have. Your summation of his thesis therein seems reductive to me.
I suppose that's fair, I shouldn't crap all over Deconstructionism as a whole. I was thinking specifically about later Derrida and how he actually applied his philosophy to sovereignty in Rogues, and how anarcho-socialists view his messaging.
That's definitely not what Derrida was about (he was never a Marxist, btw), but ok.
He didn't have to be "a Marxist" to think very much in line with Marx. Marx wasn't "a Hegelian" either, but Hegel had huge influence on him. And Derrida would no doubt approve of Marx's famous exhortation to "criticize all that exists."
I just happened to watch this video of Chomsky on Lenin (from way back) yesterday afternoon:
https://youtu.be/jxhT9EVj9Kk?si=HZCMEepguSF10nht