How can just one man btfo class relations so goddamn hard they go back to the status quo?

Good thing I can't get into modern philosophy.

No one's righter than Max though

Attached: Qu-Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.jpg (850x400, 21.42K)

Produhon was lit as fuck

Attached: 1535826966338.jpg (539x706, 51.06K)

Literally the only redeemable thinkers on there are Rancière and Althusser, who you should have no problem with if that is your problem. Then again, you're a dogmatist - so who gives a fuck what you think.

The USSR was not good :^🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧))

It's a shame that Germany didn't wipe France out of existence.

Ah, the official brainlet thread

Arguably one of the best philosophers that ever lived. His essay "Materialism and Reolution" completely shaped my way of thinking about the materialism/idealism distinction.

Yet luckily Sartre is there to prove there are also great and important French philosophers.

...

Once again, Prussia should've fucking annihilated them. Marx was Right.

...

Bourgeois academic 'Neo-Marxist' theory was not a problem confined to the French intellectuals. Following WW2, academics in every capitalist country on Earth increasingly tended to disregard the most fundamental features of Marxist theory while continuing to call themselves Marxist.Just look at people like Adorno for fuck's sake.

This was partially due to institutional pressures forcing orthodox Marxists out of academia and partially due to academia itself being so out of touch with the working class, but, in any case, virtually all of these thinkers were fucking cancer. Althusser was one of the least terrible ones and even he had major problems like rejecting the dialectical method.

Why did academics stop taking the working class seriously?

Did they ever? It seems like, with some obvious exceptions, intellectuals in general have always had a certain disdain for the working masses.

I would see this, alone, as reason enough for admonishment and insult; however, you've made note on Althusser and the relation of aleatory materialism to dialectical materialism which would explain exactly why you'd take issue with both these thinkers. The point being that it seems you take issue with theorists who think dialectical processes are non-deterministic or non-mechanistic in nature. There is no enduring theoretical relation of theory and practice, they exist in a transient form based on the prevailing conditions of their epoch.

Fucking anarkiddies

Bu-Bu-Bingo, brainlets BTFO

Although persona non grata, I almost wish AW was still around as he seemed to piss off left-philosophers on the board enough that there seemed to be a general atmosphere of interest in theory

…No? I take issues with thinkers who try to twist dialectical logic into some kind of idealist or metaphorical thing or otherwise disregard it (and materialism) entirely in favor of psycho-babble.

Materialist dialectics are the most crucial and fundamental element of Marxism. I'm not out of line in saying that any thinker who rejects one or both parts of Marx's fundamental form of logic is not a Marxist.

When you make the claim that 'the working class in first world countries are not capable of revolution because of the mass media', you are objectively being an idealist and completely at odds with basic Marxist thought.

I apologize for my hasty assumptions, then. I concede that I am not all too sure what you have against Adorno and Althusser in light of these affirmations, as neither one of these theorists rejects the dialectical process. A number of critical theorists and structural thinkers can be reproached for their relatively lackadaisical nature, but to suppose that they fall back within the orbit of capitalist teleology seems a step too far. Without more concrete discussion on the specific improprieties and works with which you take issue, I can't make any pointed counterarguments, but I will say that the work done by Althusser and Adorno in relating the extant social relations of capitalism into the symbolic form (that of an enduring essentialist philosophy) is an excellent means of negating the reactionary ideologies - where, as we both know, contradictions and antinomies abound.

Attached: a8178a10b6136ce83d01f47c14e4a99b5829df61.jpg (220x348, 17.54K)

But then again your opinion is irrelevant.

Attached: better-worse-off.jpg (293x388, 34.87K)

Holy fuck no one of these guys even made that conclusion as some kind of deterrent against trying, it was just an actual assessment of the situation we face in the west and what we have to take into account when building any real movement. That is the MATERIALIST thing to do.

Philosophy isn't bad, you braindead ☭TANKIE☭. Mid-to-late 20th century French philosophy generally is. Its influence on the humanities (outside of philosophy, ironically) has been large and, well, pretty detrimental to socialism's reputation in the years since.

Nah, I just understand that both are, for the most part, shit philosophy.

In what way has post structuralism been detrimental to socialism at all? All of these guys are miles above your brainlet Bakunins and Proudhons.

Attached: Lacanmad.jpg (480x360, 14.78K)

He may just be associating pluralism in post-structuralism with post-modernism, which did play a huge part in vocationalizing philosophy that was otherwise indelibly linked to communist and emancipatory politics in Europe. Even then, one would have to make a distinction between the Baudrillard and the Agamben, the Rancière and the Foucault, the Lacan and the Derrida + Levinas, Guattari, etc. etc.

Bad optics, IMO

pls

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (219x297, 67.33K)

...

Dear God, this is worse than I thought.

Anyway, Antifa is composed primarily of imbeciles with no concept of class consciousness, I'm not sure anybody is disputing that. But, yeah, not an ML, I don't want to live under a new aristocratic class after the old one gets replaced, maybe you do though.

Tbh I still like Antifa more than armchair anarchists

I've read post-modern philosophers, I just have a bullshit detector too, which always helps. Concise, coherent argumentation over that flowery nonsense any day.

Uh, no comment

I was pretty much expecting this, of course its a fucking analytic philosophy fan.

...

Bingo bongo my friend

cheers mate

Look at this anti-Communist dog. Look at him smugly walk all over the greats of the continental trend because of some French poststructuralists when he is neglecting the new turn towards materialism through Zizek. This is what the left has become: second-rate kids who spew as much religious bullshit as they can possibly manage. Shame on you, fuck off.

Yeah that’s a lot of this goddamn board. They’d never even try to read and grasp a thinker like him, or any of these people.

Attached: baa5b9330c452929f2bfefe54c6145435f44c5f1571f70d1f2c8de0d779c1345.png (996x1020 214.28 KB, 220.5K)

...

"The greats of the Continental trend"
Nothing has done more damage to the reputation of modern philosophy as a discipline than post-modern bullshit. Tautologies disguised as deep thought. I shit on the graves of your French anti-intellectuals.

Analytic philosophy>>>>>your woo-woo Continental silliness

...

stop being a retard

Sorry, it's just so hard to take MLs seriously sometimes

The irony of you calling anyone else ‘anti-intellectual’ is truly mouth-watering.

Go deconstruct something kiddo

Cmon

And continental philosophy is irreducible to 'postmodernism' unless you make that word synonymous with continental philosophy just as the worst of the YT 'skeptics' would have you believe. Worse still as far as you can be concerned, notice that I never upheld what the French poststructuralists said. Go back to your pseudo-Marxist college clique and drop out of the Communist movement altogether in a few years like most of you arseholes do, we don't need you. Instead, we seek to build a revived materialism from the very tradition that you shun purely because you have mistaken the baby for the bathwater: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_realism

Too based for this shit thread

Is SR supposed to be the baby or the bath water because it's actually pure shit

No, Continental philosophy in its entirety is obviously not irreducible to post-modern philosophy - such a suggestion would, indeed, be absurd. That said, I have many philosophical disagreements with Marx. I can reject dialectics and historical materialism but still concur, in many ways, with the man's vision for the future.

All this said, I deeply prefer the prevalent analytic tradition, which embraced empiricism and materialism while rejecting obscurantism and metaphysical woo from its very inception. Unfortunately, Zizek's roots in Hegelian and Lacanian thought will always prevent me from getting behind him 100%. Regarding speculative realism, I repeat myself - I'm glad Continental philosophy is coming around to where analytic philosophy has been for so long.

By this, you of course mean scientism and teleology.

Proceeding from logical positivism, outdated as it may be, was certainly preferable to proceeding from the blithe obscurantism of Hegel et al.

Proceeding from an epistemology which is antinomic by its very character is not a good look, especially when developing upon contradictions evince but twofold more contradictions. To pretend that there has not emerged a definite tendency within subsidiary categories is to deny a proper site of critique; however, to reduce the whole of the system of thought to trite and infinitely particularizing but erudite vacuity is a mark of profound ideological intransigence. To foreclose upon and render inutile an entire school of thought in one deft move is much more than a sign of dogmatism, it is a sign of a rejection of universality.

It would, perhaps, be mitigated were the continental philosophers to have flatly and tersely rebuffed the analytic tradition, but this is not the case - a great many of the continental tradition have been profoundly influenced by the analytics. The reverse cannot be as easily said, as the vilification of the continental tradition has been such that bare questions of phenomenology are referred onto the mighty hand of 'science', and there is a pervasive inculcation against any such compromise of equal measure.

Allow me to clarify - I don't think Continental philosophy is irredeemable, and I apologize if I've come across that way, but aspects of Hegel, Heidegger, and so forth make me bristle when they bring forward Geist, Dasein, and other such cornerstones of Continental thought I simply cannot endorse. I think phenomenologists are mistaken if they wish to establish objective aspects of human experience while, at the same time, labeling all research as non-objective.

We're of equal mind there. There is a starkly leftist tendency of Hegelians with whom the universality of physical science, in its practicable forms, has never been questioned - merely the interpolation of its value into society, or how it is we value and what qualifies it. I apologize for my prickly responses, but I must concede that I'm not sure - being that those are your specific misgivings - exactly where you would stand at odds with a great many of the philosophers mentioned. Even with the psychoanalysts behind Freud and Lacan and Zizek, they're not attempting to establish or codify a material-objective relationship - they're mostly intervening in sites where 'objective reality' has been assumed but is manifestly contradictory.

Ah, one of both our best weapons against communism and yet another proof of french inferiority.

Attached: colorized.png (462x384, 10.77K)

very good!
i'm putting it on the fridge :)

Attached: colorized.png (475x412, 7.88K)

What I was trying to say, I guess, is that the Continental thought has a tendency to rely so much on reason and so little on empiricism that it's almost an issue of whether their claims can even be considered truth-apt. But to be honest, comparing analytic philosophy to Continental philosophy is often an exercise in futility - my earlier trolling aside, asking which one a person favors is sort of like asking whether they prefer Japanese cars or blue cars.

I've spent a few years immersed in analytic philosophy, and I came out of it deeply disillusioned of the whole enterprise, and appreciative of the Hegels and Heideggers of this world all over again.
While undoubtedly interesting and worthwhile works can be found in the anglo-american tradition, the assumptions and unquestioned principles simply rub me the wrong way. I'll just list a few since elaborating would take me about 10 posts:

1) The approach that specific philosophical questions are puzzles to be answered, removed as much as possible from their wider context to achieve "rigor" and exhaust them logically. The structural-historical analysis familiar to Marxists is almost nonexistent.

2) In general, there is a strict separation between doing "history of philosophy" and philosophy proper, which never justified itself sufficiently to my mind. Anglo historians of philosophy can be incredibly knowledgeable about a thinker's development, his influences and legacy upon western thought, but the minute they start making philosophical pronouncements of their own, they are incredibly formulaic in their positions as inherited from the currently fashionable stream in analytic philosophy.

3.) Social and political philosophy lends itself incredibly poorly to this general approach. The majority of academics in this field strictly hover around liberal and centre-left conceptions - analytic philosophy contains some of the most elaborate centrist apologia I've ever seen. A lot of it is simply boring due to the lack of any connection to the 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 real world 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧.

4.) Ultimately, the extreme division of labour is probably the biggest complaint, and basically contains all of the above. Analytic philosophy thrives on the idea that every field of philosophy is strictly separate, requiring exclusive journals, specialised academics and claimed philosophical issues on its own. Analytic epistemology, metaphysics and ethics are completely different enterprises, and it's very common for a philosopher to be clueless about the developments loutside of his niche, since he has to keep up with the constant production of articles.
I actually find metaphysics the most interesting part of contemporary analytic philosophy, and the recent revivals of Aristotelian ontology have produced fascinating debates - but it's just so insular and specific that nobody cares besides the academics.

Fck Antifa, fck Islam !!!

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (500x483 23.61 KB, 84.8K)

By that reason Marx is bad because it's used by many capitalists and neoliberal economists.

Popper, you are not fooling anyone. The analytic tradition cannot find answers to the hard problem of consciousness which do not result in a laughable dualism where mind and matter are hopelessly split and self-consciousness/rational subjectivity becomes an illusion. Meanwhile, the new materialists of whom Zizek is one one the most famous figures has long overcome this. Reason is something that is itself material but its movements are not owed to anything outside itself - which is PRECISELY what your tradition denies, accusing the true materialists of dualism and obscurantism. It is nothing short of projection.
archive.is/33kzH
archive.is/GcA7n
archive.is/Y5dEo

It's interesting how this set of people who engages in polemics with themselves made up of repetitions on how correct they are all share the same peculiar, rambling, delirious writing style.

When philosophy loses its connection to the real world it's just a particularly useless form of metaphysics.