Post modernism

Just because doesn't believe in your metanarrative, regardless of the reason, it doesn;t mean they don't believe in metanarratives at all. That would be like saying that just because you don't believe in the abrahamic, christian god that means that you don't believe in a higher power at all.

So post modernists are agaisnt marxism?

yes they say it is a totalizing narrative or something

They reject marxism, but they're not "anti-marxism."

For example, as an atheistm, I reject christianity, but I am not anti-christianity, nor am I anti-christian. I don't want random innocent christians dead.

Postmodernity as a cultural-historical condition spurred by developments in capitalism (see: Jameson's "Postmodernism: or the cultural logic of late capitalism) should be differentiated from Postmodernism as a blanket term for a philosophical movement that begins as early as Heidegger and Husserl (some might even say Kierkegaard).

We are all postmodernists in the former definition. The latter definition is fairly useless, and it makes far more sense to talk about philosophers who fall under that term as individual philosophies.

They reject grand narratives and thus materialism and class struggle.
Post-modernism is anti-communist and don't let any retard tell you otherwise.

i'm not into philosophy, but i love post-modern art. and i'm not even an artist, i study STEM shit, but i can explain why i grew from hating post-modern art to loving it. think about the reaction the art gives you, and about the emotions and thoughts you have. i realized that my extreme hatred of post-modern art was actually a testament to how effective it was, because no other art produced such an extreme response. if you're making a post about why post-modern stuff is shit, post-modern stuff is doing a damn fine job and showing its effectiveness.

i'm really looking forward to what comes next. post-modernists tend to think that it's the end-all be-all from what i've read, but fuck it sure as hell isn't if history is to teach us anything. post-modernism seems to give a middle finger to everything we think and care about, and it's going to take something that's not a part of that everything to really take its place.

The poster child postmodernist thinkers hold their precursors in high esteem and consider their methods as logical progressions in their projects. Go read some Roland Barthes and Paul De Man, they're both far far more accessible than Derrida.

Marxism is spooky bullshit, but it's the best spooky bullshit we have.

Attached: kat.jpg (1920x2051, 809.78K)

Can anybody tell me if this video got it right? I watched but I'm still not too sure what postmodernism is.
youtu.be/PotnyAxuO2Q

Read "Spectres of Marx" by Derrida

White people are weird

Post-Moern Art sucks, it has no meaning. It’s just randomly splattered buckets of paint. Socialist Realism is better.

Attached: SR.png (753x576 4.22 MB, 99K)

It can be but that is a terrible example of it. There is clear intent in composition there. And not all postmodern art is abstract expressionism (random paint splatters).

Socialist realism is the worst thing socialism ever produced and enjoying it is doing the Nazi's work for them. The worst thing Lenin ever did was hold back constructivism and not wholly endorse it as the state's aesthetic (his aesthetic tendencies were ironically inherited from Peter I), and I absolutely believe that the trajectory of the USSR would have been radically altered if the Avant Garde spirit was kept alive and supported by the state. Claims to realism, to showing "how it really is," is doing the conservative's work for them. In this way, the Surrealists and the Situationists are the true models of a revolutionary aesthetic.

There is literally no difference between Nazi Propaganda, Socialist Realism, and Norman Rockwell.

About what I'd expect is par for imageboards nowadays.

Attached: flat,750x1000,075,t.u1.jpg (750x1000, 43.75K)

Socialist Realms is pretty good. Modern Art and Post-Modern Art is Decadent, Anti-Proletarian, Elitists, and inherently Capitalist. It needs to be done away with.

The "realism" expressed is nothing more than ideology rendered permanent. In it the individual is hollowed out into an idealized role, it's capitalist physiognomy and character that destroys the individual into universal subject. Here is the worker, here is the war hero, here is the idol to emulate. It operates on the same level of magazine advertisement: here is the person that you are distilled into role and function, here is the product and pose you must, as the ideal we have made you to be, own and submit to. Notice in the Stalin painting the individuals become nothing more than instruments of the idol they carry. They aren't propellers of the figure, do not together form the whole which Stalin is built, but are instead built for the task of carrying him, they own no purpose other than to confirm to the model which they have been molded into.

This relationship is the same as that of advertisement, of commodity fetishism. The "realism" that is being constructed in no way reflects the "way things really are," but instead creates that stagnant world which is then forced into the real, within which everyone is forced to find their role which is really the same role: the consumer, the subject, the laborer who is nothing more than laborer, the father carving the turkey during Thanksgiving dinner, the ubermensch soldier, etc. Realisms are wholly undialectical, and the dialectical response must always be perpetual iconoclasm: the aesthetic manifestation of permanent revolution. Go read Benjamin and Adorno.

Kek if anything the highly technical nature of realist painting renders it an elitist endeavor. Your average prole doesn't have the time nor the access to training required to get to that level of technical skill. If you're really trying to champion proletarian art, whatever that means, you should be shilling folk or outsider art.

Preach dude. Filonov and Kandinsky shit all over soulless realist trash.

Attached: Untitled-pavel-filonov-1927.jpg (520x800, 140.67K)

Socialist Realism is proletarian and anti-elitist because the common man, the prol is he centerpiece of the painting. Not some paint bucket. Also unlike voo-doo art. Socialist Realism doesn’t require people to square circles to think it has meaning. Meaning in socialist realism is obvious, upfront, and easy to decipher.

caring what creative pursuits other people have outside of their normal labor is an inherently bourgeois and exploitative thought process

This is patently untrue. Aesthetics and politics are inseparable.

Why are you guys like this? Have any of you actually read Marx? Was Zig Forums taken over by the fbi, and now I am being honeypotted for kicks?
Holy fuck some of you are philosophical cesspools. You cant read for anything. Marx makes several simple analyses, and notes obvious developmemts in history, and you claim he has established a metanarrative. By the sort of "logic" in this post, any science is a metanarrative. The moment you observe and make a hypothesis, you have made a narrative. If you observe the production relationships of the proletariat and the bourgeois, you have created a narrative. If you notice there were exploited groups in the past, you have created a narrative. If you notice these classes eventually developed into new classes, you have created a narrative. If you DARE to believe people are xploited for their value, and that they can reclaim that value, you are a pie in the sky utopian and guilty of creating a narrative. None of you are free of wrong think. All of you have engaged in narratives. NONE of you are free from reality.
I think that in a lot of ways, this is very ironically true, really. As in, so many "marxists" and "realists" reject reality and construct these illusions, but do so for reality.
Every day, every hour, how many "marxists" are repenting for the evils of the Marxists? How many "marxists" are consistently defacing and apologizing for material reality? To the "marxist", nothing is necessary, nothing is real. Everything is the vulgar "reality", the only necessity, the only real thing is this reality. Any actual analysis of reality is a narrative, a spook, an exploitation in the making. Anything other than this holy, irreducible reality is too much for the "marxist" to understand. The USSR could have been perfect if… If only we could all… If only a Socialist meme… Nothing is good enough to them, yet they incessantly DEMAND reality. They live the bitesized, cute revolution of Cuba, and they hate the forced reality of the USSR. They love everything that they havent been forced to look at, and anything taht earns their gaze turns to ash right before them. Every revolution is betrayed, every hierarchy is unjust, everyone is a sheep, everyone is better than them…. It goes on infinitely, with every single thing the "marxist" looks at cracking and dying before their very eyes.
The only thing the "marxist" can bear to look at are his own ideas. The only thing that can stay perfect and immune to his caustic gaze are his grand narratives, his illusions. In place of reality, he has the "reality" within his own mind. In his mind, there exist irreducible and perfect concepts. Within the "marxist" mind, reality is subsumed by the reality that could have been. Everything is deconstructed, and there is really no connection between what one "marxist" and another deconstruct. The poster Im replying to, for example, believes that an accurate depiction of productive relations is a narrative. Another "marxist" may reject this, perhaps he "agrees" with Marx, but he believes the proletariat are backward and useless. They are conflicting in what they choose not to believe, but what they have done is the same. They have both rejected the complex reality of things for the vulgar simplicity of the one true "reality".

You guys sound like fresh off the raft Zig Forums immigrants.

Dali was a postmodern artist, jesus christ possibly only just the most famous one.

Postmodernism is a reaction to the horrors of WWI and WWII. Reason, progress, and science were supposed to take us to a beautiful age, and it didn't. Instead it brought one of the worst wars the western world has seen. "Science" doesn't give you a base for ethical action, but oh boy did we learn some things from nazi tinker-torturing.

youtu.be/EHtvTGaPzF4

I've noticed it too, posting has gotten significantly worse and significantly more passionate.

lol why everyone on this board dislikes chomsky so much

How is dialectical materialism not a metanarrative? The narrative by which the "actual" narrative relies on.

What's being critiqued is the principle by which the relations unfold, the manner in which the narrative is being constructed and to which, in a sense, it is obliged to conform. The relations themsleves aren't necessarily being denied (Foucault, Jameson, Baudrillard are all foremost concerned about power structures), and neither is necessarily the theory. There is such a huge difference between a critique and a rejection.

Are you drunk? Calm down. Postmodernists aren't rejecting reality; the major ones were all marxists. Go read yourself. This is almost embarrassing to read.

*sigh* getting real tired of this schtick. The majority of people are living better off than ever, especially in comparison to feudal times. Nearly all the “horrors” that post-modernists find in modernity can be found in other eras of history and examples can be found that are often as bad or worse as some of the nasty stuff from modern history.

>b-but what makes it more horrible is that it’s happening in this super-specific arbitrary way that wasn’t possible before modernity. Can’t prove the Romans killed people with gas chambers or used atomic bombs this is saying nothing about the real genocides they actually committed? I win again!
I’m sure all this post-modern sophistry would have been quite a consolation for a castrated Arab slave in pre-20th century times.

I think it’s worth qualifying my post, that while I think most people are better off than they were under feudalism, I do not buy into the false-accounting of much of the Davos poverty reduction claims most poverty reduction has been in China anyways. That being said, neoliberals do have a point when they point out that anti-biotics couldn’t be bought at any price prior to the 20th century, nor were smart phones and other use-values we take for granted. This shows the poverty of their own estimates but it is factually correct to point out that now even many of the people who are in the poorest half of the global population can afford things like anti-biotics for a sick child, toothbrushes, t-shirts, and even smartphones muh iPhone xDDDD

ITT: Proto-Petersons

READ
Or watch this handy pop phil video:
youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms

The guy is still butthurt that Foucault destroyed him in that one debate.

Attached: foucault emancipation.jpg (584x525, 77.13K)

*dies from a social construction*

Hilarious, here's another one from the same channel:
youtube.com/watch?v=-UpSoosy9ws

Read Ghosts of My Life by Mark Fisher.

Also be wary of chuds that claim that Baudrillard, Derrida, et al. were postmodernists. Surefire sign that they haven't read them. They were describing/explaining the postmodern condition, not advocating it.

aestheticization of politics = bad
politicization of aesthetics = good

Attached: benjamin.jpg (402x546, 19.24K)

The form and ends of genocide have a profound impact on the meaning of the genocide. Genocide as a formal category says nothing about the content of each individual genocide; the mechanized and deeply alienating nature of the Holocaust has no historical counterpart.
The exact same can be said of the everyday horrors faced in (post)modernity; the material conditions which exist today radically change the form and content of alienation. This is basic historical materialism. These aren't "arbitrary changes" these are precisely the monumental changes in society that occurred between feudalism and capitalism. Every new socioeconomic system has no historical counterpart.

this is saying nothing about the horrors that are embedded in that "better" reality This argument also completely misses the point. Nobody is saying things are better now than they were in the middle ages; this doesn't mean one should completely accept the shit that comes with it because "it's better than the shit 200 years ago." The fact that things are suddenly more available to more people doesn't counteract the violence that produces that accessibility, and it doesn't negate the possibility for a better system that eliminates that violence.

Read Origins of Totalitarianism, read Dialectic of Enlightenment.

You're right, they're not advocating this new condition at all, but they're also still postmodernists: the postmodern philosophical tradition they fall under.

Based benji

You know he really believed that, right? And his defenders come out of the work by arguing that the radical epistemological “skepticism” of his work that has been used by Holocaust deniers, AIDS denialists and other cooks has somehow been misused.

No, many of the kooks who have been influenced by him are actually interpreting his work correctly. Especially in the case of AIDs denial though he never said anything publicly about it

Jameson equates the postmodern ‘waning of historicity’ with the ‘cultural logic of late capitalism’, but he says little about why the two are synonymous. Why did the arrival of neoliberal, post-Fordist capitalism lead to a culture of retrospection and pastiche? Perhaps we can venture a couple of provisional conjectures here. The first concerns consumption. Could it be that neoliberal capitalism’s destruction of solidarity and security brought about a compensatory hungering for the well-established and the familiar? Paul Virilio has written of a ‘polar inertia’ that is a kind of effect of and counterweight to the massive speeding up of communication. Virilio’s example is Howard Hughes, living in one hotel room for 15 years, endlessly rewatching Ice Station Zebra. Hughes, once a pioneer in aeronautics, became an early explorer of the existential terrain that cyberspace will open up, where it is no longer necessary to physically move in order to access the whole history of culture. Or, as Berardi has argued, the intensity and precariousness of late capitalist work culture leaves people in a state where they are simultaneously exhausted and overstimulated. The combination of precarious work and digital communications leads to a besieging of attention. In this insomniac, inundated state, Berardi claims, culture becomes de-eroticised. The art of seduction takes too much time, and, according to Berardi, something like Viagra answers not to a biological but to a cultural deficit: desperately short of time, energy and attention, we demand quick fixes. Like another of Berardi’s examples, pornography, retro offers the quick and easy promise of a minimal variation on an already familiar satisfaction.

The other explanation for the link between late capitalism and retrospection centres on production. Despite all its rhetoric of novelty and innovation, neoliberal capitalism has gradually but systematically deprived artists of the resources necessary to produce the new. In the UK, the postwar welfare state and higher education maintenance grants constituted an indirect source of funding for most of the experiments in popular culture between the 1960s and the 80s. The subsequent ideological and practical attack on public services meant that one of the spaces where artists could be sheltered from the pressure to produce something that was immediately successful was severely circumscribed. As public service broadcasting became ‘marketised’, there was an increased tendency to turn out cultural productions that resembled what was already successful. The result of all of this is that the social time available for withdrawing from work and immersing oneself in cultural production drastically declined. If there’s one factor above all else which contributes to cultural conservatism, it is the vast inflation in the cost of rent and mortgages. It’s no accident that the efflorescence of cultural invention in London and New York in the late 1970s and early 80s (in the punk and postpunk scenes) coincided with the availability of squatted and cheap property in those cities. Since then, the decline of social housing, the attacks on squatting, and the delirious rise in property prices have meant that the amount of time and energy available for cultural production has massively diminished. But perhaps it was only with the arrival of digital communicative capitalism that this reached terminal crisis point. Naturally, the besieging of attention described by Berardi applies to producers as much as consumers. Producing the new depends upon certain kinds of withdrawal – from, for instance, sociality as much as from pre-existing cultural forms – but the currently dominant form of socially networked cyberspace, with its endless opportunities for micro-contact and its deluge of YouTube links, has made withdrawal more difficult than ever before. Or, as Simon Reynolds so pithily put it, in recent years, everyday life has sped up, but culture has slowed down.

Attached: jameson.jpg (636x393, 45.71K)

>/"lefty"pol/ says they're actually antimarxists
This is painfully embarrassing.

Attached: wakemeup.png (200x195, 40.77K)

I miss Fisher

When your philosophy eschews universalism, you cannot claim to be a universalist. Marxism is not a particularist tendency, so they cannot rightly claim to be Marxist. This is not to say that they're not like leftists, but to assume that disagreement with the assumptions of postmodernism is equivalent to dismissal of all of its constituent values OR claims to values is simply a wishful conclusion for someone who wants to make trite judgements like you

Ironic.

Quality post. w/r/t to the "waning of historicity," the acceleration of time, and the decline of long-experience, memory, home, Benjamin offers some, as usual, prophetic analyses on this subject:

From The Storyteller:
"Villemessant , the founder of Le Figaro, characterized the nature of information in a famous formulation. “To my readers,” he used to say, “an attic fire in the Latin Quarter is more important than a revolution in Madrid.” This makes strikingly clear that it is no longer intelligence coming from afar, but the information which supplies a handle for what is nearest that gets the readiest hearing. The intelligence that came from afar—whether the spatial kind from foreign countries or the temporal kind of tradition—possessed an authority which gave it validity, even when it was not subject to verification. Information, however, lays claim to prompt verifiability. The prime requirement is that it appear “understandable in itself. ” Often it is no more exact than the intelligence of earlier centuries was. But while the latter was inclined to borrow from the miraculous, it is indispensable for information to sound plausible. Because of this it proves incompatible with the spirit of storytelling. If the art of storytelling has become rare, the dissemination of information has had a decisive share in this state of affairs."

From On Some Motifs in Baudelaire:
"The greater the share of the shock factor in particular impressions, the more constantly consciousness has to be alert as a screen against stimuli; the more efficiently it does so, the less do these impressions enter experience (Erfahrung), tending to remain in the sphere of a certain hour in one's life (Erlebnis). Perhaps the special achievement of shock defense may be seen in its function of assigning to an incident a precise point in time in consciousness at the cost of the integrity of its contents. This would be a peak achievement of the intellect; it would turn the incident into a moment that has been lived (Etlebnis). Without reflection there would be nothing but the sudden start, the sensation of fright which, according to Freud, confirms the failure of the shock defense. Baudelaire has portrayed this condition in a harsh image. He speaks of a duel in which the artist, just before being beaten, screams in fright.”

and later on in the same work:
"A touch of the finger now sufficed to fix an event for an unlimited period of time.The Camera gave the moment a posthumous shock, as it were. Haptic experiences of this kind were joined by optic ones, such as are supplied by the advertising pages of a newspaper or the traffic of a big city. Moving through this traffic involves the individual in a series of shocks and collisions. At dangerous intersections, nervous impulses flow through him in rapid succession, like the energy from a battery. Baudelaire speaks of a man who plunges into the crowd as into a reservoir of electric energy. Circumscribing the experience of the shock, he calls this man "a kaleidoscope equipped with consciousness."

Taken together, we can see Benjamin as starting to see the reality that Jameson would go on to describe as now-entrenched. The "Shock-Reality" corresponds both to the alienating industrialization of society and the decline of Storytelling, a necessarily historical form, into that of instantaneous "information," whose value "does not survive the moment in which it was new. It lives only at that moment; it has to surrender itself completely and explain itself to it without losing any time." An information age, therefore, is that of a continuous now experience whose meaning is lost the moment the information is understood. We of course can see this in cases of information of shootings, scandals, wars, etc being thrown at the individual incessantly and immediately forgotten: this, according to Benjamin at least, is by design. But what does this have to do with capitalism, particularly late capitalism? Benjamin goes on in On Motifs to talk about the origins of shock-reality in the repetitive and disconnected actions of the factory worker–the pulling of the lever at one moment has no relation to the pulling of the next, and so on. Perhaps, and I think Fisher talks about this in Capitalist Realism, that the world not only imbues things, all things, with economic value, but also the quality of information, of an immediate intelligibility that "explains itself", particularly in economic terms, but not only. In other words, just as all things are equal on the plane in virtue of their economic evaluation, things acquire an equal value in virtue of their being information, on the twitter feed, on the newspaper, etc. Debord would also be an obvious person to turn to here, but I'm not so well versed in his thought.

Can't help but toss a little back, bud

And there it is. Post-modernists almost always build a fall-back position into their writing so that they can say what they really mean without getting nailed down on it, or if one position gets falsified they fall back on another one. For instance, you raise doubt on whether things are really better now with scare quotes on the one hand then you say that no one is saying that things aren't better than they were in the Middle Ages.

Then you wonder why you get fedora'd gentlemen hitting you with data on how things are better now than they were in the past–because it actually is a reasonable interpretation of your position. Again, you have to downplay the rather massive problems of the pre-modern past to claim that there's been no progress or that its only nominal progress.

I wonder why you interpreted my post this way; its not like I was advocating leaving shit as it is just because I defend modernity and am skeptical about post-modernist historical claims. Btw do Focault fans still pretend like he didn't defend traditionalism? Because there is tons of evidence that he was sympathetic towards traditionalism in his writings despite being a fag who advocated radical skepticism but especially about the epistemological origins of our skepticism.

I'm gonna preface this by pointing out that its a Zionist idea that the Holocaust is without parallel in history. That's a nice conceit, but unfortunately it has very little meaning giving the sheer variety of factors which makes any given event in history "unique"; it is extremely unlikely you will ever play the same poker game twice, for instance.
1. the vast majority of Holocaust victims were killed with rather "primitive" means: hunger, bullets, forced labor, forced marches etc.
2. the gas chambers were very primitive, literally it was just a cellblock that had a hole they could chunk some insecticide into. Very makeshift and pretty basic. Rather out of place in an avant-garde modern war and far less thought out than the incinerators the open pits were more effective, ironically enough
3. The whole bit about the bureaucratic nature of the Holocaust, banality of evil etc, etc. was really just a meme to rehabilitate the political establishment of West Germany (ex "How could good, educated, and proper people do such awful things?") in fact, this narrative has never been able to explain the extreme savageness and contempt for the victims shown many but not all perpetrators of the Holocaust. It was far more intimate than it is often portrayed.
4. untangling the Holocaust from other Nazi crimes such as Barbarossa and the other colonial invasions is an exercise in utility. The Holocaust as an idea is really a way from distracting from the colonial anti-communist aspect of the Nazi endeavor, this is why other "victims" of the Holocaust don't get as much screen-time as Jews despite being as numerous or suffering just as much (Roma). They just don't fit the narrative where you leave the classroom determined to support apartheid Israel against Godless commies and shitskins
5. Auschwitz was not the first death camp. The Germans actually created the first death camp at Shark Island in Namibia and many of the novel innovations of the Nazi genocides actually appeared there first

The Japanese use of bioweapons in China comes much closer to being a truly modern genocide not that bioweapons are new than the Holocaust tbh

*exercise in futility

unbanning Zig Forums was a mistake

I'm saying that "better" doesn't mean good. Your position of "putting things in perspective" does little but justify the current state of things.
I wouldn't know.
This is different from other genocides. The rounding up and placing into conditions that have no contingency to external reality is a new movement in mass-murder.
The steam engine was very primitive. The procedural placement of a person into cemented rooms filled with only recently put to use gas technology is a new development. It doesn't have a parallel.
The banality of evil has to do with the fact of documenting mass murder as though it were an office building. Arendt's point is about the deep-seated bureaucratization of life and death that have become basic parts of life. The emotion one feels toward the process of indexing, filling out papers, archiving, i.e., the modern white-collar workplace says nothing about the inherently sterile and banal qualities of the process itself. You're missing the point.
This just isn't true.
This is such a stupid point, and if anything concedes that the process that carried out the Holocaust was in fact a totally new event in history.

You're a reactionary at best and a crypto-fascist at worst.

artlet here, can I get a rundown on what's going on in this picture here?

Actually post-modern pessimism is the real justifying ideology of our moment. We see it not only almost everywhere in the developed world, in every day life, in media. If modernity was a big old horrific mistake then the revolutions that created it were mistakes, the ideologies that arise out of it (e.g. Marxism, most of anarchism) also suffer from the same epistemological flaws, trying to overthrow modern capitalism will only reinscribe the oppressive codes of modernity. This was actually Focault’s entire fucking point and one he devoted a fair bit of his academic career which was showing, in his own words, how the works of Marx could lead to the horrors of the Gulag.

Contrast this with my position, which by defending modernity affirms that revolutions of the future can be successful and meaningfully improve our lives.

>This just isn't true.
It really is. Try separating the Hunger Order from the conditions of intentional starvation in German work camps. You really can’t. The first people to be gassed on a mass scale weren’t Jews but Soviet POWs. Imagine the liquidation of Soviet POWs without Barbarossa and Nazi anti-communism.The Holocaust is only one facet of a whole collage of horrors of Nazi rule which were based on anti-communism, colonialism and all out reaction. It’s hard to even meaningfully explain how the Holocaust could happen without these other parts of the whole picture. The hunger plan and other aspects of Nazi rule in the occupied USSR probably claimed more victims than the Holocaust—thinking critically it’s extremely difficult to untangle the two. Contrast the difference between a massacre of non-Jewish, non-Roma Soviet citizens begin (not Holocaust) with the massacre of Soviet POWs (technically part of the Holocaust though not a major feature)

What the hell are you even talking about? Indians massacred starved and placed on reservations and even prisons that we would now call concentration camps. The Boers were placed in concentration camps. The Herero and Nama people were also displaced and put into concentration camps.

youtube.com/watch?v=26fIBA7O5Ag

Hot off the presses

Notice the phrase "were Marxists". None of those people continued to be Marxists after becoming postmodernists. Are going to argue now that a Neocon or a Fascist who was a Marxist in his youth is still a Marxist because of that period?

that poster talks like a Petersonoid so he probably does believe that

Some ☭TANKIE☭s here have argued that exact same thing, except for Trotskyists who became neocons.

honestly the one of the left is much more visually pleasing

I wouldn't say that Marxist think communism is the end pf history. It is simply the next logical step in social evolution. The material conditions created under communism will open up possibilities for something new, exactly how feudalism transitioned into capitalism.

This thread is embarrassing

Well the title of the painting is MOPR which tells us a bit about who is behind the prison bars in the painting. The MOPR was an aid organization created by the Soviets to support political prisoners internationally so the painting is depicting all those communists who have been persecuted for their beliefs.

Here's me going through The Mirror of Production by Jean Baudrillard (translation by Mark Poster). Page 30:

...

stop these fucking pedos they put pedo shit in their game
8ch.net/hgg/res/263233.html



stop these fucking pedos they put pedo shit in their game
8ch.net/hgg/res/263233.html

1. "Marxism is the projection of the class struggle and the mode of production onto all previous history…" Do you agree with this statement, y/n?
2. "The Black revolt aims at race as a code, at a level much more radical than economic exploitation." – Do you agree with this statement, y/n?
3. Do you think these statements are statements compatible with a Marxist perspective?

Explain how that posters interpretations are different to yours then, and why they may be wrong. Genuinely interested because some of that is not within the proper context and you seem to know something about it.

They're all dead you fucking moron.

Sure but there may come a time when there will be nothing more to progress to, in paradigm terms, notwithstanding just time progression. I mean what if we researched everything in the world, wouldn't science stop progressing once we knew everything and ran out of things to study? Isn't this possible? We know the stops and gaps in logic and philosophy, so why not material reality?

Then why are there more Post-Modeernists in America then Europe considering the World Wars scorched Europe and barely scratched America?

You believe that somebody who thinks in a very logical and rational way will sooner or later end at Nazi positions?

Either you literally believe that Jews are more worthy than other people and so mass murdering Jews is especially vile, or you aren't quite aware of the extent of the record of mass murder capitalists have. Probably a bit of the former (not necessarily something you are really conscious of) and a ton of the latter.

Insofar as all models of history, particularly models which project, own a teleology, are situated towards some final ends–have a project, insofar as all methods of interpretation are the projection of phenomenon onto a model, and that model onto events, yes, I absolutely agree. This point isn't a rejection, it's a qualification of what Marxist methodology objectively is. I don't see Baudrillard suggesting that there's any way out of this paradigm.

Let's read again the full quote:

Which is a rejection of historical materialism per se, as merely a "model" that projects a "teleology" onto history. Your acceptance of this point is premised on a strain of idealism that relies upon relegating historical materialism to metanarrative.

Certainly, it is, if you're coming from the tradition of Kant, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche where the noumenal is eternally separate from the phenomenal. At that point, "objectively" there is only the "projection of phenomenon onto a model," but one has already rejected a dialectical view, even in one's language.

Are students really excluded from capitalism as workers? It certainly isn't at all true in the U.S., nor are marginal communities excluded from capitalism in the West but rather compelled to participate like every other. This entire view presupposes some outside of capitalism that these communities are forced into, that "zone of disaffection and irresponsibility" that forces such communities into a "revolt" against the rules of the game, as they are supposed to attack the ideological superstructure in the form of the reality principle.

Yet we see this nowhere in reality. Attacks by marginal communities merely on that superstructure, the "capitalist social reality principle," has not led to any revolutionary change, nothing in the direction of socialism. Attacking only that principle seems to lead in precisely the opposite direction, as political movements based on marginal identity have continuously demonstrated, but this view has been useful to petit-bourgeois with an ascribed "marginalized" identity, as they can attack the superstructure to benefit themselves without actually attacking capitalism itself in any significant way.

Your writing is so slippery it's amusing. You apparently haven't even digested the entire content of post (of course, you end up quoting from it, since you haven't even read the book it's about). Baudrillard denies the validity of concepts like classes and surplus in pre-capitalist times, and his argument is purely idealist: that these concepts can't describe those societies because people were not aware of them.
Centralization of capital is certainly NOT part of the super-structure as Marxists use that term. You seem to roleplay as one here.

Start reading Marx anytime.

IMO, post modernism might looks "shitty" at first sight because it express our Zeitgeist, so it's not post modernism that is shitty but our Zeitgeist. Post modernism is just the expression of it.

Attached: 627d32507e7af3326e97853926d4a7249e5d77c51b3380dfe72f5b865eec7c57.jpg (1186x1536, 155.36K)

No, I'm a marxist. I was explaining how postmodernism came to be. I think you might have misread what I was saying.

lol wrong flag

Good question, I don't know who has more. But I thought there were more Euros.

That being said, I'm giving the artbook textbook lesson on postmodernism, if you're looking for deeper truth then it might be worth investigating.

get the fugg out bait thread

Attached: 41540572_p3_master1200.jpg (886x886, 610.42K)

The only philosophy you need is pyrrho. When one doubts everything you are free to simply use ideas that seem to work ok, and dont have to worry about whether they are true or not.

This.

Attached: face excited3423.jpg (445x553, 24.2K)

Actually, it's the flag of post-modern philosophy.

youtube.com/watch?v=vZQJFbrqjUY

t. brainlet

preach brother

he is not edgy enough

agree, cuck philosophy is highly recommended, his vids are great, especially the stephen hicks one

error 404 data not found

...

post modernists are your "end capitalism by destroying all culture until communism happens" types

Unless you begin with some way to distinguish between what is and isn't ideology, every view can come to be termed as "ideology," which is to say that none is. This view of "ideology" has been corrosive to the left, as it undermines materialism by making it amount to a dishonest form of idealism.

sounds like the cultural marxism meme
could it be?

More like cultural liberalism.

Do any of you guys feel like life would be a lot more satisfying if we where allowed to take steps forward without being obligated to give a nod to the flawed ideas and fashions of the past?

Attached: Edvard_Munch_-_Melancholy_(1894).jpg (1200x899, 200.43K)

Imagine thinking modern art has ever been a working class phenomenon

she seems nice

why not working class I think it was definetly something radical but quickly coopted by bourgeois hegemony
maybe the hautes are more honest in that they don't pretend to be anything other than elitist. Although now high fashion is trying to be 'urban' and appeal to poor black kids and the suburban white kids who copy them we're seeing something profoundly more dishonest, definetly profoundly more something