Of what use is the academic left? The types who write endless 'thinkpieces' and columns, who write material not to educate but to shock? What use is the pile of shit called french psychoanalytic "theory"? What use are universities but defanging potential radicals with soft liberal bullshit?
I'm particularly wary of the pundit class rising on the left, the types who are too principled to support Assad as a lesser evil to the headchoppers, but push Hillary Clinton as leser evil to trump.
Its easy to be principles if you sit on an armchair berating those who do the real hard work. Nothing is easier than being a western, typically white, Trotskyite selling newspapers from your university campus. Its one thing to defeat Nazism militarily like the red army, its another to give your precious principled 'critique'. Its one thing to defeat Israel militarily like Hezbollah, its another to whine about "Iranian imperialism" from your Starbucks
Against the academic left
Other urls found in this thread:
Read Bourdieu. Most of them are people very integrated within the system, who read material & symbolic dividends from their position within the academical field. Which means there is the temptation of class interests driving their opinions. So you have a broad spectrum, but I think we should learn as much as we can from history (read about historiography, it's extremely interesting and very little known about especially in academic circles, read at the VEYR LEAST about Marc Bloch, Fernand Braudel, Georges Duby, Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Hayden White) and philosophy (Marx, Spinoza, Hegel, Nietzsche, Foucault and the like but also history of science, generally awkward disciplines that eventually fall under the umbrella of epistemology). Right now the philosophically dominant scene both in academia and on the internet is peak Dunning-Kruger where people like sargon run around like chicken with no heads spouting garbage about things they can't even understand. Humanities are extremely important fields, don't forget Marx actually read and wrote greek & latin. Not saying it mechanically makes you more politically powerful but it allows you to debunk shitty sophisms that were already ridiculed 3000 years old and it might actually open your eyes in ways you couldn't have imagined.
Who exactly are you referring to here? All I can think of here is Zizek, other than e-celebs the left has very little in the way of "pundits" these days. Leftist IR and History academics, at least the ones I've been following, are almost always pretty great. Occasionally you get some people (NLR / HisMat especially) so stuck in the ivory tower you doubt they're seriously invested in real change, but at least their political line / research is generally good.
philosophers stoopid
they confuse with big words
i smarter
A military tactician, an economist, and a skilled politician are generally smarter than most navel gazing philosophers. The left has enough "philosophers" with their spicy takes
Fooking lol. 99% of the people in these categories are firmly capitalist.
Pure philosophy isn't interesting. It needs to be firmly built on natural sciences and humanities.
You don't think the USSR had skilled generals?
You don't think Nasrallah is a skilled politician?
You don't think China has good economists?
I fail to see your point.
My point is, these people accomplish a lot more than pure academics, are would be a greater help to the left than a thousand 'post structural' bullshitters
And how do you propose the left gets a bunch of generals? Generals are shaped by combat. The vast majority of the officers in the early USSR were former peasants, not trained by the tsarist military academy or whatever.
What's that got to do with anything? You do realise that the Red Army was 'typically white' too, don't you? Funny how you're mad about the mainstream left but you've picked up their fashionable habit of bringing race into everything.
Most “leftist” people in unis self-identify as M-Ls
Aren't anarchist more common? I thought ID-pol wasn't that common in ML circles.
Marxist-Leninist sounds cooler and like you know what you're talking about
Supporting Hezbollah on Facebook GOOD
Doing anything else BAD
its not meaningful to call russians "white"
whatever you believe, it means nothing if you don't leave the armchair, buckos
Hello Adolf
russia isn't a setter colonial country, and the red army was composed of many other ethnic groups other than russians.
The white left in the US has historically accomplished nothing compared to groups like the Black Panther Party, just as the "left" in israel has historically accomplished nothing. In fact, most of the demolitions were done under the labour party, not likud.
Its not meaningful to define "white" without the context of settler-colonialism
The irish and italians weren't "white" up until a few decades back
The fuck is an anarcho-bolshevik?
It sounds like what a reactionary would call any ideology that isn't fascism
Would the IWW be considered the "white left"?
Irrelevant to the point he made, the Red Army was white by a vaaaaaast margin, and Russia didn't gobble up all that territory by being nice either.
Don't get me wrong, I've massive respect for BPP, but what did they accomplish other than being utterly crushed the moment they became even remotely a threat? "Becoming a threat" is not an achievement in itself if you don't have the numbers, the organizing ability or the strategy to actually capitalize on that threat. To say that some "black" groups were more succesfull than some "white" groups means nothing in Burgersville, because looking at it from even a corrupt SucDem country, they achieved fuck all. And they will continue to achieve fuck all because of your racial bickering.
Siberia.png
So the eight hour work day, female suffrage, suffrage for non-landowners, abolition of slavery, and free land to all those wiling to work it is nothing.
What lasting impact have the Black Panthers had? They were a group that lasted about a decade and have fuck all affect on the present. Name one, just one social reform that was passed as a result of the black panthers.
academic left/marxists are almost all revisionists and reactionaries.
I've seen this posted twice as if it's somehow directed at left wing students or students in general. He specifically says "reactionary students".
They are popular propagandists. They’re supposed to make things accessible. Zizek’s books probably aren’t considered that accessible by most people, but Michael Brooks is basically a podcaster and Hitchens was totally a pop intellectual. Though obviously the latter became more remembered for “RELIGION BAD”.
Meant this : sup.org
Ah yes, those educated fools will never do anything of worth, only WE image board NEETS will further the revolutionary cause.
Also why is Michael Brooks there? How is he relevent to this?