3 ms·

These days, Howard Zinn, Chomsky, and most other left wing intellectuals of yesteryear have lost their cultural power. It doesn’t help that most of these folks

These days, Howard Zinn, Chomsky, and most other left wing intellectuals of yesteryear have lost their cultural power. It doesn’t help that most of these folks are 1. So sold into the “American intelligence bad” narrative that they look at every left wing crack point and act like nothing bad happened under them. Even Allende, the classic example of a “good Marxist” leader, was a total asshole and likely deserved to be shot. Zinn isn’t going to tell you that or about when the US IC got it right… they also won’t mention that the ultra conservative death squads were still often the lesser of the two evils. Sorry, but Howard Zinn is post modern neo Marxism. Might as well go read Deleuze or Foucault. Also sad to realize that the left in general has been extremely neutered. The plot to “Canadian Bacon” by Micheal Moore is happening IRL and no one even knows that movie exists except random old American leftists.

mmooss 2y ago
> lost their cultural power Should people only read what's popular, what the dominant culture approves of? Are more unpopular ideas more wrong? You apparently dislike Chomsky; would you have liked Chomsky more when those books were more popular? > the “American intelligence bad” narrative You are ignorant of these issues if that is your understanding. Certainty also seems to support that, as does the ranting.
TimorousBestie 2y ago
“Postmodern Neomarxism” basically doesn’t exist outside of a few fringe academics. Recommend you read Derrida’s _Spectres of Marx_, which goes into detail about how dead academic Marxism was even in 1993 (spoiler: it’s even deader now). His hopes for a “New International” never materialized and died with him. Even Žižek’s more recent _Too Late to Awaken_ is a depressing slog of an elegy, and he is the closest thing to a real “Neomarxist” you could ask for. Relatedly, Foucault and Deleuze do not write anything remotely like Zinn. Comparing them is wholly meaningless, they’re playing entirely different games.
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  That particular book is of special interest to me as a stirner shill/fanatic. The "Specter of Marx" he's refering to is Max Stirner! Derrida is trying to answer the question of "Why did Stirners book, The Unique and its Property, trigger Marx to write The German Ideology and dedicate over 300 pages to shitting on stirner?". I've cover to cover read that book, and it's garbage dog shit just like Zizek is. The moment that you start trying to wax poetic about whose what ism is when you become post-modern neo marxism. It's academic ivy league eliteist careerism and its disgusting. Fashionable nonsense. Zinn and Zizek are playing the exact same game. One just writes more coherently than the other. If you think Hegel or Marx are worth citing, you're a pomo/fraud. If you think Psychoanalysis/Freud are worth citing, you're a pomo/fraud. Deleuze killed himself. Mark fischer killed himself. Althussar killed his wife. Wilhelm Reich was a loony who after writing his analysis of the sexuality of fascism went nuts about "Orgone" machines. Foucault, Sartre/De Bouvier were pedos and collaborators. Even my favorite half-breed of pluralism mixed with pomo shit, Arendt, was in love with the arch nemesis of "oh they were literally a nazi " pomos - Heidigger! And who can forgot Carl Schmitt? JUST WRITE THESE IDIOTS ALL OFF ALREADY AND LEAVE THEM IN THE DUST BIN OF HISTORY!

mmooss 2y ago

> lost their cultural power Should people only read what's popular, what the dominant culture approves of? Are more unpopular ideas more wrong? You apparently dislike Chomsky; would you have liked Chomsky more when those books were more popular? > the “American intelligence bad” narrative You are ignorant of these issues if that is your understanding. Certainty also seems to support that, as does the ranting.

TimorousBestie 2y ago

“Postmodern Neomarxism” basically doesn’t exist outside of a few fringe academics. Recommend you read Derrida’s _Spectres of Marx_, which goes into detail about how dead academic Marxism was even in 1993 (spoiler: it’s even deader now). His hopes for a “New International” never materialized and died with him. Even Žižek’s more recent _Too Late to Awaken_ is a depressing slog of an elegy, and he is the closest thing to a real “Neomarxist” you could ask for. Relatedly, Foucault and Deleuze do not write anything remotely like Zinn. Comparing them is wholly meaningless, they’re playing entirely different games.

Der_Einzige 2y ago
That particular book is of special interest to me as a stirner shill/fanatic. The "Specter of Marx" he's refering to is Max Stirner! Derrida is trying to answer the question of "Why did Stirners book, The Unique and its Property, trigger Marx to write The German Ideology and dedicate over 300 pages to shitting on stirner?". I've cover to cover read that book, and it's garbage dog shit just like Zizek is. The moment that you start trying to wax poetic about whose what ism is when you become post-modern neo marxism. It's academic ivy league eliteist careerism and its disgusting. Fashionable nonsense. Zinn and Zizek are playing the exact same game. One just writes more coherently than the other. If you think Hegel or Marx are worth citing, you're a pomo/fraud. If you think Psychoanalysis/Freud are worth citing, you're a pomo/fraud. Deleuze killed himself. Mark fischer killed himself. Althussar killed his wife. Wilhelm Reich was a loony who after writing his analysis of the sexuality of fascism went nuts about "Orgone" machines. Foucault, Sartre/De Bouvier were pedos and collaborators. Even my favorite half-breed of pluralism mixed with pomo shit, Arendt, was in love with the arch nemesis of "oh they were literally a nazi " pomos - Heidigger! And who can forgot Carl Schmitt? JUST WRITE THESE IDIOTS ALL OFF ALREADY AND LEAVE THEM IN THE DUST BIN OF HISTORY!