"Postmodern Marxism" is not a real thing. The one thread that ties postmodern thought together is the lack of metanarrative. Marxism is a metanarrative ideology. Socialism is not a new idea; it is at least as old as the modern conception of capitalism, and framing it as some revolutionary idea belies ignorance of the history of the movement. Revolution is invoked by socialists as a description of a change to current systems, not as a complete inversion of human civilization and culture as it has ever been known. To describe the yearning for the abolishment of hierarchical structure as a religious impulse, or a "shadow structure", is deeply problematic. The civil rights and dignity of millions have been won through these structures, and they are still the prime mechanism of human liberation, unlike religious structures, which are some of the prime mechanisms of human repression.
So far human rights have been won by a positive religious impulse, particularly in America. The Postmodernists were marxists in the sense that their goal was for the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie. At least Foucault clearly stated this goal. One doesn’t overthrow power structures Willy nilly. In the video I state that it is not about economics, and am mostly criticizing the modern authoritarian governments of the past century, and am connecting to how postmodernists think themselves to be clean and brand new, not realizing they are motivated by power drives, and jealous instincts. Postmodern Neo Marxism, also known as woke, is taking the general Marxist pattern and applying it to everything. So for example the kind of feminism we see today, or ethnic politics, in contrast to a more Libertarian approach.
Agree with the critique. Marxism entails a materialist theory of history (similar to the Hegelian theory of history) and is not compatible with post-modernism. The ‘post-modern types’ referred to here may be socialist, but they can’t be proper marxists. Tbh, I think the response above is just a superficial rehashing of _The Tarantulas._ People used a religious justification (a ‘negative religious impulse’) to argue for segregation as well. Religious impulses and religious structures shouldn’t get all the credit or blame here, because it’s actually more complex. The more important point to address is the treatment of labor under capitalism… beginning in the time of the Industrial Revolution. This is what was meant by “human dignity,” and these changes were not motivated by religion.
@@yoseftovshteyn A "positive religious impulse" won human rights? How does that make any sense at all? Yes, MLK was a Christian, but his movement was based on working-class democratic socialist ideas that had been around for a lot longer than him, and he was very well aware of this. The socialists and communists that won workers' rights in the decades before the civil rights movement had very little religious influence- only to the extent that religion was endemic in the community at that point in time. Stop using religion to describe things that are not fundamentally religious. Foucault was not an exemplar of postmodern thought any more than a hundred others I could name, and he himself rejected that label rather strongly. Philosophers who have been grouped under that label do not necessarily have Marxist views at all; you should actually read some of their stuff before you say these things. So you're not talking about economics; you're just very crudely stating one of Foucault's own ideas, and then trying to use that to discredit Foucault. Got it. Again, there is no "postmodern neo-Marxism". Jordan Peterson or Dennis Prager or one of those types came up with that name, and it never made any sense whatsoever. Being "woke" just means you understand that your ancestors probably stole the land you're living on, and maybe you should try and be aware of your own privilege. Not too unreasonable.
listening to jordan peterson readers explain leftist political theory is like hearing a toddler explain the book of ecclesiastes. masquerading a fresh perspective when it really follows a long lineage of clumsily melding together economic practices and underbaked philosophies - as if Jungian studies don't immediately contradict such binary ways of thinking. After watching and listening to years of this chicanery, I'm tired man
Right-Nietzscheans are cray. Nietzsche described the spiritualization of the infinite debt in the context of retribution. D+G posit that this same void exists at the center of capitalist societies as the origin of desire (castration/ oedipalization), which is a disordered conceptualization of desire. Hard for me to see socialism as an inversion of values inherent to capitalist societies - it seems to me an alternative metaphysical system which may even have primacy.
A common idea is that the Industrial Revolution changed society quickly, and there was a lack of meaning, and stressful events etc. in terms of dark past we could say that the medieval Christians had pagan shadows and they where repressing it in what they called hell. In Carl Jung’s psychology if I have an aggressive instinct I need to integrate it into my personality, to be a more responsible person. And if I repress it I can be easy agitated or passive aggressive, and I’ll be convinced that I’m the calmest one.
Great job channeling joe pera
Thank you
"Postmodern Marxism" is not a real thing. The one thread that ties postmodern thought together is the lack of metanarrative. Marxism is a metanarrative ideology.
Socialism is not a new idea; it is at least as old as the modern conception of capitalism, and framing it as some revolutionary idea belies ignorance of the history of the movement. Revolution is invoked by socialists as a description of a change to current systems, not as a complete inversion of human civilization and culture as it has ever been known.
To describe the yearning for the abolishment of hierarchical structure as a religious impulse, or a "shadow structure", is deeply problematic. The civil rights and dignity of millions have been won through these structures, and they are still the prime mechanism of human liberation, unlike religious structures, which are some of the prime mechanisms of human repression.
Yeah but you can't be an ubermensch if you don't make vapid assertions about a mythic idyllic past
So far human rights have been won by a positive religious impulse, particularly in America.
The Postmodernists were marxists in the sense that their goal was for the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie. At least Foucault clearly stated this goal.
One doesn’t overthrow power structures Willy nilly.
In the video I state that it is not about economics, and am mostly criticizing the modern authoritarian governments of the past century, and am connecting to how postmodernists think themselves to be clean and brand new, not realizing they are motivated by power drives, and jealous instincts.
Postmodern Neo Marxism, also known as woke, is taking the general Marxist pattern and applying it to everything. So for example the kind of feminism we see today, or ethnic politics, in contrast to a more Libertarian approach.
Got a better name for it
Agree with the critique. Marxism entails a materialist theory of history (similar to the Hegelian theory of history) and is not compatible with post-modernism. The ‘post-modern types’ referred to here may be socialist, but they can’t be proper marxists.
Tbh, I think the response above is just a superficial rehashing of _The Tarantulas._
People used a religious justification (a ‘negative religious impulse’) to argue for segregation as well. Religious impulses and religious structures shouldn’t get all the credit or blame here, because it’s actually more complex. The more important point to address is the treatment of labor under capitalism… beginning in the time of the Industrial Revolution. This is what was meant by “human dignity,” and these changes were not motivated by religion.
@@yoseftovshteyn A "positive religious impulse" won human rights? How does that make any sense at all? Yes, MLK was a Christian, but his movement was based on working-class democratic socialist ideas that had been around for a lot longer than him, and he was very well aware of this. The socialists and communists that won workers' rights in the decades before the civil rights movement had very little religious influence- only to the extent that religion was endemic in the community at that point in time. Stop using religion to describe things that are not fundamentally religious.
Foucault was not an exemplar of postmodern thought any more than a hundred others I could name, and he himself rejected that label rather strongly. Philosophers who have been grouped under that label do not necessarily have Marxist views at all; you should actually read some of their stuff before you say these things.
So you're not talking about economics; you're just very crudely stating one of Foucault's own ideas, and then trying to use that to discredit Foucault. Got it.
Again, there is no "postmodern neo-Marxism". Jordan Peterson or Dennis Prager or one of those types came up with that name, and it never made any sense whatsoever. Being "woke" just means you understand that your ancestors probably stole the land you're living on, and maybe you should try and be aware of your own privilege. Not too unreasonable.
Very nice Moustache, sir. 🧐
Thank you kindly
listening to jordan peterson readers explain leftist political theory is like hearing a toddler explain the book of ecclesiastes.
masquerading a fresh perspective when it really follows a long lineage of clumsily melding together economic practices and underbaked philosophies - as if Jungian studies don't immediately contradict such binary ways of thinking.
After watching and listening to years of this chicanery, I'm tired man
Sir you have a talent with words. But if you watched the video you know that I did not talk about political theory, but about social psychology.
Nice work
Thank you
Right-Nietzscheans are cray. Nietzsche described the spiritualization of the infinite debt in the context of retribution. D+G posit that this same void exists at the center of capitalist societies as the origin of desire (castration/ oedipalization), which is a disordered conceptualization of desire. Hard for me to see socialism as an inversion of values inherent to capitalist societies - it seems to me an alternative metaphysical system which may even have primacy.
When does this dark past theory pop up? The enlightenment and mass democracy?
A common idea is that the Industrial Revolution changed society quickly, and there was a lack of meaning, and stressful events etc.
in terms of dark past we could say that the medieval Christians had pagan shadows and they where repressing it in what they called hell. In Carl Jung’s psychology if I have an aggressive instinct I need to integrate it into my personality, to be a more responsible person. And if I repress it I can be easy agitated or passive aggressive, and I’ll be convinced that I’m the calmest one.
Great!