Because Communism in practice, if not quite in theory (It being only an intermediate stage) posits a sort of government in which intellectuals such as themselves wield all the power on behalf of the proletariat masses.
>>606134 In 30's intellectuals and by extension - left wing politicians shifted from more or less independent socialist/communist parties to be NKVD(later KGB) stooges. The interest of USSR was the interest of left wing intellectuals and parties. With the labour unions being taken over by fascism it turned into circlejerk up to the point where reasonable people like Orwell had easier time being praised by right wingers than being praised by other left wingers like themselves.
USSR died but in the beginning the stooges did damage control and after some time they've tried to promote some kind of pro-Russian policy up to the point where they've realised that Putin isn't sharing their views on stuff. They've went into identity crisis out of which modern, post-post-post-post-post-everything academia was born. As obvious as it isn't worth a dime.
>>606140 Go to bed Bakunin, your insurrectionism is just as substitutionalist.
By the way: workers councils.
>>606184 >In 30's intellectuals and by extension - left wing politicians shifted from more or less independent socialist/communist parties to be NKVD(later KGB) stooges. There were no non-party communist intellectuals in the 1920s. The emergence of the academic communist occurred in the 1930s. Stop talking shit and read more party histories.
>>606134 >What's up with all the communist sympathizers within western humanities? I've worked 20 years in the "western humanities". About 1 in 50 humanities academics is actually a communist. There are no "sympathisers." Take your lies elsewhere.
>>606200 >Nozick in Cato Really? Fuck off. Nozick is no Kołakowski.
>he may be a Marxist who only reads other Marxists, is always defending communism in theory and is immersed in a communist-led culture, but I never saw him at the conventions of the Party so he is no "true communist"
It's the same logic of the Moscow Trials. Anyone to the right of Lavrenty Beria is a fascist.
>In most of the Western world, high school education is heavily biased towards communism and other left-wing ideologies. /pol/ literally lives in a fucking fantasy world. Jesus. Anti-communist propaganda is omnipresent in American education. They were having us read George Orwell in elementary school.
99% of Americans couldn't even define Communism offhand if they tried, but they know it's bad. Or Capitalism for that matter. Go ahead and try it right now if you are reading this. Compare to a good dictionary. I bet you'll fail.
There are things you are not meant to know, only feel.
I'm not American, so I can't teach you about your country, but isn't Howard Zinn part of high school curriculum in the United States? I also know that Brazilian education theorist Paulo Freire, who basically articulated a way to make education communist indoctrination, was influential in some American education schools.
>>606673 >George Orwell was a commie. Two of his books were published by a known Soviet aligned publisher. He was a member of the left-centrist Independent Labour Party and was so from a revolutionary base. He fought for the independent marxist POUM in Spain, but would have fought for the CNT/FAI had he understood what was going on.
He was also an imperialist policeman in the 3rd world, and wrote pro-war nationalist shit for the Labour Party.
Calling him a "commie" with the implication that he was a stalinist or bolshevik is pretty fucking low.
>>606673 >George Orwell was a commie. Yes, but all you ever read is his anti-commie stuff. And never in depth. Only "this is what communists actually believe" while reading 1984.
> but isn't Howard Zinn part of high school curriculum in the United States? There is no curriculum in the US but I bet he's common. He was recommended but not necessary reading in my high school history class. But his vague fuck the man attitude was the most radical you're going to get and that's still safe. There is no sincere attempt to quantify what a critique of Capitalism from a Marxist perspective is in mainstream American school that I've experienced. Lot's of attention to the "bad" of the USSR though.
>“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum” >― Noam Chomsky
100% this describes liberal American education on anything vaguely socialist related. "Not all socialists are bad people and they want to do things that some might say looks good on paper (decide for yourselves!), but on the other hand all these bad things always correlate with socialism. No, I'm not going to tell you how the USSR economy actually worked or what exploitation theory actual is. That's commie shit and would get me in trouble."
>>606743 You could have mentioned the Amish, instead you went on with these psychos. I guess you're a fan of Thomas Muntzer too, he killed a lot of petty nobles, am I right?
Of course, you are communist because of your bloodlust, not because you want "common ownership of the means of production". You have no patience for pacifist Christian communists who just live and let live.
Has to do with the fact that intellectuality and formal education are generally correlated with socialization, and in a judeo-christian culture such as ours, socialization means accepting values such as humanism, universalism, non-violent resolution of conflict, kindness and humility. So academia is so morally christian that it abandons religion altogether - that is the pretty much the logical conclusion of humanism, since christianity's history has really bad pr - and goes to a secular religion such as communism, which promises the so-dreamed utopia and equality and kumbaya.
>>606967 Jesus Christ you are really a fucking faggot. What do you want, a cookie for being in le super special awesome secret club.
This is a thread about why the fuck do intellectuals, particularly in humanities, seem to tend to the left and to communism, even though communism was a massive failure. I am talking about exactly that.
If you really want all that attention from an anonymous user of a Nepalese woodworking image forum, please, continue, but don't shitpost about how communist you are.
>people actually think there is leftism in America >people actually think academia has any significant number of communists after red scaring the shit out of everyone and flooding the halls with liberal shills
>>606989 Despite them not tending to the left. Despite there being a very few communists, as I said, about 2%.
Most humanities academics' politics are R2P liberalism, social liberalism, or unreconstructed rights liberalism. This obviously includes the majority of conservative academics. Now admittedly there are fewer reactionaries and fascists, but they are out there. They tend to what I'd generously call philosophical sociology of politics for some reason.
I've met more communists from business schools than from humanities faculties.
That depends on how you define "sympathiesers" there are plenty who think that communist and various far left parties were not that bad. At the vary least many academics are sympathetic to their analysis of class oppression.
We literally had one Marxist lecturer out of dozens at the largest university in the country, almost all lecturers had a large bent towards Liberalism and Neo-Liberalism. Business and Economics electives I had were almost non-stop circlejerking over Chicago Neo-Classical.
If you mean Marxist analysis? Because Marxist analysis as a tool is very useful in social science in understanding how society interacts with each other.
The idea that academia is overrun with Marxists is a right wing conspiracy theory. Progressive social ideals = / = Marxist.
>>607527 So despite your own personal experience of the academy, which goes against your claim, you assert that most academics are communist? And your use of "sympathiser" is based on a personal, generally unsupportable, and highly atypical political classification.
Why don't you go wank on one of the orange boards instead? Because all you are doing is gratifying yourself in public.
>>607513 >Progressive social ideals = / = Marxist.
This is true, strictly speaking very few are Marxist, and the term is over used. Though many of us would like to see an academic community more welcoming to say libertarian points of view, both in academic work and in the class room
>>607546 The problem is that both social liberalism and R2P liberalism ARE libertarianism. They are formed on exactly the same ideological ("enlightenment") and social ("value-form") bases.
The reason why you don't see more traditional rights type liberalism is because the history of the humanities is the history of their deployment by the state as repressive apparatus against the proletariat. You need R2P philosophers to justify humanitarian interventions. You need an analysis of the literature of alienation to justify the structure of white collar work in the 1960s and 1970s. You need historiography to justify the political states' defence of itself against insurgent classes.
Traditional rights small government liberalism failed the state, manifestly, in the mid 19th century and the creation of disciplinarity in the humanities was specifically to exceed small government liberalism and produce an apparatus which would defend capitalism and the state from society.
>>607537 >which goes against your claim, you assert that most academics are communist?
I don't recall saying this. I am not the one who started thread, and I would not characterize most of my professors and lecturers as marxist, most of them were American progressives, which is to the left of the general population, and myself.
I was sighting what my good professors said, some of the worse I met said ridiculous things, like praising people who by their own admission were taking orders from the Comintern.
Marx didnt want that sort of communism. He said once: the worst idea to try this new system is russia. RLY. HE SAID THAT. And he was right in every point. JSut his lst did not became true yet. HE sasid capitalism is humasn biggest mistaek and one time it will go down. It will happen. He was one of the humans on earth you dont want to miss
>>607569 Yes, because taking orders from the comintern is the sin qua non of praiseworthyness. Althusser wrote some interesting books, CAN'T SAY THAT HE WAS PCF. Lukacs had a great aesthetic insight and developed young academics well, OOPS HE SHOPPED PEOPLE TO THE NKVD. Imre Nagy was an adequate agronomist and in his attempt to humanise actually existing socialism followed the working class, OH GOD HE SURVIVED MOSCOW IN THE 1930S AND PROBABLY SHOPPED KUN.
>progressive >left It is about as "left wing" as food stamps redeemable for Government Cheese.
>>606134 >>606134 >I can understand in the 40s and 50s, but wouldn't they learn after communism turned into a colossal failure? Well, none of those failed examples ever reached communism - they just promised to, eventually, claiming that a totalitarian dictatorship was the first step, without ever taking the second. (And this went on for generations...)
Granted, the reason they never took the second, wasn't simply greed for power (though yes, there's that), but, rather, simple logic - because, communism can't work, and you don't really need to test it to know. When you break the state into a thousand little communes with, effectively, their own independent governments, they'll get bowled over by a nation with a centralized government and be unable to compete, internationally. There's plenty of historical examples of that to go around, and all those smaller nations either united to form a larger ones, or were absorbed into larger ones against their will.
Plus, Marx rigged up his models when production was largely on an area by area basis, where factories and farms held all the power, functioning largely independently. Now the whole world is interdependent, with factories assembling parts made from all over the world, and farms so specialized in exporting they aren't even capable of feeding the people who work on them. ...and now this whole information technology industry really puts the nail in the Marxist coffin.
But to say you can point to failed examples of it - no, you really can't... Lest you include the Paris Commune, which ended in a massacre.
>>607584 >Plus, Marx rigged up his models when production was largely on an area by area basis, where factories and farms held all the power, functioning largely independently. You've not read Capital, have you?
>>606134 >I can understand in the 40s and 50s, but wouldn't they learn after communism turned into a colossal failure? I'm sure you're about to cite China, Russia, and Cuba, as failures, somehow, as well as communist. Like nationalized socialist dictatorships somehow equate to a series of communes owned and operated by their workers.
But what about failures?
Like when Russia was a super power and competing with the most powerful nation on earth for Nearly half a century? Was anyone else even holding a candle to the US during those 50 years? Totalitarian dictatorship successful here.
Cuba's brutal dictatorship, under a freaking embargo for nearly all that time, manage to maintain some of the best living standards south of the border.
China's been the most powerful and influential player in Asia in almost every respect since the 70's, if not longer... Granted, they've become more so as they've opened their markets, and now have a miserable combination of national socialism and worker exploitation.
And Best Korea... Okay, yeah, that's failed pretty hard, but I don't see any instances of workers making decisions as to the method of production and distribution of resources there in this near theocratic dictatorship.
How about successes?
Closest thing we've seen to Marx's actual ideals put into use, rather than just promised to gullible masses, are the early days of: - Microsoft - Yahoo - Google Where the workers owned the means of production, dictated their use, and decided upon the distribution of profits. Spawning the "worker owned startup" - Marx's wet dream.
Problem is, of course, eventually, your company gets too large to do that. You can't have your warehouse workers having a say in your software design decisions, and the like - thus you switch to the traditional corporate model. So, yes, communism doesn't work, because eventually shit gets too big to be handled by what equates to anarchic communes.
>>607513 I'm a humanities major and the only professor to mention Marxism did so as an obsessive anti-Marxist with poor understanding of history and Marxism (luckily doesn't teach history, polisci, phil, etc. so I don't really care).
>>607725 Well, those guys usually claim that communism could still work, if we just tried it.
I'm asserting that it can't, and there's a reason it's never been tried on a national scale, and instead has only been used to sell other systems that, however brutal, actually, and unfortunately, do work. (Even if it works, somewhat well, on very tiny scales - like a few dozen people - not a few million.)
Communism as an approach to national government is fundamentally broken and completely unworkable, but brutal nationalistic dictatorships are pretty much the exact opposite of communism - which is exactly why they work.
>>606567 >In most of the Western world, high school education is heavily biased towards communism and other left-wing ideologies. Congratulations, this might be the dumbest post I've seen in my 10 years on this website. I grew up in Seattle, one of the most liberal cities in the country, and never once did any teacher speak of communism in a positive light. >>606673 >isn't Howard Zinn part of high school curriculum in the United States? I also know that Brazilian education theorist Paulo Freire, who basically articulated a way to make education communist indoctrination, was influential in some American education schools. Never talked about Freire, and read maybe one or two short excerpts from Zinn. Where are you getting this shit from? >>606774 >On the other hand, the "anti-anti-communist" indoctrination works quite well. There are maybe three people I met in either high school or college, arguable the age where opinions will lean most to the left, who I would say fit in this. One was an edgy atheist that no one liked, one was a less edgy atheist that had a couple of friends, and one was a huge stoner that was almost always dabbed the fuck out. Outside of that no one had any sympathy for anything explicitly communist.
No, our worls shows that capitalsim does NOT work. For 1% yes. And the other 99%. You dont know the meaning of socialsim. There are many people that have ideas of a democratic socialsim. It can work, Dont believe waht they tell you. READ BOOKS
Maybe because they don't want to work for profit or other worldly possession, but rather to improve the field they working and gather knowledge for the good of humanity - all rather difficult, but in some other sense also easier, in a capitalist society.
Communism is the philosophy of envy and self-importance. So it's no wonder intellectuals, who see themselves as having a superior moral ground, support something aimed at the rich. You know, those who make six figures but didn't have to spend their life pursuing a phD
>if you follow the direction of Whig history to its endpoint, its logical conclusion, you get communism The logical conclusion of Whig history is me on a big pile of money with a harem of hot bitches, and the whole world obeying my orders. This is the logical end point of history, the most rational intellectual conclusion. Prove me wrong: pro-tip - you can't
>>606134 > I thought academics were supposed to be smart. They are.
>>607657 > Like when Russia was a super power and competing with the most powerful nation on earth for Nearly half a century? Was anyone else even holding a candle to the US during those 50 years? Totalitarian dictatorship successful here. Please, stop referring to USSR as dictatorship. There was only one successful attempt to become a dictator (Gorbachev) and he didn't last long.
Even Stalin was more of eminence grise, than an actual dictator.
> communism doesn't work, because eventually shit gets too big to be handled by what equates to anarchic communes. This is equivalent to claiming "democracy cannot work, once state becomes too big".
>>606134 Academic leftism moved past communism. The prominence of the second stage of economic activity gave way to the third stage, which shat all over these industrialism-oriented class distinctions in an undeniable and highly visible manner. Progressivism is carrying the torch now, but it is fractured in nature so it's not as obvious.
>>606134 Yeah because neoliberalism has turned out so much better. Thank God the Middle East isn't fucked up, structural violence isn't being increasingly entrenched and Wall Street didn't deliberately tank the global economy for profit and with impunity.
>>610341 You're a fucking retard if you think the Frankfurt school was some kind of cynical attempt to "take over the system" by laboring in relative obscurity for 70 years after getting your shit kicked in by the Nazis. This board is so fucking stupid.
>>607539 >calls it an encyclopedia >3 sentences in goes full HURR SOCIALISM IS DA WORST MOST VIOLENT CAPITALISM IS DA BEST Even if they end up being correct, they should be should for editorializing in what's meant to be an objective catalog of information.
>>610367 Where the fuck was I talking about the Frankfurt school? I mean people like Lenin, Luxemburg, Lunacharsky, Radek, Liebknecht, Landauer, Kamenev etc. All of them spoiled intelligentsia bitches and not workers.
>>610539 How is neoliberalism supposed to work anyways? Because near as I can tell all it does is keep poorer nations in perpetual debt to richer nations through austerity, under the guise of improving their infrastructure, to put them into even more debt and make the exploitation of their resources and labor easier for foreign nations.
Though if I just answered my own question, yeah, it works great.
>>611448 a nation cant rely solely on foreign investment to improve themselves, they also need a competent government intent on improving education and infrastructure and a populous willing to unite behind that goal.
>>611471 Generally neoliberalism involves extreme austerity that prevents the government from investing in public services, including and especially education, but promotes borrowing money for improving industrial related infrustrure, provided said infrastructure is used to improve the business interests of those nations lending the "aid", all while breaking their trade regulations, so any resulting competitive edge they may had or incidentally gain is nullified.
>why do intellectuals defend a political system that is, in practice, basically rule by intellectuals
That's what you are asking. It's like asking why businessmen sympathize with low taxes.
>inb4 not every intellectual is a communist
Don't be silly. Every intellectual is a communist. There is no such a thing as a non-communist intellectual. It's just that most of them have moved past outdated forms of communism, such as Stalinism and Maoism, and have gone into "Progressivism" or "Radical democracy"
Pic related. If you want to understand what the modern revolutionary communist movement, you have to read this book.
To be quite honest, pretty much every movement being or claiming to be Communist (as in including everything from actual Communism attempts to simple dictatorship attempts) has been fucked with by the opposing group ("the West") from the very beginning.
>>606567 >In most of the Western world, high school education is heavily biased towards communism and other left-wing ideologies. Just because the educators might not have swallowed the "dude only our ideology and way of life is correct lmao" pill and some might be sympathetic to left-wing ideologies (perfectly within their right) doesn't mean that Western HS education brainwashes kids to become ebil gommies that will take away all the hamburgers.
>>614710 >To be quite honest, pretty much every movement being or claiming to be Communist (as in including everything from actual Communism attempts to simple dictatorship attempts) has been fucked with by the opposing group ("the West") from the very beginning. This is literally a non-defense. >violently overthrow the state >impose a new state that declares itself adversarial to all non-aligned states >cry constantly when they reciprocate
>>606134 Communism offers the prospect of infinite theoretical masturbation while allowing the masturbator to believe his efforts are in furtherance of a grand and noble cause on behalf of the downtrodden.
It is a concoction that few intellectuals can resist.
>>607657 >So, yes, communism doesn't work, because eventually shit gets too big to be handled by what equates to anarchic communes. So capitalism works best when shit is handled by what equates to anarchic communities, but communism can't.
>You can't have your warehouse workers having a say in your software design decisions, and the like Because warehouse workers are itching to get into software debates with a bunch of nerds. And also somehow it's ok for investors to have a say about decisions related to software.
>>614710 >To be quite honest, pretty much every movement being or claiming to be Communist (as in including everything from actual Communism attempts to simple dictatorship attempts) has been fucked with by the opposing group ("the West") from the very beginning.
This just makes Communists sound like an ineffectual bunch of retards. How incompetent are you that a bit of interference fucks up your plans? People try to fuck with America, but they get BTFO
>>614724 >violently overthrow the state This didn't always happen. Also I think that use of violence results in at the very least a partial loss of legitimacy, whatever the reason, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the side that got targeted were dindus in the first place. And surely no one actually thinks that violent overthrow of a state justifies another violent overthrow of another state. I'm obviously not defending states like Khmer Rogue's Cambodia, by the way. Thought I made that obvious with the mention of Communist pretenders. >impose a new state that declares itself adversarial to all non-aligned states Nope, the Third World was a thing, or at least it tried to be before both big Communist and Capitalist guys decided that non-alignment was the greatest sin ever. You do know that the term did not originally designate poor countries, of course. >cry constantly when they reciprocate This also depends on the reasons for reciprocation. Did they act solely for the benefit of the victims to protect them from oppression, or did they simply do whatever would benefit themselves most? Because, like, the West sure as hell didn't lift a finger when Cambodians were being butchered. This also suggests that the West's reciprocations made the concerned countries better than before the whole revolutionary story, which is simply false.
As a closing note, a lot of the "communism didn't work ok" sentiment comes from people who have never left their ivory tower communities. Example, ask any Georgian (who is not a rich mafia type and who has actually lived in the Communist era) which were the better times- the dark ages of commie dictatorship, or the paradise of free enterprise and democracy? Things are much more complicated than just "dude it works/doesn't work" and "DUDE IT'S ANOTHER 6 TRILLION".
>>606134 >What's up with all the communist sympathizers within western humanities? The Libertarian Cato institute actually researched into this.
It's not that the humanities like Communism so much, it's more that they hate Capitalism in the regard that Capitalism only knows the monetary measurement of success. And the things the humanities deem good aren't always those which are economically successful.
>"you just haven't read Marx" >"oh you just haven't read (obscure socialist author)" >"you need to read these before you even debate me we can't just debate objective facts from any old source now" >"you must use entirely Marxist sources to disprove Marxism what's that you can't haha well looks like I win again"
Also, why does no one point out that the merchants, traders, and businessmen throughout the ages have always been hated by everyone? The nobles hated them because they were rich without being royalty, the peasants hated them for what they thought were high prices (despite them not being able to deliver those goods without those prices *sometimes*), the church hated wealth because it was a sign you were more interested in this world than the next. Marx is just a more modern part of a thread that has been woven throughout human history, and that thread is that the hatred for those who facilitate the production and transportation of material goods.
Academics, with their Western emphasis on humanism, misunderstand the benefits of trade and increased production as base greed rather than self-preservation (man's gotta eat, while the Ivory Tower academic knows his meals are guaranteed the rest of us must produce or provide services to survive) and an interest in improving one's material conditions. They are, like all other groups that have looked down on trade, entirely removed from the processes behind it and the day-to-day benefits it brings, and they have no problem only seeing what they want to see in it.
Most people, even intelligent ones, are incapable of the empathy required to try to even bother understanding people who are unlike themselves. Feels bad man.
>>616475 If Marxist historical conclusions are inevitable then objective historical research should show that. Hell, even anti-Marxist historians would be hard pressed to hide the results if it was objectively true. The fact is that Marxist historical analysis is very, very bad. It's too generalized and jumps to conclusions; it is biased towards its conclusions, adding an extra level of uncertainty to its "findings."
But no, instead of being able to discuss history I'm always told to read some Marxist who "interprets" the history correctly. I'm told I need to go hunt down and read some 400 page drivel before I can even discuss something with you idiots.
In order to be an atheist I don't need to read the Bible and every single work from Christian theology's Greatest Hits album. We can discuss facts, each presenting things as we go rather than just telling the other person to go read seven books and get back to me.
The Marxist is always using the worst form special pleading, that I must disprove their historical narrative by using their historical narrative, but that I can only get that narrative after plowing through 3,000 pages of text. It's asinine.
>>616480 >alienating him from his labour >le profit is theft meme
You propose living hand-to-mouth without profits. Profits ensure businesses stay open and expand, ensuring the worker is able to labor in the future. Lack of profits is a sign society doesn't want/need a business, which directs resources elsewhere. Profits are not bad, and a lack of profits can be good from a societal standpoint too.
>>606134 All people are not the same, people ascribe to different systems because of their circumstance, back ground, education, culture, family, etc. The number of permutations pushes people to different conclusions.
Yours is no more correct than theirs, all systems work in the utopian examples we produce in our minds because we think we could convince everyone else, unless they are too stupid to understand us, to join us. Putting those who dont agree into the stupid category is childish when there are no proofs available or will be available. Its normal fantasising, no different from imagining you are a spaceman.
>>616826 >Even though I lied, I think what I said is true.
I know around 500 humanities academics. Of those, around 10 are communists.
Your expression "lefties" is puerile. If we use a strong typology derived from support for proletarian self-liberation versus support for continued capitalism as the left-right denominators, I'd say that maybe 10% of humanities academics are in anyway left, and most of those are centre-left greens or social democrats.
As I've said previously: I know more communists in business schools than in humanities faculties.
>>616847 >Your anecdote is a lie, because my anecdote is true.
I guess lefties is unclear, but I'm on 4chan, so I don't mind tossing around a word like that.
To be more specific, I am speaking of anyone on the American left, period.
Academia is further left than the average American, and I am positing that humanities departments are further left than the rest of the academy.
My anecdote is pretty meaningless, yes, but so is yours, and while I'm glad you were able to pull 10% out of your ass given your chosen typology, please don't pull a number out of your ass now that I've clarified what I mean when I say "lefties."
My anecdote was not a lie, and calling it fedora tier was not an admission of falsehood on my part but an admission that my perception might be biased.
If your best answer is "Your anecdote is poor and based on my larger sample size anecdote I am assuming you are incorrect," I will take that and accept that maybe things are not so skewed.
Otherwise you were better off having said nothing to begin with.
>>616912 Did you really just ignore the whole middle of the sentence where I said that calling it fedora tier was an admission of bias, NOT an admission of falsehood?
I only refer to it as fedora tier because a joke was made about cheetos on my ballsack, and I know that an implicit assumption about the entire field is as compelling as a STEMfag criticizing humanities for qualia. I admitted pretty much outright that it was a weak question, but the response was weak as well.
>>616911 That's a fair criticism, but I do not know how to better indicate the leftward direction on the political spectrum without becoming TOO narrow.
>>616923 >but I do not know how to better indicate the leftward direction on the political spectrum without becoming TOO narrow. And yet you reject the typology presented which is simple and strongly supported.
Might want to think about that. What you ACTUALLY mean is you find the particular kind of right wing ideology spouted by humanities academics to be distasteful to you.
>>616931 Well, I reject it only because I think it is too narrow. Those greens and democratic socialist supporters mentioned belong with Marxists as far as determining whether or not the humanities are further left than the rest of academia. But obviously that is difficult to nail down, and I understand why we might want to use the typology you presented for the purpose of clarity.
Anyway, you may be right about that last bit, though I think that what would be blinding me is that I am not aware of any prominent humanities scholars who are spouting right wing ideology, while I am aware of at least a handful (I won't say a lot because who knows what a lot is) that spout an ideology that would be categorized as left wing (be it demsoc, marxism, etc).
This is probably leading to me thinking that the humanities are somehow further left.
If you could point me in the direction of prominent humanities scholars who spout right wing ideology, that would likely fix my lopsided view.
>>616949 >Those greens and democratic socialist supporters mentioned belong with Marxists as far as determining whether or not the humanities are further left than the rest of academia. I included them because their position stands in a fabian way for self-emancipation. 12%.
>If you could point me in the direction of prominent humanities scholars who spout right wing ideology, that would likely fix my lopsided view. Almost all of the post-modernists support R2P style liberalism.
>>606134 >What's up with all the communist sympathizers within western humanities? >I can understand in the 40s and 50s, but wouldn't they learn after communism turned into a colossal failure? >I thought academics were supposed to be smart.
Your depiction of what goes on within the academia is wrong. Similarly, it is wrong the depiction of academics as hateful atheists.
Usually, they are very understandable people. Where I come from, everybody who is in the humanities dealt with Marxism at some stage of their lives. The most intellectually pleasing position, in my opinion, distinguishes Marxism, Communism and Socialism in general as an ideology from Marxism as the scientific project of some researchers.
Consequently, there are tenets of Marxism you cannot ignore. But it would be stupid not to consider the following history, the subsequent economical discovery, etc.
So, what I am saying, is that academics are likely to be scattered all across the board. E.g. many are liberals in the purest sense (not liberals in the sense of "American Republicans"). Others are communism-friendly... but certainly not friendly with the form of communism that was developed by Stalin. >Communism failed. But what communism failed? That's the kind of thing you hear around, and I think it is a very widespread idea in America. So, there are different ways you can fail: - Implementation - Competition - Corruption - They lost the fight. So now you're standing on a pedestal and you see the people who "lost" the marathon. I despise this kind of thinking according to which only things that survived up to today are worthy of consideration. What are you arguing? Are you arguing that history is a sort of competition? Are you arguing that politics is an either/or thing? Black/White? Win/Lose? What are you? A social darwinist who thinks that economical systems that eventually took over are necessarily "the best ones"?
Many academics do not easily dismiss communism, in the same way they do not easily dismiss libertarianism. Of course, when they speak up against conservatives who go around shouting: "muh duh everything public spending = evil"... when they speak up with reasons against the portrayal of welfare as necessarily evil or the portrayal of everything public as doomed to fail... well, once they speak up against propaganda, it is easy to label them as commies and lefties. But truth is that speaking up against fascists, conservatives or reactionary forces does not make you a communist. Just a free man with an informed opinion.
So I don't really see your point. Communism is a huge movement with a lot of ideology but also a lot on research on lifestyles and economics. What's wrong with this?
It's like, say, claiming anarchy as failed because there is no anarchist state. Are you aware that some anarchic thinking actually applies to certain social strata or localized realities? And would you call me an anarchist just because I maintain that? Well, you'd better just rely on evidence and not just tradition or easy-to-attach labels. You will discover academics are more complex beings than what they look to you.
>>616847 Not OP or the guy you're replying to, but
>thinking income inequality is inherently a bad thing >hating imperialism and colonialism so much it's laughable >onsidering religion to be downright evil >thinking all history can be explained through class struggle >considering races and gender roles to be social constructs invented by "da man" to divide the common folk >critical theory (a Neo-Marxist school of thought) on steroids
This is all common in the humanities academia. I don't think you have to be full WORKER REVOLUTION NOW, SEIZE THE PRODUCTION MEANS! type of batshit insane hardline Marxist to be called a "communist sympathizer" or a leftie.
It's gonna be really funny when the West steps willingly into communism while us Easterlings look at you in disbelief. See you in 50 years when the tables will have turned completely and you're jumping the fence to monocultural Czech, Hungary, Croatia, etc to escape the hellhole your leftist academia has sponsored
>>612486 not him, but it pretty much is. the debtor status of third world nations existed before the 1980s but during and after this decade is when the IMF started actively promoting austerity as a panacea, as that poster describes.
>>616597 Not every fringe group has something intelligent to offer which brings one to change one's worldview. You could just as easily argue not accepting ayy lmaos is another example of "reinforcing one's preexisting worldview."
>>607657 >Russia was a super power Russia didn't exist. >competing In what? Living standards? Not really. They only competed in armament and raping third-world countries. In every other aspect, Soviet Union was lagging behind every other Western capitalist state. Or even Asian ones like South Korea or Japan. It doesn't matter that the state is powerful, state is a tool of people, not the opposite. Same goes for Cuba.
>something that calls itself communism, but was not the result of a proletarian revolution, and has few of the characteristics of communism is communism because it calls itself communism >if you argue otherwise no true scotsman fallacy
Thread replies: 182 Thread images: 18
Thread DB ID: 477111
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.