Do you actually have to read all of the cultural marxists authors

I miss this game. Is this game history?

>>2770366
coming from someone who went through a long phase of "i don't need to read original texts, i'll just understand them indirectly through handbooks lmao", you will not possess a true understanding of x until you read their original work

>>2770366
I've read a lot of Marxist books already because I went through a leftist phase in my teens. I still have a copy of Anti-Oedipus somewhere. (Not a good book, avoid).

>>2770366
Can someone give me a quick rundown of the Sokal affair?

Sokal was only able to parody them so effectively because he read them.

I would say no, but given that of your three examples not one is an actual Marxist, you probably should.

>>2771132
First he published intentional gibberish that got praised by marxist academia.

After that he made a book that took passages from Lacan, Deleuze, Barthes, Derrida etc, their own words, dissected it and exposed it as sophism at best and dangerous nonsense at worst.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense

Now, mind you, this had no effect on cultural marxism, postmodern academia or post-structuralism (which are for all intents and purposes, the same thing). They are still in full swing even magnified by the all encompassing power of clickbait media. Perhaps the best approach was the one that Searle took to Derrida's work:

>...anyone who reads deconstructive texts with an open mind is likely to be struck by the same phenomena that initially surprised me: the low level of philosophical argumentation, the deliberate obscurantism of the prose, the wildly exaggerated claims, and the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity by making claims that seem paradoxical, but under analysis often turn out to be silly or trivial.

Actually reading these people thoroughly would mean to waste precious life time.

this >>2772198
I don't understand special relativity, but at any time I can look up the basic concepts behind it and they make sense, I can find experimental evidence on youtube or something random by students from China.

Yet postmodernists, conspiracy theorists, Stephen Molyneux fanboys and multi-level marketing schemes demand you watch a 3 hour video or read 15 tomes which fall short very quickly.

>>2772234
It's worth noting that it's also an anti-enlightement movement. The greatest advances in dialectics when it comes to western philosophy were made before Hegel came into play or (worthless) German philosophy of the XIX century. Wittgenstein did his best to salvage western thought from this ruination, but then Soviet Union got exposed as nothing more than a giant gulag and French salon dwellers had to move from economics to culture.

What I mean when I say it's against clarity is that they openly derride clear, cohesive argument as being simplistic.

File: 1492368369016.jpg (158KB, 1200x1515px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1200x1515px

>>2772234
Personally, I have started reading Barthes because I was interested in semiotics. First page introduced a non sequitur argument, second page took it for granted, third page drew a graph based on this piece of 'evidence' and then the text demanded of the reader to memorize this graph as if it was a physics formula. What followed were similar arbitrative assumptions where author seemed to have some innate knowledge of the world (a list has exactly 4 principles, not 3, not 5, not 2224342, it has 4. Why? No one knows). It was easy to see that it was just gibberish from the only reasonable stance someone actually interested in philosophy can take, and that is one of proper argumentation. It's not even entertaining like solipsism can be.

>>2772198
Reading the Wiki articles you post yourself is apparently a waste of life time as well.

>>2772261
Delicious pasta.

>>2772198
Alright can you also give me a quick rundown of the Bogdanov affair?