Frankfurt School

>>370020
If you're a philosopher I suppose it isn't a waste of time. If you're a Marxist there are far better uses of your time, like Trotskyism, Maoism, Autonomism.

They're not really philosophers but closer to sociologists, and in that field they're fairly outdated. Read them for historical curiosity.

Well they hated western/white culture, that much is true. Even Habermaß fucked off because he got sick of their obesessive disdain and pessimism without constructive alternatives.
Adorno in particular was a "no fun allowed" piece of shit, literally thought we shouldnt have poetry because of muh holocaust

>>370020
>To what extent is this true?

It is not true at all and the irony is that Adorno and Horkheimer, especially the late Adorno were actually quite pessimistic, one could say almost conservative and were heavily attacked by the 68er in Germany, i.e. the socialist students who thought they were not radical enough and who considered Adorno to be reactionary.

And it is definitely worth the time to study Critical Theory, especially during this day and age, in which biologism is very popular.

To give you a short example: these days, people debate wether there is a gay gene or not, if people chose to be gay or not, and see the existence of a gay gene as something that legitimizes homosexuality whereas the absence of it would delegitimize it.

Critical Theory / "Frankfurt School", would ask, wait a second, why are they even put in a position in which they have to legitimate their desires and then find it necessary to find the cause of them in their biological machinery? This is an important shift.

Or antisemitism. Many anti-antisemities in their time tried to refute antisemitic theories about race etc while critical theory asked: why is there so much research on that topic to begin with?

And so on.
Critical Theory will get you into trouble with both /pol and many modern liberals, atheists and the like.

Worth a read. The more intelligent right-wingers (you don't find on meme-based pol) aren't actually all opposed to it. Especially Adorno's view on modern culture and the "kulturindustrie" are actually endorsed by many modern right-wingers.

>>370045

And another thing maybe:

Whereas Hitler believed in kind of a natural state (critical theory would always warn when people begin with "natural" and "biology" etc) of conflict between races that could temporarily be won but never be ended, people like Vladimir Lenin were rather cynics than haters and believed in violence not as a natural state but as a way to finally end all other violence, until it would not be necessary anymore. This is a tendency we have from the french revolution (you have the same attitude in Sarastro in Mozart's Magic Flut) to Lenin.

But the Frankfurt School broke with that optimistic, "progressive" tradition. And the "dialectic of enlightenment" describes very much that kind of pessimism: no, it doesn'T simply get better, there is no simple kind of progress.

Adorno said something like that progess so far was basically the progress from the slingshot to WMD.

And this is what brought them into conflicts with socialists of the Marxist-Leninist tradition but also got them some endorsement from more intelligent right-wingers. (again, you won't find them on pol tho)

Sure, they saw their work in the tradition of enlightenment but they weren't blind opitmists etc etc

>>370084
>>370045
But why should I care about what they have to say? Whenever I read something by one of these people I just feel bored. They just make trite observations about the modern world, and they're not even original ones. Also:

>
To give you a short example: these days, people debate wether there is a gay gene or not, if people chose to be gay or not, and see the existence of a gay gene as something that legitimizes homosexuality whereas the absence of it would delegitimize it.

>Critical Theory / "Frankfurt School", would ask, wait a second, why are they even put in a position in which they have to legitimate their desires and then find it necessary to find the cause of them in their biological machinery? This is an important shift.

I don't think that's a shift at all. I think you've constructed a false dichotomy between critical theory and institutional science, probably due to a misunderstanding of the way institutional science works. I find your out of hand rejection of 'biologism,' which I assume amounts go nothing more than the belief that the study of biology can yield useful information, unacceptable. Are you implying that research into the causes of homosexuality shouldn't be conducted, or that it's somehow unacceptable to suggest that sexual orientation has a genetic component? Honestly, this is a more troubling attitude than one that demands an explanation for sexual orientations. Even Foucault didn't outright reject as unethical or necessarily objectionable the modern institutions that construct the discourse of bourgeois sexuality. He wasn't stupid enough to think that being a product of power relations means that something can't be a net positive force in society. I get the impression the Frankfurt school never grasped this.

>>370045
>Critical Theory / "Frankfurt School", would ask, wait a second, why are they even put in a position in which they have to legitimate their desires and then find it necessary to find the cause of them in their biological machinery? This is an important shift.
An important shift towards anti-intellectualism.

I'm so glad biology is making a comeback and will soon render the social "sciences" obsolete.

>>370045
I hope you are not le serious

frankfurt jews are responsible for every modern day ism that is the shithole we call modern academia

the holocaust never happened, but if it had happened, it would have been justified with the extermination of these cvcks

>>370026
Social Scientists.
Sociology is a very anglo-american branch of social science.

File: 1449223099117.gif (790KB, 375x304px) Image search: [Google]

790KB, 375x304px

>>370131
>Social
>Science
Typical Euro not understanding the limits of science and pushing societal engineering on everyone else. Enjoy your new USSR: More Islam Edition.

>>370123
>Are you implying that research into the causes of homosexuality shouldn't be conducted, or that it's somehow unacceptable to suggest that sexual orientation has a genetic component?

I am implying that there is no such thing as "objective", "hard" and "neutral" science, and propose a shift towards asking, for example, why that "science" takes place, who funds it for example, who publishes it.

Why is x funded, x published, x asked - and not y or z. Why is not, for instance, research into the cause of heterosexuality conducted or published and widespread.

The same is true for, say, IQ testing. Sure, you can debate if it's true that black people are more stupid or not or something - but you could also try to look behind the curtain. Who has an interest in debates about if black people are stupid, less intelligent or not. Etc.

File: tmp_28294-quote-Theodor-Adorno-in-the-end-glorification-of-splendid-underdogs-110608_1-215716875.png (82KB, 1000x620px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1000x620px

>>370020
They were sympathetic towards Zionism, that much is true, but that's not why /pol/ hates them. They hate them because of the meme that they were anti-white, or anti-western, which is absolutely untrue.
If you're interested in a challenging philosophical analysis of fascism and late capitalist society, you should definitely check them out.
>>370036
Hey, you always post this, why are you lying?

>>370136
>Using scientific method to study social phenomena
>not social scientists

It can't be used to totally map how society works, it can however be used to give us useful information for governance and for seeing whether or not social and political theory is correct.

>>370140
So the philosophy of the frankfurt school is literally to shift the goalposts?

>>370140
>>370140
>I am implying that there is no such thing as "objective", "hard" and "neutral" science

For OP: this is another improtant part of critical theory btw: they would never deny to be "partisan" and were opposed to the idea of pretending to be neutral etc - but instead tried to raise their voice for those who are disadvantaged, not heard etc

>>370150
>goalposts

If I understand that saying correctly now, then yes.
Change the perspective, work towards a goal.
This however is classicaly Marxist I guess then.
Not just interpret but change history etc

>>370140
>I am implying that there is no such thing as "objective", "hard" and "neutral" science, and propose a shift towards asking, for example, why that "science" takes place, who funds it for example, who publishes it.
But what is the point of asking that? People fund mathematical research in order to advance mathematical research. There's no hidden agenda.

>>370158
>work towards a goal.
What goal?

>>370161

well mathematical research is hardly the same as research into race, intelligence...

when it comes to those things, there definitely is an agenda and there implicatins that will affect people's lives

>>370165

Well, for instance to prevent another holocaust.

>>370140
>
I am implying that there is no such thing as "objective", "hard" and "neutral" science, and propose a shift towards asking, for example, why that "science" takes place, who funds it for example, who publishes it.
I'm not saying those aren't good questions, but they were asked long before the Frankfurt school existed by better thinkers, and I don't see why I should cafe about their methods of formulating them, which basically comes down to asking how phenomenon X resembles fascism and how fascism can be excised from the phenomenon. It really does seem like you literally haven't heard of the philosophy of science, much like others who read critical theory and decide they've found a narrative worth clinging to. I don't know you think I would associate institutional science with hardness, objectivity, or neutrality; my question was about whether or not you thought the research could be done. For some reason, you seem to think we can have knowledge of social noumena, but not physical phenomena, even though I can observe and accept the effect of gravity on my cell phone much more easily than I can observe, I dunno, most social phenomena that a social scientist would have to observe before accepting. I'm not even arguing that induction is an infallible process, so don't whip out muh Hume like that's a way out. I'm talking about gaining practically useful information about the world.

>>370168
>well mathematical research is hardly the same as research into race, intelligence...
But how do you define wha is acceptable research and unacceptable research? Seems arbitrary to me.

>>370172
So it's pure jewish self-interest?

>>370172
Why should a discourse constructed on the assumption that the Holocaust is indefensible be taken seriously? why should a disourse that aims to change human natire to the point that mass murder no longer occurs be seen as anything but escapism?

>>370178
>So it's pure jewish self-interest?
1. That was an example.
2. Not only Jews were killed in the holocaust.

>>370190
But they focus so heavily on antisemitism and their own Jewish identity that it's hard to take seriously the idea that they cared as much about Catholic Poles as they did about Ukrainian Jews.

>>370165
The destruction of the white race and Western civilization

>>370182
>change human natire
I didn't realise we were having a discussion on spooks.

>>370195
No they didn't.

>>370190
>1. That was an example.
Why do they posit that the holocaust was a bad thing? Seems rather ideological, for self-styled anti-ideology intellectuals.

>2. Not only Jews were killed in the holocaust.
jews were the most affected

>>370201
Is it really explicitly said? I should probably read their work because it's hard to disentangle the truth from the stormfaggotry.

>>370202
I didn't realize I was talking to an idiot who isn't willing to admit that all human beings are human beings, by definition.

>>370205
What? Are you saying they weren't deeply indebted to Jewish thought, or that they cared about Poles?

>all that complete ignorance ITT
You guys are familiar with the concept that unless you know something about a given subject, you shouldn't be talking about it?

Anyway, y'all need to read this before you can feel entitled to an opinion:

http://www.heathwoodpress.com/max-horkheimer-traditional-and-critical-theory/

>>370211
A denial of a specific human nature is not a denial of your meaningless tautology.
>>370213
I am saying that they did not heavily focus upon their Jewish identity (anymore than any Jewish intellectual), which is not the same thing as being heavily indebted to Jewish thought.

>theory
Is there a better way to tell a charlatan is a charlatan than by counting the number of times he or she uses this word without references to facts?

>>370220
Yes there is: if they make cheap comments that are made to get an inflamed reaction.

>>370195
> But they focus so heavily on antisemitism and their own Jewish identity that it's hard to take seriously the idea that they cared as much about Catholic Poles as they did about Ukrainian Jews.

You're a moron.

>>370225
Do you know what the word "charlatan" means? A person making cheap comments isn't promoting any ideology.

>>370219
It's impossible to have a coherent society in which no two members are recognized as belonging to the same species. Human nature is simply the qualities humans have in common that allow them to organize into societies. This argument is tedious, though, and I know you abide by a narrative that doesn't like words like form, essence, or nature.

Whether or not they focused on being Jewish, their focus on the anti-Jewish nature of the Holocaust makes it hard to take seriously the idea that their Jewish identity had no impact on their work and worldviews.

Don't listen to these people giving you brainwashed arguments. I've got an infograph somewhere that proves these guys wasn't all whites dead and invented feminism and interracial sex.

>>370230
Nice false flagging, redd/lit/

>>370229
>their focus on the anti-Jewish nature of the Holocaust makes it hard to take seriously the idea that their Jewish identity had no impact on their work and worldviews
How so, this focus is pretty common, for reasons that should be obvious. The jews happened to be the only group destined for complete destruction, and the agenda of their destruction was a cornerstone of nazi ideology.

>>370130
[citation needed]

>>370227
>>370234
It's a focus that gets in the way of the other atrocities involved. The Poles and Slavs were destined for slavery. Extermination isn't much worse than perpetual subjugation. And it isn't like Poles and Slavs weren't murdered en masse.

>>370228
A charlatan isn't someone who promotes an ideology.
>>370229
>and I know you abide by a narrative that doesn't like words like form, essence, or nature.
Try not to make unsubstantiated claims, I am not a Marxist.
>>370229
>the idea that their Jewish identity had no impact on their work and worldviews.
Nobody made this claim.

>>370242
>A charlatan isn't someone who promotes an ideology.
Correct, a charlatan is someone who promotes an ideology which isn't based on any facts. See : critical theorists.

File: pol.jpg (65KB, 1119x776px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1119x776px

>>370230
Don't fear fellow /his/torian, I'm here to help. Pic related is my master thesis presented as a infograph.

>>370234
>The jews happened to be the only group destined for complete destruction, and the agenda of their destruction was a cornerstone of nazi ideology.

It was Germany for Germans and Jews happened to be the biggest obstacle towards that end. Do note how Jews only started dropping dead in bulk once the war was in full swing for years.

>>370240
>It's a focus that gets in the way of the other atrocities involved.
This is a valid criticism, but their arguments can be applied to other genocidal ideologies. Zizek himself focuses upon their lack of criticism of Communist totalitarianism. It is more a criticism of consistency rather than their methods.

>>370245
So any religion.

>>370245
Wrong again. One can be a charlatan without expressing an ideology. Point out an example of their charlatanry. I would like a sourced example that you have criticised yourself.

>>370240
What focus? What major works of Adorno or Horkheimer focus on that? The only major work they both have worked on are argubly are the dialectics of the enlightenment (don't know the english translation) and you can't seriously argue that it's somehow more about jews than polish Catholics, considering how broad it is.

>>370242
>I am not a Marxist
Why did you get so mad when I mentioned human nature, then?
>Nobody made this claim
I'm just emphasizing the effect their identity had on their perspectives. Unless you're denying a connection, I don't see why you took issue with my initial claim that their Jewishness affected their views on the Holocaust.

>>370240
>It's a focus that gets in the way of the other atrocities involved. The Poles and Slavs were destined for slavery. Extermination isn't much worse than perpetual subjugation. And it isn't like Poles and Slavs weren't murdered en masse
You're full of shit, and here's why: 1. They weren't historians, so their goal wasn't to deliver a complete picture of events. Instead their goal was an analysis of the socio-economic and cultural factors that made the holocaust possible. And the thing that needs to be explained most urgently was not, why were the nazis colonial aggressors towards the slavs, which is a thing that has many parallels in recent western history, but why were they hellbent on the cpmplete destruction of the jews of europe, which is anything but common for a civilized country.

>>370256
Yes, I believe this about religions too.

>>370257
>Wrong again. One can be a charlatan without expressing an ideology. Point out an example of their charlatanry.
I haven't read a single thing from the frankfurt school, but the inability of the pro-frankfurters ITT to even define what critical theory is, what are its goals and what is its logical basis makes me very sceptical.

>>370261
>Why did you get so mad when I mentioned human nature, then?
I didn't get mad, I was meming. You are opening a can of worms when you introduce human nature into a discussion on marxism.
>>370261
>I don't see why you took issue with my initial claim that their Jewishness affected their views on the Holocaust.
I didn't deny this because this wasn't the point you made, you said they focuse upon their Jewish identity, this is an entirely different thing. They just use the examples which are known to them.

>>370252
The argument should be applied to any genocide. Zizek makes a good criticism. I would also claim that Zizek himself often fails to provide an adequate account of the political phenomena he uses to demonstrate his theories, but that's a claim for a different thread.
>>370260
I'm talking about Holocaust scholarship in general at this point. The Frankfurters were all Jewish. If you seriously want to deny that this influenced their views on the event, I'm not going to bother replying to you. The demonization of fascism and antisemitism is part of a broader focus on anti-Nazi narratives focused more on perpetuating liberal or socialist narratives than in providing an account of what happened to Jews during WWII.

>>370260
Well to be fair it has an -insanely insightful- chapter on antisemitism.

>>370270
>I haven't read a single thing from the frankfurt school,
So don't make posts about them.
>>370270
>pro-frankfurters ITT
You can defend a viewpoint from falsehoods without adhering to that viewpoint.
>>370270
>what critical theory is, what are its goals
1. You can always pick up a book.
2. They disagreed amongst themselves (like every philosophical school)
3. Many examples have been provided, just read the thread.
4. People's descriptions of a book are never going to compare to the book itself.

>>370269
>They weren't historians
So I guess they can be forgiven for disregarding history. Oh, wait--no.
>but why were they hellbent on the cpmplete destruction of the jews of europe, which is anything but common for a civilized country.
But that isn't true. The Holocaust was just an industrial scale continuation of the classic 'kick out the Jews' motif, common in 'civilized' countries for centuries. The idea that modern or civilized (which of these do you mean when you say 'civilized', by the way?) Societies shouldn't commit atrocities or that these atrocities aren't common because IT'S THE CURRENT YEAR are ludicrous. The Rwandan genocide and the Balkans wars prove this. ISIS may not be civilized by your definition, but they're commuting genocide. It seems like it actually is pretty common for one group to try to exterminate another in the modern world.

>>370284
>So don't make posts about them.
I'm curious and want to learn about them through people who have read them. The fact that the only posts coming from pro-frankfurters are "ur dumb shut up" kinda comforts be in the intellectual bankruptcy of critical theory.

>1. You can always pick up a book.
I could, but if critical theory is this rational and logical thing you probably wouldn't have too much trouble explaining it.

I mean this is hilarious. I'm asking for information and you're are UNABLE to provide any.

>>370141
Adorno was also the first one to whine about Heidegger being le evil nazi and how his philosophy is fascist, when really he was a fucking hippy who used leftist vocabulary and had leftist friends and leftist students

>>370290
>So I guess they can be forgiven for disregarding history
As I said before you dense bastard, their purpose was not a complete account, which doesn't mean they disregarded anything at all.
>some silly rant about atrocities in third world places
See, that's the point you, and all the stormfags are missing: the Frankfurt School -like all non-maoist marxists btw- had an extremely high regard for western civilization. Warlords slaughtering innocents, that's fucking normal, and western civilitation is supposed to be a remedy for that. So if the country of Kant, Hegel and Beethoven starts doing that shit, on an industrial scale no less, this is a thing that quite urgently needs to be explained.

>>370299
M8, Heidegger was literally a nazis, as in, an open supporter of Hitler, wtf are you talking about?

>>370293
So have you basically ignored all the other points of my post, which actually adress your criticisms.
>>370293
>I'm curious and want to learn about them through people who have read them.
No you don't, you obviously want to inflame people.

Critical Theorists have sought to distinguish their aims and methodsvfrom standard understandings ofnatural and the social science. They claim that social inquiry ought to combine poles of philosophy and social science: explanation and understanding, structure and agency, regularity and normativity. Such an approach allows practicality in a distinctively moral sense. They seek to achieve emancipation from domination and oppression. This normative task is to be accomplished between philosophy and social science through interdisciplinary empirical social research.

>>370023
were not in the 1960s anymore

>>370323
>i mean come on! It's the current year!

>>370320
>So have you basically ignored all the other points of my post,
What points? The frankfurters disagreed among themselves? So do classical economists, but that doesn't prevent me from giving a short summary of the ideas behind classical economics. Goodness gracious what a shitty copout.

>No you don't, you obviously want to inflame people.
Oh I wasn't aware you were a mind reader.

You lefty-types are insufferable in your arrogance and stupidity. I hope you all fail to reproduce.

> They seek to achieve emancipation from domination and oppression.
What domination? What oppression?

This sounds like rehashed pseudo-marxism, without any of the economic analysis. I.e., total garbage.

>>370141

Yep, because Authoritarian personality tests are totally valid and offer legitimate analysis of Fascism.

>>370363
I don't see much wrong with that study desu.

>>370310
>Warlords slaughtering innocents, that's fucking normal, and western civilitation is supposed to be a remedy for that. So if the country of Kant, Hegel and Beethoven starts doing that shit, on an industrial scale no less, this is a thing that quite urgently needs to be explained.
The explanation is pretty obvious: the West is ethically unexceptional. I'm sorry, but you're only making my point for me: you're disregarding facts that don't fit your narrative about Western exceptionalism. You're throwing out chunks of history like the Holocaust that conflict with the Notion of the West as not bloodthirsty.
The Balkans are second-world, by the way, or at least Yugoslavia was when it existed.

>>370020
So, anons on /his/ acknowledge that this was a school of thought. What the fuck is up in modern times with people denying that this school of thought even exists legitimately or is a conspiracy theory?

>>370373
>the West is ethically unexceptional
The very notions of human rights, legal equality, individual autonomy etc etc are distinctly western. Sorry, but if you don't understand what sets nazi germany apart from some shithole in a state of civil war, there's hardly any point in talking to you.
>the balkans are second world
Get your shit together, second world was the term for the soviet block, of which neither yugoslavia nor albania were part.

>>370350
>Oh I wasn't aware you were a mind reader.
Throwing yourself into the thread by calling the Frankfrut School charaltans and then proceeding to admit you haven't read any of them is obviously inflamatory, so is writing that you hope I don't reproduce. I am also not a leftist.

Critical theory must meet three criteria: explanatory, practicality, and normativity. It must explain what is wrong with society, identify the changes needed, and provide norms for criticism and standards to enact said change. It seeks overcome all potential limits to human freedom, the explanatory goal is furthered through interdisciplinary research that includes psychological, cultural, and social studies. Horkheimer believed that a capitalist society could be transformed only by becoming more democratic, to make it such that all conditions of social life are controllable by a real human consensus.

To go into specific examples would be to lead you away from the general goal, they seek the identification and elimination of any obstacle to human freedom. They have a free notion of freedom, like hegel, in that freedom is defined as the removal of obstacles.

>>370374
No one denies that it was a school of thought, what people are denying is the conspiracy theory that it was a sinister conspiracy for white genocide.

>>370381
>The very notions of human rights, legal equality, individual autonomy etc etc are distinctly western. Sorry, but if you don't understand what sets nazi germany apart from some shithole in a state of civil war, there's hardly any point in talking to you.
I wouldn't contest that, but I also don't think we can exclude wartime Germany from things that are explicitly Western.
It isn't important which economic sphere the Balkans are in. What's important is your attempt to isolate particular events, such as the Holocaust, as exceptional. They aren't exceptional; they're just events. The Holocaust was committed by Westerners. Westerners may have come up with human rights and the rule of law, but that doesn't mean they necessarily abide by them.

>>370045
>these days, people debate wether there is a gay gene or not, if people chose to be gay or not, and see the existence of a gay gene as something that legitimizes homosexuality
Mostly because they don't understand biology. There almost certainly isn't a "gay gene" any more than there is a "nose gene", There are sets of genes that activate in specific patterns that cause certain specific phenotypic trends under specific conditions. Homosexuality is probably caused by a number of different genes interacting in a number of ways in a number of different populations, and some of it is probably epigenetic. Sometimes, it is useful to simplify these patterns down to "x gene causes y", but you shouldn't confuse that with reality.

The solution to ignorance isn't to sweep it under the rug, it's knowledge.

>>370395
>He thinks he can know things
The Munchausen trilemma would like a word with you

>>370399
Okay, but pretending to know things sure is more convenient and useful than assuming you can't know things. Aspirin sure is a neat invention born out of a million different assumptions that magically seem to work.

>>370395
>The solution to ignorance isn't to sweep it under the rug, it's knowledge
But it's so much easier to criticize than to research.

>>370393
>but I also don't think we can exclude wartime Germany from things that are explicitly Western
Exactly. So you need some sort of theory that explains why a modern western society did a thing that seems downright neolithic. At best a theory that doesn't explain the event as a freak accident that has nothing to do with the broader western tradition, but as something that, somehow, emerged right from the seedy underbelly our very mode of civilization that we have right now. A theory that is motivated by the desire to actualize and realize western ethics, and show ways of preventing the decay that led up to the event in question, let's call it a holocaust for the sake of argument. A theory that has as its main operating procedure the immanent critique of our current way of life. A critical theory, if you will.
>Westerners may have come up with human rights and the rule of law, but that doesn't mean they necessarily abide by them
It is one thing to violate human rights, as all western countries do, and a quite different thing to stop at nothing to make sure an entire ethnic group gets murdered. Just saying.

>>370416
Honestly, I agree that it's useful for there to be criticism of the industry. Science isn't done in a vacuum, it's done by people with motivations and budgets. Things involving large sums of money are rarely completely apolitical. But it seems to me this criticism is mostly an excuse to whine and seem intellectual than any sincere desire to solve that specific problem.

>>370453
>Honestly, I agree that it's useful for there to be criticism of the industry.
I agree too.

I object to making criticizing your core philosophy...

>>370432
>So you need some sort of theory that explains why a modern western society did a thing that seems downright neolithic
I agree with this, but
>A theory that is motivated by the desire to actualize and realize western ethics, and show ways of preventing the decay that led up to the event in question, let's call it a holocaust for the sake of argument. A theory that has as its main operating procedure the immanent critique of our current way of life. A critical theory, if you will.
I think here you're making enormous assumptions about the capacity of 'critique' to change the world. You'll have to back up the claim that this is even a reasonable project to undertake; I don't see any reason to accept this idea that theoretical knowledge is the best way to stop these things, or is even capable of actualizing the Western ethos in a way that's more authentic than it already is.
>It is one thing to violate human rights, as all western countries do, and a quite different thing to stop at nothing to make sure an entire ethnic group gets murdered.
I would think that that counts as a violation of human rights, and not an exceptional case where millions of people were murdered by the state without their innate human rights being violated.

>>370316
I'm talking about his philosophy you degenerate retard. It has nothing to with fascism, but butthurt jews try to paint it as such so they can disregard it entirely.

File: 1449138542682.jpg (16KB, 428x364px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 428x364px

>>370479
>I'm talking about his philosophy you degenerate retard. It has nothing to with fascism
>Fascists actually believe this
He literally had Jews expelled from his classes

>>370493
He could have participated in the holocaust itself and it wouldn't change anything about his philosophy having nothing to do with fascism.

>what is genetic fallacy

>>370493
No, we don't. Don't take this pseudo-fascist neocon /pol/lution seriously.

>>370503
You don't think theoria and praxis complement each other?

>>370504
>pseudo-fascist neocon /pol/lution
so many buzzwords it hurts

>>370508
Neoconservatism is pseudofascism, though. It's all the bad parts of fascism without the national harmony.

>>370511
>Neoconservatism is pseudofascism
Of course not. There was nothing conservative about fascism in the first place. That's just the shitty stalinian interpretation.

>>370515
I don't see why you need to bring Stalin into this. I also don't see what that objection has to do with my lost. Neoconservatism and neoliberalism are both forms of pseudofascism. Maybe soft totalitarianism is a better term.

File: 1445754542670.png (198KB, 645x584px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 645x584px

>>370479
> It has nothing to with fascism
He used his philosophical ideas and lingo to promote Nazism. How on earth is that the game as not having anything to do with facism. Based on his theories about Dasein, the Germanic people trough Hitler had a very special mission to transform history.

I'm baffled. Is this even controversial?

>>370528
It is. The Nazis rejected Heidegger's philosophy. They actually did have an official philosopher who wasn't Heidegger. Your claim is on par with 'The Nazis wanted to create a race of Overmen because they took Nietzsche to heart.'

>>370538

> The Nazis

Nazis rejecting it doesn't mean his philosophical writing or the man himself (using his philosophical writing as justification) wasn't a supporter for fascism. And it's clear not all Nazis rejected his philosophy since he was one himself.

>>370515
>There was nothing conservative about fascism in the first place

How not? It is literally extreme-conservative. Like, "shut the fuck up you bourgeoisie and you workers, fuck off with your class interest. The only interest is the national one, and this will be made by sovereignty and order". "so take this shut-up-policy and accept our unique and hegemonic order to bring peace to all of us".

In a marxist perspective, fascism tried to kill the class struggle, which makes society to advance, in order to make a positive unity and extremely conservative of society.

>>370585
It's not conservative because the government has so much power
t. American

>>370559
Well,
>Based on his theories about Dasein, the Germanic people trough Hitler had a very special mission to transform history.
What did you mean by this?

>>370525
>I don't see why you need to bring Stalin into this
Because "anti-fascism" was a central tenet in soviet expansionism.

I mentioned him because you're quite clearly one of his "useful idiots".

> Neoconservatism and neoliberalism are both forms of pseudofascism.
You quite clearly don't understand the terms you're typing out.

>>370585
>
How not? It is literally extreme-conservative. Like, "shut the fuck up you bourgeoisie and you workers, fuck off with your class interest. The only interest is the national one, and this will be made by sovereignty and order".
And that is not at all conservative.

>In a marxist perspective,
Marxist perspectives are idiotic and hold no value whatsoever.

>>370604
What is conservative for you?

>>370604
>Because "anti-fascism" was a central tenet in soviet expansionism.
...I don't see what that has to do with your argument, though.
>I mentioned him because you're quite clearly one of his "useful idiots".
What makes you think that?
>You quite clearly don't understand the terms you're typing out.
Maybe you should rethink your obviously flawed understanding of what fascism entails.

File: 1412994096681.png (140KB, 508x477px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 508x477px

>>370020
YES. YES. IT'S ALL TRUE!

MUAHAHAHA!!

Bunch of Jews plotting on how best to jew

>>370643
You call yourself a good goy?????

>>370642
http://www.conservapedia.com/Cultural_Marxism

Thank god for photo-historical evidence.

>>370660
>The central idea of Cultural Marxism is to soften up and prepare Western Civilization for economic Marxism
>economic Marism
wat

The rest is pretty accurate: they want to make society less shit. That's a good thing.

>>370695
>Marxism
>less shit
Why are people still so obsessed with Marxism?

>>370706
Marxism is a type of analysis. It's not a set of doctrines.

Look for Marcuse. If anyone has a very negative impact on civilization, it is him.

>>370026
>They're not really philosophers but closer to sociologists, and in that field they're fairly outdated. Read them for historical curiosity.
This seems correct.

>>370719
From Marcuse came the anti-free-speech part of the left and he was influential in the sexual degeneracy that /pol/ hates with a passion.

>>370020
Frankfurt took the Ruthless Criticism of All That Exists way too far.

>>370695
>progressive neoliberalism
>less shit society
Choose one and only one

>>370764
>>progressive neoliberalism
That's an oxymoron

>>370730
I've seen this before, and as far as I can tell, there's no reason to actually place any causal force on Marcuse on that.

>>370773
Repressive Tolerance and calling whatever you dislike "violence". And he was influential in the Sexual Revolution.

>>370609
classical liberalism + christianity

A return to a pre ww1 state.

>>370609
True conservatives are people like Roger Scruton and Peter Hitchens. What passes for a "conservatives" these days are basically Neoliberals, i.e. nothing conservative about them at all.

>>370045
>>370084
Good exegesis. Thanks.

>>370805
Yes, I'm aware. What I have yet to find is any sort of causal link that puts Marcuse as responsible for anything, other than Frankfurt School conspiracy bullshit.

>>370045
>Worth a read. The more intelligent right-wingers (you don't find on meme-based pol) aren't actually all opposed to it. Especially Adorno's view on modern culture and the "kulturindustrie" are actually endorsed by many modern right-wingers.
You know, you make this all sound positively Chestertonian.

>>370252
I'd also point out that around the other bend, the U.S. and their allies benefited from an exclusive focus on the Jewish people. You're mentioning Ukrainians and Poles, but at the time, you'd be talking about the Soviets!

Who for their part, it should be remembered, always wanted to downplay the role of anti-antisemitism in the Nazi state, for similar reasons!

I always though that the Frankfurt School should be part of cultural nietzscheanism instead of cultural marxism, tbqh

>>370045
>one could say almost conservative and were heavily attacked by the 68er in Germany, i.e. the socialist students who thought they were not radical enough and who considered Adorno to be reactionary.

Socialists always accuse rival socialists of being reactionary. You aren't a true socialist until some other socialist calls you a far-right conservative. I wouldn't say an intellectual has drifted all the way across the aisle to the right just because some ambitious young hotheads think he's stodgy and behind the times.

>>370478
That's the thing, they couldn't be sure if their theorizing would change anything, and I daresay it also didn't, but that doesn't negate the fact that you have to try, after all, civilization will not be kept from plunging into the abyss again if we don't understand the abyss amd its magnetic forces, figuratively speaking.
You raise a valid point, but it's one they saw, too, which is why they conceived of their work as messages in a bottle, stuff that might be improtant somehow, someday.

Also, I didn't say genocide wasn't a human rights violation, just that it can't be explained by some natural tendency for u ethical behaviour: most states, and I'm including shitholes, don't attempt to wipe out entire ethnic group in a continent-wide campaign fueled by extremely dubious ideological reasons.

File: tmp_28294-14014556747491238765541.jpg (42KB, 700x479px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 700x479px

>>371059
>he accepts the left/right dichotomy unquestioningly

>>370978
Culturally nietzschean, politically marxist, yeah, sounds about right.

>>370978
Cultural marxism isn't really a thing within the academia, it's a word made by pretend-sociologists. The word is retarded because cultural marxism would be cultural materialistic hegelianism but without the materialistic part, and cultural hegelianism is just hegelianism.

The closest buzzword would be psycho-analytic marxism. But that's still pretty far off, since it's retarded to think that Habermas is either a psycho-analysist or a marxist.

>>371165
>Habermas
>a proper critical theorist
Oh come on, he would probably reject the label himself.

>>371153
>He doesn't organize all politics according to whether or not they are bourbanists.

>>371185
You know what? You may be right. It have been literary years since I even came across these old farts so I'll take it back.

My point regarding cultural marxism being a silly word is still something I stand behind.

>>371157
Marxism is individualistic.

>>371224
Of course it's silly, it's pretty much a /pol/ invention.
>>371236
Eh... sort of, but it's also pretty damn holistic, your point being.

>>371335
You can be both Nietzschean and Marxian. E.g. Foucault.

>>371543
I agree, but I wouldn't call Foucault a marxist. Regarding the Frankfurt School, however, it fits.

>>370936
>Ukrainians and Poles
The Nazis didn't execute Poles? The Nazis planned to invade Ukraine, they obviously intended to continue the Holocaust there. Swap 'Ukrainian' for 'German' if you like, my point is the same. The Nazis did awful things to Poland, though.

>>371572
He said 'Marxian,' not Marxist. Marxian is the adjective that describes analyses. Marxist is the adjective that describes political movements. One can analyze society on the basis of class without endorsing political Marxism.

>>371619
Oh well, then let me correct my earlier statement, Foucault's theories are not marxian.

File: 1314029819767.png (8KB, 546x566px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 546x566px

>>370130
Why are you even here?