Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
eldemiror
Feb 11, 2013

glowing-fish posted:



One of the tenets of Marxism, as I understand it, is that economic production is the true structure of a society and ideologies come along to support that. The problem with that is it assumes that the things a society is producing are being produced "naturally". But the demand for them is created culturally and only makes sense in a certain cultural context, which is often obvious outside of that system but not inside that system. Marx, for example, didn't really know about Veblen goods.


That's a bastardization of Marxism of the worst kind, Diamat level of oversemplification.
Cultural Studies as are known today are an offspring of Western Marxism, from Gramsci and Lukacs to the Critical Theory as a whole; how can you say that the intellectual behind the concept of "cultural hegemony", for example, is clueless about the creation of a cultural institution (and everything that is tied to that, of course)?
I can see the reasoning behind dropping the strong dicothomy between proletariat and bourgeoisie because it may lead to a misleading view of society, but you are literally throwing in the bin some of the greatest philosophers (gramsci, adorno, lukacs and so on )from the death of marx to this day just because of your opinion.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

eldemiror
Feb 11, 2013
or if you can gently caress all the people around you with the same grace heh.

maybe this continous criticizing is on literally no basis is a postmodern thing, or maybe it's just the internet making things so easy to read; after all Popper wrote his political mumbo jumbo The Open Society without ever reading a single book of Hegel, or so i was told.

eldemiror
Feb 11, 2013
I think there are great continental authors and that they are in general more thought provoking than analytical philosophers, but I feel like they are really "decontexualized" in a way.
I mean, most of these authors started as Marxists, as followers of "strong" veritative philosophers (Hegelian authors like Kojeve or Lukacs and so on), and did in a way sublimate political delusions into their vision.
Not to be blunt but I consider agreeing with Lyotard's concept of "The end of Great Narratives" (for example) something shallow if done without understanding that he was basically talking about A Narrative only (Marxism) and that being a part of a very sectarian form of minor Marxism influenced a lot of his writing.
Philosophy for these authors it's the result of a struggle, and you just shouldn't agree with the conclusion without studying the process in itself: you could end up being nihilistic at best and vapid at worst

  • Locked thread