Gabriel Rockhill, “The Intellectual World War: Class Struggle in Theory" 

Haha the yellow one

Can't top Yellow Parenti. It's a league on its own

@זוהר its not as outdated as Marx lmfao

@זוהר Yup I think we’d be in a much better place if more leftist “theory wonks” would read contemporary theory. There are some amazing books out there about neocolonialism and other topics, but they arent read much by radical leftists outside of the academic circuit.

@זוהר heretic!

is your blog still active? enjoyed reading you a while back.

Comrade Leo Zhao ! I was kicked off Facebook where we had many exchanges. Good to see you again

just see what actual marxists/socialists/communists have to say bout zizek (or about anyone), or read his interview for DIE WELT from the late january 2016 to see imbecility on steroids and how much he is disconnected from reality

@@BlackSmokinStile 😮

Zizek's insights into ideology and the necessity for universality is useful for socialists. We should be careful to not outright reject all of one's work for perceived or real ties to CIA or whatever. We just need to take that into consideration when reading their work. I still like Zizek, but more for the fact he's entertaining and can be a gateway into the left for people. He's also a non-reactionary foil to radlib politics. With that said, most of what he says is nonsense but it's useful as a reminder of what bad dialectal thinking looks like.

@@kspfan001 i think he would correct us and say that he is a "court jester for Stalin..." idk but he likes Stalin ... 🔥 i dont know much about him but i got the notion that he was a bad person... hmmm. Anyways...for capitalism... its like i have to have years reading Hegel and then Lacan and understanding them well enough to give my opinion on Zizek; but unfortunately, i don't have that level of education. :( it seems like i need a graduate degree anymore thesee days to comment on anything. i've read all of these books... but. yeah i havent studied this in university so... left in the dust. Zizek doesnt SEEM like he's workin for the other side.... to me. but hey. what do i know. nothing.

J. Moufawad Paul takes a stab at this in “Critique of Maoist Reason”

You can study whatever you want, his point is that if you want radical change, looking for theoretical conceptualization from those who base their "leftism" on liberal and right-wing anti-communist philosophy will only dilute your understanding of how capitalism, especially in its colonial and imperial forms, works. If you don't, go to town with all kinds of anti-communist ideologues.

^In addition, Rockhill has maintained that studying and contending with Heidegger is an important task for the left - one that has been ignored or procrastinated on, and he has critiqued this. Absent that context, yeah, he did hand-wave Heidegger in this talk; but he is not of the overall opinion that Nazi intellectuals and their predecessors should not be seriously studied!

That’s not what he said at all, but he has limited time in this. We should study Heidegger and Rockhill would say the same thing

Yep, "Average american"! -in jest

Can you expand, Alex o Sueco? Not challenging you here, but I’m always curious to hear what the few dissenters in the comments are thinking. Thank you ahead of time. 😊

@@RyanWattersRyanWatters His argument, as far as I remember it, has two points: the first one, that these thinkers that he is reading and commenting (Derrida, Foucault, Rancière, Badiou, Zizek, etc.) are charlatans, and secondly, that they are not true revolutionaries, but simply posing as radicals in order to further their status in the global theory industry. The first, what we might call philosophical, point against their readings is simply never developed enough to make sense. More often than not he seems to just be saying: "I've read the same texts/philosophers as they did, and they were wrong". In other words, we just have to take him on his word that they are charlatans. They might be, but he has not provided sufficient arguments to prove that... That wouldn't be much of a problem if he had developed his second point about the global theory industry, which of course is valid to a certain point (and he is definitely not the first one to make it): Academia has definitely been caught up for the last three-four decades in the general marketization of all spheres of society. The problem is that he, in direct contradiction of Marx, seems to have a moral understanding of this process. There are a few ways of understanding his argument, none of them really working. 1: we could imagine that he has a strong materialist argument saying that radical thought is impossible within the global theory industry. But then he would need to tell us how he, a guy who keeps publishing books with all the major university publishers, in any way is different from those that he criticizes (besides being less famous), something which he doesn't do. 2: he might be making the argument that it is possible to think radically even from the inside of the global theory industry (and that he then would be an example of this possibility). But then it leaves us with the moral argument (which seems to be the most reasonable interpretation of his argument), that those that he criticizes just don the robes of radical thought. This is also very difficult to prove, as it hangs on their actual intention. And one could just as well direct the same critique against him: he is trying to make a name for himself by ruthlessly and bombastically criticizing well-known thinkers associated with the left/communism. Hence my conclusion: either he is just a spook, applying some cliché formulations about some contemporary philosophers, in order to just create division and confusion (classic spook tactic), or he knows that what he is saying doesn't make sense, performing our joint ignorance in this public spectacle. But I am hesitant to believe in the latter explanation, since he seems to have trouble understanding even some of Marx's basic arguments surrounding materialism and ideology...

@@alexosueco6379 Thank you kindly for responding and for being so thoughtful. (I wish all my RU-vid conversations were this civil. 😆)

I am curious if you would explain why you believe he has any trouble understanding "Marx's basic arguments surrounding materialism and ideology." I'd argue the opposite---he has an iron grasp on the concepts.

1)He isn't arguing that they're charlatans, he's arguing that they're CIA sock puppet pied pipers. He backs his claims up with significant research, FOIA requests, etc.

You are the subject of this whole 2 hours and 19 minutes. Look into the mirror, radical liberal

Horrifyingly skew to GR’s illustration. Maupin isn’t even an example of the “compatible left,” rather he’s just a fascist sheepdog. Ally of neofascists Droite and Dugin (many ideas from Maupin’s books came right from Dugin’s inspirations such as Ebola, Yockey, and Haushofer); has frequently explicitly expressed belief in core tenets of idealism (I.e. explicitly anti-communist); explicitly self-describes as a “populist, not a Marxist;” explicitly a “patsoc” aka nazbol which even on its face deliberately contradicts the core of Lenin’s advancement of revolutionary science especially international proletarian solidarity and morality; and, a disciple of actively anti-communist Lyndon Larouche. All of this ignores that he’s an abusive sexpest.

@@DiamatForAll when are you gonna debate Haz

@@infrawiki ????

@@DiamatForAll if you’ve got a substantive critique let’s hear it. Write it out. Post a link to substack. We’re listening …

I rely on others' substantive critiques of fascism, idealism, anti-communism, and nazbols/patsocs.