Here's their feedback on a final paper that included some Marxist analysis:
"Marxist jargon (species-being, etc.) does not work in democracies due to free speech and dialectical culture, which communist party theorists cannot stand. "
No hate against actual anarchists. This guy is probably just a ancap/libertarian that wanted to sound cooler to his students?
POSTMODERN NEOMARXIST ACADEMIA STRIKES AGAIN!
Being a philosophy professor and calling out others for "jargon" is :hahaha:
Lets not even touch the philosophical questions on what "the" means in a modern philosophic examination
Maybe he's just a fan of logical positivism or something. Reminds me of Carnap's god awful critique of Heidegger.
"Marxist jargon (species-being, etc.) does not work in democracies due to free speech and dialectical culture, which communist party theorists cannot stand. "
What the fuck is this even trying to say? This is GPT3 tier glossolalia.
I feel like I'd get more coherent feedback from any given chud at a Trump rally lmao
free speech
Wait a minute...what the fuck do these 2 words even mean?
you take a de peach and you a freeze-a de peach :anti-italian-action: :AyyyyyOC:
Lmao, imagine looking out at the landscape of American culture and going "yeah, these people know how to resolve contradictions via dialectical thinking." Words of the utterly deranged.
"We're living in a liberal utopia where civil discourse guided by trained academic philosophers will lead to meaningful improvements". Could not be more detached from reality.
He has the same age level understanding of anarchism as they do handwriting.
Barry Goldwater was actually an Anarchist because he wanted to drown the state in a bathtub. :galaxy-brain:
A democracy is when people :vote: and the more people that :vote: actually voter participation doesn't matter because I'm more worried about Election Fraud and Idiocracy.
If there's one thing communist theorists cannot stand, it's things that are dialectical in nature.
well first of all this society isn't a democracy, so jot that down.
Isn't it from Feuerbach, originally? Marx certainly expanded upon the concept tho
In the sense that dialectics was Hagel and the LTV was Adam Smith. Feuerbach had a more mainstream view of human nature as we know it, that it's some mythical thing unique to us that could be called a soul, and Marx instead rooted our difference within social/material conditions. We're not gifted children so much as we are an animal that abstracts things out of necessity to build a society alienated from the natural world.
"The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities. The real price of everything, what everything really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it."
-Adam Smith, Marxist-Leninist, The Wealth of Nations
It's been a pretty narrow concept for me, differentiating us from other animals without making a mystified reason for doing so. Murray Bookchin's idea of first and second nature is a better wording of it in my opinion.
how would words not work in democracies because of institutions, maybe, if you go Derridean, you can be like well using those terms assume an undesired baggage, or if you go Deleuze like, you'd be saying something along the lines of the concept is not actionable in our current world, but this is just nonsense. Plus marxist jargon is often the same as classical economists or other theorists, and freedom is literally the basis of Marxism, please ask him if he thinks that Tsarist russia didn't have a "dialectical culture" and how well he thinks free speech and dialectical discussion worked in Afghanistan!
Isn't Marxism basically a dialectic between the bourgeoisie and proletariat?
