US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1630

On July 04 2019 02:35 IgnE wrote:
that’s why xDaunt has read all three volumes of Capital

On July 04 2019 02:37 Nebuchad wrote:


I know that too. And when I look at how Native Americans didn't fit that argument, and how much Locke stood to benefit from Europeans stealing those lands, I'm going to say the argument was made extremely conveniently.

On July 04 2019 02:38 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Acrofales claimed one of the core appeals of fascism is assurance that where you are born in the social hierarchy is where you belong. I'm pointed out this isn't true based on history and the internal logic of fascist ideology. The notion would make sense if fascism is conservative, but it's not. Fascism doesn't ignore the existence of class (how could it when it draws so heavily upon neo-Marxist literature?), restrict class mobility, or pretend class is immutable. Instead it rejects capitalistic and Marxist teleology regarding class.

On July 04 2019 02:49 Nebuchad wrote:


Of course fascism restricts class mobility, it just doesn't do it based on merit, it does it based on destiny. If you are the right kind of person, you stay on top, or are moved to the top. If you aren't, you stay on the bottom, or you are moved there. If your identity doesn't fit what the fascists want, you can't ascend, that is a restriction and that is immutable. Are we talking once the fascists got rid of everyone inferior, then the issue no longer exists and class mobility can get back in action? They will never get rid of everyone inferior, they will always find some new inferior trait to go after.

(edit: also women are inferior and they aren't getting rid of those)

On July 04 2019 02:49 Nebuchad wrote:
If you read fascism you will really see this, they say that class exists, but it should be ignored for a much better goal which is the well-being of the nation-state. It emphasizes class collaboration, where instead of fighting between classes, we all fight together (against foreigners or enemies of fascism). It celebrates class inequality; it "affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men".

Instead it rejects capitalistic and Marxist teleology regarding class.

On July 04 2019 02:41 xDaunt wrote:

More like the cliff notes versions and other secondary sources interpreting him (a suggestion from sam!zdat no less). Marx is dense as fuck to read by himself. I've been doing something similar with Nietzche recently simply because Nietzche's shit is even worse to read given how intentionally obtuse it is.

On July 04 2019 03:00 IgnE wrote:

Nietzsche is not hard to read and given the multitude of interpretations possible must be read directly. nietzsche is a favorite of both Foucault and Jordan Peterson, and if you think Foucault simply got Nietzsche “wrong” or misunderstood him based on your alternative secondhand interpretation you don’t really understand Nietzsche at all

I think Marx is actually a fairly elegant thinker and stylist but compared to Nietzsche he is easily paraphrasable

On July 04 2019 03:06 farvacola wrote:
Whenever a reading seems tough, pick up some Michel Serres and try to read it for a bit, and then return to the former work. It’ll magically seem much easier to read

On July 04 2019 03:00 Nebuchad wrote:
You can't agree with that and then argue fascism doesn't restrict class mobility.

On July 04 2019 03:10 Acrofales wrote:

Doubt that works to get through Heidegger.

On July 04 2019 03:06 xDaunt wrote:

I'm still in the middle of my study of Nietzche, so I'm not really prepared to say anything yet other than the fact that I am in awe of the size of the shit that he took on Western philosophy. Maybe we should call it the "will to audacity." But I'm using a Leo Strauss lecture to guide me. I sure as shit would never rely on Jordan Peterson for anything.

On July 04 2019 04:26 Danglars wrote:
In today’s heightened polarization, differences in political philosophies are driving the inability to even agree about how to talk about topics.

And Locke is so easy to read that people interested in politics have no excuse. Marx’s capital is very tough to read. Marx’s communist manifesto isn’t bad.

I’m a big proponent of examining primary source material, so I do agree that suffering through Marx is important for calling certain views as Marxist or communist, and attacking their bases within themselves. Collectivism, “real communism has never been tried,” class identity and group identity, postmodern and intersectional critiques all are better understood afterwards, and are all kinda important in today’s political age.

On July 04 2019 02:01 CosmicSpiral wrote:


The Nazis didn't like him because he believed in class distinctions. Fascism in general posits the state as a mediator to resolve class conflict, not entrench it. Commentators frequently forget that fascism is anti-conservative by nature.

A Letter Concerning Toleration and Two Treatises of Government.

On July 04 2019 03:30 IgnE wrote:


philosophers’ commentaries on other philosophers is basically all of philosophy. i would just say that usually “philosopher x talking about philosopher y” says more about philosopher x than about y directly.

and that’s especially true imo about nietzsche

On July 04 2019 04:36 GreenHorizons wrote:


I agree that the philosophical underpinnings (or lack thereof) of ones political opinions is rather critical, especially so in today's polarizing political world. Personally I've noticed that many of those shying away from "the extremes" arrive there more as a result of a political philosophy that is geographical. Not just in the literal sense but also as in the "center" isn't just neoliberal hegemony, but a large contingent of people that argue their political opinions relative to whatever is popularly identified as extreme or their political opposition rather than grounded in an overarching principle or philosophy.