Postmodern Neo-Marxism

---

 

Applications

---

"It’s not as if I personally think that postmodernism and Marxism are commensurate. It’s obvious to me that the much-vaunted “skepticism toward grand narratives” that is part and parcel of the postmodern viewpoint makes any such alliance logically impossible. Postmodernists should be as skeptical toward Marxism as toward any other canonical belief system."

---

"Postmodernism leaves its practitioners without an ethic. Action in the world (even perception) is impossible without an ethic, so one [ethic] has to be at least allowed in through the back door. The fact that such allowance produces a logical contradiction appears to bother the low-rent postmodernists who dominate the social sciences and humanities not at all. Then again, coherence isn’t one of their strong points (and the demand for such coherence can just be read as another patriarchal imposition typifying oppressive Western thought)."  

Interpretations

---

Value Systems

But if there is no sense, then there is no aim, and we drown in chaos, which is a depressing and stressful way to live, devoid of control. In order to have an aim, you must first have an interpretation, values.

Post-modernists believe that any value structures only exclude, oppress and so on. And there is some obvious but trivial truth in that. But they never see that value structures provide direction. No values means no direction, if going to A is no better than going to B.

Post-modernism, as formulated by Derrida, posits that there are an infinite number of ways to view any problem. Correct. Then he says that in that case, there can be no right way to view the problem, we cannot make any sense out of it, everyone views the problem in a way which increases their power. Everything, he says, is a power game. Therefore interpretations differ among different power groups (and that is true to some extent).

It is true that there are multiple interpretations of any event or piece of literature. The (Radical) Left then assumes that there is no Right Way, because everybody interprets the event in terms of power games. But in the real world there are constraints. We must find a useful interpretation, one that creates a set of tools that enables us to live across place and across time.

There are functional constraints on the number of different ways to view a problem. An interpretation must be functional, it must create a game which helps us to thrive and which encourages others to cooperate with us again and again in the world.

What is the effect of rejecting value systems as the Post-Modernists do? One ends up drowning in nihilist chaos, demoralized.

We need to choose interpretations that do not kill us, and do not make other people want to kill us. We must get useful tools from our interpretation.

Negotiation

There can be no negotiation between power groups. That is also why PM people hate to debate — even to talk to a member of a different power group is to play their power game. Opponents are not just wrong, but evil. They don’t think that good people can come together and negotiate to find a better way forward.

Post-Modernism doesn’t believe in debate, because they don’t believe that 2 groups with different viewpoints can negotiate and come to agreement; it’s just another logocentric ploy.

They don't even want to debate; even debate is playing the opponent's game. They believe that everything is a power game between groups. To talk to another group is to validate their power game, no more. They believe that the logos is a tool of oppression.

Western Culture & Civilisation

They completely reject the structure of Western culture (because it’s “phallologocentric”), i.e. patriarchal and self-serving, created by the patriarchy. That is, of course, a tendency not an absolute. In fact, the West is doing pretty damn well. They don’t have a shred of gratitude, and so they are full of resentment, one of the nastiest emotions, along with arrogance and deceit. Only resentful, deceptive charlatans (like Derrida) think that you can have Marxism and compassion at the same time.

Marxists saw the struggle as the Working Class v Bourgeoisie. Neo-Marxists (PostModernists) see it as Victims v Oppressors. Both of them refuse to think in terms of the individual, everything has to be argued at the group level, which is the basis for identity politics [That's why they hate people who rise above their supposed group status].

It is a zero-sum game. Previously it pretended to be about economics, now it’s just about power.

Logos

They think it is part of the patriarchy, designed to maintain and justify it. "Thought is an agent of repression" (Derrida).

Leftists have no gratitude for the processes that have brought us to where we are now, so they are driven by resentment. They refuse to recognize the individual and the logos (ie logic and dialogue), because they too are part of the patriarchy. "Reason is white" and part of the dominant culture)

Individualism

The (Radical) Left hates the individual, the person who can decide for themselves. So they place them into groups [neuters the individual impulse?]. The number of possible groups is infinite, so it’s an arbitrary decisions as to what groups can be made up for any situation.

No individuals, so it's all about group identity (race, gender, sexuality, victim v oppressor), so it's all a Hobbesian battle of identity groups. Everyone has to be an exemplar of a group (thus, white privilege etc etc). That enables the setting up of the Victim v Oppressor game.

Hierarchy

The SJWs want to flatten dominance hierarchies because they believe all hierarchies are based on power. This is obvious nonsense. There are hierarchies based on competence, intelligence, attractiveness. So, they hate competence, as well, because competence creates hierarchies. And they dislike clear thinking, perhaps they know it doesn't favor them. SJWs always think they are oppressed victims. They mean exactly what they say.

---

 

---