DV: "One of the reasons that I left Platypus was because I didn't believe in regression." CC: "Do you believe in it now?" DV: [after the experience of the last ten years] "I do."
Truly admirable and honest Derick. I would suggest a very important piece for the seriously open minded interested in the future of humanity. Intellectually stimulating but potentially far more profound in its influence. Again, well done Derick a wonderful use of your created platform.
Great stuff. I’d love for you to get Chris C to walk through his appreciation of Adorno & Horkheimer and the Frankfurters more generally, as to my mind these set the groundwork for postmodern anti-Enlightenment/epistemic relativism (especially Dialectic of Enlightenment).
I agree with you that such a discussion with Chris Cutrone would be highly valuable. So many "critical theorist types" in academia right now seem to separate or downplay the fundamental Marxist underpinnings of the Frankfurt School theorists and the Frankfurt School's original raison d'etre (the attempt to explain the failure of proletarian socialist revolution in the Western imperial core) from what is called "critical theory", focusing on things like hegemony and the "subaltern", the works of the Frankfurt School theorists, "post-colonial theory", and various forms of identity politics to create queer theory, feminist theory, and so on - all the while sort of explicitly doing as much to take Marx out of the theory as possible. While not everyone does this (Chris Cutrone being someone who does his best to emphasize the historically Marxist foundations of his ideas, it certainly seems more common than not in much of so-called "radical" social science academic literature.
Fascinating. I didn’t follow much of this, but I do kinda look forward to a part 2… Varn, if you do a kind of debriefing on all this, for Patrons even, I’ll join tomorrow! Lol. I’m going to join before summer anyway, but yeah… I just want to understand what a lot of this was even referring to..
Great vid. That being said- as someone who read a lot of people who read Heidegger- I think his influence has a lot more value than folks gave him credit for. I think Foucault in particular is popular because his genealogies of clinical and penal institutions are descriptively useful (even if his history leaves a lot to be desired.) I think some of what may be attributed to their malign influence more aptly reflects the changing material conditions that shaped our political systems (and informational/educational milieus.) Most of my peers never saw anything like a Marxist organization, not even sects. The tradition as such wasn’t discussed (or if it was, it was coded as a cautionary tale or out of date theory of economics with a pernicious “pseudo-scientific” influence, like Ptolemaic physics.) History, as such, was barely taught- it was something you had to seek out. I got into leftist theory through existentialism- basically literary taste- and New Atheism of a kind. Art, rather than history or economics, is how most leftists of my generation found Marxism. I think this shapes our sensibilities approaching it, as well as how little mass politics seemed fruitful or relevant. Politics was like art, an aesthetic, or a personal choice. I say all this because I think it’s important to nail down. If we have any hope, “you need to fight with the army you have” (and, as much value as I find in these kinds of discussions, it sometimes feels a bit like old knights bemoaning how young men no longer know how to wield blades, even as those young men master the crossbow.) At the very least, there is a keen interest for anti-establishment left politics, and an awareness of the artificial spectacle that passes for “politics” as such. This has value, even if it does seem hopeless at times. We shouldn’t fall into the trap of despair because, in my experience, my peers are savvier and more motivated than we’re given credit.
As a millennial, I think you're way too optimistic about our generation (or maybe you mean gen Z). They couldn't use a crossbow if their life depended on it, not to speak of rifles!
@@alexanderprahauser1261 as a millennial, all I can say is that you’re entitled to your opinion. We may not know how to use crossbows, but I know we’re a lot more information literate (and have far greater access to education and information than preceding generations. I also don’t think we missed out on much re ML or Trotskyist sects. I wouldn’t bet on Gen X or Boomer swordsmanship either lol.)
Derick, hope your mother is doing okay. For what it’s worth, confusion or disorientation in an older person is more likely to be a moderate infection than something fatal or permanently disabling. Hope she is doing well tonight. Be well, feel free to ask me if you have any medical or hospital procedural questions a nurse might know.
"It is obvious that there are incredible oscillations of the unconscious, from one to the other pole of a delirium: the way that the unexpected revolutionary power is freed, sometimes in the middle of the worst archaisms; and the other way around, the way that something becomes fascist and closes itself in fascism, falling back into archaism." L'Anti-Œdipe, p 330, my translation
Read Horne! What kind of academic honesty is it to tell someone not to engage with a significant thinker? One might think a certain exchange may have something to do with Cutrone's views. JB: If we can’t redeem the struggling and the suffering that happened through the project of what is now called America, then what’s the ideal? GH: Like I just said, I don’t connect the struggling and the suffering to the U.S. I connect that to being contra the United States, against the United States. Like I said, let me repeat it: it’s like the defenders of apartheid trying to claim Nelson Mandela. “Oh, we helped to give rise to the ANC. We helped to give rise to this emancipatory impulse - we couldn’t have been all bad, come on now! Give us some credit!” No. There are enough people giving you credit; you get no credit from me.
Let's be honest, the grab bag approach to theory is often a way for pretenous grad students to throw references around, when they need to hide the fact they have nothing to say.
A transcript with links to all these various socialist sects, thinkers, academics, Marxologists, esoterica, socialist publishers, and references would really help me understand this conversation. So would a guide.
Interesting interview. When discussing their experiences and obscure left history, these guys aren't as insufferable as usual and can be occasionally illuminating. I like a lot of Platypus' approach, particularly their evaluation of the bourgeois revolution, as well as the emphasis on the deep historical roots of the problems of the left. One of the main problems is that their conclusions on many of those issues in the history of socialism tend towards lazy and doctrinaire Leninism as picked up from their sectarian Trotskyist influences. I don't see how you can go on and on about regression and not recognize Lenin and Luxemburg as a regression to a kind of radical liberalism.
I agree. They are at their best illuminating their experiences within this intellectually important but often little recognized milieu of left sectarian groups. That being said, I like Plat written resources far more than I like most Plat figures. It's disappointing to see how readily they turn to some of the laziest stereotypes of "generational culture" to dismiss/write off younger folks who come from different intellectual traditions. If I wanted to be lectured about how "authoritarian" millennial's politics are, I'd have become a lib or a right winger (the political flavor of most alienated over 40s)....
The continuity of strategies between the new left in the 80s and millenial left are interesting because you can argue that the millennials somewhat succeeded where the boomers failed. Like the union democratization efforts: the UAW did democratize (not sure about the teamsters) though how worthwhile that is, is up for debate.
The thing about Zizek that I wish you would have addressed is that he posits a kind of regression thesis within philosophy. According to him, the high point was German idealism, and philosophers since then have either sought to replace philosophy with a new mode of thought (Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche) or been stuck in various confusions and denials. Somehow this history seems to mirror the history of the left, but I can't say why that should be the case.
Modern "Marxism", especially in the U.S., may be vapid, but the marxist, or even generally socialist ecology is nearly non-existent, so i suppose, the output matches the input pretty neatly.
Not to generalize but some of the worst professors (in terms of not giving a shit about students) I've had are these liberal late Gen Xers. Older profs are hit or miss but they were either checked out or genuinely cared about their students.
DV: "One of the reasons that I left Platypus was because I didn't believe in regression."
CC: "Do you believe in it now?"
DV: [after the experience of the last ten years] "I do."
This is really interesting… am reading the intro. of Spencer’s new book on Bonapartism… big fan here
Truly admirable and honest Derick. I would suggest a very important piece for the seriously open minded interested in the future of humanity. Intellectually stimulating but potentially far more profound in its influence. Again, well done Derick a wonderful use of your created platform.
Great one! Looking forward to part 2.
Great stuff. I’d love for you to get Chris C to walk through his appreciation of Adorno & Horkheimer and the Frankfurters more generally, as to my mind these set the groundwork for postmodern anti-Enlightenment/epistemic relativism (especially Dialectic of Enlightenment).
I agree with you that such a discussion with Chris Cutrone would be highly valuable. So many "critical theorist types" in academia right now seem to separate or downplay the fundamental Marxist underpinnings of the Frankfurt School theorists and the Frankfurt School's original raison d'etre (the attempt to explain the failure of proletarian socialist revolution in the Western imperial core) from what is called "critical theory", focusing on things like hegemony and the "subaltern", the works of the Frankfurt School theorists, "post-colonial theory", and various forms of identity politics to create queer theory, feminist theory, and so on - all the while sort of explicitly doing as much to take Marx out of the theory as possible. While not everyone does this (Chris Cutrone being someone who does his best to emphasize the historically Marxist foundations of his ideas, it certainly seems more common than not in much of so-called "radical" social science academic literature.
Gabriel Rockhill quite dismissive of Frankfurt for the reasons you articulated.@@matthewmcree1992
Fascinating. I didn’t follow much of this, but I do kinda look forward to a part 2… Varn, if you do a kind of debriefing on all this, for Patrons even, I’ll join tomorrow! Lol. I’m going to join before summer anyway, but yeah… I just want to understand what a lot of this was even referring to..
Great vid. That being said- as someone who read a lot of people who read Heidegger- I think his influence has a lot more value than folks gave him credit for. I think Foucault in particular is popular because his genealogies of clinical and penal institutions are descriptively useful (even if his history leaves a lot to be desired.) I think some of what may be attributed to their malign influence more aptly reflects the changing material conditions that shaped our political systems (and informational/educational milieus.)
Most of my peers never saw anything like a Marxist organization, not even sects. The tradition as such wasn’t discussed (or if it was, it was coded as a cautionary tale or out of date theory of economics with a pernicious “pseudo-scientific” influence, like Ptolemaic physics.) History, as such, was barely taught- it was something you had to seek out. I got into leftist theory through existentialism- basically literary taste- and New Atheism of a kind. Art, rather than history or economics, is how most leftists of my generation found Marxism. I think this shapes our sensibilities approaching it, as well as how little mass politics seemed fruitful or relevant. Politics was like art, an aesthetic, or a personal choice.
I say all this because I think it’s important to nail down. If we have any hope, “you need to fight with the army you have” (and, as much value as I find in these kinds of discussions, it sometimes feels a bit like old knights bemoaning how young men no longer know how to wield blades, even as those young men master the crossbow.) At the very least, there is a keen interest for anti-establishment left politics, and an awareness of the artificial spectacle that passes for “politics” as such. This has value, even if it does seem hopeless at times. We shouldn’t fall into the trap of despair because, in my experience, my peers are savvier and more motivated than we’re given credit.
As a millennial, I think you're way too optimistic about our generation (or maybe you mean gen Z). They couldn't use a crossbow if their life depended on it, not to speak of rifles!
@@alexanderprahauser1261 as a millennial, all I can say is that you’re entitled to your opinion. We may not know how to use crossbows, but I know we’re a lot more information literate (and have far greater access to education and information than preceding generations. I also don’t think we missed out on much re ML or Trotskyist sects. I wouldn’t bet on Gen X or Boomer swordsmanship either lol.)
1:11:50 Cutrone is referring to Operation Gladio and tangentially to the Years of Lead.
Derick, hope your mother is doing okay. For what it’s worth, confusion or disorientation in an older person is more likely to be a moderate infection than something fatal or permanently disabling. Hope she is doing well tonight. Be well, feel free to ask me if you have any medical or hospital procedural questions a nurse might know.
The plat boys are really interesting thinkers.
For good and bad. They should consider armed struggles also
been wondering what the fuck this was all about for a whole while now.
"It is obvious that there are incredible oscillations of the unconscious, from one to the other pole of a delirium: the way that the unexpected revolutionary power is freed, sometimes in the middle of the worst archaisms; and the other way around, the way that something becomes fascist and closes itself in fascism, falling back into archaism."
L'Anti-Œdipe, p 330, my translation
Deleuze is the shit
Who should I read instead of Horne / Losurdo?
Calvin and Hobbes
Read Horne! What kind of academic honesty is it to tell someone not to engage with a significant thinker? One might think a certain exchange may have something to do with Cutrone's views.
JB: If we can’t redeem the struggling and the suffering that happened through the project of what is now called America, then what’s the ideal?
GH: Like I just said, I don’t connect the struggling and the suffering to the U.S. I connect that to being contra the United States, against the United States. Like I said, let me repeat it: it’s like the defenders of apartheid trying to claim Nelson Mandela. “Oh, we helped to give rise to the ANC. We helped to give rise to this emancipatory impulse - we couldn’t have been all bad, come on now! Give us some credit!” No. There are enough people giving you credit; you get no credit from me.
Marx & Lenin & Plekhanov
Let's be honest, the grab bag approach to theory is often a way for pretenous grad students to throw references around, when they need to hide the fact they have nothing to say.
A transcript with links to all these various socialist sects, thinkers, academics, Marxologists, esoterica, socialist publishers, and references would really help me understand this conversation. So would a guide.
Interesting interview. When discussing their experiences and obscure left history, these guys aren't as insufferable as usual and can be occasionally illuminating. I like a lot of Platypus' approach, particularly their evaluation of the bourgeois revolution, as well as the emphasis on the deep historical roots of the problems of the left. One of the main problems is that their conclusions on many of those issues in the history of socialism tend towards lazy and doctrinaire Leninism as picked up from their sectarian Trotskyist influences. I don't see how you can go on and on about regression and not recognize Lenin and Luxemburg as a regression to a kind of radical liberalism.
I agree. They are at their best illuminating their experiences within this intellectually important but often little recognized milieu of left sectarian groups.
That being said, I like Plat written resources far more than I like most Plat figures. It's disappointing to see how readily they turn to some of the laziest stereotypes of "generational culture" to dismiss/write off younger folks who come from different intellectual traditions. If I wanted to be lectured about how "authoritarian" millennial's politics are, I'd have become a lib or a right winger (the political flavor of most alienated over 40s)....
The continuity of strategies between the new left in the 80s and millenial left are interesting because you can argue that the millennials somewhat succeeded where the boomers failed. Like the union democratization efforts: the UAW did democratize (not sure about the teamsters) though how worthwhile that is, is up for debate.
What is Cutrone's beef with Dr. Horne?
The thing about Zizek that I wish you would have addressed is that he posits a kind of regression thesis within philosophy. According to him, the high point was German idealism, and philosophers since then have either sought to replace philosophy with a new mode of thought (Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche) or been stuck in various confusions and denials. Somehow this history seems to mirror the history of the left, but I can't say why that should be the case.
Perry the platypus belongs in this society
Modern "Marxism", especially in the U.S., may be vapid, but the marxist, or even generally socialist ecology is nearly non-existent, so i suppose, the output matches the input pretty neatly.
Did they say something about Trump and Pat Buchanan?
Not to generalize but some of the worst professors (in terms of not giving a shit about students) I've had are these liberal late Gen Xers. Older profs are hit or miss but they were either checked out or genuinely cared about their students.