Comments by "jean-louis pech" (@jean-louispech4921) on "2017/06/28: Postmodern NeoMarxism: Diagnosis and Cure" video.

  1. erica shy There are false claims, too much binary thinking. He is not consistent from philosophic point of view : He advocates hierachy, but dislike when "postmodernists" defend a hierarchy between the "good oppressed" and the" bad oppressors". Like all defenders of hierarchy is don't like when he is not on the good level of hte hierarchy, it is the same thing for the LGBT, post feminist, muslims, identitaries blacks, etc... On another hand taking a real equalitarian speech ( PM are not real equalitarians, they just want to switch the ladder ), an universalist speech is more coherent for criticizing the "postmodernists", a speech from the left wing.
    2
  2. He advocates social hierarchy, the world is based already on social hierarchy, and then will not change the fact that the leite will kept the power. Nothing change. The more there are hierarchy the more the world becaome authoritarian. He advocates economic inequalities, but the trend of the elites is economic inequalities , then he will change nothing on this side too. His ideas can't change the world, because he is speaking the langage of the peoples who have the more power in this world.
    2
  3. solzhenitsin confuses identity/uniformity with social equality. It is a false claims. Is is social equality, equality in humanity, equality in rights, equal access to service, equality of choices . Inequality allows to think some people as subhumans or even non human, meaning a thing that can be killed without remorse. Rejecting equality leads to : slavery , talibans and daesh with women , nazism with the genocid of jews and other, etc... Inequality is just a justification for dominating, exploiting, harming , or destroying the other. It is not moral. You can't defend democracy, freedom, etc... and defending inequality, rejecting equality. It is not logical. Democracy imply citizen with equal political rights, yes this is equality. Dictatorships are based on inequal politic power, inequal economic power, social inequality. There is no freedom without equality. Slave are not free because they don't have equality of humanity, equality of right, equality of speech, equality of freedom of moving, etc.... When slaves are equals to their master, a "free man", then they become free, this is the abolition of slavery. How can you believe that there is no freedom if the slaves are not equal to their master? Nazi could not mass killing jews if they had treat them as brother in humanity, equals in humanity. On the other hand nazism dreamed of germans with the same hair color, eyes colors, skin color, etc... while being very inequalitarians. It is the case for all oppressions. In USSR there was no equality between staline, the nomenklatura and the rest of the nation. This why the regime was oppressive. And this is the reason why real marxist or socialists say that "it is not real communism" because it does not follow the main focus of communism : social equality. Where there is a dictator , there is no social equality. If you treat the others as your equal you don't agress them, you don't think them as harfull at first sight. Equality between two people means pacific relations between peoples. Equality between peoples favor empathy, instead of violence. It leads to more moral acts than inequality.
    2
  4. yes insane to oppose Marxism vs democracy, because in Marxism the socialist society was seen for being more democratic than the capitalists societies in time of Marx. Giving that cain is the farmer, and farming give birth to private property, cain would be the capitalist.
    1
  5. PartialPsycho your speech does not work, because any serious scholar can prove that stalinism, maoism, etc.. are not real communism, just by recalling what communism is in the Marx writing, and comparing with the regims named. And you can search in stalinism, etc... for all your life, the end of the state, the end of social class/inequality, the democracy in politic, etc.... even as purpose. About purpose i mean , if not clearing all the stages at once ( this is anarchist who whant this ), making reforms going in the direction, and not killing people defending this (like the reals marxists who were persecuted or killed). In fact all the reforms of stalin from the leninist revolution, were a step backward from the socialism and communism (deeper phase of the evolution following Marx). Making a strawman is more easier than studying the complexity, and understanding that stalin , mao, etc... were claiming their ideology being marxist or communist only for propaganda purpose, unless the ugly face of their ideologies would be too obvious.
    1
  6. All the "post-something" i see on internet are not in the nunaces, and just switch the dogmas of our society. Their worldview is far away from the worldview of Marx, and are opposed on some ideologic point of view. We have the universalism of the marxism opposing to the particularism of the "post-something". Foucault is not very left, this is the guy who supported the reactionary iranian revolution. And as particularist they are not rational, like the silly speech about heterosexual as oppressives, while their are not able to analyse that the reject of homosexuality, etc... is not linked to heterosexuality but sexism. But it is easier to think in term of binary categories of people we can identify at sight (how look a sexist?), this is the same mind process that all far rights, racists firsts. Well this is not materialist or rational point of view.
    1
  7. what he means by "communism" is this the same thing that people who label themselves as "communist" are defending or something else?
    1
  8. not Socrates, too much simplistic views. He don't ask question about the words he is using. Like saying that postmodernist are marxists is a fallacious claims. There is a shift in the ideology that separate the both philosophy. It is the antagonism between universalism for marxism(equality ) versus particularism for postmodernism ( seapation between categories ). The latter is typical found in all right wing ideologies not in left wing..... From real marxist point of view describing heterosexuality as oppression, is silly.
    1
  9.  @bademoxy  Equality of outcome is not the subject.... And you are just another ignorant about communism, just believing what say propaganda from dictatorships and capitalists. Communism was not attempted , by the peoples you think as communists. Communism is about peoples getting their needs, not an administration saying what you can eat, communism is about collective power, not a dictatorship, communism is about abolition of police and army, not about tough police and army. Communism is about to put an end to the exploitation of the workers, to allows workers to be involved in decisions with a collective power, etc... nothing that we can see in the countries self labeled as communist.
    1
  10. yes in fact he is not honnest. Like all peoples defending irrational ideas like hierarchy , transcendance , that are in favor of the elite only, they need to manipulate, use fallacies agaisnt the ideologies of emancipation, confusing them with oppressive systems, for , like Orwell stated well , forbiding to think agaisnt the system. He is preaching economic inequality while studies show that great inequality are bad for the society, while the best societies on earth have the lower economic inequality.
    1
  11. rationalization of the power of the actual elite who put in danger our planet, by defending hierarchy, will not save the world, and will not makes it better.
    1
  12. well about the marxist you are making a strawman fallacies that allows you to avoid any deeper reflexion, and, worst, thinking that humans can realy defend ideologies that target more freedom and more social equality for all. Funny how you are making what you criticize to post modernist : words have no meanings we can give the meaning we wants. Oh yes this is what Orwell targeted in "1984" . Simplicity of the proagandas ( staline, capitalist, etc.... ) instead the understanding complexity with critical spirit. Stalin claims that he is marxist, communist? if he says so... we should believe him? Wait! we are speaking about a totalitarian dictator using manipulation and propaganda... why distrust him for everytring else thsi point? This is not rational to fight stalinism and to believe in his propaganda. What about the marxists who defended the real marxism, meaning the a ideologic trend following the Marx's philosophy who were perscuted , killed by stalin, for the only reason they were defending marxism. Marxists (the real) are among the 100 millions of people. In reality Stalin was agaisnt all the real left : marxists/communists, socialists , socailist anarchists, left repubican (in europe, not the american republican), progressists, all the demcoratics and anti authoritarian left, in USSR, in spain, and other countries like in east europa , stalinians have kill many peoples from left of differents flavors. This is a fallacy to confuse the victims and their persecutor, to confuse ideologies that have great conflict on many values, with different purposes, world view, etc... This is not moral and not honnest to say that people against the dictatorial power support dictatorial power. There is a name for people supporting stalinism : stalinists! maoists for the maoism, red khmer for pol pot, etc.... In our day when people say their are marxists it is not for stalinism, in general rule. Well since the fall of the wall the stalinist are a rare specie in western countries. What you say about postmodernism has nothing to do with marxism. Not the same philosophy. Marxism is a modern philosophy, an universalist philosophy, this is not the case for your postmodernism.
    1