/lit/ - Literature

>that book
>taken seriously

Come on, now.. that thing is basically an ad hominem attack in book-form.

>>3974573
> david horowitz

why didn't you trash it, op?

>>3974596
Horowitz is one of those figures everyone knows they're supposed to hate. His books tend to be underrated (but still average) because he comes off as a douchenozzle in his interviews and speeches.

Fifek

>>3974573
>>3974585
>>3974596
>>3974609
>>3974693
What I'm not hearing here is a critique of US "academic" political discourse and the appalling methodology in use.

I am sickened by the standard of evidence and the quality of analysis of material. Shit, Žižek's inferences are more cogently defended by reference to reality.

>>3975240
The fact is no one except leftists really care or debate Chomsky's political views.

He is a linguist. That is his profession.

You're not attacking Chomsky. Damn. You're attacking a whole history of philosophers, it's anarchism.

Learn about it, read their main books and then attack Chomsky from it's own fortress, cause he has a lot of weaknesses that only people that know about the libertarian thought can recognize.

>>3975284
>The fact is no one except leftists really care or debate Chomsky's political views.
You do realise that most academic marxists, marxists with a half-decent party education, and anarchists with years in the movement detest him for the manifest failings in his texts?

It is young, bourgeois and managerial, college students who think Chomsky has anything of value to contribute politically.

Regarding his linguistics, I agree; wouldn't say a word against him, I'm not a linguist.

>>3975321
This

Only bourgeois and petty-bourgueois that are new in political philosophies care about Chomsky or Zizek. They're bookworms, people enjailed in their bubble world.

>>3975359
Žižek is worth caring about because he is a amuse-bouche.

>>3975375
Zizek has an impact only in the academy. In all my political/social experience i've never met a group/party/collective centered in his ambiguous views of marxism. He has no impact outside the bubble world of academicians.

>>3975403
Some of the stuff on Lacanian interpretations of bourgeois culture in capital is rather useful for explaining the fetishised and contradictory nature of bourgeois ideologies.

So he's a frankfurter after frankfurt's been gone.

Personally I like getting down and dirty in the relations of production and reproduction—the factory and kitchen floor for me.

>>3975320
Chomsky isn't an anarchist

read this article, OP

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-zerzan-who-is-chomsky

>>3975321
> academic marxists are not bourgeois just the young college students!

hahahahaha

do fuck off

>>3975359
>hurr

>>3975418
I didn't say he's an anarchist, but he's part of the anarchist thought: His major influence, at least the classics.

And he was like an anarcho-syndicalist in the 70s, i don't know what happened to him though.


PS: Zerzan is kinda crazy, i liked the article but at the end he ruined it all with his primitivist bullshit. I love how now he's probably using the internet.

>>3975418
>Zerzan
>taken seriously
>a guy who has repeatedly defined his anarchism isn't an anarchist after all

Fucking hell.

>>3974573
Pynchon and dialectic feminism

If one examines conceptualist subcapitalist theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject precapitalist textual theory or conclude that consensus is created by the collective unconscious. Subsemioticist deappropriation states that language is capable of truth, given that narrativity is distinct from reality. In a sense, the absurdity, and eventually the fatal flaw, of dialectic feminism depicted in Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49 is also evident in V.

The primary theme of Porter’s[1] essay on precapitalist textual theory is the collapse, and thus the fatal flaw, of capitalist consciousness. The main theme of the works of Stone is the common ground between society and class. Therefore, von Ludwig[2] suggests that we have to choose between dialectic feminism and postdeconstructivist socialism.

Marx suggests the use of the textual paradigm of discourse to read and analyse society. Thus, many theories concerning not narrative, but neonarrative may be revealed.

If conceptualist subcapitalist theory holds, the works of Stone are not postmodern. However, Debord uses the term ‘subcultural theory’ to denote the role of the reader as poet.

The subject is interpolated into a dialectic feminism that includes culture as a totality. In a sense, Humphrey[3] holds that we have to choose between dialectic postsemanticist theory and textual Marxism.

>>3975321
>It is young, bourgeois and managerial, college students
oh man, why don't you just fuck of paul bogdanor?

>You do realise that most academic marxists, marxists with a half-decent party education, and anarchists with years in the movement detest him
Sure, little lenins hate him with a passion, they want to manage the people and tell them what to do.

>manifest failings in his texts
Yet you fail to cite any specific examples, as you failed in any other thread you posted in. It's getting boring. Please don't start again with some supposedly methodological flaw and tell us one needs to follow the exact right one (which you somehow have the power to determine?) and give us specific examples where he gets it wrong.

>>3976030
read the article first

Ibn Warraq's In Defence of the West is pretty good, and was written in response primarily to Edward Said's Orientalism although it touched on many things Chomsky talks about