As a 50-something 'hard leftist' with, I believe, a better than average appreciation of traditional left-wing thought and the murky world of geopolitical tussling, I'm nevertheless surprised by Rockhill's depiction of the extent to which so many prominent 20th century 'leftist' intellectuals colluded with state security agencies . I'd never encountered Mr Rockhill before last week but feel his work should be much more widely shared and appreciated. We most of us it very difficult to look beyond the scholarship of particular public intellectuals - or groupings of these within specific schools of thought - and consider the entire superstructure of intellectualism as machine in itself that has been shaped and crafted by the dominant, overarching machinery of state.
@זוהר Yup I think we’d be in a much better place if more leftist “theory wonks” would read contemporary theory. There are some amazing books out there about neocolonialism and other topics, but they arent read much by radical leftists outside of the academic circuit.
This is the most important academic work being done right now in many of the most important ways. Deconstructing the deconstructionists? :D Anyhow THANK YOU. I will help by spreading as far and wide as possible :)
That's help me look forward to a deeper understanding of Alan Bushes string quartet " dialectics" which I heard in Moss Side .Manchester UK last Sunday .
I’ve strongly disliked Foucault since I was introduced to his work by so-called radical BDSM enthusiasts. I could never quite place my finger on why I disliked his work so much, and the Faux Radical article as well as this video has finally helped me unravel it in my own head. Great stuff!
Franz Neumann was with the OSS but on the other hand, had intimate, ongoing contact with Soviet intelligence (and Behemoth is an exceptional Marxist look at fascism and capital in nazi Germany.)
its fascinating to think , of the intellectuals who were working for the us intel... i would love to have a full list of all of them! i wonder if other people agree with what you said about zizek being a court jester for capitalsim, and deliberately misinterpreting socialism for the masses, in order to keep them inside capitalism and not to see socialism for the potential alternative that it is. i suggested this in a chat today and someone jumped all over me. yikes. i can see what you are saying about zizek though.. i have let his interpretaions influence how i think about the work of kant, hegel, marx, freud, and lacan i have found him to be provocative and charming...like when he says that lacan doesnt bring his own line of logic through to its utmost lacanian conclusions! but of course this is what the jester excels at i appreciate the idea and its possible that zizek could be misinterpreting marx!!! people should bring these things up freely and have others consider them. i am not going to hate zizek but i think it is worthy of serious thought!
just see what actual marxists/socialists/communists have to say bout zizek (or about anyone), or read his interview for DIE WELT from the late january 2016 to see imbecility on steroids and how much he is disconnected from reality
Zizek's insights into ideology and the necessity for universality is useful for socialists. We should be careful to not outright reject all of one's work for perceived or real ties to CIA or whatever. We just need to take that into consideration when reading their work. I still like Zizek, but more for the fact he's entertaining and can be a gateway into the left for people. He's also a non-reactionary foil to radlib politics. With that said, most of what he says is nonsense but it's useful as a reminder of what bad dialectal thinking looks like.
@@kspfan001 i think he would correct us and say that he is a "court jester for Stalin..." idk but he likes Stalin ... 🔥 i dont know much about him but i got the notion that he was a bad person... hmmm. Anyways...for capitalism... its like i have to have years reading Hegel and then Lacan and understanding them well enough to give my opinion on Zizek; but unfortunately, i don't have that level of education. :( it seems like i need a graduate degree anymore thesee days to comment on anything. i've read all of these books... but. yeah i havent studied this in university so... left in the dust. Zizek doesnt SEEM like he's workin for the other side.... to me. but hey. what do i know. nothing.
I’ve never bothered with these French theorists for precisely the reasons set forth here. If class conflict and revolution is not at the center of a theorist’s argument, I don’t waste my time on him. All these so-called radical thinkers are just trying to distract us from the central problem of capitalism.
Identity. At 1;=48 /29 is a Brill observation of T Adornos neglect of folk art for the bourgoise ,But I'd add that any ladders offered to elevate folk art up by the bourguise could be self defeating for the latter.
To say that we shouldn’t study Heidegger because he was a Nazi is a perfect example of an ad hominem attack, a common logical falsify. But this doesn’t seem to bother him although he is certainly aware of it.
You can study whatever you want, his point is that if you want radical change, looking for theoretical conceptualization from those who base their "leftism" on liberal and right-wing anti-communist philosophy will only dilute your understanding of how capitalism, especially in its colonial and imperial forms, works. If you don't, go to town with all kinds of anti-communist ideologues.
^In addition, Rockhill has maintained that studying and contending with Heidegger is an important task for the left - one that has been ignored or procrastinated on, and he has critiqued this. Absent that context, yeah, he did hand-wave Heidegger in this talk; but he is not of the overall opinion that Nazi intellectuals and their predecessors should not be seriously studied!
I understand what you're saying about Žižek but I still love him for his announcements that he's a stalinist. I like to believe that is true underneath it all 😌✌️ even if he's confusing people by misinterpreting certain points.
Mmm... this I think looks interesting Thinking IS interesting U don't have to believe... Mind you Occasionally I ask myself ...after thinking What would Jesus DO?
20:05 - But empiricism isn't a theory about ontology: it's a theory about epistemology!! Marxists shouldn't talk about "theoretical" philosophy, they should only deal with the aspects in which they're not cringe: economics, politics, analysis of social class struggles etc. etc. When a Marxist utters the word "idealist", you know he's gonna engage in some Nineteenth Century style nonsense à la Hegel or Heidegger. Modern Marxists should really embrace the analytic tradition (as opposed to the continental one)!
Either this guy is a spook (and just assume that everyone else is stupid) or this is some form of ironic performance art showing, in practice, the validity of Marx's claim that capitalism makes us all into idiots...
Can you expand, Alex o Sueco? Not challenging you here, but I’m always curious to hear what the few dissenters in the comments are thinking. Thank you ahead of time. 😊
@@RyanWattersRyanWatters His argument, as far as I remember it, has two points: the first one, that these thinkers that he is reading and commenting (Derrida, Foucault, Rancière, Badiou, Zizek, etc.) are charlatans, and secondly, that they are not true revolutionaries, but simply posing as radicals in order to further their status in the global theory industry. The first, what we might call philosophical, point against their readings is simply never developed enough to make sense. More often than not he seems to just be saying: "I've read the same texts/philosophers as they did, and they were wrong". In other words, we just have to take him on his word that they are charlatans. They might be, but he has not provided sufficient arguments to prove that... That wouldn't be much of a problem if he had developed his second point about the global theory industry, which of course is valid to a certain point (and he is definitely not the first one to make it): Academia has definitely been caught up for the last three-four decades in the general marketization of all spheres of society. The problem is that he, in direct contradiction of Marx, seems to have a moral understanding of this process. There are a few ways of understanding his argument, none of them really working. 1: we could imagine that he has a strong materialist argument saying that radical thought is impossible within the global theory industry. But then he would need to tell us how he, a guy who keeps publishing books with all the major university publishers, in any way is different from those that he criticizes (besides being less famous), something which he doesn't do. 2: he might be making the argument that it is possible to think radically even from the inside of the global theory industry (and that he then would be an example of this possibility). But then it leaves us with the moral argument (which seems to be the most reasonable interpretation of his argument), that those that he criticizes just don the robes of radical thought. This is also very difficult to prove, as it hangs on their actual intention. And one could just as well direct the same critique against him: he is trying to make a name for himself by ruthlessly and bombastically criticizing well-known thinkers associated with the left/communism. Hence my conclusion: either he is just a spook, applying some cliché formulations about some contemporary philosophers, in order to just create division and confusion (classic spook tactic), or he knows that what he is saying doesn't make sense, performing our joint ignorance in this public spectacle. But I am hesitant to believe in the latter explanation, since he seems to have trouble understanding even some of Marx's basic arguments surrounding materialism and ideology...
I am curious if you would explain why you believe he has any trouble understanding "Marx's basic arguments surrounding materialism and ideology." I'd argue the opposite---he has an iron grasp on the concepts.
1)He isn't arguing that they're charlatans, he's arguing that they're CIA sock puppet pied pipers. He backs his claims up with significant research, FOIA requests, etc.
Horrifyingly skew to GR’s illustration. Maupin isn’t even an example of the “compatible left,” rather he’s just a fascist sheepdog. Ally of neofascists Droite and Dugin (many ideas from Maupin’s books came right from Dugin’s inspirations such as Ebola, Yockey, and Haushofer); has frequently explicitly expressed belief in core tenets of idealism (I.e. explicitly anti-communist); explicitly self-describes as a “populist, not a Marxist;” explicitly a “patsoc” aka nazbol which even on its face deliberately contradicts the core of Lenin’s advancement of revolutionary science especially international proletarian solidarity and morality; and, a disciple of actively anti-communist Lyndon Larouche. All of this ignores that he’s an abusive sexpest.
As a 50-something 'hard leftist' with, I believe, a better than average appreciation of traditional left-wing thought and the murky world of geopolitical tussling, I'm nevertheless surprised by Rockhill's depiction of the extent to which so many prominent 20th century 'leftist' intellectuals colluded with state security agencies .
I'd never encountered Mr Rockhill before last week but feel his work should be much more widely shared and appreciated. We most of us it very difficult to look beyond the scholarship of particular public intellectuals - or groupings of these within specific schools of thought - and consider the entire superstructure of intellectualism as machine in itself that has been shaped and crafted by the dominant, overarching machinery of state.
without a shred of exaggeration I think this video should be considered on par with the yellow Parenti lecture
Haha the yellow one
Can't top Yellow Parenti. It's a league on its own
@זוהר its not as outdated as Marx lmfao
@זוהר Yup I think we’d be in a much better place if more leftist “theory wonks” would read contemporary theory. There are some amazing books out there about neocolonialism and other topics, but they arent read much by radical leftists outside of the academic circuit.
@זוהר heretic!
This is the most important academic work being done right now in many of the most important ways. Deconstructing the deconstructionists? :D Anyhow THANK YOU. I will help by spreading as far and wide as possible :)
is your blog still active? enjoyed reading you a while back.
This is mindblowing in so many levels! Thanks for sharing your brilliant research and intellectual path!
I admire you so much Gabriel! Thank you for showing us your work ❤
Looking forward to reading your next book... vive la commune
Super seminar, thank you Gabriel and Jennifer.
Love these lectures. Thanks for sharing with the world.
One of the most important intellectuals alive on the left(the actual one). Keep the undressing of graduated flunkies of idealism going, lol.
Fantastic stuff.
That's help me look forward to a deeper understanding of Alan Bushes string quartet " dialectics" which I heard in Moss Side .Manchester UK last Sunday .
I’ve strongly disliked Foucault since I was introduced to his work by so-called radical BDSM enthusiasts. I could never quite place my finger on why I disliked his work so much, and the Faux Radical article as well as this video has finally helped me unravel it in my own head. Great stuff!
Can someone give a link or reference to the CIA document Gabriel is mentioning at 1:05:35 please
Pure Gold.
Glad to see this valuable work: unmask Foucault, Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze and friends as right wing fifth columnists.
Franz Neumann was with the OSS but on the other hand, had intimate, ongoing contact with Soviet intelligence (and Behemoth is an exceptional Marxist look at fascism and capital in nazi Germany.)
its fascinating to think , of the intellectuals who were working for the us intel... i would love to have a full list of all of them! i wonder if other people agree with what you said about zizek being a court jester for capitalsim, and deliberately misinterpreting socialism for the masses, in order to keep them inside capitalism and not to see socialism for the potential alternative that it is.
i suggested this in a chat today and someone jumped all over me. yikes. i can see what you are saying about zizek though..
i have let his interpretaions influence how i think about the work of kant, hegel, marx, freud, and lacan
i have found him to be provocative and charming...like when he says that lacan doesnt bring his own line of logic through to its utmost lacanian conclusions! but of course this is what the jester excels at
i appreciate the idea and its possible that zizek could be misinterpreting marx!!! people should bring these things up freely and have others consider them. i am not going to hate zizek but i think it is worthy of serious thought!
just see what actual marxists/socialists/communists have to say bout zizek (or about anyone), or read his interview for DIE WELT from the late january 2016 to see imbecility on steroids and how much he is disconnected from reality
@@BlackSmokinStile 😮
Zizek's insights into ideology and the necessity for universality is useful for socialists. We should be careful to not outright reject all of one's work for perceived or real ties to CIA or whatever. We just need to take that into consideration when reading their work.
I still like Zizek, but more for the fact he's entertaining and can be a gateway into the left for people. He's also a non-reactionary foil to radlib politics. With that said, most of what he says is nonsense but it's useful as a reminder of what bad dialectal thinking looks like.
@@kspfan001 i think he would correct us and say that he is a "court jester for Stalin..." idk but he likes Stalin ... 🔥 i dont know much about him but i got the notion that he was a bad person... hmmm. Anyways...for capitalism... its like i have to have years reading Hegel and then Lacan and understanding them well enough to give my opinion on Zizek; but unfortunately, i don't have that level of education. :( it seems like i need a graduate degree anymore thesee days to comment on anything. i've read all of these books... but. yeah i havent studied this in university so... left in the dust. Zizek doesnt SEEM like he's workin for the other side.... to me. but hey. what do i know. nothing.
wish i joined this
awesome. thanks
Amongst other things I feel validated in my profound dislike of Derrida 😅
"Compatible" = comprador, client, or
puppet versions of alleged so called
"left"- ---similar to comprador, client,
puppet governments.
Question: what is your position on Louis Althusser, imo the only actual "left" frenchman worth reading?
J. Moufawad Paul takes a stab at this in “Critique of Maoist Reason”
Fantastic!
Foucault wrote without empathy. Therefore he was a sociopath.
I’ve never bothered with these French theorists for precisely the reasons set forth here. If class conflict and revolution is not at the center of a theorist’s argument, I don’t waste my time on him. All these so-called radical thinkers are just trying to distract us from the central problem of capitalism.
Identity. At 1;=48 /29 is a Brill observation of T Adornos neglect of folk art for the bourgoise ,But I'd add that any ladders offered to elevate folk art up by the bourguise could be self defeating for the latter.
What do you mean by “material practice”?
@5:54 “My dissertation product-project”
nice audio
🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤
To say that we shouldn’t study Heidegger because he was a Nazi is a perfect example of an ad hominem attack, a common logical falsify. But this doesn’t seem to bother him although he is certainly aware of it.
You can study whatever you want, his point is that if you want radical change, looking for theoretical conceptualization from those who base their "leftism" on liberal and right-wing anti-communist philosophy will only dilute your understanding of how capitalism, especially in its colonial and imperial forms, works. If you don't, go to town with all kinds of anti-communist ideologues.
^In addition, Rockhill has maintained that studying and contending with Heidegger is an important task for the left - one that has been ignored or procrastinated on, and he has critiqued this.
Absent that context, yeah, he did hand-wave Heidegger in this talk; but he is not of the overall opinion that Nazi intellectuals and their predecessors should not be seriously studied!
That’s not what he said at all, but he has limited time in this. We should study Heidegger and Rockhill would say the same thing
is that a knock on Habermas or nazi youth? 10:00
I understand what you're saying about Žižek but I still love him for his announcements that he's a stalinist. I like to believe that is true underneath it all 😌✌️ even if he's confusing people by misinterpreting certain points.
Yep, "Average american"!
-in jest
Hrllo
Mmm... this I think
looks interesting
Thinking IS interesting
U don't have to believe...
Mind you
Occasionally I ask myself
...after thinking
What would Jesus DO?
20:05 - But empiricism isn't a theory about ontology: it's a theory about epistemology!!
Marxists shouldn't talk about "theoretical" philosophy, they should only deal with the aspects in which they're not cringe: economics, politics, analysis of social class struggles etc. etc.
When a Marxist utters the word "idealist", you know he's gonna engage in some Nineteenth Century style nonsense à la Hegel or Heidegger.
Modern Marxists should really embrace the analytic tradition (as opposed to the continental one)!
Phony baloney from nobody going nowhere.
Either this guy is a spook (and just assume that everyone else is stupid) or this is some form of ironic performance art showing, in practice, the validity of Marx's claim that capitalism makes us all into idiots...
Can you expand, Alex o Sueco? Not challenging you here, but I’m always curious to hear what the few dissenters in the comments are thinking. Thank you ahead of time. 😊
@@RyanWattersRyanWatters His argument, as far as I remember it, has two points: the first one, that these thinkers that he is reading and commenting (Derrida, Foucault, Rancière, Badiou, Zizek, etc.) are charlatans, and secondly, that they are not true revolutionaries, but simply posing as radicals in order to further their status in the global theory industry. The first, what we might call philosophical, point against their readings is simply never developed enough to make sense. More often than not he seems to just be saying: "I've read the same texts/philosophers as they did, and they were wrong". In other words, we just have to take him on his word that they are charlatans. They might be, but he has not provided sufficient arguments to prove that... That wouldn't be much of a problem if he had developed his second point about the global theory industry, which of course is valid to a certain point (and he is definitely not the first one to make it): Academia has definitely been caught up for the last three-four decades in the general marketization of all spheres of society. The problem is that he, in direct contradiction of Marx, seems to have a moral understanding of this process. There are a few ways of understanding his argument, none of them really working. 1: we could imagine that he has a strong materialist argument saying that radical thought is impossible within the global theory industry. But then he would need to tell us how he, a guy who keeps publishing books with all the major university publishers, in any way is different from those that he criticizes (besides being less famous), something which he doesn't do. 2: he might be making the argument that it is possible to think radically even from the inside of the global theory industry (and that he then would be an example of this possibility). But then it leaves us with the moral argument (which seems to be the most reasonable interpretation of his argument), that those that he criticizes just don the robes of radical thought. This is also very difficult to prove, as it hangs on their actual intention. And one could just as well direct the same critique against him: he is trying to make a name for himself by ruthlessly and bombastically criticizing well-known thinkers associated with the left/communism. Hence my conclusion: either he is just a spook, applying some cliché formulations about some contemporary philosophers, in order to just create division and confusion (classic spook tactic), or he knows that what he is saying doesn't make sense, performing our joint ignorance in this public spectacle. But I am hesitant to believe in the latter explanation, since he seems to have trouble understanding even some of Marx's basic arguments surrounding materialism and ideology...
@@alexosueco6379 Thank you kindly for responding and for being so thoughtful.
(I wish all my UA-cam conversations were this civil. 😆)
I am curious if you would explain why you believe he has any trouble understanding "Marx's basic arguments surrounding materialism and ideology." I'd argue the opposite---he has an iron grasp on the concepts.
1)He isn't arguing that they're charlatans, he's arguing that they're CIA sock puppet pied pipers. He backs his claims up with significant research, FOIA requests, etc.
Oooh look…it’s a tankie!!! A tankie and a tenured faculty. Very compatible!
You are the subject of this whole 2 hours and 19 minutes. Look into the mirror, radical liberal
Caleb Maupin also exposes the Synthetic Left. Excellent video
Horrifyingly skew to GR’s illustration. Maupin isn’t even an example of the “compatible left,” rather he’s just a fascist sheepdog.
Ally of neofascists Droite and Dugin (many ideas from Maupin’s books came right from Dugin’s inspirations such as Ebola, Yockey, and Haushofer); has frequently explicitly expressed belief in core tenets of idealism (I.e. explicitly anti-communist); explicitly self-describes as a “populist, not a Marxist;” explicitly a “patsoc” aka nazbol which even on its face deliberately contradicts the core of Lenin’s advancement of revolutionary science especially international proletarian solidarity and morality; and, a disciple of actively anti-communist Lyndon Larouche.
All of this ignores that he’s an abusive sexpest.
@@DiamatForAll when are you gonna debate Haz
@@infrawiki ????
@@DiamatForAll if you’ve got a substantive critique let’s hear it. Write it out. Post a link to substack. We’re listening …
I rely on others' substantive critiques of fascism, idealism, anti-communism, and nazbols/patsocs.