Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Live Science: Massive tentacled microbe may be direct ancestor of all complex life

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Nicoletta Lanese writes:

Ancient microbes whose existence predates the rise of nucleus-carrying cells on Earth may hold the secrets to how such complex cells first came to be. Now, for the first time, scientists have grown a large enough quantity of these microbes in the lab to study their internal structure in detail, Science reported.

a micrograph of an ancient microbe with a spherical main cell body and bumpy tentacles that extend outwards in all directions
Scientists recently captured detailed images of an Asgard archaeon, an evolutionarily ancient microbe that may have been key to the emergence of complex life on Earth. 
(Image credit: © Thiago Rodrigues-Oliveira, Univ. Wien)

Researchers grew an organism called Lokiarchaeum ossiferum, which belongs to a group of microbes known as Asgard archaea, according to a new report, published Wednesday (Dec. 21) in the journal Nature. Named after the abode of the gods in Norse mythology, Asgard archaea are thought by some scientists to be the closest evolutionary relatives of eukaryotes, cells that package their DNA in a protective bubble called a nucleus. 

On the evolutionary tree of life, Asgards often appear as a “sister” of eukaryotes or as their direct ancestor, Jan Löwe, leader of the Bacterial Cytoskeleton and other Molecular Machines research group at the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology in the U.K., wrote in a commentary about the new study. Asgards don’t carry nuclei themselves, but they do contain a suite of genes and proteins that were once thought to be unique to eukaryotes. Researchers have a variety of theories as to how Asgards may have gained primitive nuclei and thus birthed the first complex cells, which later gave rise to plants, animals and humans.  

In 2020, a research group in Japan reported that, after 12 years of work, they’d successfully grown Asgards in the lab

“It has taken six long years to obtain a stable and highly enriched culture, but now we can use this experience to perform many biochemical studies and to cultivate other Asgard archaea as well,” co-senior author Christa Schleper, leader of the archaea ecology and evolution lab at the University of Vienna, said in a statement.

Gathered from mud in a canal on the coast of Piran, Slovenia, the L. ossiferum specimens have funky tentacles that extend from the body of each cell; odd bumps and bulges appear along the length of each appendage. These “surface protrusions” may support the idea that, at some point in evolutionary history, an Asgard grabbed a passing bacterium using similar extensions of its membrane and sucked the bacterium into its cell body, and this led to the development of the nucleus, Löwe wrote. The protrusions support the idea that such an interaction could have occurred, he explained. 

L. ossiferum also carries tiny, lollipop-like structures on its surface, which “look like they come from another planet,” Thijs Ettema, an environmental microbiologist at Wageningen University in the Netherlands who wasn’t involved in the work, told Science. The microbe also contains structural filaments that closely resemble those seen in the cytoskeleton, or supporting scaffold, of eukaryotic cells, Löwe wrote.

Some scientists think the new study strengthens the hypothesis that Asgards are eukaryotes’ direct ancestor, but not everyone is convinced. Read more in Science.

Full article at Live Science.

The following statement by researchers lacks a certain quality of scientific professionalism: “These ‘surface protrusions’ may support the idea that, at some point in evolutionary history, an Asgard grabbed a passing bacterium using similar extensions of its membrane and sucked the bacterium into its cell body, and this led to the development of the nucleus.” Can anybody pinpoint how this statement falls short of scientific expectations, beyond perhaps the elementary school level?

Comments
PyrrhoManiac1 @62, Good points all. In this case as well as many others, it's really not the stated objectives of the system as much as the methods employed. For what it's worth, my national/cultural background is strongly libertarian, so considering Marxists and Postmodernists, I'd share their distrust of the accumulation of power, which can easily bypass any so-called checks and balances. There are simply too many people in a society with a powerful central government that can be bribed, blackmailed, or misled by a few ruthless and ambitious people to be able to resist any coordinated effort. I think there are good arguments that can made that the U.S. is a de facto fascist state. -QQuerius
January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
@61
Which of Benito Mussolini’s points listed in @44 do you disagree with? Which of them are incompatible with Marxism?
I don't have an instinctive aversion to a strong centralized government as such, but I do think that the more power a government has, the more important it is that there be strong democratic safeguards on its power. I would contrast Lord Acton on power with Stan Lee's "with great power comes great responsibility". Most of the proposals in the Fascist Manifesto do not by themselves seem objectionable, but without increasing the power of the people to counterbalance the power of the state, no government should be trusted with a blank check to increase its power. One of the thing that Marx got badly wrong was the assumption that if private property were abolished, there would be no need for a state -- "the state would wither away", as he put it. He might have been right in thinking that there would be no need for a state ("a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force", as Weber defined it) in a truly post-scarcity society, but was quite badly wrong in his belief that abolishing private property was not only necessary but also sufficient for eliminating scarcity as such. One relatively minor point: the Fascist Manifesto of 1918 was not written by Mussolini but by De Ambris and Marinetti. The Doctrine of Fascism (1927) was written by Gentile and Mussolini. Mussolini himself wrote:
Granted that the nineteenth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the twentieth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "right", a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State.
Marx himself would have vehemently opposed all of this: his political ideal was the republicanism that inspired the American and French Revolutions, but in a more radical direction influenced by the utopian social experiments of Robert Owen and Saint-Simon. He was, fundamentally, a theorist of human freedom whose ideal of a rational society was one in which the free development of each was compatible with the free development of all. The hallmark of his political philosophy is simply this: one cannot freely develop one's intellectual, moral, emotional, aesthetic, and physical capacities if one is constrained by the need to sell one's labor in exchange for access to the means of survival. In other words, the ideals and values of the Enlightenment, which nurtured and inspired both the American and French Revolutions, is incompatible with industrial capitalism. Regardless of the turn to "collectivism" in the Soviet period, Karl Marx would have adamantly and completely opposed what Mussolini called "the doctrine of fascism". In his own life-time, Marx was a huge admirer of Abraham Lincoln, as noted by (among others) the religious socialist Martin Luther King.PyrrhoManiac1
January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
So, Pyrrhomaniac1 . . . Which of Benito Mussolini's points listed in @44 do you disagree with? Which of them are incompatible with Marxism? -QQuerius
January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Jerry @58,
If anyone is interested in a very readable expose/history of socialism, read “ Heaven on Earth: The Rise, Fall, and Afterlife of Socialism”by Joshua Muravchik.
But that couldn't have been TRUE socialism! Thanks for the book reference. And no, I didn't know Thomas Sowell was once a socialist. -QQuerius
January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus says:
PM1, first, you made accusations of conspiracy theories, in a context further associated with antisemitism, specifically that claims regarding culture form marxism and derivative critical theories are conspiracy theories. I took time to cite literature to show there is such a bird, commonly seen in the academy and now beyond it. I suggest, given the gravity of the antisemitic implication, this is slander to be walked back.
At no point did I deny or even downplay the significance of the Frankfurt School or subsequent critical theory. I have been a close reader of Marx, the Frankfurt School, and Habermas for two decades, and I daresay I have a better appreciation of their strengths and weaknesses than you do. What I said, and I stand by, is that the phrase "Cultural Marxism" as used at Uncommon Descent and by conservatives generally is a conspiracy theory. This conspiracy theory alleges that a group of German Jewish emigres, recognizing the failure of Communism, infiltrated the American academy and the entertainment industry in order to subvert America from within. Since then, the conspiracy theory has mutated and evolved to the point where liberal policies and proposals with a broad base of popular support are ascribed to the insidious work of enemies of Western civilization. This is how Anders Breivik used the phrase "Cultural Marxism" in the manifesto he published online prior to his 2011 mass murder. It is what contemporary reactionary intellectuals such as Steve Bannon and Alexander Dugin position themselves as against. It is not a descriptive term, but one laden with an anti-semitic past.PyrrhoManiac1
January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
If anyone is interested in a very readable expose/history of socialism, read “ Heaven on Earth: The Rise, Fall, and Afterlife of Socialism”by Joshua Muravchik. He was once one of them and tells it all. Aside: Sowell was also once a believer in socialism. He said facts got in the way.jerry
January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
Jerry, sometimes, objectors need to be exposed as unreasonable. Above, we saw a smear that reference to critical theories as cultural marxism was antisemitic conspiracy theorising. Some elephant hurling was made, too. So, there was a place to document the actual state of affairs. Now, links have been made for future reference should this come up again. More broadly, TS is a prominent public intellectual who has made his case at multiple book length, and can simply point to his corpus . . . unless they decide to censor that. KFkairosfocus
January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT
F/N: is it reasonably possible to reduce trillions of actually observed cases of FSCO/I where we directly know the cause to be designers, to just one, as SG wants to insinuate at 6 above? No. For, first, manifestly each designer is a designer, and each case of design is a case of design. If it is meant, only humans are observed designers, instantly no, beavers design dams adapted to locations. More fundamentally, we are contingent creatures so we cannot exhaust the possible cases of design, as is notorious on history and of course the SETI project. The objection is a textbook example of selectively hyperskeptical special pleading to give a dismissive talking point and an abuse of induction. That it keeps popping up despite repeated correction shows desperation to find some sort of objection. It ends up being a backhanded concession, as were there strong counter examples they would be instantly given and triumphantly trumpeted, and 10 years ago attempt after attempt was made only to see them collapse. So, we may freely infer, desperate, weak objections tell us the case is strong. KFkairosfocus
January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
My favorite New Year's resolution was to stop trying to reason with unreasonable people. This has reduced both my correspondence and my blood pressure Thomas Sowell
Unfortunately, most don’t recognize that here.jerry
January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
Meanwhile, on a focal issue in the OP:
The following statement by researchers lacks a certain quality of scientific professionalism: “These ‘surface protrusions’ may support the idea that, at some point in evolutionary history, an Asgard grabbed a passing bacterium using similar extensions of its membrane and sucked the bacterium into its cell body, and this led to the development of the nucleus.” Can anybody pinpoint how this statement falls short of scientific expectations, beyond perhaps the elementary school level?
The speculation not backed by observationally warranted dynamics for start. Continue with failure to account for information. Then add, how would an ingested bacterium skip the usual fate, food? Then, how will the bacterium now act as a nucleus? Did it swallow the genes in turn? A tower of speculation on a pinhead of trivial fact: a tentacled unicellular organism. I guess critique of this, too is liable to be accused of conspiracy theorism. Nope, pointing out speculation for what it is is quite in order. KFkairosfocus
January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT
F/N: On the more philosophical side, here Philip Walsh on Skepticism, Modernity and Critical Theory [Macmillan, 2005]:
Among social theorists, the critical theory of the Frankfurt School [--> explicit] is generally thought to be primarily Marxist in inspiration [--> neo-marxist], and its con- nection to philosophy is often presented as antagonistic, or at least secondary. 1 This perception was particularly strong in the 1960s and 70s, when critical theory was viewed as a primary inspiration behind the rise of the worldwide radical social movements that came to be known as the New Left, and Marx’s exhortation to unite theory and practice came to occupy center stage in the reception and interpretation of the writings of the critical theorists. However, over the last two decades, the philosophical core of the most influential themes developed within critical theory has become clear, and has generated a significant quantity of what is customarily desig- nated philosophical scholarship. 2 The shift is also illustrated in the increasing appreciation of the work of Theodor W. Adorno, who, among the members of the first generation theorists [--> Frankfurt], was the most overtly con- cerned with philosophy, and especially with the philosophical program inherited from the German idealist tradition that culminates in Hegel. In this respect, Adorno’s work can be viewed as somewhat divergent from the other prominent Frankfurt School theorists and – certainly with respect to its consistent emphasis on the need for philosophy – it has a problematic relationship not only with the work of the other prominent first-generation members of the School, Herbert Marcuse and Max Horkheimer, but also with that of Jurgen Habermas. 3 Indeed, the differences between Adorno and Habermas, and symbolically between the first and second generation of critical theorists, have formed something of a terrain marker in the landscape of critical theory commentary, with Adorno often being framed as maintaining an allegiance to a tradition of metaphysical and epistemological inquiry, and Habermas calling for a ‘post-metaphysical thinking’. The real differences are no doubt more complex and nuanced than this, but the shift in emphasis is real enough. This book is primarily concerned with the influence of philosophical skepticism on the critical theory research paradigm. Therefore, it con- cerns one element of an interdisciplinary and evolving research project, the definition of which may be said to comprise three separate compo- nents: (1) A conception of human beings and human society that is strongly historicist; (2) a commitment, nevertheless, to an emancipatory view of knowledge defined by the tradition of modern Marxist sociology; (3) a conception of reason derived from the tradition of modern European philosophy, and from Hegel’s philosophy in particular. The argument that undergirds the book is that we cannot come to terms with this third element of the critical theory project without a retrospective under- standing of the question of skepticism, since the skeptical moment is an indispensable theme within Hegel’s conception of reason.
The dots are here, again connected, reflecting a clear consensus view. One, that justifies describing this as culture form marxism. Notice too, the promotion of the inferior good, [hyper-] skepticism, in the place of prudence, a key move in the emergence of radical secularism. This needs to be hammered home and clenched over for record, to document the evasiveness and denial of reasonable understandings; which have been unjustly smeared as antisemitic empty conspiracy theories. We have a right to infer confession by projection and ask pointed questions to critique the critical theorists and the emerging movements of intolerant tolerance, as well as policy agendas, as the ghosts of 100 million victims remind us. After C20, there can be no justification for the 170+ years long love affair with Marxist thought. It needs to be assessed as, instead, a massively destructive ideology not worth building on, and whatever shards of reasonable analysis it produced should be reframed on a sounder footing. And that needs to respect the major contribution of civilisation as enabling large numbers to live in reasonable communities with good progress and limited, lawful government. It needs to return us to prudence, and it needs to publicly account for the horrors of C20 Marxism inspired states. The wave of critical theories, movements and policy agendas fails this test. KFkairosfocus
January 2, 2023
January
01
Jan
2
02
2023
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT
F/N: I now clip MASQUELIER, in the Bloomsbury series, in the introduction to his Critical Theory and Libertarian Socialism: Realizing the political potential of critical social theory, showing the start from Marx frame and clearly echoing the history of ideas and agendas frame already identified:
With Marx [--> so, [neo-] marxist in frame, marxist in root], then, one witnesses the emergence of a social theory primarily oriented towards a form of political action leading to the radical re-organization of economic life, that is, the collective control of production. 3 However, according to his later works, social change was not a merely desirable goal. It came to be construed as the inevitable consequence of the self-destructive dynamism of a form of capital accumulation relying upon the continuous expansion of productive forces. The relationship between humanity and external nature underpinning the capitalist mode of production, he came to argue, would eventually liberate humanity from the fetters of wage-slavery. Marx’s unity of theory and practice, therefore, immediately appears inextricably tied to the instrumental mastery of external nature steering the capitalistic development of productive forces. A few decades later, a school of thought heavily inspired by new intellectual and socio-historical developments came to question the viability of Marx’s own critique of modernity. The emergence of totalitarian regimes in Europe, combined with the development of capitalism into its ‘advanced’ form, led the first generation of Frankfurt School theorists 4 to re-assess the achievements of modernity and the role of critique in an age whereby the prospects for justice and autonomy appeared as remote as they have ever been since modernity’s inception. Drawing their inspiration partly from the work of Nietzsche, Weber and Freud, they sought to expose the repressive mechanisms that had led to the emergence of such a state of affairs [--> Frankfurt School, critical theory frame]. Although clearly aware of the problematic [--> the target, failing to see fragility of civ] character of capitalist production, they discovered that the translation of the principle of self-preservation into an epistemic foundation for the instrumental mastery of nature effectively prompted the elaboration of a critique capable of tracing the reified authority of economic facts to the spread of a distinctive form of knowledge. With Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse, in fact, one witnesses a clear attempt to problematize the logic of domination supported by reason in its instrumental form and reflected in capitalist economic and socio-political institutions. They also chose to approach autonomy from the standpoint of the relationship between humanity and internal nature, and construe repression as the domination of the latter by the former, mediated by forms of property, state and consciousness, stemming from the relationship between humanity and external nature, that is, the matter, substance or forces making up our natural environment. Autonomy would therefore consist in the emancipation of the repressed, namely the sensuous or instinctual dimension of internal nature comprising the passionate, creative and spontaneous energies that make each individual unique beings, from the instrumental form of rationality unfolding under the principle of self-preservation [--> oppression thesis].
Clearly, Marx --> Frankfurt School --> Onward generations, now known as critical theory. Where, we see points of serious concern as identified. No, we are not dealing with empty conspiracy theorising, this is a summary from an advocate, one based in Britain and clearly bridging Frankfurt influences and the homegrown school already pointed out above. KFkairosfocus
January 1, 2023
January
01
Jan
1
01
2023
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT
PM1, as you could readily confirm, I have cited onward scholarship published by notable academic houses, from the period when so-called Critical Theories were spreading across the academy. The first one is the usual general publication of a revised PhD dissertation.One, comes from a series, indeed, I cited the theme statement for the series, extending what is clearly a dominant school of thought to a new century, the emerging global digital era. I did so, in part to show history of ideas and knowing that there is both peer review and editorial review involved so the summary conclusions about the emerging and now clearly dominant school of thought is stronger than particular arguments. The fundamental point is therefore quite clear, the academy's 170+ year love affair with Marx and his "scientific" socialism, despite the check given by the collapse of the USSR at the turn of the 90's, continues. Unsurprising, I know it is embedded in the 1987 Bruntland Commission definition of sustainable development and is a concern expressed in the phrase watermelon environmentalism: green outside, red inside. And yes, we again find the same scholarly epoch. I am aware of influences in psychology also. The parallel British school clearly is in key part a school about history. Turning back to critical theories so called, it becomes clear that these were running in parallel with the rise of post modernism and are tied to what was being highlighted as political correctness then identity politics. The scholarship -- not popular crude summaries -- I cited above speaks for itself, backing up what SEP and Enc Brit summarise as well as what can be teased out of Wikipedia, in answering the antisemitic conspiracy theory slander. So, your evasive, rude dismissive personality can be taken as a rhetorical squid ink cloud of denial and projection, behind which evasion and business as usual continue. Sorry, 100 million ghosts of victims of marxism get a voice, as of right. There is definitely a culture form [neo-] marxism, it has come to dominance in the arts and social sciences, it uses the label critical theory, it uses the marxist thesis of ideology as false consciousness to discredit all opposition (ducking the obvious self referential incoherence in its dynamic), it has reconceptualised our civilisation as a system of oppression of fringe groups, using this to effect moral inversion and promotion of self- and socially- destructive psycho-social and moral perversities as special protected and promoted classes, it is riding on the history, pains and oppression of the descendants of victims of the Atlantic slave trade to power, it is proclaiming itself as the more rational way to erect policy, institutions and economies. All of these bring it into the policy arena and therefore it is our right to critique the critics. KF PS, Marcuse -- one of the foundational circle of the Frankfurt School -- on freedom in his chilling essay, Repressive Tolerance [1965, cited from 1969], makes for telling reading:
THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed. In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period--a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice. Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression. [--> the false consciousness thesis, the self referentiality, the hinted at intent to subvert then suppress the despised other, the promotion of the fringe including patently pathological behaviour are clearly hinted at, right at the outset] The author is fully aware that, at present, no power, no authority, no government exists which would translate liberating tolerance into practice [--> i.e. he calls for cultural revolution, just before Mao made his push in 1966 using students as his shock troops and of course red as theme colour], but he believes that it is the task and duty of the intellectual to recall and preserve historical possibilities which seem to have become utopian possibilities--that it is his task to break the concreteness of oppression in order to open the mental space in which this society can be recognized as what it is and does . . . . Tolerance is extended to policies, conditions, and modes of behavior which should not be tolerated because they are impeding, if not destroying, the chances of creating an existence without fear and misery. [--> the usual marxist utopianism] This sort of tolerance strengthens the tyranny of the majority against which authentic liberals protested. The political locus of tolerance has changed: while it is more or less quietly and constitutionally withdrawn from the opposition, it is made compulsory behavior with respect to established policies. Tolerance is turned from an active into a passive state, from practice to non-practice: laissez-faire the constituted authorities. It is the people who tolerate the government, which in turn tolerates opposition within the framework determined by the constituted authorities. Tolerance toward that which is radically evil now appears as good because it serves the cohesion of the whole on the road to affluence or more affluence.
Of course, notoriously, this essay is pivotal to the rise of political correctness and onward marginalisation or censorship of whatever challenges the radical progressivist agenda. It reeks of cognitive dissonance and projection to the despised other. A well known agit prop stratagem. This is a key case in point of direct influence of undeniable scope, and in it one may readily discern the themes, agendas and points of concern regarding the rise to domination of culture form marxism. The ghosts of 100 million victims get a voice.kairosfocus
January 1, 2023
January
01
Jan
1
01
2023
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus @46,
Q, Italian Fascist Manifesto
Yes, you're absolutely correct! Actually, I was surprised that PyrrhoManiac1 didn't know this and couldn't answer my questions directed to him. It was kind of you to answer my question for him and I'm impressed. But now I notice that PyrrhoManiac1 is repaying you with an unjustified ad hominem attack, accusing you of relying on "watered-down summaries." As any student of history knows, such subjects are fascinating, complex, and have multiple legitimate perspectives. The mark of an ideologically censored history is precisely a lack of diversity in perspectives and factors narrowed down into a simplistic doctrinaire narrative. And now you're expected to read all that homogenized drivel or you won't be taken seriously? I think it's clear that you've won the debate. -QQuerius
January 1, 2023
January
01
Jan
1
01
2023
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
KF, how about you actually read some of these texts for yourself and stop relying on watered down summaries provided by others? Until you do, I see no reason to take your views on this at all seriously: you simply do not understand what you are talking about.PyrrhoManiac1
January 1, 2023
January
01
Jan
1
01
2023
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
F/N: Now, let us observe the theme of a series on "Critical Theory and Contemporary Society" published by Bloomsbury:
ABOUT THE SERIES Critical Theory and Contemporary Society explores the relationship between contemporary society as a complex and highly differentiated phenomenon, on the one hand, and Critical Theory as a correspondingly sophisticated methodology for studying and understanding social and political relations today, on the other. Each volume highlights in distinctive ways why (1) Critical Theory offers the most appropriate concepts for understanding political movements, socioeconomic conflicts and state institutions in an increasingly global world and (2) why Critical Theory nonetheless needs updating in order to keep pace with the realities of the twenty-first century. The books in the series look at global warming, financial crisis, post–nation state legitimacy, international relations, cinema, terrorism and other issues, applying an interdisciplinary approach, in order to help students and citizens understand the specificity and uniqueness of the current situation. Series Editor, Darrow Schecter [2014, in Critical Theory and Libertarian Socialism: Realizing the political potential of critical social theory by CHARLES MASQUELIER]
Just the list of titles given this theme, is enough to see that this aims at global domination of an agenda. Hence, policy analysis is appropriate, and sharp questioning. Again, for cause, we may hold that we are not dealing with empty conspiracy theories, there is a global agenda afoot, that may be responsibly characterised as culture form [neo-] marxism, acting through critical theory and associated movements, now grasping for power at global level. Given serious concerns, we have a right to critique the critics and ask some pretty pointed questions. The ghosts of 100 million victims of marxism nod their agreement. KFkairosfocus
January 1, 2023
January
01
Jan
1
01
2023
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
F/N: Let's go back to the same 1980's with echoes of the 20's - 30's. As, we need to lay down a timeline, crucial for understanding agent action and cause thus history. First, Leon Bailey, in Critical Theory and the Sociology of Knowledge: A Comparative Study in the Theory of Ideology [Peter Lang, 1996], citing how self referential incoherence was exposed as a fatal flaw in the Marxist concept of ideology -- as "false" consciousness):
The appearance of Karl Mannheim's Ideology and Utopia in 1929 presented an important challenge to the Marxian theory of ideology. In Mannheim's account of the origins of the sociology of knowledge, Marxism was credited with the development of a "total" concept of ideology that called the entire world view of its opponents into ques­ tion. By linking the ideological distortion of thought to social posi­ tion, Marxism had raised doubts about the very possibility of its op­ ponents ever attaining an adequate knowledge of social reality. But in one respect Mannheim charged that Marxism had not gone far enough. Specifically, it had failed to call its own position into ques­ tion and therefore subject all forms of social thought, including itself, to ideological analysis. This final, radical step, transforming the the­ ory of ideology into a general theory of the social determination of all knowledge of history and society, had been taken only with the de­ velopment of the sociology of knowledge. Marxism itself was now to be unmasked as merely one particular standpoint, as one ideology among all the others. Thus the ironic result of Mannheim's view was that the genuine contribution of the Marxian theory of ideology could be preserved only by revoking its substantive claims to truth.
Now, who rushed to Marx's defence? You got it in one:
Among those who opposed Mannheim's transformation of the theory of ideology into a general sociology of knowledge were the three central theorists of the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research (commonly known as the "Frankfurt School"): Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse. In their view, Mann­ heim's extension of the concept of ideology to encompass all forms of social thought had deprived it of all critical content by severing it from any definite relation to a concrete historical conception of truth. As a result, they believed Mannheim's sociology of knowledge, de­ spite all wishful assurances to the contrary, to be indistinguishable from epistemological relativism. Given this central line of criticism, the Frankfurt School continually returned to Mannheim's work, sub­ jecting it to close scrutiny and attempting to distinguish it from their own critical theory of society . . . . Far from simply occupying the po­sition of a specialty field within sociology or political science, the theory of ideology inevitably involves considerations related to the logic and method of the social sciences, substantive theories of contemporary societies, and problems of rationality, justification and truth. Since these issues lie at the heart of the contrast between critical theory and the sociology of knowledge . . .
We already see the line from Marx through the Frankfurt School to the 1980's and onward to now. here, the self referentiality of the Marxist concept of ideology becomes pivotal. And, this is of course a key means by which Marxists have delegitimised those who object to their views and agendas. Ideology of course, is a key part of the oppressor/victim thesis of Marxism. Which is exactly what we see in the critical theory agendas. Turning to an onward generation, Habermas, citing Rick Roderick in Habermas and the Foundations of Critical Theory [Macmillan, 1986] , we find:
I began with two problems that appear and reappear throughout his work: the problem of developing a justification for the normative dimension of critical social theory; and the problem of establishing a connection between the theory and political practice. Both problems can be traced back to Marx and followed throughout the subsequent development of the Marxist tradition, although they appear in particularly acute form in the elaboration of his social theory developed_ by the Frankfurt school. The first involves what is to count as a rational criticism of society, while the second is directed at how such criticisms are to aid in the construction of a society that is actually more rational. At attempt to answer them thus requires an account of rationality developed at, at least, two levels: a formal account of the concept; and an account of its social and historical embodiment in institutions, modes of production, and ways of life. Harbermas attempts to supply such an account explicitly in his latest work and it is implicit in his early work.
The "more rational" approach to society, in this context is of course rooted in Frankfurt School neo-marxism. It is telling that these works were written before the collapse of the USSR in the 1980's. Again, culture form marxism, expressed through critical theories, assorted pressure movements and now pushing policy agendas is real, it is not the fevered imaginations of empty conspiracy theorists. KFkairosfocus
January 1, 2023
January
01
Jan
1
01
2023
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
Q, Italian Fascist Manifesto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto a kissing cousin of the Nazi Manifesto https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/nazi-party-25-points-1920/ KFkairosfocus
January 1, 2023
January
01
Jan
1
01
2023
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
PM1, FTR, the conspiracy theory projection -- as I actually cited, BTW -- is where the anti-semitic slander propagated by Wikipedia, SPLC et al is. When you suggest that reference to cultural marxism is a conspiracy theory, that is what you have committed yourself to, whether or not you intended it, and as such is so loaded, the targetted have every right to take it as a slander. As I showed, culture form marxism expressed through critical theories, associated movements and emerging policy agendas is a reality admitted to by say SEP etc and one tracing to the Frankfurt School, etc, as I also showed. As you asserted in your side track on Petersen et al (who I neither have followed nor care much about), truth is a defence. Kindly take note for the future, the next time you are tempted to toss around irresponsible rhetorical grenades such as "conspiracy theory." KF PS: There is actually a second cultural marxist tradition, tracing to the UK, which was discussed in a 1984 thesis that became a 1997 book. I now clip the title:
Dennis Dworkin CULTURAL MARXISM IN POSTWAR BRITAIN History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies Duke University Press Durham and London 1997
Obviously, "new left" is tantamount to neo-marxist, and the focus on cultural studies suggests a similar programme to the Frankfurt School and its derivatives.
In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, a collection of papers given at a 1983 conference, the editors, Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson, argue that Marxism is at the center of an explosive trend in the social sciences and the humanities that cuts across traditional boundaries and takes “the entire field of cultural prac­ tices” as its subject. The editors suggest that Marxism is ideally suited for this task because it
has long been at least implicitly involved in breaking down the barriers between these domains, making each of necessity a site o f interpretative activity—by politicizing interpretative and cultural practices, by looking at the economic determinations of cultural production, by radically his- toricizing our understanding of signifying practices—from political dis­ courses to art, from beliefs to social practices, from the discourse of psychology to the discourse o f economics—and, of course, by continuing to revise and enlarge a body o f theory with multidisciplinary implications
This book, Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain, is a historical account of the creation and development of one part of this un­ orthodox and critical Marxism: the British tradition of cultural Marxism from the mid-1940s until the late 1970s, from the found­ ing of the Welfare State to Margaret Thatcher’s transformation of it. I focus on the contributions of scholars and writers working in the field of history and cultural studies . . . . cultural studies has advanced critical under­ standing of the media, youth subcultures, literary production, the contemporary working class, the cultural construction of race and gender, popular culture, and the nature of ideology. It is distin­ guished by its simultaneous respect for the potentially subversive culture of dominated and marginalized classes and groups and an acute awareness of the ideological forces in society containing them. Interdisciplinary and theoretically eclectic, cultural studies has supplanted the traditional dichotomy between high and low culture, so prevalent in discussions about the mass media, with an enlarged concept of the cultural terrain . . . . I view British cultural Marxism in terms of a constructive but by no means harmonious dialogue and debate between, and within, the disciplines of history and cultural studies. At issue has been the relationship between culture and society, structure and agency, ex­ perience and ideology, and theory and practice. It is my contention that this cultural Marxist tradition cannot be viewed in isolation; it must be seen in the context of the crisis of the British Left, a crisis virtually coterminous with the postwar era . . . . British cultural Marxism grew out of an effort to create a social­ ist understanding of Britain which took into consideration postwar transformations that seemed to undermine traditional Marxist as­ sumptions about the working class and that questioned the tradi­ tional Left’s exclusive reliance on political and economic catego­ ries. Cultural Marxists were, above all, concerned with redefining the relationship between structure and agency, for it was the agency of traditional socialism, the industrial working class, that was being called into question. They attempted to identify the contours of the postwar terrain, to redefine social struggle, and to articulate new forms of resistance appropriate to a democratic and socialist politics in an advanced capitalist society. At the heart of this project was “culture.”
This is just the introduction and already a familiar pattern is on the table, notice, dating to 1984. The somewhat strained kissing cousin relationship to the Frankfurt School is also highlighted:
Possibly a more detailed picture can be drawn of British cultural Marxism by comparing and contrasting it with another Marxist- inspired tradition that has influenced contemporary discussions of culture—the Frankfurt School. Founded in the aftermath ofWorld War I and shaped by the experience of the Russian Revolution and fascism, the Frankfurt School likewise represented a philo­ sophical alternative to Marxist economism and Leninist vanguard- ism. Frankfurt School Marxists emphasized the cultural and ideo­ logical dimensions of social life; they characteristically attempted to grasp society as a “totality,” and they were concerned with the dis­ appearance of the revolutionary subject in advanced capitalist soci­ eties. Like Antonio Gramsci, they advocated a revolution against Marx’s Capital, in other words, opposition to the simplistic belief that capitalist collapse and proletarian triumph were guaranteed by the laws of Marxist economics.5 Like the Frankfurt School, the British tradition was founded on a rejection of economism; it stressed the autonomy of culture and ideology in social life, and it was shaped by the failure of revolu­ tionary movements in the advanced capitalist West.
So, manifestly, culture form marxism is a legitimate and not an antisemitic term, with at least two kissing cousin schools of thought. Beyond that, my frank view is that while we might find some strands of reasonable thought and have to in any case engage the 170+ year intellectual love affair with Marx, I think we should start from the thesis that Marxism failed, failed in ways that cost 100+ millions their lives in totalitarian systems and is to be repudiated root and branch as a menace to civilisation. Concern that this toxic weed is cropping up again is legitimate, whatever flaws and foibles one may find with critics of classical or cultural marxism. This needs to be faced and accusations of conspiracy theory must now be walked back.kairosfocus
January 1, 2023
January
01
Jan
1
01
2023
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
PyrrhoManiac1 @43, FWIW, yes, I trust what you're posting is not a lie. Also note that "lying" is limited to intentional deception. Thus, there's a difference in being ignorant, wrong, or abstracting to a higher level and lying. What I've observed from history is that despots knowingly or unknowingly paint a beautiful picture of cosmic justice (Thomas Sowell), equality of outcomes, and an egalitarian, benevolent state. With boring repetition, the outcomes are always dystopian hellholes with a sign at the edge reading, "But that wasn't TRUE socialism." The fundamental problem is with pervasive human psychological pathologies that we used to call "sin." The denial of sin or projecting it onto human institutions rather than individuals is the problem. It's true that human institutions tend to amplify sin with the inevitable consolidation of power, but it is not the source. As I'm sure you know, much has been written on the subject, including
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.” - Lord Acton
Now here's a reacted quote--do you recognize who wrote it and when? And most importantly, which of the listed points do you agree with?
Here is the program of XXXXX movement. It is revolutionary because it is anti-dogmatic, strongly innovative and against prejudice. For the political problem: We demand: a) Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women. b) A minimum age for the voting electorate of 18 years; that for the office holders at 25 years. c) The abolition of the Senate. d) The convocation of a National Assembly for a three-year duration, for which its primary responsibility will be to form a constitution XXXXX. e) The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of trades XXXXX with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers. For the social problems: We demand: a) The quick enactment of a law of the State that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers. b) A minimum wage. c) The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions. d) To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants. e) The rapid and complete systemization of XXXXX all the transport industries. f) A necessary modification of the insurance laws to invalidate the minimum retirement age; we propose to lower it from 65 to 55 years of age. For the military problem: We demand: a) The institution of a national militia with a short period of service for training and exclusively defensive responsibilities. b) The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories. c) A national policy intended to peacefully further the XXXX national culture in the world. For the financial problem: We demand: a) A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth. b) The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations XXXXX, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor. c) The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.
-QQuerius
December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
@36
That was the point of 1984 and Animal Farm.
Orwell was a socialist who wrote Animal Farm as a satire of how Stalin and Trotsky perverted the original aspiration of Marxism. The novel begins with "Old Major's Dream". It's been argued that Old Major represents the British socialist William Morris, who was deeply influenced by Marx (among many others). After the revolution, the pigs Napoleon (representing Stalin) and Snowball (representing Trotsky) pervert and distort the original dream of Old Major (Morris/Marx), so that by the end, it is no longer possible to distinguish the new ruling class from the old one. Likewise 1984 warns against the disaster it would be for humanity if Stalinism were to prevail. But neither novel indicates that Orwell ever gave up his commitment to democratic socialism, as also evident in his Homage to Catalonia. @38
Yep, did you notice that PMI tried to paint Related as an anti semite
I did not try to paint Relatd as an anti-Semite. I neither know nor care about their personal attitudes towards Jews. I said that their paranoia about "Cultural Marxism" indicates that they have been duped by an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
then slandered Lindsay, Rufo and Peterson calling them liars?
It is not slander if it is demonstrably true. Their lies have been established on numerous occasions by people who have actually taken the time to read the texts and theories that are insistently lying about. I know this because I know that they say, and I myself have read Hegel (Phenomenology of Spirit, Elements of Philosophy of Right and others. I've read Marx's Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, <I.The German Ideology, and volume 1 of Capital, along with scholarship on Marx by Moishe Postone, David Harvey, and William Clare Roberts. I've read most of the history of "Western Marxism", including Luxumborg, Lukacs, Merleau-Ponty, Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse. I've read Plekhanov, Bogdanov, Lenin, Buharin, and Ilyenkov in the Soviet tradition. I've read Cesaire, Fanon, Wynter, and Robinson in the Black Marxist tradition. When I say that they are lying, it is because I know all of these texts and theories first-hand, having read from myself, and in some cases, in the original German. Obviously I don't expect anyone here to believe me, because the downside of posting under a pseudonym is that nothing I say about myself can be verified. But my claim to expertise about these texts and theories can be verified by anyone who has a first-hand knowledge of them -- not what some Internet summary or popular pundit says about them.PyrrhoManiac1
December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
F/N: Observe this smoking gun in Wiki's piece on neomarxism:
Neo-Marxism is a Marxist school of thought encompassing 20th-century approaches that amend or extend Marxism and Marxist theory, typically by incorporating elements from other intellectual traditions such as critical theory, psychoanalysis, or existentialism (in the case of Jean-Paul Sartre). As with many uses of the prefix neo-, some theorists and groups who are designated as neo-Marxists have attempted to supplement the perceived deficiencies of orthodox Marxism or dialectical materialism. Many prominent neo-Marxists, such as Herbert Marcuse and other members of the Frankfurt School, have historically been sociologists and psychologists.
KFkairosfocus
December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT
PPPS, resemblance to how ID has been grossly mistreated is not coincidental.kairosfocus
December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT
PPS, let us contrast Wikipedia's agit prop hit piece:
The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory [--> so much for objectivity or neutrality, this is already playing crit theory agit prop projection tactics] which claims that Western Marxism [--> a certain dominant school of thought in C19 - 20 that collapsed as its theories failed when tried] is the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture.[1][2][3] [--> So, characterising a civilisation as in the main a movement of oppression and seeking to subvert it intellectually and politically on Frankfurt School derived ideologies does not count? "Western Civ's gotta go" they chanted in the streets . . . ] The conspiracy theory misrepresents [--> did or did not this School base itself on Marxism, reinterpreting it and refocussing on cultural and institutional frames?] the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness
[--> Wiki on critical theory: "A critical theory is any approach to social philosophy that focuses on society and culture to reveal, critique and challenge power structures.[1] [--> so, of radical, revolutionary character and marxist inspired] With roots in sociology and literary criticism [--> leaves off Frankfurt School and Marxism], it argues that social problems stem more from social structures and cultural assumptions than from individuals.[citation needed] It argues that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation.[2] Critical theory finds applications in various fields of study, including psychoanalysis, sociology, history, communication theory, philosophy and feminist theory. [--> that is, it is targetting precisely the areas that critics of cultural marxism identified] Specifically, Critical Theory (capitalized) is a school of thought practiced by the Frankfurt School theoreticians Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Erich Fromm, and Max Horkheimer. [--> so, buried headline and lead, Frankfurt, neomarxist school rooted] Horkheimer described a theory as critical insofar as it seeks "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them."[3] Although a product of modernism, and although many of the progenitors of Critical Theory were skeptical of postmodernism, Critical Theory is one of the major components of both modern and postmodern thought, and is widely applied in the humanities and social sciences today.[4][5][6] [--> dominance and institutional capture, as warned against] In addition to its roots in the first-generation Frankfurt School, critical theory has also been influenced by György Lukács and Antonio Gramsci. Additionally, second-generation Frankfurt School scholars have been influential, notably Jürgen Habermas. In Habermas's work, critical theory transcended its theoretical roots in German idealism and progressed closer to American pragmatism. Concern for social "base and superstructure" is one of the remaining Marxist philosophical concepts in much contemporary critical theory [--> buried smoking gun with "remaining" as an evasive, weasel word].[7]:?5–8? "]
, claiming there is an ongoing and intentional subversion of Western society [--> as in a fundamentally hostile agenda that seeks to capture the intellectual, media, legal and political/policy high ground to mainstream an agenda] via a planned [--> i.e. some bodies, somewhere, did some strategising to push an agenda] culture war [--> 4th generation war is far broader than traditional war] that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism [--> gospel ethics is prior to and so independent of traditions and attempts to conserve such, but notice the anti Christian character lurking behind the targetting of tradition and conservatism] and seeks to replace them with the culturally liberal values of the 1960s.[2][3][4] [--> radical relativism, subjectivism, marginalisation of moral knowledge and principles, destruction of especially, family, marriage and sexual ethics, etc] Although similarities with the Nazi propaganda term "Cultural Bolshevism" have been noted [--> invidious association, we dare you to translate Nazi: national socialist German labour party], the contemporary conspiracy theory [--> drumbeat repetition to hammer home what is not as though it were, gaslighting] originated in the United States during the 1990s.[5][6][7][note 1] Originally found only on the far-right political fringe [--> define far right coherently please, apart from we hate you and project to you], the term began to enter mainstream discourse in the 2010s and is now found globally.[7] The conspiracy theory [--> the drums beat on] of a Marxist culture war '--> actually, marxism took a hard blow at the turn of the 90's, there was a pause as it was repackaged and we saw repackaging under watermelon environmentalism and culture form marxism, which then renewed the marxist push for power, already ongoing for over a century] is promoted by right-wing politicians, fundamentalist religious leaders, political commentators in mainstream print and television media, and white supremacist terrorists,[8] [--> notice the piling on of invidious associations and projections, subversive of factual reflection] and has been described as "a foundational element of the alt-right worldview".[9] [--> define alt right coherently please] Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact.[7][10] [--> we the ones who captured the academy have spoken, that settles it, we do not exist, we do not have a history, we do not have an agenda apart from liberation and if you object you are the demonic other . . . neatly shutting down serious objective reflection by ideologising academic discourse]
The pattern here is actually a useful illustration of the agit prop, long march through the institutions institutional capture techniques of culture form marxist ideologues.kairosfocus
December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT
Vivid, I saw the hints. I notice the attempt to redefine references to culture form, Frankfurt School, neo marxism and its derivative "critical theory" and associated novements as a right wing, anti semitic conspiracy theory. That is a projection laced slander that tries to pretend that a family of movements trying to entrench itself in power with a definite traceable history and with colour revolution street activists marching in the streets, mobbing, looting, committing arson, mayhem and murder with near impunity does not actually exist. That one has a well known term, gaslighting. That Saul Alinsky, several of the neomarxist founders and Marx were Jews is irrelevant to the substance of the theories and movements with as yet unfinished histories flowing from them. KF PS, Enc Brit:
critical theory social and political philosophy By The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Last Updated: Dec 20, 2022 Article History critical theory, Marxist-inspired movement in social and political philosophy originally associated with the work of the Frankfurt School. Drawing particularly on the thought of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, critical theorists maintain that a primary goal of philosophy is to understand and to help overcome the social structures through which people are dominated and oppressed [--> social readily translates to cultural, and marxism inspired means, neomarxist, thus: culture-form marxism, to denote a shift away from Marx's emphasis on economic classes and related theory of emergence of the socialist state]. Believing that science, like other forms of knowledge, has been used as an instrument of oppression, they caution against a blind faith in scientific progress, arguing that scientific knowledge must not be pursued as an end in itself without reference to the goal of human emancipation. Since the 1970s, critical theory has been immensely influential in the study of history, law, literature, and the social sciences. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica This article was most recently revised and updated by Adam Augustyn.
kairosfocus
December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT
KF “translated, if you disagree with us, we tag and smear you] “ Yep, did you notice that PMI tried to paint Related as an anti semite then slandered Lindsay, Rufo and Peterson calling them liars? Vividvividbleau
December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PDT
PM1, just tell us, in a coherent definition, what right wing and far right mean, and how Nazi or fascist can coherently be ascribed to the right [clue: Stalin was not the centre of politics]. Explain how the currently deemed right wing came from C18 - 19 monarchy, bringing in the context of the Great War and its aftermath where three of the four great power monarchies collapsed. Which as bare fact was the original sense: the favoured right hand of the Speaker of an Assembly. If it is so easy to do, definitions that meet the comparative difficulties test of political philosophy and political history will be easy to find. KF PS, how not to do it, a loaded, incoherent narrative from Wikipedia:
Right-wing politics describes the range of political ideologies that view certain social orders and hierarchies [--> orders/hierarchies? do you mean that power and wealth will be concentrated, and some forms of such are legitimate, with room for policing excesses and abusive power? Where, a Chip Fab currently runs to US$ 10++ bill, and we know that competing architectures bring prices down and performance up. Kindly identify a major successful micro architecture that did not come from private sector competition. Who disagrees, then, with that, why? While we are at it, explain how an ideological, state owned or controlled grand monopoly or cartel will escape, naturally, the ills of monopoly or shared monopoly?] as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law [--> a snide slander by implied invidious association] , economics [--> as in, the market consistently outperforms information choked central planning?] , authority [--> legitimacy, competence, credibility, transparency, accountability?] , property [--> oh, there is no right to honestly acquired property, starting with one's toothbrush? or, one's person?] or tradition [--> oh, so, historically tested, sustainable structures responsive to social realities are dismissed?] .[4][5]:?693,?721?[6][7][8][9][10] Hierarchy and inequality [--> so, where is the balance, that we are equally created and equally endowed with self evident, mutually compatible rights, whilst there is legitimate leadership and authority?] may be seen as natural results [--> as in what will happen?] of traditional social differences[11][12] or competition in market economies [--> notice the implicit dismissal of the evidence of C20 that socialist central planning failed].[13][14][15] Right-wing politics are considered the counterpart to left-wing politics [--> translated, if you disagree with us, we tag and smear you] , and the left–right political spectrum is one of the most widely accepted political spectrums.[16] [--> it is dominant but ill defined, especially as one moves away from the socialist and related left] The term right-wing can generally refer to the section of a political party or system that advocates free enterprise and private ownership, and typically favours socially traditional ideas.[17] [--> so, we broad brush dismiss these?] The Right includes social conservatives and fiscal conservatives [--> so, to wish to conserve the tested in social structures and economics is dismissed], while a minority of right-wing movements, such as fascists, harbor anti-capitalist sentiments. [--> a key incoherence, this is a clue that fascists are obviously of the left, just not so far so as the communists but further so than more moderate democratic pragmatic trade union movement based socialists] [18][19][20] The Right also includes certain groups who are socially liberal and fiscally laissez-faire, such as right-wing libertarians. [--> a meaningless grab bag of invidious association for those who differ from the radical socialist, marxism influenced left]
kairosfocus
December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT
PM1, first, the Frankfurt School and its legacy of neo-marxist, culture form marxism now dominating social sciences and the arts, now bleeding over into education, law and government are real history of ideas, ideology and civilisation agenda issues. Jerry is quite correct that the right has no coherent definition as C18-19 monarchism is dead and Stalin, viewing himself as centre of politics deemed those he disagreed with right wingers and fascists. Meanwhile Mussolini was consciously revising socialist thought and in Germany the National Socialist German Labour Party -- I am citing a 1930's translation, and they meant both the socialist and the labour -- was rising to power. In a day of domination by leftists, those who disagree get plastered with all kinds of slanderous accusations and agit prop projections. Some of which invite cognitive dissonance and confession by projection to the despised other analysis. As Goebbels understood well, as did Orwell, propaganda is at its most effective when it is not recognised as being propaganda. That is because, the spin meisters have induced those who look to them, to swallow their crooked yardsticks as standards of truth, uprightness, straightness, knowledge, fact etc. So, what is genuinely these things cannot fit the established crookedness and is rejected, projecting the perceived crookedness to the despised other. So, we need to look first to first principles and duties of right reason, then use such naturally straight and upright plumblines to detect crookedness. This is hard, it is really difficult to address crooked yardsticks. A good start point is to detect where one is exerting double standards of warrant and is being hyperskeptical, especially on the right to innocent reputation. LF PS, SEP on critical theories: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/
“Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers of” human beings (Horkheimer 1972b [1992, 246]). Because such theories aim to explain and transform all the circumstances that enslave human beings, many “critical theories” in the broader sense have been developed. They have emerged in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies. In both the broad and the narrow senses, however, a critical theory provides the descriptive and normative bases for social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom in all their forms.
This is fairly obviously self promotional and fails to reckon seriously with the totalitarian heritage of marxism. There is legitimate authority, there is legitimate leadership, there is legitimate qualification for such, and the cynical or blindingly angry blanket projection of oppression and promotion of the anarchistic, nihilistic, perverse or suicidally self destructive is little more than anticivilisational misanthropy. Worse, when 4th generation war, colour revolution -- start with Mao's Red Guards -- and SOCOM insurgency escalator factors are added to the witches brew. BTW, the obvious theme colour for the US case is, black. Similarly, Agit Prop, media manipulation, the two minute hate, doublethink, doubletalk, street theatre, mob riots, lawfare and show trials are all 4th gen war techniques. Multiply by the legal positivist severance of law from canons of first principles and duties of justice and the stage is set for chaos. Critical theories and associated movements themselves need to face the bar of critique as pathways to new oppression. That was the point of 1984 and Animal Farm. For cause.kairosfocus
December 31, 2022
December
12
Dec
31
31
2022
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT
PMI “That’s because there is no sh*t. It simply does not exist. You’ve been lied to.” BUllsh..t!! Don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining BTW Lindsay is an atheist and is a classic liberal in the enlightenment sense Like Jerry I too would like to know what makes someone “far right” Vividvividbleau
December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
Related re 24 I think Critical Race Theory is a better description rather than Cultural Marxism. Certainly CRT finds it’s roots in Marxism Vividvividbleau
December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply