Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Opium of the Intellectuals

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 42 posts

Re: The Opium of the Intellectuals

#31

Post by lainga »

The mentioned "endemic anti-Americanism" of postwar France was very widespread. It was found among the SFIO and diverse left, of course, for evident reasons. But it was also a component of Gaullism, I think as a chafing at having to play on the team of new postwar Anglo-American order, which replaced the Anglo-French upon the latter's defeat in 1940. France had been shuffled down to maybe 4th or 5th place on the world stage, after the Four Policemen (US, UK, USSR, China). In any event that was a contributor to France's withdrawal from NATO's military command, which happened under de Gaulle.

In technological terms they had a fiercely independent attitude, coupled with strong state control (dirigisme), which led to a fascinating sort of parallel path of technological development. Instead of the military (ARPA) or private initiative (Bell), a lot of innovation came directly from conscious French governmental efforts. France had one of the highest rates of industrial espionage against the US during the Cold War - to the benefit of companies like Bull - but it was overlooked so as to keep them "inside the tent". They also invested heavily into domestic initiatives like Sophia Antipole and Minitel, which operated even into the 2010s.

Re: The Opium of the Intellectuals

#32

Post by ardy42 »

hirundo wrote: post #14

I think The Grand Scheme is the opiate of the intellectuals, and some regimes are friendlier to such schemes than others. If you have a set of top down rules that require your will to be imposed on others, a flatter hierarchy is a bug. A decentralized system like free market capitalism allows many tyrants to flourish, but petty ones in comparison. You want a central authoritarian who can materialize your wishes. Whet…

> I think The Grand Scheme is the opiate of the intellectuals, and some regimes are friendlier to such schemes than others. If you have a set of top down rules that require your will to be imposed on others, a flatter hierarchy is a bug. A decentralized system like free market capitalism...

IMHO, free market capitalism pretty clearly counts as a "Grand Scheme." It's basically a program of totally imposing the market idea on society, to usurp and replace as much of society's other ideas and institutions as possible. IIRC, the market also requires an initial program of coercion to get started, to force workers to participate in the market to avoid starvation and other deprivations.

Re: The Opium of the Intellectuals

#33

Post by vearwhershuh »

Interesting history and background:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Aron

It appears that traditional marxism has been largely coopted by identity politics, as an intentional strategy by the corporate powers that be. This is why you see companies that are absolutely brutal towards labor virtue signal about trendy left-wing social issues.

Despite being deeply conservative, I see a lot of truth in Marx's analysis of the problems with modern financial capitalism. Paraphrasing Chesterton: right about what is wrong, wrong about what is right.

Re: The Opium of the Intellectuals

#34

Post by TomMckenny »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #22
chrisallick wrote: post #13

If you’re reading this, run. There is no value in these comments.

Maybe you could explain why each comment doesn't have value by, I don't know, responding to them instead of a blanket statement encouraging the brigading of every single comment in this thread (which is what's happening, given the almost universal amount of grey appearing in this thread)

The title contains the words "Marxism" and "intellectual". There are far too many anti-intellectual cold-warriors here that have access to the down vote to have a reasonable conversation on what is really just a philosophic opinion on the matter.

So this thread innately ends up being troll bait.

Re: The Opium of the Intellectuals

#37

Post by zaaakk »

vearwhershuh wrote: post #33

Interesting history and background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Aron It appears that traditional marxism has been largely coopted by identity politics, as an intentional strategy by the corporate powers that be. This is why you see companies that are absolutely brutal towards labor virtue signal about trendy left-wing social issues. Despite being deeply conservative, I see a lot of truth in Marx's analysis…

You’d be interested to hear, then, that most of Marx’s work is about analyzing capitalism and very little of it involves prescriptions for future societies. In fact, Marx wasn’t interested in drafting any exact plan for a post-revolutionary society. He was far more concerned with describing the internal contradictions of capitalism that would lead us to such a point.

Re: The Opium of the Intellectuals

#38

Post by [deleted] »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #5

And yet people get so pissed off when I call out french post-modernism and critical theory as being uniquely Marxist. At least some on the right see the connection properly (though it's not like they get it right beyond that in most cases, e.g. Peterson) But to be fair, it's not like those intellectuals are advocating for the authoritarian parts of Marxism. They're advocating for the egalitarian parts as well as his…

[deleted]

Re: The Opium of the Intellectuals

#39

Post by zaaakk »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #5

And yet people get so pissed off when I call out french post-modernism and critical theory as being uniquely Marxist. At least some on the right see the connection properly (though it's not like they get it right beyond that in most cases, e.g. Peterson) But to be fair, it's not like those intellectuals are advocating for the authoritarian parts of Marxism. They're advocating for the egalitarian parts as well as his…

Your pseudo-intellectualism is painfully obvious here. French postmodernism (Foucault, Derrida) is very different from critical theory of the Frankfurt school. It’s a token sign of someone who hasn’t read any of them to lump them together.

The influence of Kantian ethics on Marx and Adorno’s philosophy is very strong. Kant was a genius but in many ways his morality was stuck in the worldview of 18th century bourgeois. These modern authors chose to update his work instead of simply repeating it as dogma. Ironic that you describe Marxism as a religion, then. No, Kant is not the “opposite” of a Frankfurt school philosopher, and you’d be hard pressed to find any reputable scholar who would agree with that. A better “opposite” might be someone more contemporary, like Austrian economists, Karl Popper, or logical positivists.

Also, why not reply to my post directly instead of I subtweeting me? You should probably read more before you accuse others of “philosophical disinfo.”

Re: The Opium of the Intellectuals

#40

Post by vearwhershuh »

zaaakk wrote: post #37
vearwhershuh wrote: post #33

Interesting history and background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Aron It appears that traditional marxism has been largely coopted by identity politics, as an intentional strategy by the corporate powers that be. This is why you see companies that are absolutely brutal towards labor virtue signal about trendy left-wing social issues. Despite being deeply conservative, I see a lot of truth in Marx's analysis…

You’d be interested to hear, then, that most of Marx’s work is about analyzing capitalism and very little of it involves prescriptions for future societies. In fact, Marx wasn’t interested in drafting any exact plan for a post-revolutionary society. He was far more concerned with describing the internal contradictions of capitalism that would lead us to such a point.

> Marx wasn’t interested in drafting any exact plan for a post-revolutionary society.

And look what we got. Maybe that was the mistake.

Post reply on HN