Austrian right-wing candidate barely loses..

[Liriena]

He's at least correct that Marxism is essentially a worldview, as is any major political theory.

It's also a scientific method of sorts. And it's quite diverse, in terms of the various interpretations of it that exist. Traditional Marxism, for one, had its fair share of eurocentrism, and issues gender and sexuality were approached in many different ways, depending on the school of thought.

[Liriena]

I am actually curious about this. For me, when I think Marxism, I'd see a Memorial for Marx and Lenin put in stone with red flags around it in some east European Marxist-Leninist Dictatorship with cool russian-styled Uniforms and stuff. Ya know Communism. Or perhaps a ill-shaved student with huge black nerd glasses blubbering about some theoretical stuff and the Working Class.

Theodor W. Adorno is not what I think on when I think Marxism. Nowadays where I live Adorno is being regarded as legendary Philosopher of the 68 Revolution, but I dont really know anything about him than he was apparently somehow critical of Capitalist Society and against Consumerism.

Excuse my ignorance but how would you define Frankfurt School Marxism, and what sort of effect it does have on the University Educated Middle Class?

Adorno, like others in the Frankfurt Schule, was a Marxist whose thought was imbued with a bit of Freudian theory, and shaped by his experiences during the rise of the Third Reich. Their work tended to focus more on cultural critique than economic analysis, and a recurring theme of it was their disillusionment with post-Enlightenment Europe. They saw National Socialism as a product of the Enlightenment's failings, and condemned modern thought for "prohibiting theoretical imagination", which they thought "opened the path to political madness".

Honestly, I'm very disappointed by people who believe that the Frankfurt Schule were a bunch of stereotypical SJWs preaching for the destruction of European civilization or something. Yes, they were very critical of European society... as it was back in the 1930's. They did much of their most emblematic work at a time when it seemed that the continent was spiraling down the road of what they called "a new form of barbarism". As far as I know, Adorno himself never said anything along the lines of "let's destroy the whole thing by bringing in lots and lots of muslims, and turning all men into a bunch of cucks living under the rule of the feminazis."

[Koninkrijk Zeeland]

I would support van der bellen. The EU is really shitty , it used to a be a great organisation but after the euro currency it went down hill.
The EU did a lot of good things , like open borders and free trade. However it's very corrupt , the lobbyists are basicly next door. The only solution to the Greek debt problem is bailing them out and not increasing their debt every 6 months.

[Ostroeuropa]

Adorno, like others in the Frankfurt Schule, was a Marxist whose thought was imbued with a bit of Freudian theory, and shaped by his experiences during the rise of the Third Reich. Their work tended to focus more on cultural critique than economic analysis, and a recurring theme of it was their disillusionment with post-Enlightenment Europe. They saw National Socialism as a product of the Enlightenment's failings, and condemned modern thought for "prohibiting theoretical imagination", which they thought "opened the path to political madness".

Honestly, I'm very disappointed by people who believe that the Frankfurt Schule were a bunch of stereotypical SJWs preaching for the destruction of European civilization or something. Yes, they were very critical of European society... as it was back in the 1930's. They did much of their most emblematic work at a time when it seemed that the continent was spiraling down the road of what they called "a new form of barbarism". As far as I know, Adorno himself never said anything along the lines of "let's destroy the whole thing by bringing in lots and lots of muslims, and turning all men into a bunch of cucks living under the rule of the feminazis."

I think it's more fair to say they are symbolic of a trend in academia, which ultimately led to stereotypical SJWs and such.
It's like blaming the first people to come up with religion for the crusades.

Perhaps unfair, but ultimately, there's a little truth to it.

[Imperializt Russia]

Honestly, I'm very disappointed by people who believe that the Frankfurt Schule were a bunch of stereotypical SJWs preaching for the destruction of European civilization or something. Yes, they were very critical of European society... as it was back in the 1930's. They did much of their most emblematic work at a time when it seemed that the continent was spiraling down the road of what they called "a new form of barbarism". As far as I know, Adorno himself never said anything along the lines of "let's destroy the whole thing by bringing in lots and lots of muslims, and turning all men into a bunch of cucks living under the rule of the feminazis."

I think it's more fair to say they are symbolic of a trend in academia, which ultimately led to stereotypical SJWs and such.
It's like blaming the first people to come up with religion for the crusades.

Perhaps unfair, but ultimately, there's a little truth to it.

Academia is a system rather dominated by men, with a reputation for sexism to boot.

It is not the SJW paradise of cultural marxism you mistakenly believe it to be. Academics, barring those of economics, but very much scientists, are typically much more left-wing (economically, some social issues relating to left-wing economic thought) than the general population - but as I frequently allude, it's very unsurprising that scientists would be.

[Liriena]

Honestly, I'm very disappointed by people who believe that the Frankfurt Schule were a bunch of stereotypical SJWs preaching for the destruction of European civilization or something. Yes, they were very critical of European society... as it was back in the 1930's. They did much of their most emblematic work at a time when it seemed that the continent was spiraling down the road of what they called "a new form of barbarism". As far as I know, Adorno himself never said anything along the lines of "let's destroy the whole thing by bringing in lots and lots of muslims, and turning all men into a bunch of cucks living under the rule of the feminazis."

I think it's more fair to say they are symbolic of a trend in academia, which ultimately led to stereotypical SJWs and such.
It's like blaming the first people to come up with religion for the crusades.

Perhaps unfair, but ultimately, there's a little truth to it.

Eeeeh, no. You can blame the existence of stereotypical SJWs on a lot of things, but a bunch of German philosophers criticising 1930's culture industry and the rise of fascism sounds like a stretch to me. Specially since, as far as I could tell, the Frankfurt Schule, while arguably with feminist leanings, were not huge proponents of identity politics or anything of the sort.

Maaaaaaaaaybe you could cite Foucault as one of the causes of those dastardly SJWs you hate so much... but even then, Foucault's influence only goes as far as academia will let it, and while universities may have remarkably progressive professors and students, the institutions themselves tend to gravitate towards maintaining the same approach they've had since the days of the Enlightenment.

[Novus America]

I think it's more fair to say they are symbolic of a trend in academia, which ultimately led to stereotypical SJWs and such.
It's like blaming the first people to come up with religion for the crusades.

Perhaps unfair, but ultimately, there's a little truth to it.

Academia is a system rather dominated by men, with a reputation for sexism to boot.

It is not the SJW paradise of cultural marxism you mistakenly believe it to be. Academics, barring those of economics, but very much scientists, are typically much more left-wing (economically, some social issues relating to left-wing economic thought) than the general population - but as I frequently allude, it's very unsurprising that scientists would be.

Even the left admits academia is biased to the left.
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/ ... ctrination

And yes academia is dominated by white men. But this just proves hypocrisy.
https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/cente ... udies.html

Academia preaches "diversity" and "equality" but does not practice it.

[Great Feng]

Academia is a system rather dominated by men, with a reputation for sexism to boot.

It is not the SJW paradise of cultural marxism you mistakenly believe it to be. Academics, barring those of economics, but very much scientists, are typically much more left-wing (economically, some social issues relating to left-wing economic thought) than the general population - but as I frequently allude, it's very unsurprising that scientists would be.

Even the left admits academia is biased to the left.
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/ ... ctrination

And yes academia is dominated by white men. But this just proves hypocrisy.
https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/cente ... udies.html

Academia preaches "diversity" and "equality" but does not practice it.

perhaps because Leftism is the beliefs of those who are well-educated?
Just a thought, a possibility.
It may be because the academics are leftist and/or because those who are well-educated become leftist in their views.

[The East Marches]

Even the left admits academia is biased to the left.
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/ ... ctrination

And yes academia is dominated by white men. But this just proves hypocrisy.
https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/cente ... udies.html

Academia preaches "diversity" and "equality" but does not practice it.

perhaps because Leftism is the beliefs of those who are well-educated?
Just a thought, a possibility.
It may be because the academics are leftist and/or because those who are well-educated become leftist in their views.

Then why does the study say that conservatives cluster around economics, business, engineering etc.

It's because what the cultural values are different. Those who might be described as dealing with the real world lean right, those who deal in abstractions lean left.

[Novus America]

Even the left admits academia is biased to the left.
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/ ... ctrination

And yes academia is dominated by white men. But this just proves hypocrisy.
https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/cente ... udies.html

Academia preaches "diversity" and "equality" but does not practice it.

perhaps because Leftism is the beliefs of those who are well-educated?
Just a thought, a possibility.
It may be because the academics are leftist and/or because those who are well-educated become leftist in their views.

Not necessarily. Other highly educated professions are not necessarily leftist. It is more self selection as the first article points out.

Right wing lawyers are just as educated as left wing ones. But seem to gravitate towards the higher paying private sector and things like corporate law over academia.

[Great Feng]

perhaps because Leftism is the beliefs of those who are well-educated?
Just a thought, a possibility.
It may be because the academics are leftist and/or because those who are well-educated become leftist in their views.

Then why does the study say that conservatives cluster around economics, business, engineering etc.

It's because what the cultural values are different. Those who might be described as dealing with the real world lean right, those who deal in abstractions lean left.

As well as those who deal in fixing Social problems lean Left. Those who try to innovate lean left, while those who conserve and stick to older or the current ways lean right.

[The East Marches]

Then why does the study say that conservatives cluster around economics, business, engineering etc.

It's because what the cultural values are different. Those who might be described as dealing with the real world lean right, those who deal in abstractions lean left.

As well as those who deal in fixing Social problems lean Left. Those who try to innovate lean left, while those who conserve and stick to older or the current ways lean right.

I would call engineers and the like far more innovative than those on the left. Economists believe the best way to improve life and fix social problems is by studying hoe to better improve the economy. It was a loltarian who came up with basic income for instance.

Social problems are nice but who has had more sucess in improving things for the poor, BLM or GE?

[Imperializt Russia]

Academia is a system rather dominated by men, with a reputation for sexism to boot.

It is not the SJW paradise of cultural marxism you mistakenly believe it to be. Academics, barring those of economics, but very much scientists, are typically much more left-wing (economically, some social issues relating to left-wing economic thought) than the general population - but as I frequently allude, it's very unsurprising that scientists would be.

Even the left admits academia is biased to the left.
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/ ... ctrination

And yes academia is dominated by white men. But this just proves hypocrisy.
https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/cente ... udies.html

Academia preaches "diversity" and "equality" but does not practice it.

There's left, left and left but you're certainly not talking about whichever ones I am.

[Novus America]

Then why does the study say that conservatives cluster around economics, business, engineering etc.

It's because what the cultural values are different. Those who might be described as dealing with the real world lean right, those who deal in abstractions lean left.

As well as those who deal in fixing Social problems lean Left. Those who try to innovate lean left, while those who conserve and stick to older or the current ways lean right.

Bussinessmen and engineers inovate much more the sociologists and the like. In fact academia is externally conservative in the literal sense, as in highly opposed to change within their system.

How many in academia want tenure reform eh? No, they cling to the old ways. Left and right, people tend to be self serving hypocrites.

[Liriena]

Academia is a system rather dominated by men, with a reputation for sexism to boot.

It is not the SJW paradise of cultural marxism you mistakenly believe it to be. Academics, barring those of economics, but very much scientists, are typically much more left-wing (economically, some social issues relating to left-wing economic thought) than the general population - but as I frequently allude, it's very unsurprising that scientists would be.

Even the left admits academia is biased to the left.
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/ ... ctrination

While I wouldn't go as far as conflating Mother Jones with the American Left in general (for one, they have lately received a lot of hate from Bernie Sanders supporters for being a bit too Clinton-friendly), I'm pretty sure that it has seldom been denied that people in academia tend to gravitate towards being left-of-centre. And Gross explains the reasons for this quite well in the article:

Gross's analysis concludes that the ivory tower's well-known political reputation has encouraged a kind of self-selection effect, where conservatives gravitate away from it, and liberals towards it.

That would mean it's precisely backwards to claim that universities discriminate against conservatives in favor of the godless and liberal. Rather, people who are godless and liberal tend to flock to universities—and stay there.

Gross's findings suggest that there isn't much indoctrination taking place on campus: in detailed follow-up interviews with 57 professors who participated in his study, just two "fit the stereotype held by conservative critics of a radical professor bent on converting students to his political point of view."

I'm a Communication Sciences major, and attend classes at my university's Faculty of Social Sciences. The vast majority of my classmates gravitate towards the left, and many right-leaning people in my life reject our academic endeavours altogether as "leftist nonsense". They have no respect for social or cultural sciences, and instead show a preference for "hard sciences" and the like. They are not interested in examining social and cultural problems beyond the most simple and superficial aspects of them, and see attempts to do so as "progressive" (with negative connotations), ridiculous and meaningless.

And yes academia is dominated by white men. But this just proves hypocrisy.
https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/cente ... udies.html

Academia preaches "diversity" and "equality" but does not practice it.

I'm not sure if hypocrisy. Sexism and ethnocentrism are very ancient problems, and while individual professors and students may be keenly aware of them, and want changes to be made, it's an uphill battle against decades, if not centuries of established, passively accepted norms. Post-modern thought, with its focus on identity politics, is a fairly recent phenomenon, and it still has to face remnants of modernism's penchant for seeing underrepresentation of women and minorities as a fundamentally meritocratic problem, and believing that the Enlightenment's universalism is a practical reality, and not just an ideal.

Professors and students alike speak out in favour of diversity and equality does not magically eliminate all social and economic barriers still in place for people seeking a higher education.

[Olerand]

I think it's more fair to say they are symbolic of a trend in academia, which ultimately led to stereotypical SJWs and such.
It's like blaming the first people to come up with religion for the crusades.

Perhaps unfair, but ultimately, there's a little truth to it.

Eeeeh, no. You can blame the existence of stereotypical SJWs on a lot of things, but a bunch of German philosophers criticising 1930's culture industry and the rise of fascism sounds like a stretch to me. Specially since, as far as I could tell, the Frankfurt Schule, while arguably with feminist leanings, were not huge proponents of identity politics or anything of the sort.

Maaaaaaaaaybe you could cite Foucault as one of the causes of those dastardly SJWs you hate so much... but even then, Foucault's influence only goes as far as academia will let it, and while universities may have remarkably progressive professors and students, the institutions themselves tend to gravitate towards maintaining the same approach they've had since the days of the Enlightenment.

Indeed, the Frankfurt School were early pioneers of what would become the New Left, but they weren't really into identity politics. Foucault, with his deconstruction of the power of society and the State, can be better blamed for the rise of some of the eccentricities of the New Left, but he wasn't much into identity politics either. In fact, his experience with the Iranian Revolution, which he lauded, shows that he didn't fall into the typical modern attitude of defending the "oppressed" Muslims at every turn. His depiction of the Iranian Revolution was simply him being engulfed by the popular uprising, believing it to be some sort of manifestation of transcendent popular will, he even painted the Islamic cause that underpinned much of the Revolution as a veneer, or a facade. What he can certainly be blamed for, which many 20th and 21st century left-wing intellectuals can be blamed for, is an anti-Western bias, which makes them want to paint revolutions that are against the West or a Western backed regime as some sort of ideal, while in fact many of them devolve into brutal dictatorships.

[Spiloebistan]

Eeeeh, no. You can blame the existence of stereotypical SJWs on a lot of things, but a bunch of German philosophers criticising 1930's culture industry and the rise of fascism sounds like a stretch to me. Specially since, as far as I could tell, the Frankfurt Schule, while arguably with feminist leanings, were not huge proponents of identity politics or anything of the sort.

Maaaaaaaaaybe you could cite Foucault as one of the causes of those dastardly SJWs you hate so much... but even then, Foucault's influence only goes as far as academia will let it, and while universities may have remarkably progressive professors and students, the institutions themselves tend to gravitate towards maintaining the same approach they've had since the days of the Enlightenment.

Indeed, the Frankfurt School were early pioneers of what would become the New Left, but they weren't really into identity politics. Foucault, with his deconstruction of the power of society and the State, can be better blamed for the rise of some of the eccentricities of the New Left, but he wasn't much into identity politics either. In fact, his experience with the Iranian Revolution, which he lauded, shows that he didn't fall into the typical modern attitude of defending the "oppressed" Muslims at every turn. His depiction of the Iranian Revolution was simply him being engulfed by the popular uprising, believing it to be some sort of manifestation of transcendent popular will, he even painted the Islamic cause that underpinned much of the Revolution as a veneer, or a facade. What he can certainly be blamed for, which many 20th and 21st century left-wing intellectuals can be blamed for, is an anti-Western bias, which makes them want to paint revolutions that are against the West or a Western backed regime as some sort of ideal, while in fact many of them devolve into brutal dictatorships.

Didn't Foucault have an admiration for Milton Friedman as well? All I know about Foucault is that he's widely misinterpreted as being leftist.

[Imperializt Russia]

Indeed, the Frankfurt School were early pioneers of what would become the New Left, but they weren't really into identity politics. Foucault, with his deconstruction of the power of society and the State, can be better blamed for the rise of some of the eccentricities of the New Left, but he wasn't much into identity politics either. In fact, his experience with the Iranian Revolution, which he lauded, shows that he didn't fall into the typical modern attitude of defending the "oppressed" Muslims at every turn. His depiction of the Iranian Revolution was simply him being engulfed by the popular uprising, believing it to be some sort of manifestation of transcendent popular will, he even painted the Islamic cause that underpinned much of the Revolution as a veneer, or a facade. What he can certainly be blamed for, which many 20th and 21st century left-wing intellectuals can be blamed for, is an anti-Western bias, which makes them want to paint revolutions that are against the West or a Western backed regime as some sort of ideal, while in fact many of them devolve into brutal dictatorships.

Didn't Foucault have an admiration for Milton Friedman as well? All I know about Foucault is that he's widely misinterpreted as being leftist.

Like I said, left, left and left.

No-one cares for the difference anymore. It's just "left", it's all the same, so people seem to think.

[Olerand]

Indeed, the Frankfurt School were early pioneers of what would become the New Left, but they weren't really into identity politics. Foucault, with his deconstruction of the power of society and the State, can be better blamed for the rise of some of the eccentricities of the New Left, but he wasn't much into identity politics either. In fact, his experience with the Iranian Revolution, which he lauded, shows that he didn't fall into the typical modern attitude of defending the "oppressed" Muslims at every turn. His depiction of the Iranian Revolution was simply him being engulfed by the popular uprising, believing it to be some sort of manifestation of transcendent popular will, he even painted the Islamic cause that underpinned much of the Revolution as a veneer, or a facade. What he can certainly be blamed for, which many 20th and 21st century left-wing intellectuals can be blamed for, is an anti-Western bias, which makes them want to paint revolutions that are against the West or a Western backed regime as some sort of ideal, while in fact many of them devolve into brutal dictatorships.

Didn't Foucault have an admiration for Milton Friedman as well? All I know about Foucault is that he's widely misinterpreted as being leftist.

Indeed he did.EDIT: Let's add some nuance. Michel Foucault had an admiration towards economic liberalism, which by his rise was transforming into neoliberalism -so Friedman and co- as he saw it as a way to liberate the individual from the collectivist and Statist left that was still dominant in France and some places in the West at the time. Foucault's thought helped to give birth to a new left devoid of Marxist influence -Foucault was post-Marxist, in a way- and even worked to lay the foundations of the coming neoliberal order. While he himself did not dabble with identity politics, his thought has been used to raise societal -so identity- issues above social -so labor, more Marxist- issues to the foreground of public debate.

Didn't Foucault have an admiration for Milton Friedman as well? All I know about Foucault is that he's widely misinterpreted as being leftist.

Like I said, left, left and left.

No-one cares for the difference anymore. It's just "left", it's all the same, so people seem to think.

What lefts do you recognize?

[Liriena]

I would call engineers and the like far more innovative than those on the left.

Eh, that really depends. Engineering, like mathematics and physics, is a discipline that works on a different basis than social sciences do today. STEM disciplines have the benefit of accumulating knowledge in a fairly complementary way.

Social sciences seldom have that benefit. Few things, if any, are set in stone. Attempts at vast theoretical groundworks collide against one another on a regular basis, and few ever really get refuted and forgotten. Arguably, this forces social scientists to double their efforts in their studies to produce new knowledge, since they do not truly have a definitive, unquestionable basis to work with, beyond the basics of scientific thought (and even those get their occasional critique).

[Liriena]

Eeeeh, no. You can blame the existence of stereotypical SJWs on a lot of things, but a bunch of German philosophers criticising 1930's culture industry and the rise of fascism sounds like a stretch to me. Specially since, as far as I could tell, the Frankfurt Schule, while arguably with feminist leanings, were not huge proponents of identity politics or anything of the sort.

Maaaaaaaaaybe you could cite Foucault as one of the causes of those dastardly SJWs you hate so much... but even then, Foucault's influence only goes as far as academia will let it, and while universities may have remarkably progressive professors and students, the institutions themselves tend to gravitate towards maintaining the same approach they've had since the days of the Enlightenment.

Indeed, the Frankfurt School were early pioneers of what would become the New Left, but they weren't really into identity politics. Foucault, with his deconstruction of the power of society and the State, can be better blamed for the rise of some of the eccentricities of the New Left, but he wasn't much into identity politics either. In fact, his experience with the Iranian Revolution, which he lauded, shows that he didn't fall into the typical modern attitude of defending the "oppressed" Muslims at every turn. His depiction of the Iranian Revolution was simply him being engulfed by the popular uprising, believing it to be some sort of manifestation of transcendent popular will, he even painted the Islamic cause that underpinned much of the Revolution as a veneer, or a facade. What he can certainly be blamed for, which many 20th and 21st century left-wing intellectuals can be blamed for, is an anti-Western bias, which makes them want to paint revolutions that are against the West or a Western backed regime as some sort of ideal, while in fact many of them devolve into brutal dictatorships.

Agreed... although, to be fair, the whole 20th century put Marxists and the like in a very tough spot, and it is understandable that so many became blindly enamored with some of the worst regimes of the era. Passion can make you defend stuff that, in hindsight, was actually pretty awful.

[The balkens]

Indeed, the Frankfurt School were early pioneers of what would become the New Left, but they weren't really into identity politics. Foucault, with his deconstruction of the power of society and the State, can be better blamed for the rise of some of the eccentricities of the New Left, but he wasn't much into identity politics either. In fact, his experience with the Iranian Revolution, which he lauded, shows that he didn't fall into the typical modern attitude of defending the "oppressed" Muslims at every turn. His depiction of the Iranian Revolution was simply him being engulfed by the popular uprising, believing it to be some sort of manifestation of transcendent popular will, he even painted the Islamic cause that underpinned much of the Revolution as a veneer, or a facade. What he can certainly be blamed for, which many 20th and 21st century left-wing intellectuals can be blamed for, is an anti-Western bias, which makes them want to paint revolutions that are against the West or a Western backed regime as some sort of ideal, while in fact many of them devolve into brutal dictatorships.

Agreed... although, to be fair, the whole 20th century put Marxists and the like in a very tough spot, and it is understandable that so many became blindly enamored with some of the worst regimes of the era. Passion can make you defend stuff that, in hindsight, was actually pretty awful.

Foresight is a trait that is lacking.

[Olerand]

Indeed, the Frankfurt School were early pioneers of what would become the New Left, but they weren't really into identity politics. Foucault, with his deconstruction of the power of society and the State, can be better blamed for the rise of some of the eccentricities of the New Left, but he wasn't much into identity politics either. In fact, his experience with the Iranian Revolution, which he lauded, shows that he didn't fall into the typical modern attitude of defending the "oppressed" Muslims at every turn. His depiction of the Iranian Revolution was simply him being engulfed by the popular uprising, believing it to be some sort of manifestation of transcendent popular will, he even painted the Islamic cause that underpinned much of the Revolution as a veneer, or a facade. What he can certainly be blamed for, which many 20th and 21st century left-wing intellectuals can be blamed for, is an anti-Western bias, which makes them want to paint revolutions that are against the West or a Western backed regime as some sort of ideal, while in fact many of them devolve into brutal dictatorships.

Agreed... although, to be fair, the whole 20th century put Marxists and the like in a very tough spot, and it is understandable that so many became blindly enamored with some of the worst regimes of the era. Passion can make you defend stuff that, in hindsight, was actually pretty awful.

I understand when left-wing intellectuals defend left-wing dictatorial regimes. I accept that Jean-Paul Sartre -rather cynically too, he knew the truth, but suggested the French proletariat couldn't handle the disappointment, which actually one can argue history has proven to be true- defended the USSR. The USSR, a dictatorial regime, was still an ideologically left-wing State.

What I don't accept is that some intellectuals, and some still do this today, will defend right-wing dictatorial regimes, such as Islamic theocracies, just because these institutions are anti-Western.

[Liriena]

Agreed... although, to be fair, the whole 20th century put Marxists and the like in a very tough spot, and it is understandable that so many became blindly enamored with some of the worst regimes of the era. Passion can make you defend stuff that, in hindsight, was actually pretty awful.

I understand when left-wing intellectuals defend left-wing dictatorial regimes. I accept that Jean-Paul Sartre -rather cynically too, he knew the truth, but suggested the French proletariat couldn't handle the disappointment, which actually one can argue history has proven to be true- defended the USSR. The USSR, a dictatorial regime, was still an ideologically left-wing State.

What I don't accept is that some intellectuals, and some still do this today, will defend right-wing dictatorial regimes, such as Islamic theocracies, just because these institutions are anti-Western.

No argument there.

[Liriena]

Agreed... although, to be fair, the whole 20th century put Marxists and the like in a very tough spot, and it is understandable that so many became blindly enamored with some of the worst regimes of the era. Passion can make you defend stuff that, in hindsight, was actually pretty awful.

Foresight is a trait that is lacking.

*shrug*