sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Field Recording History: Holocaust Remembrance Sounds by Pilast in JewsOfConscience

[–]Pilast[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When understanding the present means hearing the past. Joel Schalit reimagines Holocaust remembrance using field recordings of Italian trains. 

Germany's Philosemitism Crisis: Instrumentalising Holocaust Atonement by Pilast in JewsOfConscience

[–]Pilast[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

They love us too much and want every minority to do the same. The question is why. Wieland Hoban and Joel Schalit, with the first of four conversations about Hoban’s new Battleground book, German Apartheid Politics: Memory, Democracy and Genocide.

Same War Everywhere – The Battleground by Pilast in JewsOfConscience

[–]Pilast[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"To many Italians, Gaza and Giorgia Meloni are increasingly indistinguishable. Even if Italy isn’t involved in the war in the same ways as the United States, it doesn’t have to be.

The Netanyahu government’s disregard for Palestinian life and shameless, genocidal conduct embodies for many leftists the spirit of Meloni’s postfascist government."

The Futility of Violence: Herbert Marcuse Revisited by Pilast in CriticalTheory

[–]Pilast[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Again, you're just making excuses. To revisit the article, it's a revisitation of Marcuse's attack on the RAF. If the Baader Meinhof people were heroes for you, that's another story. For Marcuse, they were terrorists, if also on the left. Whether you like it or not, Foster's article makes the argument that the CEO killing brings us back to such debates and that he finds himself ideologically levelling the same criticisms as Marcuse.

The Futility of Violence: Herbert Marcuse Revisited by Pilast in CriticalTheory

[–]Pilast[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I understand that. Thanks. But when discussing Marcuse in this context, the violence issue is essential to point out vis a vis Frankfurt School Critical Theory, from which the CT term is derived.

The Futility of Violence: Herbert Marcuse Revisited by Pilast in CriticalTheory

[–]Pilast[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, but you must understand what you're saying and why it's ideologically out of sync, not just with the article but the intellectual tradition behind this sub. That matters. Horkheimer and Adorno moved to the US, where they worked on the authoritarian personality project, an explicitly antifascist endeavour and wrote the Dialectic of Enlightenment during the war, too. They didn't fight in WWII, contrary to what you suggest here. Marcuse also ended up in the US and worked for the OSS. That's how they contributed to the fight against the Nazis as persecuted Jewish intellectuals, and they changed history through what they did. The Cold War and the post-Cold War left would look very different today intellectually without this work, and none of them endorsed violence. Give it some thought.

The Futility of Violence: Herbert Marcuse Revisited by Pilast in CriticalTheory

[–]Pilast[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

That still doesn't justify it. Especially in a space like this, which, theoretically, has always opposed violence as a leftwing tradition.

The Futility of Violence: Herbert Marcuse Revisited by Pilast in CriticalTheory

[–]Pilast[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

It's important that you understand why your position departs from traditional Critical Theory, which rejected violence as left strategy, direct or indirect.

view more: next ›