/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

the only thing i know is that he pithily described henry ford as the greatest marxist of the 20th century, and also saw san francisco as the site of world-spirit, i believe.

>>2646273
His philosophy is essentially :
>humans fight and create institutions to be recognized
>thus the political system where everyone is recognized stops having conflict

Imo his philosophy isn't that bad, but it's too generic in a way. It strips down the dialectical movement to a form of conflict-theory that lacks a broader framework (like materialism). In a certain way, he misses that the object of recognition is contingent on a specific material and socially-determined context. For instance, you can justify marxism within Kojève's thought (the proles aren't recognized under capitalism, they're reduced to cogs -> socialism recognizes them), but you can also use it to justify the most liberal slop possible (that's essentially what Fukuyama does).

>Anything interesting about him?
Yes he fucking loved Stalin and considered him the philosopher king, and he also considered the US to be the true achievement of communism, given that everyone was more or less opulent there according to him.

>Is his philosophy worthwhile or just pseud ramblings?
Seems quite decent

Cockshott says not to waste time on Hegel and hegelianism in general. Hegel was important for Marx's intellectual formation but it's not necessary to understand Marxism.

Kojève's dumbass misreading of Hegel has ruined Hegel scholarship for the past 100 years - especially his bizarre ideas about the so-called "master-slave dialectic" which Marx never mentioned once yet Kojève turns into Marx's greatest source of inspiration

>>2646273
>Should I read him?
Read Fukuyama and you'll get the gist of it.
His idea of the final system that universally enables recognition and thus lacks conflict is interesting but other than that it's a lot of hoops to jump through.

>Is his philosophy worthwhile
Not really. His theory is that conflict arises because human ontologically desire recognition, dignity etc, but that their relations prevent them. Over time, humans recognize each other more often and end up creating institutions etc.
As such, the idea is that there's a last destination for man, where every individual is recognized effectively and thus no more conflict.

The problem is that Kojève treats the desire for recognition as a thing in-and-of-itself and as an ontology, and not as something that is both socially determined and a vague representation of a broader desire for socialisation. In doing so, he flips marx on his head.
Instead of treating the desire for recognition as an externality created by everchanging institutions built-in on systemic contradictions (i.e. capitalism generates crisis -> the proles desire recognition for the consequences they suffered), he treats them as ontological conditions for the deployment of individuality.

tldr : he misses why the desire for recognition or dignity exists in the first place (in relation to material existence), and treats it instead as the ultimate source of conflict with a somewhat teleological reading.

>>2646619
>especially his bizarre ideas about the so-called "master-slave dialectic"
Topkek. I remember reading an intro book to Hegel and the first chapter was made to dispell any myths about Hegel and this was the first thing the guy complained about lol.

>yet Kojève turns into Marx's greatest source of inspiration
Can you elaborate ? I'm unfamiliar on the relations that Kojève views from Marx

>>2646310
>considered the US to be the true achievement of communism, given that everyone was more or less opulent there according to him.
So a typical westoid imperialist-socialist, then.
Just enslave the whole world bro and you can have socialism for the bourgeoisie (WOW, YOU DON'T SAY?)

peak soccdem thought

>>2647739
I think the statement was provocative but he did have a somewhat weird relation to Marxist thought.

>>2647744
Socialism is socialized production + socialized, surplus, mere sozialized surplus isn't socialism

So it doesn't work either way

>>2646749
Anon you are misinterpreting Fukuyama either deliberately or accidentally. Fukuyama did not say that desire for recognition is detached from material relations; what he argued is that *once* material deprivation is fulfilled thymos will become the centrepoint of conflict. He did not discount the fact that a lot of struggle for dignity is also accompanied by struggle for economic rights and social; where he disagreed with is with the traditional (vulgar) Marxist distinction that class antagonism is the sole origin and motivation of desire for recognition, something which Marx himself denied! (And you cannot seriously believe in this, and then believe in imperialism at the same time. How do you explain struggle over dignity in the imperial core then? Especially at the interclass level? ). This also disguises a crucial fact; left unsaid in this disagreement is that you agreed with Fukuyama's framing of recognition between individuals, you simply believe that the Fukuyamaist conception of Zootopia-like legal recognition is hollow liberalism. Dugin would agree, but for a completely different reason

>>2647793
>what he argued is that *once* material deprivation is fulfilled thymos will become the centrepoint of conflict.
I know anon, this is why we were talking about Kojève, and not Fukuyama. For Kojève, recognition doesn't come "after" the material satisfaction, it exists all the time and is a core part of human life (in fact, it defines it)
Nonetheless, this is also a poor argument by Fukuyama. Derrida in Spectres of Marx talks about this : saying that market capitalism is the end of times because it satisfies material needs whilst millions die of hunger is a bit silly.

>thymos will become the centrepoint of conflict
That's also what Fukuyama gets wrong. Thymos isn't a thing per-se, it's something that exists as a medium to signify "this is injust/this is undignified" in relation to some structure or object. Thymos is inherently tied to the institutions. Ergo, if the material structure changes, then so does the recognition desires. I was actually surprised that this was the core of Fukuyama's argument, because it doesn't really contradicts marxism but rather ignores it. It ignores that material structure changes, which is the fundamental reason why people also change consciously (and thus have all kinds of perpetually different thymotic desires).

>where he disagreed with is with the traditional (vulgar) […]
I haven't read his book in a while but isn't his claim that marx was an economism that only focused on the material satisfaction ?

>left unsaid in this disagreement is that you agreed with Fukuyama's framing of recognition between individuals
I do, and I think that most marxists implicitly do. What causes the revolution isn't a necessary element, but the contingent expression of unsatisfied "thymos" and material conditions (which really englobe thymos anyway).