/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