Yebiga honey

"The trouble with that diatribe is that your mixing Marx with postmodernism."

No I'm not, and nothing you have said has established that assertion whatsoever. I'm well aware of the differences; and also the influence of Marx on much postmodernism.

Much of it indeed is the kind of garbled fifth-hand Marxism on display in the humanities and in this thread, such as:
- employment is intrinsically exploitative, no need to think about this point
- capitalism makes the poor poorer, ditto
- socialism would make the workers and poor better off, ditto
- the state magically creates wealth from nothing at no cost by its compulsory redistributions, ditto
- ("society" = the nation-State, and the nation-State = "society")
- there are no legitimate limits to state power, ditto
- no need to think about any of these assertions, any critique proving them wrong is just unmasked as vicious bourgeois "ideology" (ad hom, ignoratio elenchi).

In fact, exactly what you and Squeers and Tristan et al keep assuming in every post over and over again! EVERY SINGLE POST every single one of you just assumes what's in issue. By calling my argument a "diatribe" you imply a) it's false, and b) you're right. But that's exactly what you've failed to establish by any reason except circularity and slogans like "exploitation" as if the mere mention of the word disposes all issues in your favour.

Even in the dark ages they knew about the existence of Aristotle. But you guys are a throwback to before logical thought was even cognized, before the possibility of rational theory was even distinguished from mere narrative. You guys are anti-theory.

"Those of us who still find value in Marx are essentially revealing a kind of nostalgia for a more innocent time."

You can say that again - unweaned infancy. Unfortunately when it's backed by industrial-scale lethal force, it's not so cute.

"For however wrong headed Marxism may be, it is a far more honest ideal than the one we have now embraced."

We're agreed he's wrong. You haven't established any reason why he's “more honest”: you’re back to assuming he’s right again, without reconciling that assumption with your own critique.

"Your confused rants ..."

Mere back-bite. You have not established any confusion on my part. I have on yours, which has gone unanswered. You might care to answer my numbered questions which prove you wrong?

"are indicative of the dire state of the humanities in our culture."

Mere back-bite. But now you agree there’s no reason for the government to fund the humanities.

"To confuse things as you do..."

Mere back-bite. I've shown reason why you're confused which you
a) agree with, and
b) can’t and don’t refute.

You haven't.

"and your disdain for any authority"

Misrepresentation; lie. You haven't shown any reason whatever for anyone to have authority to aggress against person or property.

All
Both Marxoidism and postmodernism teach that Tristans, Yebiga's, and Squeer’s et al's technique of the circular incantation of assumptions, slogans and jingles is economic theory; and has an equal claim as a basis for policy.

In reality, socialism and socialists are still causing genocide, only the victims are dispersed, and the deliberate economic ignorance of the socialists prevents them from cognizing it as the result of their own policies to destroy capital, the basis of human society above the level of subsistence.

That’s why government funding of the humanities should be abolished.

So far as universities provide consumption goods – the enjoyment of education etc. – it should be funded by those who get the benefit. And so far as they provide production goods – make society more productive etc. – still they should be funded by those who get the benefit.

The leftists are just arguing for middle-class welfare to promote their own interests, paid for by exploiting the workers – at the cost of spreading an anti-rational, anti-human doctrine that unlimited subjection to power is the basis of the good life.

YEBIGA,
perhaps I was too cryptic, but I did say, "I differ and have little time for slides into relativism".
I'm also impatient with post-modernism, but poststructuralism is the logical comeuppance of Marx's derivative consciousness.
Your point that "the human condition is but in small degrees different to apes" makes the point admirably, in that our verbalised truth claims then logically have no greater validity or extension than the behavioural logic and instincts of our cousins. If we insist on some a priori justification we must account for it, thus even insistent Marxists like Zizek (who calls Marx an Aristotlean)seeks an (anti)foundation in the aporia of subjectivity and the illusions of jouissance.
Of course speaking like this only begets ridicule from some of the idiots here who dismiss as verbosity anything they don't understand.
While I sympathise with your impatience for postmodernism (and I'm critical of it too in as much as it amounts to a mode of prevarication and rationalisation), it is the very dogmatism of Marxist materialism, historicism, structuralism etc. which has incited philosophical postmodernism.

JKJ, the fact that you cleave so obstinately to free market logic as humanity's saviour, appointing capitalist economics a devastating evolutionary role, explains your hatred of the humanities but does nothing to validate its rightness. It is in fact anti-humanism in practice, rather than theory (which is so often the preoccupation of marxists).
I would, and have already suggested (and canvassed elsewhere) propose definite humanitarian policies, which don't rely on dogmatism from left or right.
Always a pleasure..

As a Layman to the Humanities. I would like to thank you all for the last 3 pages especially (JKJ/CL/YEBIGA/Tristan/Squeers.) It has shown me what your particular discipline is about. It's, "Much Ado About Nothing."

Why should the Taxpayer have to pay for this nonsense? This type of study is more attuned to an old British style "Gentleman's Club." An easy chair, a cigar & a glass of Cognac & the Jeeves the Butler.

Show me anywhere where your studies have benefited the World.

YEBIGA: Relativism will cite examples of defending the truth of the oppressed but forget that with the self same argument you justify the holocaust, school shootings or any outrage. For the shooter has their own truth too.

Typical deflective argument yebiga. Means nothing.

JKJ: In fact, exactly what you and Squeers and Tristan et al keep assuming in every post over and over again! EVERY SINGLE POST every single one of you just assumes what's in issue. By calling my argument a "diatribe" you imply a) it's false, and b) you're right. But that's exactly what you've failed to establish by any reason except circularity and slogans like "exploitation" as if the mere mention of the word disposes all issues in your favour.

As I said, circular argument without any meanings. Old Mens Club stuff.

JKJ: So far as universities provide consumption goods – the enjoyment of education etc. – it should be funded by those who get the benefit.
True. Old Men.

JKJ: And so far as they provide production goods – make society more productive etc. – still they should be funded by those who get the benefit.

What benifit does the study of Humanities, other than your enjoyment of education provide to the Masses. So far there is nothing but argumentative confusion here.

JKJ: Thus we have reached agreement: government funding of universities in general, and the humanities in particular, cannot be anything but above-market perks for a class of cheerleaders and high priests for the parasite political class, and should be abolished immediately.

Sounds like a plan.

there may be substantial cuts for the humanities in coming years, some justified.

But I think public funding universities, including for humanities, will be around for a long time yet.

Abolishing public funding for the humanities would be a minority view, but good luck to those advocating it. I defend their right to do so, but doubt they will ever win the day.

But do you guys really want public servants and business managers to have no exposure to the humanities? Do you really want them all to adhere to the economic orthodoxy of the day?

CL: But do you guys really want public servants and business managers to have no exposure to the humanities?

Short answer. Yes. The Humanities are only good for Professional Students & old men to argue about in the Winter of their life. What I see of the Public Service in Government now is many senior PS Managers who do nothing but get paid to stuff up. (Yes Minister) So much for their knowledge of Marx, Engels, Burke, etc,. Just watching the PS at the Senate Enquiries is enough to make a grown man cry.

CL: Do you really want them all to adhere to the economic orthodoxy of the day?

Sounds like a plan. In the 21st. Century change happens every few years. Governments have to be adaptable not stuck in some 200 year old theory ruts, which no one can agree on anyway. (as shown by the present examples on OLO.)

As it is now what's happening to the Economy depends on who is in Government & who is making large donations (PC for bribes) to whom.

Nothing to do with airy fairy 200 year old theories. I think Humanities people give themselves an air of imagined importance way beyond their relevance.