Some more random thoughts

Some more random thoughts...

In 99 cases out of 100, rationality isn't about "dispassionate search for truth" by people who "value" truth "for its own sake". Maybe there is such a philosopher somewhere. This is known as "sitting in an ivory tower".

Of course rationality is about power. Rationality is the ideology of the bourgeoisie. It's often put forward in a liberal form. It's class content is obvious. See Mill's infamous quip about the food riots. The point of rationality is to give the bourgeoisie power to *remake the world in its own image*.

The traditional standpoint of the socialist movement was that the working class or the labor movement could use rationality against the bourgeoisie. A supporter of Critical Race Theory could attack this on the following lines: the working class was mostly White, male and "aristocratic", its organizations were reformist, and they all became integrated into the system of the liberal bourgeoisie. 

Communism seems to disprove this. The Russians were White, yet the Bolshevik Party abolished capitalism and radically challenged the entire imperialist system. However, Lenin soon gave way to Stalin and the Popular Front policy. To Trotskyists, the New Left and some Maoists, this is an attempt to defend liberal capitalism. In other words, the bourgeoisie. Rationality has once more proven to be its tool.

Mao's China was different, Mao arguing that political "line" was paramount. Replace "line" with "discourse" or "narrative", and the similarity with Critical SJW Theory becomes obvious. Here we have a POC revolution breaking with bourgeois rationality, becoming a vantage point for all the "specially oppressed" (or supposedly so).

The postmodernists are not wrong when they say that everything is myth in the pursuit of power. Of course it is. However, this doesn't mean objective truths don't exist. The attack on rationality is really a yearning for primitivism. It's a yearning for  carefree ludic noble savages celebrating an endless "carnival of the oppressed". In other words: California circa 1967. In the objective world, such a state is impossible to achieve. The present-day SJWs are simply out to grab institutional power. Ironically enough, they seem to enjoy the full backning of the liberal bourgeoisie! 

It could be argued that liberal capitalism is a good thing. It could also be argued that the integration of the labor movement into the "system" is a good thing. Some might even like Soviet Communism. If rationality is abolished, these systems would collapse. 

It's possible to create cultures and entire civilizations without "rationality" in the modern Western sense. Indeed, all "pre-modern" cultures were of this kind. Myth and the will to power is all it takes. However, this is evidently not the real goal of the Critical Race theorists. Their goal used to be to promote the interests of certain middle class strata which were not White, male or straight, usually by capturing the bureaucratic or propaganda apparats of late capitalism. But even this requires rationality. The present dominance of the irrational doesn't mean this project has been given up, however. Nor does it mean that the SJWs really long for the pre-modern or the primitive. Rather, it is an expression of despair, taking more and more nihilistic forms. 

The project of integrating privileged females, gays and POCs into the system *has already succeded*. But the system is in crisis, perhaps the first phase of a terminal crisis. The petty bureaucrats, propagandists and "activists" of the SJW persuasion lack the means to solve the crisis. They can't force their program onto the rest of society. They lack the material means to make it happen. Objective reality comes to the fore. Hence, they desperately lash out in nihilistic violence. They also become the stormtroopers of the White male liberal bourgeoisie, which *does* have the power to impose it's program on the rest of society (or imagines itself to have it).

If society would become pre-modern, the strata from which SJWs are usually recruited would lose their social power. This explains why their worldview is purely theoretical, or fit for the carnival only. It is highly anomalous either way, a harbinger of nihilistic decadence and destruction. 

None of this means that the liberals who talk about "dispassionate search for truth" are right. Yes, human society needs "truth" in a purely pragmatic sense. But even this "true truth" (used to wield material power) is embedded in a matrix of myth and discourse. Indeed, even our system incorporates heavy doses of sheer myth. The most obvious is the idea of Progress. 

The arms of criticism must give way to the criticism of arms.