An interesting observation after traditional Christmas arguments with my right--wing relatives in Poland:
Alt-right is now talking 100% postmodernism.
History made full circle: half-century ago it was mostly far left who ranted about "gender aspect of mathematics" and "science as a social construct", basically denying humans ability to objectively describe reality.
These tools were initially forged by Marx to facilitate his wishful thinking about how societies operate that science did not support.
In 20th century far-left faced the same challenge and picked the same tools as they knew them well due to ideological compatibility and general inspiration by Marx.
Today the same Marx-inspired tools are being picked up by alt-right generation that talks about "evils of cultural Marxism" (a bullshit term on its own).
Sokal Affair was LOL, this is LOL squared.
@kravietz "These tools were initially forged by Marx" as somebody who is studying Marx, I'd like to know what you base this claim on. As far as I know, Marx was radically on the side of considering objective reality to exist and to be something we could understand.
Also, I'd like to point out that "science as a social construct" is not incompatible with a belief in the ability to objectively describe reality. Our descriptions are just prone to be influenced by our biases.
Thank you for constructive comment on the subject.
Marx introduced a whole new analytical apparatus (specifically diamat and histmat) which he continuously boasted as "scientific", which was later repeated by Marxist-Leninist and Stalinist philosophers.
"The iron laws of dialectics" however from today's perspective can be only described as pseudo-scientific - and have been explicitly described as such by Popper and Kołakowski.
@kravietz Karl Marx may have had a very loose understanding of scientificness of his Historical Materialism, which is more like an analysis of historical accounts, but I fail to see how this has anything to do with a belief in humans ability to objectively describe reality, which Marx supported (in fact, it's more correct I think to say that Marx believed this too much, which is why he thought he could make the analysis of history into a science).