Can you give us some examples of modern-day intellectuals who behave in this manner?
Everything I've seenor heard from Bob Black or Kevin Carson seems to work this way.
I don't know if you wouldcall this modern:
but Sartre works this way
And from the heads and tails I can make of him:
Dierrida works this way
While I find Foucault the most interesting of the bunch, I haven't seen him do much past a geneology, so he could fit under here as well
Everything I have seen or heard from Lacan would also fit
Note:
I am no expert on any of these dudes, so don't be surprised if I get refuted pretty damn quickly, in fact I kind of suspect I will. This is just how it has "hit my brain"
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
How many "radical" leftists /neo-leftists do you know that have actually made truth claims (even left liberals and soc dems have this problem, though usually they can at least appeal to some form of scientism from time to time)?
They pretty usually even dispute that there is something like truth or at least theya re agnostic about it. Everything is relative, you know.
For me it seems as if it is built off of out of bounds skeptical critiques, psychologisms, passive aggressive behaviour, and random social signaling devices
There arguments usually start with whining about some perceived injustice, "fascism" , "racism" or some other cause celeb. Lefitism really works with a set of primitive sentiments around or against something and then a program of demands is formulated. You hardly get some more elaborate philosphy or theory going with that. It seems to be designed so that it can appeal to idiots and pseudo-intellectuals at the same time.
I think the truth claims died with hard core Marxism.
Marxist are a funny case. On the one hand they'd dispute "bourgeois" truth, on the ohter hand they come up with some scheme that enables them to "understand history" and "predict the future". And to me it seems their truth is kind of "evolving".
I mean there is also the whole school of"post structuralism":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism
which is what I have been hinting at this whole time. If I were a bit quicker in the brain, I probably should have focused on that much sooner. This seems to be the main target of my ire at the moment
EDIT:
I also think I have a "Misean" like frustration with the hollow name calling like: sexist, racist, bourgoise, reactionary, etc. I am stating the foundations of much of these names is vacuous by just about any sane standard. It's just an effective "social signaling" mechanism / "secret handshake" at best. Furthermore, to hide behind such obvious emptiness is also a highly undesirable trait; so once again, those defending"morals", leaves me a bit confused as to what they're hinting at.
DOUBLE EDIT:
And to be more brute about it:
look at a left-lib board vs here. You will find more people willing to not mind them / not think they are absolute evil / hope for the best onthem/ make an effort to willingly engage than they do on LL sites on average. The willingness to talk and set up productive conversation and setting terms seems more in our court - and we can not break through their wall of sloganing, I would say by their own perhaps intentional shenanigans.
I'm telling you we could set up some criterea and do a test on this and you'll see how aweful they are to engage on average (there are a small handfull l of LL's that are enjoyable to read and are the exception).