/dead/ - Post-Left

>>4074
Your loss.

>>4074
>I was meaning to read Deleuze but if he was a Marxist, I won't bother
He is but he's also influenced by Nietszche which directly influences his approach. He's basically embracing multiplicity (not multipolarity) and resenting fixed structures. Which certainly puts him into conflict with MLs who raly on the party vanguard.

Again, I haven't read Deleuze, I just find him and his thoughts interesting, so treat me like I'm retarded. I just wanted to encourage you to explore unorthodox ideas.

>>4076
dont forget spinoza

>>4074
>if he was a Marxist, I won't bother
you're just as bad as the marxoids who refuse to read anything labeled anarchist

>>4076
>He is
no

>I haven't read Deleuze
it shows

>>4078
idk why you keep insisting deleuze wasnt a marxist when even deleuze himself said so lmao cope

>>1162
Anti-Oedipus is Deleuze injecting Marxist materialism into the way we percieve the 'unconscious.' It, along with A Thousand Plateaus, are together respectively a diagnosis and prognosis of sorts on how to deal with the State and Capitalism. I have heard AO described as an initial analysis and ATP as an armory to furnish you in an intellectual war against Control.

>>1254
Deleuze and Guattari's work is difficult, especially if you have not read much philosophy. However, it is most definitely worth an attempt, and you will come out much more intelligent the other end. I recommend the secondary texts 'A User's Guide to Capitalism & Schizophrenia' by Brian Massumi, as well as the introduction to AO by Eugeune Hollands. Guattari himself even said a layman should pick up AO and make their way through it. You are capable, if you are determined.

>>4072
>>4074
>>4078
Collective retardation.

In any case, Deleuze is most definitely worth a read and if you read Stirner in conjunction you will definitely find some unintentional parallels (which I find funny because Deleuze in particular seemingly had a very bad read of Stirner).
Also I just realized this thread is incredibly old and I replied to three-year old comments, I don't care.

>>4080
trying really hard to fit stirner into the convo again, why?

>>4081
Because people here like Stirner? I don't know, why fit Marx into this conversation?

>>4078
>it shows
I tried. Correct me where I'm wrong.

>>4076
>Which certainly puts him into conflict with MLs who raly on the party vanguard.
Why? what about a nomadic schizo vanguard?

>>4083
>what about a nomadic schizo vanguard?
Say what?

>>4085
Is Deleuze actually against all vanguards, or against certain historic vanguards, or against western portrayals of historic vanguards?

>>4088
>Is Deleuze actually against all vanguards
A vanguard is a totalizing structure. I'm not sure how you're going to create a schizo nomadic vanguard, I don't think it has been tried before. I think autonomism and council communism would work better.

>>4088
He's an anarchist…

Where does one start with Deleuze when you are completely clueless?

>>4092
>These positive elements, which include discipline and cohesion
Stopped reading right here.

>>4095
Archived in case of loss

>>4089
>The immense accomplishment of Lenin and the Russian Revolution was to have forged a class consciousness consonant with the objective being or interest of the class, and as a consequence, to have imposed on the capitalist countries a recognition of class bipolarity. But this great Leninist break did not prevent the resurrection of a State capitalism inside socialism itself, any more than it prevented classical capitalism from getting round the break by continuing its veritable mole work, always effecting breaks of breaks that allowed it to integrate into its axiomatic sections of the newly recognized class, while throwing the uncontrolled revolutionary elements—no more controlled by official socialism than by capitalism itself—further into the distance, to the periphery or into enclaves. Thus the only choice left was between the new terroristic and rigid axiomatic—quickly saturated—of the socialist State, and the old cynical axiomatic—all the more dangerous for being flexible and never saturated—of the capitalist State. But in reality, the most direct question is not that of knowing whether an industrial society can do without a surplus, without the absorption of a surplus, without a commodity-exchanging and planner State, and even without an equivalent of the bourgeoisie: it is evident both that the answer is no, and that in these terms the question is poorly put. Nor is it a question of knowing whether or not class consciousness, embodied in a party or a State, betrays the objective class interest, to which a kind of potential spontaneity would be ascribed, suffocated by the agents claiming to represent that interest. The problem is situated there, between unconscious group desires and preconscious class interests. It is only starting from this point, as we shall see, that one is able to pose the questions issuing indirectly therefrom, concerning the class preconscious and the representative forms of class consciousness, and the nature of the interests and the process of their realization. Reich always comes back to us with his innocent standards, claiming the rights of a prior distinction between desire and interest: "The leadership has no task more urgent, besides that of acquiring a precise understanding of the objective historical process, than to understand : (a) what are the progressive desires, ideas and thoughts which are latent in people of different social strata, occupations, age groups and sexes, and (b) what are the desires, fears, thoughts and ideas ("traditional bonds") which prevent the progressive desires, ideas, etc., from developing." (The leadership has a tendency rather to reply: when I hear the word "desire," I pull out my gun.) […]

>Now we can present the second thesis of schizoanalysis: within the social investments we will distinguish the unconscious libidinal investment of group or desire, and the preconscious investment of class or interest. The latter passes by way of the large social goals, and concerns the organism and the collective organs, including the arranged vacuoles of lack. A class is defined by a regime of syntheses, a state of global connections, exclusive disjunctions, and residual conjunctions that characterize the aggregate being considered. Membership in a class refers to the role in production or antiproduction, to the place in the inscription, to the portion that is due the subjects. The preconscious class interest itself thus refers to the selections of flows, to the detachments of codes, to the subjective remains or revenues. And from this viewpoint it is indeed true that an aggregate comprises practically only a single class, that class which has an interest in a given regime. The other class can constitute itself only by a counterinvestment that creates its own interest in terms of new social aims, new organs and means, a new possible state of social syntheses. Whence the necessity for the other class to be represented by a party apparatus that assigns these aims and means, and effects a revolutionary break in the preconscious domain—the Leninist break, for example. In this domain of preconscious investments of class or interest it is therefore easy to distinguish what is reactionary or reformist, or what is revolutionary. But those who have an interest, in this sense, are always of a smaller number than those whose interest, in some fashion, "is had" or represented: the class from the standpoint of praxis is infinitely less numerous or less extensive than the class taken in its theoretical determination. Whence the subsisting contradictions within the dominant class, i.e., the class pure and simple. This is obvious in the capitalist regime where, for example, primitive accumulation can take place only for the benefit of a restricted fraction of the whole of the dominant class. But it is just as obvious for the Russian Revolution, with its formation of a party apparatus.[…]

>What complicates everything, it is true, is that the same individuals can participate in both kinds of groups in diverse ways (Saint-Juste, Lenin). Or the same group can present both characteristics at the same time, in diverse situations that are nevertheless coexistent. A revolutionary group can already have reassumed the form of a subjugated group, yet be determined under certain conditions to continue to play the role of a subject-group. One is continually passing from one type of group to the other. Subject-groups are continually deriving from subjugated groups through a rupture of the latter: they mobilize desire, and always cut its flows again further on, overcoming the limit, bringing the social machines back to the elementary forces of desire that form them.[…]

>It is clear how everything can coexist and intermix: in the "Leninist break," for example, when the Bolshevik group, or at least a part of this group, becomes aware of the immediate possibility of a proletarian revolution that would not follow the anticipated causal order of the relations of forces, but that would singularly precipitate things by plunging into a breach (the escape, or "revolutionary defeatism"). In reality, everything coexists: still hesitant preconscious investments in the case of some people who do not believe in this possibility; revolutionary preconscious investments in those who "see" the possibility of a new socius but maintain it in an order of molar causality that already makes of the party a new form of sovereignty; and finally unconscious revolutionary investments that perform a real rupture with causality in the order of desire. And in the same people the most varied kinds of investments can coexist at such and such a moment, the two kinds of groups can interpenetrate. This is because the two groups are like determinism and freedom in Kant's philosophy: they indeed have the same "object"—and social production is never anything other than desiring-production, and vice versa—but they don't share the same law or the same regime. The actualization of a revolutionary potentiality is explained less by the preconscious state of causality in which it is nonetheless included, than by the efficacy of a libidinal break at a precise moment, a schiz whose sole cause is desire—which is to say the rupture with causality that forces a rewriting of history on a level with the real, and produces this strangely polyvocal moment when everything is possible.

—p 256, 344, 349, 377 Anti-Oedipus

>>4097
>We may take as another example, under different conditions, the formation of a properly Leninist type of statement in Soviet Russia, basing ourselves on a text by Lenin entitled “On Slogans” (1917). This text constituted an incorporeal transformation that extracted from the masses a proletarian class as an assemblage of enunciation before the conditions were present for the proletariat to exist as a body. A stroke of genius from the First Marxist International, which “invented” a new type of class: Workers of the world, unite! Taking advantage of the break with the Social Democrats, Lenin invented or decreed yet another incorporeal transformation that extracted from the proletarian class a vanguard as an assemblage of enunciation and was attributed to the “Party,” a new type of party as a distinct body, at the risk of falling into a properly bureaucratic system of redundancy. The Leninist wager, an act of audacity? Lenin declared that the slogan (mot d’ordre) “All power to the Soviets” was valid only from the 27th of February to the 4th of July for the peacetime development of the Revolution, and no longer held in the state of war; the passage from peace to war implied this transformation, not just from the masses to a guiding proletariat, but from the proletariat to a directing vanguard. July 4 exactly the power of the Soviets came to an end. All of the external circumstances can be assigned: the war as well as the insurrection that forced Lenin to flee to Finland. But the fact remains that the incorporeal transformation was uttered on the 4th of July, prior to the organization of the body to which it would be attributed, namely, the Party itself. “Every particular slogan must be deduced from the totality of the specific features of a definite political situation.” If the objection is leveled that these specific features pertain to politics and not linguistics, it must be observed how thoroughly politics works language from within, causing not only the vocabulary but also the structure and all of the phrasal elements to vary as the order-words change. A type of statement can be evaluated only as a function of its pragmatic implications, in other words, in relation to the implicit presuppositions, immanent acts, or incorporeal transformations it expresses and which introduce new configurations of bodies. True intuition is not a judgment of grammaticality but an evaluation of internal variables of enunciation in relation to the aggregate of the circumstances.

>We have gone from explicit commands to order-words as implicit presuppositions; from order-words to the immanent acts or incorporeal transformations they express; and from there to the assemblages of enunciation whose variables they are. To the extent these variables enter at a given moment into determinable relations, the assemblages combine in a regime of signs or a semiotic machine. It is obvious that a society is plied by several semiotics, that its regimes are in fact mixed. Moreover, at a later time there will arise new order-words that will modify the variables and will not yet be part of a known regime. Thus the order-word is redundancy in several ways: as a function of the process of transmission essential to it, and in itself, from the time it is emitted, in its “immediate” relation with the act or transformation it effectuates. The order-word is already redundancy even when it is in rupture with a particular semiotic. That is why every statement of a collective assemblage of enunciation belongs to indirect discourse. Indirect discourse is the presence of a reported statement within the reporting statement, the presence of an order-word within the word. Language in its entirety is indirect discourse. Indirect discourse in no way supposes direct discourse; rather, the latter is extracted from the former, to the extent that the operations of signifiance and proceedings of subjec-tification in an assemblage are distributed, attributed, and assigned, or that the variables of the assemblage enter into constant relations, however temporarily. Direct discourse is a detached fragment of a mass and is born of the dismemberment of the collective assemblage; but the collective assemblage is always like the murmur from which I take my proper name, the constellation of voices, concordant or not, from which I draw my voice. I always depend on a molecular assemblage of enunciation that is not given in my conscious mind, any more than it depends solely on my apparent social determinations, which combine many heterogeneous regimes of signs. Speaking in tongues. To write is perhaps to bring this assemblage of the unconscious to the light of day, to select the whispering voices, to gather the tribes and secret idioms from which I extract something I call my Self (Moi). I is an order-word. A schizophrenic said: “I heard voices say: he is conscious of life.” In this sense, there is indeed a schizophrenic cogito, but it is a cogito that makes self-consciousness the incorporeal transformation of an order-word, or a result of indirect discourse.[…]

>The abstract machine is always singular, designated by the proper mane of a group or individual, while the assemblage of enunciation is always collective, in the individual as in the group. The Lenin abstract machine, and the Bolshevik collective assemblage… The same goes for literature, for music. There is no primacy of the individual; there is instead an indissolubility of a singular Abstract and a collective Concrete. The abstract machine does not exist independently of the assemblage, any more than the assemblage functions independently of the machine.

—p 80, 84, 100 A Thousand Plateaus

> Deleuze's position on Marx is very different. Instead of moving away from the question of production, Deleuze's engagement with Marx, as I signalled above, is completely traversed by it. Deleuze has no truck with a vulgar Marxist distinction between 'base' and 'superstructure', but rather he follows Marx into an immersion in the realm of the production of life "” a production which is the plane of all of the processes, flows, and constraints of politics, economics, ideas, culture, desire, and so on (cf. Deleuze 1977: 105).25 This is so much so that Donzelot (1977) calls Deleuze's work "” at least in Anti-Oedipus "” a kind of 'hyper-Marxism': less a post than an intensification of Marx. Given this, it is notable that Deleuze's engagement with Marxian problematics has some relation to a current in Italian Marxism very different from the PCI; indeed one which the PCI was actively involved in suppressing. This current, known in the 1960s as operaismo and in the 1970s as autonomia, took an apparently orthodox and sometimes arcane focus on work, class, and capital, and engaged in an incessant reinterpretation of Marx. In this, and in its critical stance on neo-Gramscian politics, it is perhaps no surprise that the operaist current has remained largely outside of the cultural studies tradition. Times, however, change, and with the current prominence of questions of globalization, commodification, the intensification of work, and the knowledge economy, the post-Marxist trajectory looks a little less secure, and a possibility seems to have arisen for a re-engagement with the Marxian problematic of production. Certainly this would seem to have had something to do with the interest shown in Hardt and Negri's (2000) Empire; a book co-written by one of the main theorists of operaismo and autonomia "” Antonio Negri "” and which draws on many of the insights of this current.
https://libcom.org/library/deleuze-marx-politics-nicholas-thoburn-introduction

Spivak also makes the case that the issue with Deleuze is that he is too attached to the Western, Marxist conception of the class struggle as the sole motor of history. You can read it in "Can the Subaltern Speak?"

>>4100
>hyper-Marxism
Interesting. Though the term "post-Marxism" refers not to the abandonment of Marxism but rather post-structuralist Marxism AFAIK. Deleuze is considered to be a post-structuralist.

>>4100
>he is too attached to the Western, Marxist conception of the class struggle as the sole motor of history
That's what I find funny about Marxists. We both agree that economic classes, class interests and class conflics are real. Yet they always focus on the class struggle, assigning an intrinsic revolutionary potential to the proletariat. And when the proletariat turns out to be counter-revolutionary they always try to rationalize it:
>CIA agents
>petty bourgeoisie
>PMC
>first-worlders
>urbanites
>lumpen
>not real proletariat

Whenever the proletariat does something they don't like they just say that they're fake. You know, this attitude is kinda similar to white nationalis–

>>4102
"the proletariat" isnt a monolith

>>4103
>"the proletariat" isnt a monolith
That's what I'm saying.

>>4103
true, its a spook

>>4089 (cont.)
Wait, I've figured this out. Listen.

We will have multiple vanguards for different needs built like GNU/Linux distributions. The membership is not mandatory, the resources and infrastructure are shared, and if a vanguard does not enforce our self-interests we just leave it and go to another, better vanguard. That structure will be more likely to encourage more democratic, anarchistic organizations anyway.

>>4107 (cont.)
Still, I do not think it will be compatible with any Vanguard other than a Luxemburgist one. They're not democratic enough.

>>4100
>class struggle as the sole motor of history
Well, what else could drive it? Great men?

>>4135
where does deleuze talk about "active minorities" and why do you think a vanguard is excluded from being a Minority? why isn't a vanguard compatible with Bakunins anarchist "invisible dictatorship?

>>4081
this is /dead/ every other thread on the catalog has a stirner mention uygha

>>4093
>>4080
read the thread retard

>>4136
I doubt Deleuze talks about it anywhere, is that an issue? I posted it so you don't have to struggle so hard to reinvent the anarchist traditions.

Bakunin's invisible "dictatorship" is pretty much what's described in those pictures. It's not a vanguard party because it acts on its own and does not claim to represent the "masses". Why do you think it would be compatible with a vanguard party?

>>4141
>I doubt Deleuze talks about it anywhere, is that an issue?
Deleuze doesn't reject Lenin or "authoritarianism" and he is not an anarchist so yeah just a bit

>It's not a vanguard party because
"its not a vanguard it just does everything a vanguard does but we don't call it one"

>struggle so hard to reinvent the anarchist traditions
>selecting from within their lived experience the forms of and reasons for struggle perceived by them as the most radical or revolutionary…attempt to…involve others by expressing within their own practices a relation to the world.
why not just do an anarchist vanguard instead of doing backflips to spite the tankies. why define yourself in opposition to something instead of for something. anarchists have already been advocating vanguards for centuries. a vanguard is just the most advanced class conscious section of the working class organized into a group. its a justified hierarchy; in the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker - in the matter of revolution, I defer to the authority of the revolutionaries. the difference between bakunin and marx/lenin is what is to be done after the revolution not in how it can be achieved.

basically these suggestions boil down to doing what the bolsheviks did but "more democratic" which begs the question if the soviet union even lacked democracy in the beginning or if that was a later development. deleuze doesn't even critique vanguards. he even says that life under global industrial capitalism requires a state and causes people to desire repression, that this then raises contradictions and provides the opportunity for new flows of desire to emerge and that the only way out is through.

>>4145
>justified hierarchy
lmao, please be trolling

You are doing the same thing with hierarchy and vanguard. They have a very specific meaning in this context that we both know and understand, but you choose to appeal to a more broad meaning at given opportunities only to return to the specific narrow meaning later when it comes to blame the anarchists. You can pretend that the vanguard is just the most "advanced" section of the working class or that hierarchy is just one person being more knowledgeable about certain things, but we both know that this is not what is at stake when we discuss these ideas. I am not sure who are you trying to trick with this.

I recommend that you actually read what Bakunin wrote instead of relying on folklore:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mikhail-bakunin-what-is-authority

>>4146
>You can pretend that the vanguard is just the most "advanced" section of the working class or that hierarchy is just one person being more knowledgeable about certain things, but we both know that this is not what is at stake when we discuss these ideas.

I'm not pretending and I really have no idea what you think is at stake.

The most advanced means the ones willing to do the revolution. Not some elitist group that thinks they are the smartest. You aren't going to mobilize all of society revolutions are always carried out by a small percentage of the population and in the case of a revolution under capitalism that is going to be the section of workers with class consciousness.

Justified hierarchy is exactly what Bakunin is talking about.

>If I bow before the authority of the specialists and declare myself ready to follow, to a certain extent and as long as may seem to me necessary, their indications and even their directions, it is because that authority is imposed upon me by no one, neither by men nor by God. Otherwise I would drive them back in horror, and let the devil take their counsels, their direction, and their science, certain that they would make me pay, by the loss of my liberty and human dignity, for the scraps of truth, wrapped in a multitude of lies, that they might give me.

>I bow before the authority of exceptional men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious of my ability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, only a very small portion of human science. The greatest intelligence would not be sufficient to grasp the entirety. From this results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labor. I receive and I give—such is human life. Each is a directing authority and each is directed in his turn. So there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination.

>>4145
>justified hierarchy
LOL, okay, get outta here, pseud.

>>4145
>in the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker
Engels, you don't have to hide behind anonymity, everyone knows it's you.

>>4148
Bakunin is talking about expertise. I don't think this essay could have been written today (at least in English), it sounds so archaic: here's Anonymous, the world's foremost authority on Bakunin. Silly talk. Today we just say expert. It's worth reading the full thing instead of just cherry-picking quotes:
> But, while rejecting [repoussant] the absolute, universal, and infallible authority of the men of science, we willingly bow before the respectable, but relative, very temporary, and very restricted authority of the representatives of special sciences, asking nothing better than to consult them by turns, and very grateful for the precious information that they should want give to us, on the condition that to receive such information from us on occasions when, and concerning matters about which, we are more learned than they; and, in general, we ask nothing better than to see men endowed with great knowledge, great experience, great minds, and, above all, great hearts, exert over us a natural and legitimate influence, freely accepted and never imposed in the name of any official authority whatsoever, celestial or terrestrial. We accept all natural authorities and all influences of fact, but none of right; for every authority or every influence of right, officially imposed as such, becoming straight away an oppression and a falsehood, would inevitably impose upon us, as I believe I have sufficiently shown, slavery and absurdity.
> In short, we reject all legislation, all authority, and every privileged, licensed, official, and legal influence, even that arising from universal suffrage, convinced that it can only ever turn to the advantage of a dominant, exploiting minority and against the interests of the immense, subjugated majority.
> It is in this sense that we are really Anarchists.

Bakunin famously disagreed with Marx on which segment of the working class would be most willing to carry out a revolution. Marx claimed that his buddies in the party, the highly organized, "class conscious" (i.e., those willing to toe his party line) segment would be the ones, while Bakunin argued that on the contrary it is the lumpen, the least advanced and most miserable segment that would actually go through with it.

>>4102
theyre working against their own interests, which doesnt mean they're fake prole, just that they dont have class consciousness. As it isnt a rational attitude in regard to their material interests we try to find the explanation.
You're basically completely missing the point

also
>CIA agents
>petty bourgeoisie
>lumpen
objectively not proles you retard, now I get your lack of understanding

>Yet they always focus on the class struggle, assigning an intrinsic revolutionary potential to the proletariat
I mean, of course, because their intrinsic revolutionary potential is that revolution is in their material interest


go read a book man

>>4173
>objectively not proles you retard
No shit, idiot. That's why I said "rationalize." Buy yourself a pair of glasses.

>>4173
>I mean, of course, because their intrinsic revolutionary potential is that revolution is in their material interest
You've just reformulated the Marxist rationale for supporting the class struggle, why? Do you think I didn't know that already? Fucking retard, kys.

>>4173
Doesn't CIA agents work for a wage? That makes them proles.

>>4170

>Bakunin argued that on the contrary it is the lumpen, the least advanced and most miserable segment that would actually go through with it.
But going through with it would make them the most advanced. The black panthers also thought lumpens were revolutionary, and with Mao it was the peasants. Which one is revolutionary is not a matter of opinion its decided by the material conditions of a given situation. Most advanced means class conscious and class conscious means understanding the necessity of revolution to solve the contradiction between the working and owning classes. Its been scientifically proven through the experiment of revolution that all of them are wrong or right in different cases. Thats the essence of materialist dialectics, which Bakunin and other Anarcho-Communists also agree with.

>Bakunin is talking about expertise.
no he is talking about the difference between voluntary authority and absolute authority imposed by legislation of a state

>>4157
ok then what do you call parent/child teacher/student doctor/patient? why do pirates elect captains in battle and why did anarchist Spain elect officers during the war? i think you are using a different definition of hierarchy that requires coercion. a voluntary hierarchy based on competence is still a hierarchy, like in team sports where players have different positions based on ability and decided by consensus. Its not a bad word the problem is with coercion by unjustified authority.

Again,
1) Deleuze is not an anarchist
2) Anarchists are not against voluntary authority
3) Anarchists are not against vanguards - they are against vanguards seeking state power
4) The difference between Marxists and Anarchists is in what happens after the revolution - whether or not there is a state under the dictatorship of the proletariat

What this means is that we can still use Marxist theory and history, including Deleuze, to study revolutionary science and to carry out a revolution. Marx was right about his analysis of capitalism, class society, dialectics, alienation and a lot of things but he was wrong about some things too. Whether or not a state will exist will depend on who gains the support of the masses and be democratically decided by the people. If the people reject abolition of the state then we will still have work to do and Deleuze can be especially important for understanding why and changing or preventing that by doing the work before it gets to that critical stage.

>>4176
Their relation to the class struggle makes them bourgeoi. Just like the police they act in the bourgeoisies class interests as long as they are part of a bourgeoi state.
also the proletariat is a spook

>>4178
stop using spook wrong you dumb faggot it makes you look like an idiot.

>>4177
>Anarchists are not against voluntary authority
I'm not sure this is universally true. There are definitely insurrectionary anarchists like the Firey Nuclei that at least say they are against all forms of authority and control. Historically it's only really anarchists that engaged in direct warfare e.g Makhno, Durruti, maybe certain syndicalists in LatAm as well, that will justify 'voluntary authority' because they view it as a necessary, temporary action.
>Anarchists are not against vanguards - they are against vanguards seeking state power
Again, not a given. The only anarchist I can think of that historically has justified vanguardism is Bonnano. If you could point me to a text by an actual anarchist (not this negation bullshit) post-20th century where someone argues in favor of a vanguard please do.
>The difference between Marxists and Anarchists is in what happens after the revolution - whether or not there is a state under the dictatorship of the proletariat
Nope.

>>4102
No one says this. The reason used by Marxists is false consciousness, which Deleuze elaborates on and demonstrates that desire can be subverted against one's material interests.
>PMC
>CIA
>BS ETC.
Lumpen is a genuine distinction. Your refusal to focus on class is how we have ended up with this dogshit radlib discourse of muh female proesidnet and corporatized pride.
If you would just actually read you would understand that Deleuze (and Marx before, and plenty of others) explain this. Instead you are a dog.

>>4179
The correct usage of spook is a spook

>>4097
>>4098
This is much more lucid than what I expected from Dolce and Gabbana, honestly.

Anyway, if I'm reading into this correctly the "argument" is something along these lines.
>class society exists because of surplus
>surplus value is necessary to have a "ruling" apparatus
>a person is born into a class society
>unconsciously they pick up on economic class relations
>they form their subconsciousness and make into unconscious acts of reproducing class society
>those who realize this become class conscious and these are always fewer in number than those unconscious
>when history permits a breaking point up to the breaking point everything seems "rational"
>this breaking point isn't even obvious btw
>when the breaking point happens "everything" can happen, not just what was "necessary"
>the clearly determined relations are also prone to breaking
>the vanguard becomes the new apparatus inasmuch it becomes the Will of revolutionary subject which is then objectified in a single person?