[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


 No.6051

I've finally read the big ones (Deleuze, Guattari, Baudrilland, Foucault, Derrida) and I'm just not seeing it. The only argument I usually see when they bother explaining why is that these authors """reject""" class struggle.

 No.6052

>Deleuze and Guattara
Very compatible with Marxism
>Baudrillard
He even says that he broke with Marxism, but he obviously wouldn't have reached the conclusions about this fucking shitshow we're living in, without Marx
>Foucault
His politics were just weird and he was sometimes an idealist, but his "power has a socio-material problem" thesis is a good and maybe even necessary addition to marxism
>Derrida
His critique of the subject is a good attack on liberal ideology, but other than that deconstruction is an essentially reformist approach and only really suited for sucdems

 No.6053

>>6051
I think they mean existentialists like Sarte and Camus or assume that everyone who is French is the same. I'm pretty sure people who say this usually haven't read any of them. This only happens if they actually are exposed to philosophy. More people learn about it through art so they relate it to a style of expression like impressionism or cubism and assume it can't be materialist and art students need to stop ruining scientific socialism.

 No.6054

>>6051
You should know by now that postmodernism is a catch-all analytic term and it doesn't fucking exist KEK

 No.6055

>>6052
Funnily enough Derrida was the only one of the bunch who remained explicitly marxist.

 No.6056

>>6055
How? He said that he wasn't a marxist. Deleuze wanted to write a book called "The greatness of Marx" so maybe he still had sympathies to marxism?

 No.6073

>>6056
Derrida, not Deleuze. Politically he was a marxist until the very end.
About Deleuze, that he never got to write that book before dying from that accident is fucking tragic.

 No.6074

>Why do some say postmodernism is incompatible with marxism?
Land takes it a step further and says that D&G aren't even leftists.

Justin Murphy: So it sounds like you would basically say that Deleuze and Guattari are not really leftists. They might be writing from a kind of leftist milieu, and they might have some, sort of, leftist connotations, but the core of their project is not leftist because … you think leftism is basically the position of trying to slow down the accelerator?
Nick Land: Yes, I think that project is anti-leftist but smuggled-in — this insidious thing of subverting the Marxist tradition from inside. I think the Marxist tradition is easy to subvert from inside because the Marxist tradition is based upon an analysis of capitalism that has many very valuable aspects. And as soon as you’re doing that, then you are describing the motor of acceleration, and once you then make the further move that Deleuze and Guattari do — and Marx obviously at times does, too — of actually embracing the kind of propulsion that that motor is is generating, then you’re there. I mean, you’ve already crossed the line.

 No.6075

>>6074
What is this bad faith disinfo. He re-defines leftist to mean anti-accelerationist. Basically saying leftism is conservatism, and its not even Land that says that its Justin Murphy, who doesn't know anything but how to insert himself into profitable conversations.

https://youtu.be/UDMVYNX9xPw?t=1108

Right before this he says that ancaps want deregulation and "the left" wants to constrain capitalism. Hes talking about the Labour party: liberals that are for regulation of capitalism. Even in your quote he is calling Marx Deleuze and Guattari accelerationists, Land is just defining acceleration as right wing. He is pointing out that Marx was pro-capitalism but twisting his words to put the audience on his side and agree with Justin.

>24:18 Land: Deleuze and Guattari are only excavating something that is already happening in Marx I mean they're not or they're not really distancing themselves in any in any way from what Marx is doing or even from his configuration of critique they're simply there simply elevating it to an unprecedented point of lucidity


>24:46 Land: you know maybe what you're saying is that there is a kind of a subterranean rightist implication even in what to be at a certain point in history it's its absolute antithesis

 No.6076

>>6075
Justin Murphy? Bad faith disinfo? No..

 No.6077

>>6076
2018 was the year #CaveTwitter died, and Justin Murphy is partially to blame for it.

 No.6104

>>6076
Justin Murphy is a massive theorylet

 No.6118

It seems that Foucault's 'discourse ontology' has contributed to today's constructivism being anti-materialist, whether he intended this or not

 No.6147

>>6118
Reminder that only early Foucault still in his """structuralist""" archeology phase payed more attention to different forms of discourse and how discourse functions (The Order of Things, Archeology of Knowledge). From 70s onward, in his move to genealogy, he focused on materialist (and literally physical) aspects of power, while discourse served as a historical document that confirmed material changes in "power relations" / "technologies of power" (Discipline and Punish, most Collège de France lectures).
This whole meme about Foucault only believing in discourse like some idealistic retard comes from readlets taking burger academics seriously, these academics themselves projecting their misreading of Derrida ("il n'y a pas de hors-texte :DDDD") on everyone else from yurope.
Same goes for Foucault supposedly being the origin of burger idpol and libtardism, when he explicitly predicts this will become just another power game, just a more sinister way to control people. He's actually far more anti-liberal than most of this board, attacking movements that are based on liberation and anti-repression for their naivity. Burgers did this to themselves, no need for some degenerate frog mastermind.

There are enough problems with Foucault that you don't need to invent fake ones.

 No.6148

>>6076
Why would the LCD Soundsystem guy lie to me?

 No.6155

>>6147
well I am a burgoid so that must explain it

 No.6228

Reminder Foucault distanced himself from communist movements because every ML party he joined was filled with massive homophobes.

 No.6229

Lyotard is the only one incompatible with Marxism.

 No.6230

>>6052
>He even says that he broke with Marxism
His critique of Marxism is ultra left in nature not anti communist. But yeah, Baudrillard is compatible

 No.6231

>>6147
>There are enough problems with Foucault that you don't need to invent fake ones.
Such as?

 No.6644

>>6228
Letting famous pedophiles in your movement is politically unwise so good for them i guess.

 No.6645

>>6073
> society if deleuze completed on the greatness of marx
> society if marx completed all 5-6 volumes of capital
< theyre the same picture anonaccelerationAcceleration

 No.6646

>>6074
> And as soon as you’re doing that, then you are describing the motor of acceleration, and once you then make the further move that Deleuze and Guattari do — and Marx obviously at times does, too — of actually embracing the kind of propulsion that that motor is is generating, then you’re there.
The more I read Marx the more I think Land is either playing 99-d chess or an actual retard. Like he describes the motor in another interview (or possible the same one) as developing the means of production at the cost of species-being (the more humanist side of Marx) but that's fucking nonsense since that is exactly the type of capital accumulation that takes place in socialist countries like the USSR and China (at least up until the 80s or so).

They put the brakes of accumulation in consumer departments in order to further accelerate accumulation of the means of production. It is the capitalist society that refuses to ever stop accumulation even at the expense of a greater acceleration of it down the road, therefore in capitalist society means of production are not advanced as quickly because of the need to continue accumulation in consumer departments.

Land is unironically a state capitalist vis a vis Lenin or actually talking out of his ass on half his interviews.accelerationAcceleration

 No.6654

How do you from this….

 No.6655

>>6654
…to this?

 No.6662

>>6051
They may coincide with general Marxist ideas, but over-all they divert into ideological pseduo-intellectualism, with various flavors of nihilism and other shite.

 No.6669

>>6148
his goal is blowing marxism to pieces

 No.6670

Because according to post modern theory, china would be Communist

 No.6691

Postmodernism doesn't exist. It was constructed in American academia.

 No.6692

>>6655
>photo: Foucault in 2012, burgerized

 No.6788

>>6147
Nice post. I have to say being knowledgeable of Marx and Foucault feels like having superpowers ha. Important to note that all of these guys are not impervious to critique (even our beloved Marx, was apt in critiquing even himself) so it's what you do with it in theory and practice moving forward that matters.

We live in the era of libgen and scihub, and so I'm optimistic about the future of theory. No one should do a disservice to themselves by not reading these guys or at least secondary lit on them that is in good faith.

Worst comes to worst watch lectures online.

 No.9159

Kind of related, why this site is so anti continental?

 No.9160

>>9159
Is it?
I'm quite partial to Badiou myself and never caught flack for that over the years

 No.9161

File: 1641119603394.png (437.21 KB, 828x635, 1638015162194.png)

>>9160
Go check the Nietzsche thread on this board or the Foucault one on /leftypol/ literal Jordan Peterson tier takes.
There's obviously an Anglo Analytic biasis on this site, the idolization of cockshott is the clearest example

 No.9162

>>9161
I like Badiou why would I care about what people think of Foucault? he's kinda mediocre desu senpai

Like I said I've never experienced that kind of feedback with Baidiou who is far more important in French philosophy anyway

Try a making a thread promoting Kojève and see what happens if you're so certain what the Anglos call continental philosophy is hated here

 No.9163

>>9159
They just everyone who is not dogmatic about the holy trinity of Marx-Engels-Lenin, it's not specific to continentals.

 No.9164

>>6051
The primary reason is the contrast between Marxism's notion of the dialectical unfolding of history as class struggle, its scientific approach to society, vs. postmodernism's rejection of grand narratives + ultimate knowability.

 No.9165

>>9164
You didn't read any books

 No.9166

>>9165
Care to elaborate? I'm literally a fan of continental philosophy and have read plenty.

 No.9167

>>9165
I should add that if you're going to arrogantly make a blanketed accusation against someone without offering any substantiation of your own, then you probably either don't understand what you have read, or haven't read anything yourself.

 No.9584

>>9166
"rejection of grand narratives" is a grand narrative, also not all postmodernists do that, and several are marxist.

>>9159
They don't read and make up disagreements where there aren't any. Sometimes they only read continentals who also didn't read and themselves make unfounded assumptions about disagreements based on western propaganda. Then these two sides duke it out over their phantom disagreements by saying the other isn't being "dialectical" enough.

For some reason they think if someone was wrong about one thing, or had a bad opinion about something unrelated, their entire life's work is worthless by the principle of explosion because life is actually a series of debates and if you aren't logically consistent the whole time you go to hell.

 No.9586

>>9584
>"rejection of grand narratives" is a grand narrative
How so?
>not all postmodernists do that
What qualifies them as po-mos then? Do you agree with this paragraph:
>That postmodernism is indefinable is a truism. However, it can be described as a set of critical, strategic and rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition, the trace, the simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other concepts such as presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the univocity of meaning.
?

 No.9587

>>9586

>Do you agree with this paragraph:

uh, sure

>What qualifies them as po-mos then?

people calling them that

https://thecharnelhouse.org/2015/03/31/adornos-leninism/
>It was [Adorno’s] collaboration with Horkheimer [during the 1930s] that enabled him to shed these intellectual infantile disorders. His letters are full of bizarre references to Lenin, as if he wanted to outdo the “orthodox Marxism” advocated in Lukács’s History and Class Consciousness. Adorno’s original politicization took place when he was still very young, evidently in the course of his readings with Kracauer. This supplied him with key terms that expanded his horizon beyond his artistic and aesthetic concerns. This habit of thinking in keywords recurs in the taped records of the 1950s, when he would refer to Lenin, in the middle of the cold war, at a time when the Communist Party was banned and even party members scarcely dared to mention his name. It was at this time that he proposed to Horkheimer that they should produce a reworked Communist Manifesto that would be “strictly Leninist.” Behind the closed doors of the Institute, Adorno’s aim in 1956 was not to go back to Marx, but to go beyond him. He told Horkheimer that “I always wanted to try to produce a theory that would be faithful to Marx, Engels and Lenin, while not lagging behind the achievements of the most advanced culture.” Paradoxically, summing up the course of his life to that point in 1956, Adorno mentions his road toward politicization. He had arrived at Lenin, he claimed, via music. Using one of his key ideas, the idea that all knowledge is socially mediated, Adorno once again confirmed the importance of Lenin: “Marx was too harmless; he probably imagined quite naïvely that human beings are basically the same in all essentials and will remain so. It would be a good idea, therefore, to deprive them of their second nature. He was not concerned with their subjectivity; he probably didn’t look into that too closely. The idea that human beings are the products of society down to their innermost core is an idea that he would have rejected as a milieu theory. Lenin was the first person to assert this.”

>In reality it was only Lenin’s contemporary Freud who noticed people’s subjectivity. Horkheimer and Adorno’s original idea of writing something jointly, the original seed of Dialectic of Enlightenment, was concerned with a critique of the individual. It was the attitude toward psychoanalysis that revealed the split in the material which produced critical theory, on the one hand, and revisionist psychoanalysis, as pioneered by Erich Fromm, on the other. The directness of the political vocabulary that was retained until well into the fifties becomes clear from a letter of Adorno’s to Horkheimer dated 21 March 1936. Adorno complains that Fromm has placed him in the “paradoxical situation of having to defend Freud. He is both sentimental and false, a combination of social democracy and anarchism; above all, there is a painful absence of dialectical thinking. He takes far too simple a view of authority, without which, after all, neither Lenin’s vanguard nor his dictatorship is conceivable. I would urgently advise him to read Lenin.”

 No.9588

>>6052
how is deconstruction "socdem"?

 No.9610

>>9584
Rejection of grand narratives being a grand narrative in itself is a meaningless aphorism, akin to the very sorts of 'critiques' leveled against post-modernism, i.e. strawman tier stuff such as 'if everything is relative, then the statement of relativity itself is also relative and so cannot have any real axiomatic basis and is epistemically incoherent'. Attempts at logical 'gotchas' like this are demonstrably below Wikipedia tier, come scrutiny.
Anyhow, the notion that grand narratives being rejected 'is itself a grand narrative' is aphoristic and trite/meaningless on two main fronts: firstly, to stipulate something's negation as being positively categorical within its negation prior to sublation is thusly a misstep, and it is also, erroneously, to suspend the unresolved contradiction as an impossible qualifier. And secondly, the idea that the rejection is itself a grand narrative, is a confused conflation of the form of what a grand narrative even is as being merely axiomatic (a grand narrative is NOT something axiomatic, in actuality).

It also seems you have no standard or basis for what a post-modernist really is. 'People calling them that' is beyond retarded, as this could be said of anything in relation to anything else. If I call Marx a capitalist, is Marx now a capitalist, in the objectively historical sense? If the idea you're attempting to insinuate here is instead that we should pragmatically address those who call others post-modernists on those very terms, then you'd encounter another problem, namely that you're now ascribing the labels others have applied for postmodernism onto my own separate account of what constitutes post-modernism, which of course, was never the case in my original statement. What's more, no specific names have been provided. Also, I'm not interested in what others arbitrarily declare post-modernists to be, I'm interested in recognizing the category as a concrete subject of analysis. From this, it can likewise be fairly extrapolated that your idea of 'marxist postmodernists' probably falls short, too. You didn't provide any examples of these supposed figures, but I'm sure any examples you might offer will probably also be doomed to inaccurate classification. Let me guess: Deleuze is somehow a marxist, Lacan is somehow a marxist (he wasn't even a postmodernist, either), explicitly anti-marxist authors like Baudrillard, Foucault, etc. are somehow marxists…
..Someone taking inspiration from (or inhering a background in having read) another author doesn't mean they ARE of that same ideology, not even by proxy of derivation. Were this the case, there wouldn't exist any ideological+philosophical distinctions to begin with.
Don't get me wrong, there are continental marxists, but not all continentals are post-modernists and vice versa.
The quote about Adorno and Leninism is pretty banal; you're dealing here with a continental thinker who was not a post-modernist (Adorno), who also, for what it's worth, didn't have a very solid grasp of Marx in many respects. All Lenin ever claimed to be doing, from the outset, was forwarding the ramifications of Marx's theoretical revelations to their furthered ends in practice, via his supplanting of the (as he claimed) shared theoretical background. So, although Marx never explicitly word-for-word acknowledged the interrelations of societal subjectivity, Lenin believed that this dynamic was already inscribed in the dialectic of Marx; the process of materialism qua the inversion of Hegel inherently must owe itself to these topics, as is already apparent in Hegel, with whom both Marx & Lenin were necessarily, intimately familiar. One of the chief obligations then, in reconciling the seeming contradiction between the implicit acknowledgment of subjectivity with an objective materiality of history & consciousness, is to have grasped the obliteration of the subject-object divide precisely through materialism, as a part of the dialectic, which, indeed, is the vitally social essence of Marxism.

 No.9611

>>9610
>Rejection of grand narratives being a grand narrative in itself is a meaningless aphorism
Yes that is the point, its not a thing.

>>9610
>It also seems you have no standard or basis for what a post-modernist really is. 'People calling them that' is beyond retarded
Yes, exactly. "Postmodernism" doesn't exist. Its cope for people who refuse to read. Adorno, Horkeimer and Marcuse founded the frankfurt school, and are generally accepted as the fathers of post modernism.

 No.9612



To me modernism basically means the Zietgiest of the British empire. Post-Modernism means "rejects the anglo model". The idea that it is about grand narratives is a liberal perspective, like how liberals call communists "idealist" because "its just human nature" and "thats the way the world works". Its a reactionary defense of the grand narrative of Whig history and bourgeoisie progress.

Its tied up in the idea that WWII and fascism are directly outgrowths of capitalism and imperialism. The "modernist" model says that freedom and democracy defeated the fascists and America is number one because they are so good. Post-modernists reject this and their starting point is that "modernity" is a farce that is upheld by exploitation, that is pretty much their only commonality. That is why "post-modernists" are secret "cultural marxists", because they are "ideological" and cant accept the true "end of history". Saying that they reject grand narratives is people coping with their precise rejection of imperialist narratives.

Many of them are leftists and their criticism of Marxism-Leninism is an immanent critique of it that accepts its premises, its a type of critical support, not a rejection. Their goal is to integrate the scientific advances in the fields of social science, like psychology, advertising and propaganda, into the established theory of Marx and Lenin. This leads some of them to focus on particular parts that deal with their own subfields, and they adapt to that in a variety of ways depending on their individual education and politics. You can't really say "all post-modernists do X" because it is basically anyone who disagreed with American hegemony during the post war period and not a specific thing.


I think one should separate clearly between being a fellow traveler, and supporting the Soviet Union as a sovereign entity, and being a supporter of Stalinism as an interpretation of Marxism. Even Trotskyites, who derided the Soviet Union as a form of "state capitalism" nevertheless supported the socialist experiment there (which might have been reformed from inside). Frankfurt School theory was born in the revolutionary melee and had to at least give indications that it was on the side of the International and the world proletariat, even as it made biting criticisms of the state bureaucracy, authoritarianism and philosophical positivism.

 No.9615

>>9610
>Rejection of grand narratives being a grand narrative in itself is a meaningless aphorism
Different anon weighing in on this.
I think this is largely correct tho, even if it's formulated as a dumb logic-bro gotcha. I would leave out the word "grand" and stick with the unmodified "narrative" and call it good.
My experience debating postmodernists is that they can dismiss everything I say by declaring it as a narrative, so therefor i should be able to dismiss what they say as a narrative as well. You can't declare narrative competition but put yours beyond question. That would be idealist, because nobody would accept that premise. If you can feel my scorn in these words, it's because post-modern philosophy is read without taking the material conditions into account. There was a devaluation of soft sciences in the 50s 60s and 70s and a big prestige gain in hard sciences, this lead to petty academic disputes being encoded into the theoretical structure. If you have ever wondered about the strange language style in post modern philosophy, it's aping tech-bro slang from the 50s, who got way more funding than the sociology department.

>So, although Marx never explicitly word-for-word acknowledged the interrelations of societal subjectivity

Marx's views on subjectivity are uncharacteristically idealist for good old Karl. He thought that there was a dialectic between objective and subjective, but that is wrong. Subjectivity is the result of people being subjected to class domination. It comes from people being subjects to royal fiefdoms or subjects in a bourgeois legal sense. The common sense understanding of subjectivity would be better framed as having a unique personal bias. Subjectivity is not personal, it's the imposition of a systemic bias, that makes people into subjects.

Objectivity is the attempt at removing all biases by various means like measurements like in science or the quest for universal truths in philosophy, it's not limited to eliminating only subjective biases from analysis.

>>9612
>To me modernism basically means the Zietgiest of the British empire
No modernism was a revolt against the premodern remnants that was still present in the Victorian age. It happened within the British empire but it wasn't of the British empire. And imho post-modernism is a regression towards pre-modern thought, directly related to de-industrialization and the destruction of progress that happened under neo-liberalism. This regression happened because neither the enlightenment nor modernity that was started with the bourgeois revolutions were ever completed. There is much more enlightening and modernizing to do. And I'm afraid that capitalism is too constraining of intellectual thought to be the facilitator.

 No.9618

>>9615
I still disagree with this aphorism for the reasons I stated above. Just as I disagree with that Anon's reply entirely. He also thinks Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse are postmodernists, when none of them are (let alone the FOUNDERS thereof), and are just Frankfurt continentals. He's deeply confused, possibly from /pol/.

Even if we take your 'narrative as narrative' deference from modification, this is still a problem, because it's denying the context from which post-modernism stakes the specificities of its rejection. Post-modernism, in its rejection of (grand) narrativity, is a kind of socio-phenomenally mediated ontological skepticism, which is itself contingent by way of the internal process of its mediation, and as such, it cannot be axiomatic* nor prescribed as an ultimate social end or absolute* (* *which is what is meant when speaking in reference of 'Grand Narratives'), since the ever-presence of its possibility of self negation subsists via its self-destabilizing processual temporality (and so, it, that is, the rejection itself, can therefore be dethroned and de-standardized, and it never realizes any kind of necessary standardization of itself, all without recourse to any axiomatic necessitation in its functionality).

Now, a grand narrative is a 'category' (all things are, in some reducible sense, categorical), in that (and insofar as) it belongs to 'being a category', but the concept of 'category' is not, in itself, a grand narrative. That is, the definition, or essence of what a category is, formally, is not 'grand narrative' (i.e a cat is an animal but the formal concept of all that is animal is not 'cat').

What's more, from your reply I can gleam that you're an analytic cockshott anglo kinda' guy, since your misinterpreting the usage of the word subjectivity. When I'm referring to subjectivity, in an idealist sense or not, I mean 'subjectivity' as a shorthand taken from the history of continental philosophy ranging from antiquity and beyond, to mean cogito or personal ontology; I'm not thinking of subjectivity as if it means the subjecting thereof. The imposition of any kind of systemic bias relates to the personal, this doesn't mean a wholesale negation of the existence of the personal, and there is an a priori 'personal', the foundational sense of interrelation to the world regardless of all else. Conversely, objectivity isn't just some boring Popperian appeal to 'I love science', in this butchered sense of the term, it consists of the noumena AS universal truth–science would be one such means of investigation, not objectivity in itself.

 No.9619

>>9618
(me)
*you're

 No.13666

File: 1686419307462.png (226.38 KB, 1156x1456, critical theory.png)

>>6051
What is to be done with critical theory, or whatever it is that they now teach in academic circles? The intelligentsia have made ideological pariahs and superstars like Zizek, who write screeds about current technology or media, while tying it into some strange misreading of Marx or some charlatans like Lacan, Lyotard, Deleuze, Guattari, Bataille, Foucault, or whoever else. It's strange that anyone reads this stuff, but I have wondered whether its intended purpose is to obfuscate Marxist analysis or to even co-opt various revolutionary factions on campuses.


Unique IPs: 11

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]