/edu/ - Education

>>6588
Could someone summarize his arguments?

>>6590
Neetism and return to monke communism is more radical than marxism.

>>6588
What's he say exactly? I've read Simulation and Simulacra and it was kinda schizo tbh, certainly no refined arguments.

>>6592
Filtered

>>6593
t. schizo

>2021-07-27
Nice. Today's Baudrillard's birthday, too.

But yeah, do you have any quotes from him that would clarify your statement?

>>6588
Mirror of Production is more of an anthropological critique of Marxism, specifically of Marxist anthropologist Maurice Godelier. Baudrillard's general point throughout his books is that Marxism doesn't go far enough in its critique of capitalism, it is itself still trapped within the categories of political economy, being merely a "mirror image" of capitalist production, hence the title of that book.

But that doesn't mean that within capitalism Marx's critique isn't relevant, and IMO Baudrillard strawmans Marx by projecting vulgar Marxism (Marxism as a worldview) onto him.
It would be interesting if he read the guys from Wertkritik. Ironically Robert Kurz himself strawmanned Baudrillard, thinking he's an ideologue of the postmodernity and neoliberal society when he was one of the earliest to detect the shift and criticize it. The confusion probably comes from his cynicism towards Marxists (and towards Foucault, Deleuze, Lyotard) still being stuck in the fordist paradigm at that time when capitalism has already moved on and incorporated some of their criticism.

>>6592
S&S is the least interesting of his works, it's not representative either, but unfortunately american academics turned it into a meme, so nobody reads anything else.

Here's the whole book and a tl;dr for the lazy ones
http://www.telospress.com/neither-marx-nor-smith-baudrillards-critique-of-productivism/

>>6601
The second part of that summary is much better:
http://www.telospress.com/something-in-all-men-profoundly-rejoices-at-seeing-a-car-burn-pure-expenditure-against-production/

>Under capitalism, workers are exploited not only as a result of the machinations of the system, which dominates them, but also by the code, which co-opts and coerces them. The reinforcement and perpetuation of this code in traditional Marxism ironically services the needs of capitalism. It generates this effect by means of popularizing the myth that labor-power is each individual’s “fundamental human potential” rather than a capitalist social relation. As Baudrillard writes:
<And in this Marxism assists the cunning of capital. It convinces men that they are alienated by the sale of their labor power, thus censoring the much more radical hypothesis that they might be alienated as labor power, as the “inalienable” power of creating value by their labor.

What also comes through is how Baudrillard at that time was still influenced by the French philosophical milieu. You have a fetishization of desire and the margins for example, some of it reads like a ultra-left manifesto. Just a few years later he attacks that in Forget Foucault.

>>6591
Anarcho-primitivism is the most reactionary ideology when you think about it.christian_communismChristian Communism

>>6605
>>6591
Baudrillard would find anarcho-primitivism completely ridiculous. Anarcho- because for him primitive societies were in no way anarchic; and -primitivism because for him the logic of "primitive" societies is a general social logic that is present in every society, so we never left "primitive" societies anyway, but they never existed as imagined by anprims.

Furthermore he was a priori opposed to all kinds of returns for similar reasons that any Marxist would be: you can't oppose the current sytem with a previous form that has precisely led to the current order and was absorbed by it. You can only oppose the system by some further or "higher order" form that overcomes the current one.

>>6617
That's a stab at Deleuze and Guattari as well.

Autism is another mental illness Baudrillard uses as an analogy for the society as a whole. He started doing that pretty early, at the beginning of the 90s at least.

1st pic: Transparency of Evil (1990)
2nd pic: The Illusion of the End (1992)
3rd pic: The Perfect Crime (1995)

Speaking if baudrillard, i really don't understand what the fuck he means in "No Tears for Sarajevo". Somebody wants to illuminate me?

>>6629
I only skimmed through, but he talks about the West not having any purpose any more so it has to import it from the outside, find a struggle in the rest of the world and turn it into victimhood of others so it can larp as their savior. This just goes to show that it is the West which is suffering from a poverty of purpose, not the rest of the world.

>>6599
Similar arguments here in Beyond Capital by Leibowitz, drawing on Castoriadas and Thompson


>What occurred, Thompson proposes, was that Marx’s critique of political economy became a critique which remained ‘within the same premises’ as political economy itself: ‘The postulates ceased to be the self-interest of man and became the logic and forms of capital, to which men were subordinated … But what we have at the end, is not the over throw of “Political Economy” but another “Political Economy.” ’ Capital, thus, ‘was not an exercise of a different order to that of mature bour-geois Political Economy, but a total confrontation within that order’ (Thompson, 1978: 60, 65)

>>6599
>>6599
>is itself still trapped within the categories of political economy, being merely a "mirror image" of capitalist production, hence the title of that book.
This is true. Should I read Robert Kurz or Baudrillard to understand this more?
>>6604
>they might be alienated as labor power
Doesnt Marx already discover this?
>>7057
>, but a total confrontation within that order
Well yes, its immanent critique. Something that strikes me about Cockshottism is the reification of value. Marx clearly exposes value as being fake and gay, but still a powerful spirit, much more powerful than table turning. Meaning, it's a spirit that we make that in turn controls us.

Reading Harry Cleaver, he says that the point is to emancipate humanity from the commodity form. Not capital, not capitalism, not from the oppression of the bourgeoisie, but from the snatch of the spirit known as value.

And then, you have people like Ian Wright, writing about how Capital is like a spirit that we create by our daily activities. Like a super organism.

But then you have to ground these ideas. Sure, society is fake, but how can you overcome it? Every socialist project has not been able to escape the commodity form, quite the opposite. Socialists projects have been destabilized by desire for Pizza Hut (I joke, but also, not), without understanding the deadly price tag of a slice.

Then you have China which has elements in power which are very aware about all of this, yet can do nothing except play at global neoliberalism and slowly transform its culture into a socialist one, balancing war, development, cultural vestiges, traditions, reaction, interference, terrorism, etc.

Basically, it's all good but how do you translate it to real life?

>>7058
I also think these ideas of how marxism (or arguably the vulgar interpretations of marxism which just treat it as a new political economy) came to the fore in the recent debate about Only fans and whether the people on the platform were workers or petit bourgeoise. In one sense, it trying to classify these kinds of working arrangements into a rigid typology is less important than examining how they reproduce themselves under the rule of capital.

are you on Matrix btw? Would like to discuss this more

>>7059
Yes, I am on matrix, but is there a reason you'd prefer to discuss there? Here our conversation is open and others might chime in with different perspectives, plus lurkers or bystanders could gain from our discussion. Slow discussion is also good to let ideas cook and develop instead of knee jerk responses. plus im at work lol

Regarding your point on the OF discussion, yeah. I agree. There was also a recent thread about how many classes there were. Many answers showed this vulgar interpretation of Marxism. Even well read Marxists still use meme words like "labor aristocrat" (or the variant, PMC) to discredit workers as being somehow immoral. Bizarre shit.

>>7060
Just wondered if you'd like to write something on it, maybe summarise some of these arguments. you can find me at 'edmultitude'

>>7061
Ah nice. Got you. Thanks Ed :) maybe I will. Thanks for the encouragement.

Bump

>Baudrillard is one of the few who was able to critique Marxism from a resonable and not cucked perspective.
wrong

>>9199
Make an argument anytime

>>9202
Baudrillard only had vapid literary critiques of Marx, also suck my dick anytime

>>9204
This is not fucking /leftypol/. Stop shitting this board.

>>9210
OP shat up this board

>>6588
It sounds like a reasonable perspective until you realize that this concept was already addressed by later marxists.
Alienation being a fundamental feature of humanity is something explored by Zizek.