/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

pretty bad and rambling explanation, but:

Butler is infamously obtuse but the passage just means that the structuralist analysis of capital shifted from one where hegemony is understood to be more or less a rigid top-down power relation to one where capital is in a process of continually transforming itself. an example of this is the "woke capital" phenomenon; capital doesn't merely remain socially conservative even if those are the conditions that primitive accumulation creates and relies on, but it also at different stages of development can conceal itself by mimicking cultural shifts.

Deleuze's essay "Postscript on the Societies of Control" explains this concept really well imo:

>The different internments or spaces of enclosure through which the individual passes are independent variables: each time one is supposed to start from zero, and although a common language for all these places exists, it is analogical. On the other hand, the different control mechanisms are inseparable variations, forming a system of variable geometry the language of which is numerical (which doesn’t necessarily mean binary). Enclosures are molds, distinct castings, but controls are a modulation, like a self-deforming cast that will continuously change from one moment to the other, or like a sieve whose mesh will transmute from point to point.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gilles-deleuze-postscript-on-the-societies-of-control

"enclosures" = "structural totalities as theoretical objects"
"controls" = "the contingent possibility of structure [inaugurates] a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power"

I think Deleuze explains this better because he bases his ideas not purely in poststructuralist jargon wank but also throughout his philosophy makes use of mathematical and scientific concepts, and his idea of control here is pretty obviously connected to the cybernetic concept of control.

>These are the societies of control, which are in the process of replacing the disciplinary societies. “Control” is the name Burroughs proposes as a term for the new monster, one that Foucault recognizes as our immediate future. Paul Virilio also is continually analyzing the ultra-rapid forms of free-floating control that replaced the old disciplines operating in the time frame of a closed system.

Deleuze contrasts disciplinary societies, a closed system which disciplines its subjects to conform to the fixed ideas of a hegemony, with societies of control which is an open system engaged in feedback with its subjects to have a self-deforming hegemony that is able to continually conceal itself. this is probably also why Deleuze hated all the fixation 20th century philosophy had with language, because language games are how the societies of control change their appearance without changing materially.

It cant be deciphered. She is speaking another language.
But note that butler is a raging lib. So all of her theoretical blather serves the status quo.

people thought capital/power was a single rigid and complete structure. now they think its a bunch of gooey little things fusing and detaching from each other according to whatever is most convenient for each part at the moment. she repeats this point at least twice for some reason, i guess to articulate it even further maybe

>doesn't outright tell the reader to kill Porky
Glow

>>1898717
>Can someone with a thesaurus and an encyclopedic knowledge of 20th century french post-modern and structuralist philosophy explain what the literal fuck this means?
It just summarizing the theory of hegemony. Instead of the structuralist idea that came before, which was more rigid and universalist, hegemony theory says that systems of power adapt to specific circumstances to maintain power in whatever way works best. This is one of those kinds of things that seems obvious, almost too obvious to say, but there are a lot of unspoken assumptions in the earlier structuralist idea. It's almost like a just-so story where the abstract idea of capitalism simply asserts itself in its particular way because it must.

The reality (pretty obviously too) is that power is iterative, in that there is always an ongoing struggle and as the powerful succeed or fail they adjust their strategy for maintaining their power. While capitalist production per se does put some pretty major restrictions on what you can do as a capitalist ruler, it does give the powerful a lot of leeway to shape things outside of the part where they need to generate profit. When it comes to the superstructure, the bourgeoisie and their representatives are pretty free to experiment and explore what methods of securing power will be most effective for them. And these methods are going to be specific to the context where they're applied, e.g. the imperialist core vs the global south or the city vs the countryside. Basically hegemony theory takes the more abstract structuralist conception of power and makes it concrete as it is actually applied in reality, and particularly in the various realities (plural) where it actually functions.

>>1898741
good explanation thanks anon

>Judith Butler
should be shot

>>1898717
New thinkers say Capitalism is not a stable as it seems.

>>1899158
The entire intelligentsia should be buried alive in unmarked graves, frankly

>>1898717
I suspect that structuralist and many other pomo authors are intentionally obtuse in their writing because they aren't confident that they could actually argue their point.

Found where you GOP cuntoids are cribbing your ideology from