Fuck Debord, Deleuze, Guattari, Adorno, Zizek, all the Frankfurt school, all other postmodernist, critical theory, all these indecipherable philosophers. I despise these social fascist lickspittles. Why are they even considered remotely socialist? It's like they didn't take a single lesson from The German Ideology, they read Marx encyclopedically but don't even pay attention to what he's saying! All they see is the long winded style of writing he inherited from Hegel and replicate that rather than spending a moment to realize that their philosophy is useless. Like liberals they pick out a few 'radical' sounding things and ignore the real work on political economy!
Their understanding of socialism is completely liberal because it is just taking the aesthetics and going 'Well, they had some good points. But I think we need a new way'. Liberal scum. Always they end up supporting NATO and social democracy, or they become ridiculous anarchists. The post-modernists have had a terrible effect on socialism. It is the ideology of neoliberal capitalism, incompatible with Marxism and communism. Post modernists need their delusions beaten out of them to show that the real world does have meaning. Postism is completely rubbish. All 'posts' are ridiculous theories, that included Post-colonialism. Fundementally they are bourgeois, because it is rejecting real progress.
All these lickspittles say is the most radical things ever. "Let's abolish capitalism and all exploitation! Let's abolish time! Let's abolish the current way we see the world!". But then they don't do anything about it! And lots of what they are asking for and conflating with the class struggle is ridiculous like paedophilia and time abolishing. These ones are the ideological fault for postisms and identity politics becoming such a big thing. Nobody real can read their work. Even Marx tried to make his work readable even though at times it is difficult. But they revel in how complex and difficult it is. This is for a reason - their audience is the petit-bourgeois, not the working class.
There has never been a good philosopher. Hegel might have been useful to Marx, but once Marx transcended him he should never be read (Lenin is wrong on this). The only real philosophers are the ones who are working in the struggle. The fascists should be ostracised and their books burned. I despise them and I am angered whenever I hear one of their evil names.
77 posts and 13 image replies omitted.>>2280149That's fucking stupid
Why this fear of concreteness and structure
Quite literally an infantile philosophy
>>2280258well it is anti-oedipal
so quite literally infantile
>>2280263????
are you fucking stupid
>>2244925>commodity production and wage labor were tenets of capitalismCommunism will never ever be achieved until childish MLs and Anarchists read theory for once in their lives and realise this.
From the very first line of Capital:
<The wealth of societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails appears as an “immense collection of commodities”Do you get it yet?
YOU CANNOT RETAIN COMMODITY PRODUCTION AND CLAIM TO BE A SOCIALIST SOCIETY. >>2280387deleuze was a "transcendental empiricist" (bergsonian) whose main theoretical focus was in combatting hegel (difference and repetition) and lacan (anti-oedipus) in targeting dialectics from a positivistic view (via spinozistic substance). basically, he wanted to liberate the eros of nature from the shackles of repression, which is not just in the freudian psyche, but the system of nature itself. for this reason; he often makes reference to wilhelm reich; a marxist-leninist psychoanalyst who theorised "orgone energy" as a natural substance which could be harnessed, as opposed to freud's psychic libidinal economy of eros. in all this are "general" theories of social production, a la bataille or lyotard.
he is also the inventor of "accelerationism", borrowing from nietzsche's notes on the notion of advancing modern nihilism. nietzsche also said that spinoza was his predecessor. spinoza's work is pure positivism, centuries before comte, seeing the universe as expressive of a universal "substance". foucault said that the 21st century would be deleuzean.
>>2280400you are right
>>2280392he was not
>>2280416I think I just had a seizure trying to parse half of those words
Don't misunderstand, I believe you explained it very clearly, rather it is me to blame for lack of intelligence and awareness on what any of this stuff means
How much philosophy and psychology must a person read to reach the point they can follow this type of discussion at ease? Where does one even begin?
>>2280425most of philosophy is jargon. once you download the glossary terms, its quite straight-forward (like any fandom). as a basic summary ill provide this:
we may read this from "difference and repetition":
>The work of art leaves the domain of representation in order to become 'experience', transcendental empiricism or science of the sensible (p. 56)>Despite the fact that it has become discredited today, the doctrine of the faculties is an entirely necessary component of the system of philosophy. Its discredit may be explained by the misrecognition of this properly transcendental empiricism, for which was substituted in vain a tracing of the transcendental from the empirical … We ask, for example: What forces sensibility to sense? (p. 143)"transcendental empiricism" is a play on kant's "transcendental" or "critical" idealism, which stipulates the higher faculties of reason which condition the very possibility of reason (this is kant's essential "critique", that reason must be limited to have possibility). deleuze clearly esteems this line of reasoning in the elementary sense, except that he inverts kant by seeing that we are not determined toward reason, but empirical experience, or "heterologocal" (pluralistic) difference.
"eros" refers to freud's "pleasure principle", which is the psychic (synbolic) desire to release tension. deleuze wishes to extend this to bodies which more resemble "rhizomes" or decentralised networks, as opposed to oedipal, or hierarchical (organic) structures. this to deleuze relates to spinoza's "substance" as affirmative and distributive
>Spinoza marks a considerable progress. instead of understanding univocal being as neutral or indifferent, he makes it an object of pure affirmation. Univocal being becomes identical with unique, universal and infinite substance … Any hierarchy or pre-eminence is denied in so far as substance is equally designated by all the attributes in accordance with their essence, and equally expressed by all the modes in accordance with their degree of power. With Spinoza, univocal being ceases to be neutralised and becomes expressive; it becomes a truly expressive and affirmative proposition. (difference and repetition, p. 40) >>2280400Nietzsche and offshoots can be really appealing when you're queer growing up in an abrahamic patriarchial shithole
Instead of being ashamed, you can adopf this respected philosopher and transvaluate your queerness into an epic aristocratic struggle against the retarded moralist rabble
>>2280465Hate it when retard philosophers blitherly misappropriate terminology from medicine and actual science
>>2242658Naturally as a child interested in Marxology I was what one might call a bit of a "fucking loser" but whatever superficial high school drama wasn't my thing and online leftoid drama was. I can't tell you how much slop filled up my head and left nothing of value.
If anything it taught me a valuable lesson: anyone dressing up their shit in a dorky vaporwave aesthetic and dumping retarded niche philosophical concepts on you for the sake of it is the most nauseating type of retard. They need to signal intelligence they don't have so they're as vague and abstract as possible. This is without mentioning that shit like "how rhizomes destroys the right-wing" or whatever pertains fuck all to proles.
Unique IPs: 22