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.
>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.
>>2242658This might be true for the cia-funded pomo shit, but from my admittedly incomplete knowledge of situationism and various post-structuralists, they mostly follow marx in investigating specific aspects of social production: the culture industry, desiring production, the absolute state of ideology, etc.
You're right that the praxis manifesting from these currents has remained minimal, yet i would argue it is a feature of the territory. Many aspects of the current superstructure are as total as to make opposing them seem futile, still i think being aware of them is helpful to a point. This is also why these matters won't surface often outside of theoretical discussions, how would you know if one of your party members read D&G in their free time?
>>2244018Intellectuals? More like social parasites.
Liberal Arts colleges must be closed forever. Go to university to study medecine, engineering, pure science, or learn a trade like metalworking or woodworking. Assholes who cant even draw a circle and a square should not be lecturing the productive worker about anything. We do not need a brahmin caste.
>>2242658Postmodernity is a condition, not an ideology. You cannot bring modernism back and, if by some miracle you did, it would be the most postmodern thing imaginable.
You are in a sea of piss. Do you want to swim in the piss, or drown in it? "I want to swim in the water!" is no longer an option.
As someone for whom Debord was my introduction to Marxism, I find your post funny, how you throw different thinkers within the same basket like this, especially as Debord didn't like or cared about any of the other ones you've mentioned.
>Always they end up supporting NATO and social democracy, or they become ridiculous anarchists.
You have never read chapter 4 of the SotS, I can tell it immediately.
It's especially funny coming from a Sendero Luminoso flag. You are the kind of Marxist who will join a tiny ideologically-pure sect nobody gives a shit about to read basic Leninist texts and LARP as the savers of the proletariat, while doing nothing and eventually burn out like all the others like you did before.
You are just as removed from the mindset of the common workers we see in the streets, as much as the pretentious philosophy grad students you are seething about, if not more. Because your post is truly about the crowd wanking about "critical theory", not these thinkers you haven't read.
But you aren't better than them. Nobody wants to hear about how Glorious Chairman Gonzalo didn't actually boil babies. Nobody gives a shit outside of Peru, and I'm willing to bet Gonzalo isn't terribly popular within Peru. So as you can see, you are some kind of hipster too, with a 2edgy4u special snowflake ideology that have never been proved to be effective in the real world.
You can talk about "the tyranny of the clock" instead of "the abolition of time", and it will make sense to everyone who has a job.
Even if "the abolition of time" is an edgy and scary turn of phrase, there is a necessity to talk about such subjects sometimes, because as you may know, value in capitalism is measured in social necessary labour time. If we want to be done away with capitalism, we need to envision something beyond value.
I'm starting to think MLs like you are deeply uncomfortable with such subjects, because they don't want to realize there is something very radical and kinda utopian (in a positive sense, not in the sense of making crazy elaborate plans like Charles Fourier did) within Marx's thought.
It's not about having a bureaucratic state that calls itself "proletarian" while living from the exploitation of workers, just like the previous bourgeois state. That might be the first step, but we aren't supposed to stop at this step at all, there is a "higher stage of communism" to be attained in the whole story.
Debord and the situationists had an answer to this: workers' councils.
Btw, Debord and the situationists also influenced autonomists in Europe, perhaps the only radicals actually doing something here, even if they can be extremely insufferable: they open squats for homeless people, organize serious protests and events, give away food, etc.
The answer of people who post with Sendero Luminoso flags is "let's critically support this third-world bourgeois state from the comfort of our home, because they are anti-imperialist", the magic word.
So really, do you think your position warrant such hatred for other comrades? I think you should rather learn and open a book from time to time, and maybe then you will be in a good position to ruthlessly critique them, because so far it seems like you are mostly pissed off at some smug left-Twitter people after losing an argument.
>>2244087Do you want to know the actual reason I despise Debord? Because all the fucking 'radicals' in my country are autonomists or anarchists influenced by him. They have been brainwashed by this pathetic petit-bourgeois ideology that is all about personal liberation and NOTHING about actually seizing power! Autonomists are doing something? What does doing something mean? All anarchists do is make communes or squats, it is easy mode. This is why working class people become anarchists (its obvious why the petit-bourgeois do), its because the end goal is just the liberation of one building. Anarchism in one homeless camp. It's easy and anyone can do it and it is useless. By the way I say this as someone who works with anarchists 24/7 (because they are the only ones doing street action), and I am friends with many individually, but they are all fucking stupid when it comes to ideology and long term plans, and just treat politics as a lifestyle.
Situationism is ridiculous. Wow we're going to destroy capitalism by destroying some adverts! By spray painting some weird shit we will break their conditioning! It will snap people out of it like the matrix! Same shit as right wing conspiracy wankers. Get real. Instead of doing the really fucking hard work of making a party and overthrowing the government, its all just about personal action. What an infantile ideology.
You think that a bureaucratic state is the endgame for MLs? That's a more ridiculous assertion than anything I have said in this thread by far. Anyway I'm not even an ML, Maoism is not Marxism-Leninism and we had a split with it. Nobody even posts with the PCP flag except for me lmao, and I don't support any bourgeois states, I especially don't support Cuba or the DPRK. It sounds like an Anarkkkidie might be mad that their idiotic ideology has been exposed as the intellectual masturbation that it is.
>>2244441You're jumping the gun by making a party or by seeing a party as the next thing to work on. Every single communist party outside extant ML states in the developing world (+China) is by any reasonable standard a dismal failure. If anarchism is intellectual masturbation, 95% of communism is LARP. 0% of governments have been overthrown by LARPers.
For a party to have any reason to exist, class consciousness needs to be at the level where it can sustain a party. You want to be looking at realistic next steps - trade and tenant unions, weird little specific organizations for a specific purpose, shit that's a bit more organized than anarchists squatting a building, but which is still incredibly decentralized and disorganized compared to a democratic centralist party. All of this is boring and tedious work, but you can't skip to the fun bit. (I suspect you, personally, know this already, but I've gotta spell it out for everyone else) If you try to skip building class consciousness and jump straight to starting a party, or - jesus fucking christ no - try to jumpstart class consciousness with a party, there is a 110% chance you wind up starting a LARP org that writes newspaper articles nobody reads for a party organ you force new members to try to sell, wherein the chairman of the LARParty writes like he's fucking stalin and not a roleplayer typing shit up in OpenOffice from his rented apartment.
If anarchists do nothing for want of big ideas, communists do nothing because they've nothing but big ideas. Here's my big idea: until class consciousness is at the level where you could win an election with the endorsement of one of their purpose-specific orgs, the only party you should be having is one with alcohol and music. not because electoralism is central - i think it's a waste of time and perverts one's incentives - but because if you
cannot win an election, if that
capacity is not there, it is self demonstrating that your party is worthless.
>>2244445If you get really pedantic about it, basically nothing should be a degree. The whole stupid binary pass/fail award/no award system for quantifying education makes it worthless in practice. Knowing the thing for the sake of knowing the thing comes second to having the paper claiming you know the thing because you crammed for the test and immediately forgot it.
In 95% of realistic utopias there is no reason for schools as we know them today - as factories that churn out a facsimile of education with grades more worthless than a nintendo seal of quality - to exist.
>>2244777>medium-obsessed autistLol what the fuck does this even mean.
I remember when criticism of TV for the same reasons was commonplace.
>>2244930Yeah, he was pretty much a product of mid-2010s edgy ML "leftbook" and checked off every box. Buddies with Maupin (I have so many stories about this I should share someday), thought any form of feminism was bourgeois, thought Trump was based because of "populism," larped about being part of a new revolution, resented me for even bothering with critical theory and bothering with any philosophy that wasn't German Enlightenment. My fault for dating him in the first place, but I was a teenager and he was 24 if that gives any perspective. At least it pushed me even further towards what I knew was legitimate in the end.
Like many others ITT, Debord was my wakeup call. Kind of funny how you can tell MLs don't actually read given how many of them try to co-opt Debord considering how much of Society of the Spectacle is just demolishing them.
>>2244441Reminder that Marx considered the state socialism of the social democrats to be 'petty bourgeois' with its analysis based in Proudhon and Lassalle.
And from the preface of the Manifesto:
One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”
>>2245182I learned my lesson, and tbh unless you are a literally-autistic ML, the older you get, the less any of this matters in a relationship anyway; unless your goal is to chase a fantasy of having a torrid love affair with a potential co-author.
>>2245160tsmt
>>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.
>>2242658>>2244454>>2244468>>2280149>>2280179>>2280216>>2280416>>2280452All the replies ITT are just proving OP right. D&G borrow terms from economics not to clarify capital, but to metaphysically aestheticize it. They turn political economy into a libidinal plumbing diagram, poetic, maybe, but utterly detached from exploitation, labor, and power. That's simply not analysis. That's just mystification.
This applies to all the other authors OP namedropped too. Adorno just wrote poems about the barbed wire, Derrida wasn’t a materialist, Lacan was a symbolic monarchist, Kristeva theorized poetry instead of revolution, Lyotard wrote a vibe report for a Canadian university. These were not threats to capital. They were its theorists of decay.
You can dress a theory in Marxist vocabulary, but if it erases labor, history, and exploitation in favor of abstract flows, it operates as revisionism, whether it means to or not. This is not even opinion, it's analysis.
I don't get what's so interesting about plumbing the psyches of individuals.
It's like studying agriculture by examining the workings of each individual grain of rice.
How could you possibly hope to accomplish anything *socially* with such a method?
>>2296326Hey, I recognize you. You're that accelerationist trot on twitter who once said that israel should conquer the whole middle east, & that domestic labor does not create use value
Unique IPs: 69