>Marxism is antithetical to Humanism
>Diamat can be understood in a non-Hegelian way, akshually
>The state, your family, the media, etc. are all APPARATUSES OF CONTROLL
>Machiavelli was actually a progressive pre-materialist thinker, smeared by the Catholic Church, akshually
>Communists should win over scientists ASAP
>Freud and Lacan were genuises akin to Einstein or Bohr
>Realz over Feelz all the time 100%
How was he wrong again? Like, once??? This fucker was on CIA watch-list and had an exhausting lettering b/w him and USSR philosophers.
<inb4 he strangled him wife
1) don't care
2) she was literally asking for it for decades (documented)
3) le attrocity propaganda
85 posts and 20 image replies omitted.>>2420187This is an hoax invented by a right-wing conspiracy theorist called Guy Sorman. You are literally repeating fascist lies as if they were truth. It was deboonked a while ago, but you Americans are so triggered by Foucault you can't handle the truth.
>En 2020, [Guy Sorman] affirme dans France-Amérique que le philosophe Michel Foucault aurait eu des relations sexuelles avec des enfants en Tunisie contre de l'argent et décrit l'œuvre et l'engagement politique de Foucault comme « l'alibi de ses turpitudes »[22]. Un an plus tard, il réaffirme cela dans Mon dictionnaire du bullshit[23], sur le plateau de C ce soir[24] et dans le journal conservateur The Sunday Times[25], tout en ajoutant que Foucault aurait eu ces relations avec des enfants de huit à dix ans sur des pierres tombales dans un village proche de Tunis aux vacances de Pâques 1969. Ces assertions, massivement relayées par des médias du monde entier (Angleterre, Allemagne, Argentine, etc.)[26] ne sont cependant pas étayées par d'autres sources et vont à l'encontre de plusieurs éléments de la vie de Foucault en Tunisie (les menaces dont il faisait l'objet en Tunisie, et le fait qu'il n'enseignait plus à l'université de Tunis mais à celle de Vincennes, qui rendent peu probable un retour en 1969). Dans une enquête de Jeune Afrique, des habitants de Sidi Bou Saïd (village où Michel Foucault résidait) contestent alors les propos de Guy Sorman, et l'une des personnes interviewées, affirme que les partenaires de Foucault étaient « des gars de 17 ou 18 ans qu’il retrouvait brièvement dans les bosquets sous le phare voisin du cimetière. »[27] Dans un entretien au journal Die Zeit publié le 7 avril, Guy Sorman admet n'avoir pas vu Michel Foucault dans ce cimetière et dit s'être basé sur une rumeur entendue dans l'entourage de Jean Daniel[28]. Deux jours plus tard, Philippe Chevallier souligne dans L'Express le peu de consistance de ces accusations et fait remarquer que Guy Sorman a tenu des propos variables. Interrogé, Sorman affirme dorénavant que Michel Foucault ne l'intéresse pas particulièrement, admet n'avoir aucune preuve de ce qu'il affirmeIf you have sex with underaged boys in the cemetery of a Tunisian village, the whole village will know it and fucking kill your ass you fucking dumbass puritan.
>>2420205its here:
>Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method? Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction. My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought. The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of Das Kapital, it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre Ἐπίγονοι [Epigones — Büchner, Dühring and others] who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing’s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a “dead dog.” I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell. In its mystified form, dialectic became the fashion in Germany, because it seemed to transfigure and to glorify the existing state of things. In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary. The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is the universal crisis. That crisis is once again approaching, although as yet but in its preliminary stage; and by the universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action it will drum dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy Prusso-German empire.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htmmarx began writing his economic manuscripts around 1858, so thats a conservative estimate. reading the young marx, it s clear to see his anti-hegelianism, but later in life, comes back to him.
>>2420174I generally agree, anon, but FwooCoh became a neolib in his later life. I think that a Marxist should be able to detect exactly a theoretician's underlying problematic (in his theory) that was always going to led him astray.
In this sense I'm an Althusserian.
Good pics on Sartre, btw. I've personally committed the grave sin of only reading Sarte' novels (not his philo books) and coming to love Camus over him.
Forgib me
>>2419275She literally wanted to die and said it on several (recorded) occasions. My personal interpretation is that she was a true revolutionary who saw that the West had no revolutionary potential and she off'd herself by proxy.
See the suicide note of Marx's daughter.
>>2420205The epistemic break is empirically provabley fyi. I just used "pdfgrep" and searched the entire MECW archive based on Althussy's criterions and all of it was there.
Fucking Engels calls humanists "anti-revolutionists" in his later letters. It's all there, dude. You just need to be blind not to see the qualitative progress in their works.
Marxism is anti-humanism, deal w it.
>>2420242Read Althusser's book on Machiavelli. It will blow your mind.
Or, should I say, it will trvthnuke your mind?
>>2420548It's a statement of fact, fyi
t. read all of 'em
>admits he didn't even read Marx>whole theory relies on trusting him that there was some big, epistemological break and Marx didn't just refocus the mechanism of his critique later in his life>the whole term "structuralist Marxism" is a red herring because the "humanist" Marxism doesn't ignore the structure but escapes vulgar economism by recognizing the dialectic with ideology as Engels literally put in this letter at the very beginning. Neither does "humanist" Marxism in any way defend enlightenment, bourgeois fake-humanism https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm<According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form. There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents (that is, of things and events whose inner interconnection is so remote or so impossible of proof that we can regard it as non-existent, as negligible), the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary. Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree.>all of his defenders basically pretend that he has sole claim to critique on ideology because he's all they've read >>2425522And why would I want that?
I am serious here, give me something like a summary or a line.
I stay out of his field and I don't need him in mine. I think it's like that supposed Einstein quote: Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
I respect him as a fellow socialist (which I can't say for most supposed communists/alleged leftists etc.) but he is an old computer scientist.
What little I read of him does not give the impression of someone philosophically inclined more on the level of common sense, the enemy of "real" philosophy.
>>2427740No, no, strangling old people
We been over this
>>2427737Marxism is a field, you two are in the same field unless you aren't a Marxist
Forgive the curtness, typing is extremely painful for me
>>2427743I can have even identical politics to someone but be philosophically far removed from the same person.
Like, ideology is easy to me. Because I invested a lot of time in getting a grip on it, simple. Otoh if you ask me to organize so much as a birthday party, I am liable to get lost. Prioritizing, workflow, even getting people in line and acting in concert. I'd need practice to acquire "leadership qualities".
Which is to say, on one hand, yes, however I feel my point still stands.
Forgot to attach pic 2 earlier
like this is just bollocks
That is just what I mean
>>2425214>admitsnot really how it works
>he has sole claim to critique on ideology I critique pretty hard myself (which is to say, a self-defeating point, such as it is, the whole idea is to have a tool set to engage critically with the ruling ideas, very important now especially that we are in wartime)
Really, whoever made a claim as ridiculous as this.
I also don't have a need to defend anyone here, as an aside.
>>2427797Not OP but sounds like you are mixing up prescriptive and descriptive.
It is what it is.
>>2430183Like this and that.
I can't remember now, can I?
The blog he blogs on, I read some of that.
What makes his way here, very occasionally I'll take a look. Can't remember if I ever listened to a video of his in full.
Unique IPs: 18