Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 11:23:46 No. 663893
I've only read a little bit of Foucault (some excerpts from Discipline and Punish), but what groundbreaking insights do you think Marxists should incorporate?
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 11:27:50 No. 663896
>>663893 Discourse theory
Subjectivity
Biopolitics
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 11:33:23 No. 663899
>>663896 >Discourse theory Marxists engage in discourse/cultural critique all the time though. Just look at sniff man. Iirc Foucault himself said he owed more to Adorno than Adorno would ever care to admit.
>Subjectivity You're gonna need to elaborate on that.
>Biopolitics Tbh I don't even understand how this was any sort of innovation. Like yeah no shit, political power seeks to regulate human life and the human body. What insights could this hold for Marxists and their projects/analysis?
Also reminder that the CIA themselves said that Foucault and the postmodernists were not a threat to American hegemony or the capitalist order. Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 11:56:32 No. 663917
>>663899 >Iirc Foucault himself said he owed more to Adorno than Adorno would ever care to admit. He's influenced by Nietzsche here. There's a marxist spin of this called critical discourse analysis iirc. But it's not really utilized by marxists. They are not interested in how knowledge itself is constructed and attains power. The force field of influences that bring ideas/institutions into being and determine their meaning and operation in given cultural and historical contexts. Most marxists just hyper focus on just modes of production.
What seperates foucault from marxists imo is that marxists don't care about the individual at all. it's about how individuals in a certain society think of themselves as subjects of a certain discursive category(let's say sexuality) and the kind of institutions/fields of knowledge/types of normativity that regulate this. This is important because it tells us about how a person itself is constructed by way of how he is made to perceive himself.
So that marxists don't fall into totalitarian trap.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 12:11:51 No. 663925
>>663920 Let's say you're thinking about religion. Does it ever occur to your average person that maybe religion the way we see it now is a modern construct that only makes sense in modern discourse? They'll be as confused as Japanese Buddhists were when they met Jesuits for the first time.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 12:11:55 No. 663926
>>663917 >They are not interested in how knowledge itself is constructed and attains power. I disagree, Marx himself already had a theory on how ideas obtain power. The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas. If anything he may be able to agree with Nietzsche on this, insofar as those who rule impose their values and worldview on others through language, art, religion, literature, etc.
>imo is that marxists don't care about the individual at all Because the individual is not the consequential actor in society, great masses of people are.
>it's about how individuals in a certain society think of themselves as subjects of a certain discursive category(let's say sexuality) and the kind of institutions/fields of knowledge/types of normativity that regulate this But Marxism does deal with this, it just takes the materialist position that these categories are ultimately determined by class and economic factors, or at least operate within limits imposed by class.
>So that marxists don't fall into totalitarian trap. Totalitarianism is a meme. The ebb and flow of ideological conformity and state repression has little to do with ideology and everything to do with the needs of the state and society, the security of its hegemony, etc. The USSR didn't develop into a "totalitarian" direction because it had the wrong ideology, it did so because strong centralization and a high level of repression was necessary for it to survive the cataclysm of revolution and World War.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 12:23:46 No. 663937
>>663926 >The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas. If anything he may be able to agree with Nietzsche on this, insofar as those who rule impose their values and worldview on others through language, art, religion, literature, etc. But it's not as simple as that.
One big takeaway from pomo and the critical theorists they influenced is that you can't just reduce everything to marxist classes and economic factors. It's way more complicated and contingent on a lot of factors.
>>663926 >The USSR didn't develop into a "totalitarian" direction because it had the wrong ideology, it did so because strong centralization and a high level of repression was necessary for it to survive the cataclysm of revolution and World War. Most marxists unironically support strong centralization and repression under any circumstance. It's because for a marxist nothing matters other than DotP and changing the mode of production. Talking about individual liberties is a fucking taboo in marxist circles.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 12:33:31 No. 663943
>>663937 >But it's not as simple as that. >you can't just reduce everything to marxist classes and economic factors. It's way more complicated and contingent on a lot of factors. More complicated in what way?
>Most marxists unironically support strong centralization and repression under any circumstance. >Talking about individual liberties is a fucking taboo in marxist circles. Citation needed. Libertarian and humanist Marxism is a thing. Even in the USSR, there was a clear ebb and flow of repression correlated with the severity of threats to the state and society itself.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 13:47:03 No. 663989
>>663892 Because there is a myriad of identities but class distinction cannot be overcome except through proletariat uprising
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 14:24:50 No. 664015
a lot of the posts on this board are bourgeois epistemic violence, mostly due to feds and concern trolls and the like
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 14:26:47 No. 664017
Fake crap, weird doomers far up their own asses.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 14:47:52 No. 664035
>>664033 literally the one person who critiqued neoliberalism before it even happened
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 14:49:30 No. 664038
>>663896 >Subjectivity Anti-Marxist
>>663896 >Biopolitics Anti-Marxist
>>663896 >Discourse theory Another form of DiaMat.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 14:50:01 No. 664040
>>664033 >>664035 Brainlets, he was known for supporting neoliberalism.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 14:53:11 No. 664042
>>664040 >he was known for supporting neoliberalism i assume "supporting neoliberalism" here means being gay? cuz i can't think of anything else
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 14:53:17 No. 664043
>>664038 (me)
Post-modernism is anti-Marxist and anti-communist, just in case it isn't clear.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 14:55:49 No. 664047
>>664042 He hated welfare state so much he supported French neoliberals and wrote a lot about how neoliberalism is culturally liberating
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 15:07:31 No. 664060
>>664050 Can't blame him
It was neoliberals who were okay with decriminalizing homosexuality. People don't realize that the left used to be culturally repressive as fuck.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 15:10:40 No. 664065
>>664043 Modernism was also anti-communist
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 15:12:18 No. 664067
>>664043 Postmodernism/modernism divide is fake.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 15:16:34 No. 664070
>>664060 not only that but post-war eurocommunist parties were absolute sell-outs
imagine being called an abomination and all the standard homophobic bs but dressed up in vulgar marxist-speak then having those same activists suck the dick of the actual bourgeoisie
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 15:51:08 No. 664102
>>664070 Marx was a homophobe too.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 16:07:27 No. 664126
>>664102 marx would have been opposed to epistemological conceptions of homosexuality as unnatural or even just against social norms, and communism was intrinsically tied to gay rights before 1945/stalinism, although that's a history that you no doubt have an interest in repressing and mystifying
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 16:18:51 No. 664146
>gheyes
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 16:19:05 No. 664148
>>664126 There's no need to speculate. Marx said homophobic shit and homophobia was pretty common during his time.
No. It was some german liberal magnus hirschfeld who really made who first advocated for gay and trans rights. Communists always ignored anything that isn't class struggle.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 16:19:05 No. 664149
>>664126 >communism was intrinsically tied to gay rights before 1945/stalinism Please elaborate on this. I am interested.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 16:22:47 No. 664151
>>664148 >Communists always ignored anything that isn't class struggle. mf's can just straight up lie on here and i'm the only one pushing back against it
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 16:28:12 No. 664157
>>664151 Man, Communists were cultural conservatives. It's a historical fact. Anarchists were more openminded. but the left was never associated with cultural progressiveness until recently. It was always either liberals or anarchists who advocated for progressive stuff. Communists stopped at gender equality.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 16:29:52 No. 664159
>>664149 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_LGBT_rights#Marxism btw it's funny that i'm the only one being pressed for proofs. i didn't make an assertion in the first place. but maybe argument isn't even the point in the first place, it's pushing vague notions and filling a thread with your miasma
>>664157 you've got it the wrong way around
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 16:33:43 No. 664164
>>664159 >just posted wikipedia article that goes against what he's claiming >you've got it the wrong way around What did he mean by this?
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 16:35:50 No. 664168
>>664159 >The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality volume two is unequivocal on Marx and Engels view of homosexuality, stating: "There can be little doubt that, as far as they thought of the matter at all, Marx and Engels were personally homo-phobic, as shown by an acerbic 1869 exchange of letter on Jean Baptista von Schweitzer, a German socialist rival. Schweitzer had been arrested in a park on a morals charge and not only did Marx and Engels refuse to join a committee defending him, they resorted to the cheapest form of bathroom humor in their private comments about the affair." This is the dude you guys worship
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 16:35:57 No. 664169
>>664164 the wiki article illustrates orthodox marxism's descent into conservatism
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 16:36:16 No. 664170
>>664159 >btw it's funny that i'm the only one being pressed for proofs. i didn't make an assertion in the first place. but maybe argument isn't even the point in the first place, it's pushing vague notions and filling a thread with your miasma You had me wrong my friend, I wasn't asking for proof or anything, I just don't know much about that part of communist history. I think communists should support culturally progressive movements.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 16:36:47 No. 664171
>>664168 you're a fucking disingenous troll. kill yourself
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 16:38:37 No. 664172
>>664169 >descent into conservatism Marxists were always conservative. they just doubled down later on. Marxists can't think beyond class struggle.
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 16:42:14 No. 664176
>Why don't marxists utilize insights by postmodernists?
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 16:46:48 No. 664178
>>664170 >I think communists should support culturally progressive movements. They'll just follow the popular tide regarding cultural issues. If most proles want homos to be tortured they'll follow the suit to gain the trust of common folk. Thank god the new left struggled hard and shifted the popular consensus on culture issues. You can't rely on communists for this.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 16:53:45 No. 664182
>>664157 So what are you trying to say? Communists fought for women's issues and people of color, only that they centered their struggles on bourgeois society and capitalism. Marx even called capitalism a progressive force because it liberated women from the home.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 17:03:12 No. 664187
Why should I take seriously some guy who got BTFO in a debate with Noam fucking Chomsky of all people
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 17:23:59 No. 664203
>>664172 >Marxists were always conservative. Not really. Conservative just means keeping the cultural norms as they are now or going back to early social relations, It's opposition to change or reversing of change.
Marxists never really agreed with Liberalism either, because the goal of liberalism is commodification of social relations.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 17:42:29 No. 664217
>>664203 This. Capitalism is a social relation of production, not a cultural one. And conservativism is inherently impossible due to the fact that cultures change and so do traditions. It's impossible to be conservative really, tomorrow's conservativism will be today's progressive cultural issue.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 17:59:17 No. 664226
>>664217 >>664203 The level of sophistry used to deflect is just lol
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 18:06:28 No. 664235
>>663917 >totalitarian trap Liberal bogeyman.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 18:14:22 No. 664243
>>663892 >Why don't marxists utilize insights by postmodernists? They absolutely do. As a non professional philospher, its hard to read beyond the marxist classics. If you try to read them after only reading wage labor and capital, it all sounds like gibberish. Focault despite having some weird stuff that isn't directly compatible with marxism is still very valuable and frequently cited by marxists.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 18:15:19 No. 664244
>>663892 What insights lol
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 18:18:01 No. 664246
>>664243 >frequently cited by marxists Lolno
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 18:20:20 No. 664248
>>664244 Maybe that neoliberalism is based lol
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 18:21:56 No. 664250
Reported all of these.
>>664172 >>664168 >>664161 >>664157 >>664102 Conservative marxism makes no sense and I'm convinced it's some retard illiterate nazbol trying to make it a thing using some intense historical revisionism. Marx wasnt, but if he were socially conservative, that doesn't mean contemporary marxists should. Fucking disc0rd retards…
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 18:24:20 No. 664253
>>664250 Why are you going into seethe mode lmao
Just accept the history and move on. Mistakes were made in the past and that's why marxists should actively start caring about social issues too.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 18:26:20 No. 664256
>>664250 It's part of the latest grift of the glowies with the PatSocs.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 18:39:30 No. 664266
>>664255 Bitch, I'm gay. Don't fucking straightsplain me about gay dirty jokes lol.
1. Where is the proof.
2. The encyclopedia makes the implication that marx didnt support him because he was gay, and not because he was a political enemy, as previously mentioned. Where is the proof of this implication.
Also lmfao getting sources from """encyclopedia of homosexuality""".
Suck my dick police.
>>664253 >marxists should actively start caring about social issues too. Lol. Transparent illiteracy there mr fed. Have they cut into your education budget?
>>664256 I can't wait for this trend to end. And I thought #landback was the most painful thing they could come up with…
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 18:43:33 No. 664271
>>664266 >Bitch, I'm gay. Stalin hated your kind
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 18:43:48 No. 664272
>>664250 Idk Marxism cannot be said to be conservative but it wouldn't stop people doing conservative stuff in an aesthetic or ethical sense like maintaining certain ethnic practices.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 18:44:57 No. 664273
>>664266 >mental gymnastics Deranged and deluded. At least read wikipedia.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 18:47:29 No. 664278
>>664237 this is what's considered a clever psyop by the inbreds at /pol/?
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 18:49:30 No. 664281
>>664272 Marxists is only for class analysis. Other than that you're free to believe in whatever you want.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 19:13:18 No. 664294
>>664271 >Stalin hated your kind Kek. I doubt he thought about gays too much.
Regardless, I can assure you he hated your kind even more. His entire adulthood was spent killing your kind.
>>664273 lol, fuck off fed.
>>664281 >Marxists is only for class analysis. Not really. There's much more to marxism than simply class analysis.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 19:19:21 No. 664309
>>664294 He criminalized homosexuality lol
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 21:18:34 No. 664474
>>663892 Marxists do, all the time. Leftypol doesn't because they get super triggered by certain words and think everything pomo==CIA.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 21:33:16 No. 664497
>>664060 worth throwing in that in a UK context this isn't that true. the great irony of the British situation is that the left was crushed on every economic and "economic-cultural" front (i.e. the public perception of trade unions and landlordism in a cultural sense shifted as radically as the economy itself) but won resoundingly on the cultural front even as the Thatcher government took a more reactionary tilt.
In the Labour party specifically, the more moderate / right wing you got, the more reactionary social views you would tend to find. Even now, Blair's out there saying it was a mistake for the Labour left to have held liberal social views in the 1980s.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 21:33:31 No. 664499
>>664483 Did you post this for a reason or is it somehow relevant? Does being "CIA approved" make them wrong?
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 21:34:22 No. 664502
>>664483 completely meaningless
the cia approved of everything that wasn't marxist
Sage !61KGLATVW. 2021-12-28 (Tue) 21:56:33 No. 664559
Kek. Excellent bait thread
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 21:59:37 No. 664563
>>664499 >Does being "CIA approved" make them wrong? No, but it means that they were dismissed as not being a threat to American hegemony or capitalism. It means that even if their critiques were correct and insightful, they had no capacity (as least as far as the glowies could see) to threaten the existing order. They just interpret the world when the point is to change it.
>>664502 >the cia approved of everything that wasn't marxist Really makes you think.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 22:13:22 No. 664578
>>663899 >Also reminder that the CIA themselves said that Foucault and the postmodernists were not a threat to American hegemony or the capitalist order. Also reminder: the CIA thought that Althusser, Lacan, and Bataille were the "arch" commies.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 22:15:42 No. 664582
>>664578 They were at least involved with the PCF were they not?
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 22:19:36 No. 664586
>>664563 >Really makes you think. it really doesn't
people here invoke glowuyghurs as some sort of supreme authority on everything from art to philosophy when all they've ever done is opportunistically support anything or anyone that happens to be in disagreement with who amerikkka regards as its current primary enemy just to repeatedly get fucked in the ass because of it
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 22:21:42 No. 664587
>>664582 >thinking the PCF was a threat to anything LOL
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 22:45:32 No. 664626
Marxists believe in an objective physical reality.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 23:23:41 No. 664697
>>664626 then how come marx didn't consider objective physical real human nature?
checkmate
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 23:29:03 No. 664706
>>664626 what does that even mean or have to do with anything
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 23:30:28 No. 664710
>>664706 Jordan Peterson told me the evil postmodernists think reality doesn't real
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 23:33:57 No. 664715
>>664697 >how come marx didn't consider objective physical real human nature gonna ask for sauce
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 23:36:54 No. 664722
>>664586 Except the CIA didn't just reflexively support these guys as a way to undermine the commies. They studied them thoroughly and came to the conclusion that they could be safely ignored, that they had no real potential to form the intellectual foundation of a subversive movement. They determined that they were too absorbed in intellectual masturbation and esotericism to have any real impact.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 23:43:25 No. 664743
>>664722 yeah totally bro the same way they studied althusser and came to the conclusion that the pcf was hella fucking dangerous lmoa
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 23:46:17 No. 664745
>>664743 The PCF was at least organizing people and doing work irl, even if it was lackluster. For all its faults it was objectively a much greater threat to American interests than any of the pomo people were.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 23:49:04 No. 664751
>>664745 you're so fucking clueless you should apply for a job at the cia
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 23:54:05 No. 664762
>>664751 Clueless about what? The PCF may have been seriously flawed but it was an actual movement, one that actually went out and did things. In what way was it inferior to a bunch of cloistered intellectuals who have felled entire forests to print their writings, but none of which has ever amount to the measliest opposition to the status quo? Come back when there's a CIA dossier on the PCF which says that it can be safely ignored.
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 23:57:33 No. 664766
>>664715 still asking for sauce
Anonymous 2021-12-28 (Tue) 23:59:09 No. 664771
>>664766 they were being tongue-in-cheek
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 00:02:42 No. 664778
>>664706 >what does that even mean or have to do with anything I think Foucault belonged to post-modern thinkers who thought that there could only be subjective narratives about reality, that makes it an idealist philosophy.
Marxism is a materialist school of thought which is based on there being an objective and physical reality.
>>664710 P. is not really able to escape post modern think, because he still operates on the basis of subjectivism.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 00:06:19 No. 664784
>>664778 you sound like you're 14 years old and just got groomed by maoists
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 00:07:13 No. 664785
>>664043 All that needs to be said.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 00:08:09 No. 664788
>>664745 >>664762 What the PCF "organized" was the smooth functioning of French capitalism
What the PCF "went out and did" was putting down the May '68 general strike
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 00:10:32 No. 664794
>>664785 You're literally saying nothing though
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 00:12:10 No. 664798
>>664794 Postmodernism is anti-communist, relativist, voluntarist, idealist and solipsitic. Is that clear enough?
Anyone pushing it is an enemy of proletarian communism, Bolshevism and Marxism.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 00:12:50 No. 664799
>>663892 Why don't post-modernists acknowledge the
FACT that history didn't end in 1989 and that
the falling rate of profit is a fact of capitalist economy, something that Marx called the "most important" one?
How come post-modernists are so
CUCKED that they can't even into facts of reality?!
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 00:14:30 No. 664805
>>664784 i don't care about your opinions about me, let me know when you have something to say that is related to my post.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 00:14:54 No. 664806
>>664798 That's a lot of words to convey absolutely nothing of substance
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 00:17:33 No. 664816
>>664798 present proofs for anti-communism and idealism
>>664805 >>664778 no investigation, no right to speak
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 00:19:38 No. 664820
>>663896 >Subjectivity Anti materialism and untrue
>Biopolitics Litterally scientific racism or mumbo jumbo
>Discourse theory "What people say affects how people think" and other revelations of the century. Also taking this kind if minor effect on how people act into consideration leads to shit like female drone pilots, rather than feeding the poor, which is fucking stupid.
Post modernism has no value.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 00:20:51 No. 664825
>>664820 Do you think you would die if you read a book?
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 00:21:06 No. 664826
>>664816 not an argument
the world isnt subjective. Reality is objective.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 00:24:10 No. 664830
>>664826 back to the start
>>664706 Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 00:24:34 No. 664833
>>664788 And yet even still they had (and still have) more subversive potential then these people.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 00:57:46 No. 664875
https://youtu.be/Qal23tafbeM people who are more tame than that baby? I don't listen to.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 01:52:35 No. 664953
>>664033 >>664040 >>664047 You're the real brainlet, Foucault did that in his last years of life.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 02:07:05 No. 664963
average gulf war fan
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 07:36:38 No. 665299
>>664778 >I think Foucault belonged to post-modern thinkers who thought that there could only be subjective narratives about reality, that makes it an idealist philosophy. >Marxism is a materialist school of thought which is based on there being an objective and physical reality. False binary. Read metamodernism by Jason Storm to understand why.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 11:07:33 No. 665441
>>663937 >Talking about individual liberties is a fucking taboo in marxist circles. Glowing
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 12:05:35 No. 665466
>>665299 >False binary. Binaries are boolean and Marx said that all philosophies had to be either materialist or idealist
The middle ground fallacy you and so many others are trying to re-invent again and again rests on a misconception about materialism.
Materialism is the believe that material reality comes prior to ideas and now the important part: that ideas it self are entirely material. When materialist talk about ideas they mean physical processes like thinking. Idealists mean something else entirely with ideas. If you try to combine idealist and materialist thinking you will create infinite regression paradoxes.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 12:09:58 No. 665469
>>665466 So Foucault isn't an idealist philosophy, got it.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 12:20:55 No. 665477
>>665469 >So Foucault isn't an idealist philosophy Yes Foucault was a man not a philosophy.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 13:15:23 No. 665522
>It's cringe how marxists still haven't updated their philosophy or methodology even after 120 years. What are you even talking about? There have been many different "updates," and many different "Marxisms." At present, "Marxism" more signals a direction than it does a single coherent philosophy or methodology.
Judging from
>>663896 , you have a Wikipedia-tier understanding of Foucault anyway. There are insights in Foucault, but just saying "why don't you combine the two?" demonstrates your own unfamiliarity with the matter in question. Off the top of my head, I can name two fairly well-known Marxists with strong Foucauldian influences and who have even written books on this sort of fusion (Antonio Negri and Jacques Bidet), and there have been many other appropriations of concepts and the like from Foucault and other "postmodernists," as well as attempts to account for and ground postmodern insights within Marxism or a form thereof.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 14:52:48 No. 665610
>>665522 >At present, "Marxism" more signals a direction than it does a single coherent philosophy or methodology. So it's a buzzword please like to identity with to seem cool and hip
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 14:56:28 No. 665619
>>665522 Just from this thread alone it's obvious no one on /leftypol/ knows anything about postmodernists and you still think marxists care about postmodern insights because some obscure Italian ""marxist"" academics.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 15:37:21 No. 665680
>>665610 >So it's a buzzword please like to identity with to seem cool and hip It can be a buzzword, but "direction" normally implies meaningful movement toward an intended goal, in line with some purpose. Without further clarification, though, it's impossible to determine what a declaration of "Marxism" means exactly. In this, it's like virtually any other political affiliation.
>>665619 >Just from this thread alone it's obvious no one on /leftypol/ knows anything about postmodernists It doesn't seem so, but this is true on most left-wing forums. As a rule, most people haven't read much.
>you still think marxists care about postmodern insights because some obscure Italian ""marxist"" academics. Negri is obscure? Other than Zizek, I doubt I could have picked any living figure affiliated with Marxism who's
less obscure.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 15:42:21 No. 665689
>>665680 >Negri is obscure His older stuff definitely is. His new and popular stuff is really surface level and in many ways a step back from what he wrote in the 70s and 80s.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 15:54:54 No. 665709
>>665479 I have been reading your book suggestion, and it's got ridiculous stuff in it like this
If you know that race is not " a useful biological category", then the only valid conclusion is that you have to led go of race theories, period. Because that " relevant cultural construct" is just racism.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 16:11:39 No. 665722
>>665709 >If you know that race is not " a useful biological category", then the only valid conclusion is that you have to led go of race theories, period. Because that " relevant cultural construct" is just racism. That's ridiculous. You don't have to believe that "black" is a race in the biological sense to admit that it's a social construct which in America has serious consequences for people's material existence, shapes social contradictions, etc.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 17:05:50 No. 665788
>>665722 >You don't have to believe that "black" is a race in the biological sense to admit that it's a social construct which in America has serious consequences for people's material existence, shapes social contradictions, etc. Racism has serious consequences for people's material existence, shapes social contradictions, etc.
Racism is a social construct.
If you are looking to uphold racial division in theory, you're at best just another race theorist, unable to let go of certain strands of bourgeois idealism, or at worst a crypto racist.
At the moment i think that you are the former, if you keep pushing this point, that will be evidence that you are the latter.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 17:12:28 No. 665796
>>665788 If you're using race to analyze racial discrimination that doesn't fucking mean you're upholding racial division wtf
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 17:16:00 No. 665804
>>665788 >If you are looking to uphold racial division in theory, you're at best just another race theorist What do you mean "uphold racial division in theory"? Were the CPUSA doing this when they acknowledged that black workers faced "double oppression" from capitalism and racism, and this required special solutions like autonomy for the black belt?
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 17:51:22 No. 665837
>>665825 This is literally what MLK did, what's the problem?
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 18:09:07 No. 665857
>>665837 What's the problem with not acknowledging that black have to face a deeper kind of oppression that is a result of racial discrimination? Who knows bro.
It's a voluntarist idealism that if you just stop believing in something that is socially constructed then it will cease to exist.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 18:19:59 No. 665869
>>665857 Define oppression.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 18:26:15 No. 665872
>>665796 If you are a materialist , you can analyze racial discrimination, but you can't apply a race-lable to people.
For materialists: Race = idealist believe and people =/= believes
You can't make materialist theory where race is a theoretical category that references actual people. You can only say that some people say they have racial identities, and that there are racist believes and so on. But as soon as you state that a person X belongs to "race" Y, you're off to bourgeois idealism lala-land.
That's incorrect for a materialist , you'd have to say something like "workers that identify as having a black racial identity" or "workers upon whom's't a black racial identity is imposed".
Basically everytime you name-drop a racial term, you have to make very clear that you are talking about bullshit believes that other people hold and not you. Like if you were talking about flat earthers. Treat "race" like it's the edge of the "earth-disk"
>>665825 >unironically arguing for a colorblind view It's not blindness to adapt your views to reflect scientific findings
racism has real material effects
"race" is an idea, if you you say that it has effects, you are by definition an idealist.
>>665837 >This is literally what MLK did, what's the problem? The problem is liberals white washing socialist revolutionaries.
Materialist acknowledge racial discrimination as real but that doesn't mean we would accept the worldview of the discriminators. There never were "black" or "white" -people in the first place, they just made that up to dehumanize one group of people to justify their enslavement.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 18:28:50 No. 665876
>>665872 >But as soon as you state that a person X belongs to "race" Y, you're off to bourgeois idealism lala-land. So we're the Bolsheviks engaging in bourgeois idealism when they recognized the social reality of nationality and created autonomous republics? Again, even if these categories are social rather than material, that doesn't mean they aren't real and don't need to be taken into account when crafting policy or doing analysis. The key difference is whether or not you are working to lessen and eliminate antagonisms between them and transform the social reality.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 19:18:48 No. 665931
>>665872 >racism has real material effects And racism depends on a social construct called race.
> "race" is an idea, if you you say that it has effects, you are by definition an idealist. Just cause race is a social construct doesn't mean it isn't real in some sense. This issue is addressed in part 1 metarealism of that very book you're talking about. The writer mentions how "real" is a buzzword unless you mention what you're contrasting it with and various types of mind-dependence. Social science isn't same as natural science. That's the whole point of that book.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 19:32:17 No. 665944
>>665872 >it's not blindness to adapt your views to reflect scientific findings If you go by that logic nothing is real other than quarks and forces.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 19:55:49 No. 665964
>>665876 >So we're the Bolsheviks engaging in bourgeois idealism when they recognized the social reality of nationality and created autonomous republics? Nationalities exist because of regionally separated administrative organization in governments, that has nothing to do with race-theories, unless you are an ethno-nationalist.
No social realities are material and objectively speaking "races" are identities which are derived from incorrect biology that was intellectually massacred by bourgeois idealism created for political support of chattel slavery for humans.
It's egregious dehumanizing shit that a bunch of slave-capitalists rammed into biology 300 years ago, and i grow tired of this shit.
Nope socialist countries will not implement structural racism. Are you petit bourgeois by any chance ?
The imposition of racial identities is a antagonism.
>>665931 >And racism depends on a social construct called race. >Just cause race is a social construct doesn't mean it isn't real in some sense. this either is race realism with extra steps, or a dog-whistle tactic.
Semantics
If you want the ability to contradict natural science, you want religion, if you base laws and societal norms on it, it's theocracy.
>>665944 >If you go by that logic nothing is real other than quarks and forces. Why ? quarks and forces are not contradicting higher level physics abstractions, the way genomic-theory contradicts race-theories. You're not drawing a valid comparison.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 19:59:03 No. 665967
>>665964 You're so fucking naive it's embarrassing to read this post
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 20:00:44 No. 665968
>>665967 Arguments: none found.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 20:06:39 No. 665971
>>665964 >Nationalities exist because of regionally separated administrative organization in governments No they exist because there are groups of people who are culturally similar and perceive themselves as a nation. There are nations which exist despite having no recognition of administrative apparatus.
>It's egregious dehumanizing shit that a bunch of slave-capitalists rammed into biology 300 years ago, and i grow tired of this shit. I agree, but it's still a social reality we need to take into account when acting in the real world. Just as an example, Indigenous people in Canada were subjected to deliberate attempts to destroy their language. As such a policy which does not grant any support or is actively hostile to the proliferation of indigenous languages is obviously going to cause friction. Just like if a socialist government in the US were to conduct a war on drugs without account of how such a move could he perceived or actually affect black people, given the history and prevailing conditions in America. Sure, the difference between nations and races is a social construct, but it's one with real world consequences that can't simply be ignored.
>Nope socialist countries will not implement structural racism. Nobody suggested otherwise. Taking account of race as a social reality =/= structural racism.
>The imposition of racial identities is a antagonism. Racial identities already exist, it's an issue of managing them in non-antagonistic ways (and ideally deconstructing and eliminating them). However this requires us to recognize them as a social reality. If you want to eliminate race in America, you have to eliminate the issues which face black people specifically, which means you need to recognize that black people exist as a distinct social category. That doesn't mean doing woke apartheid shit, but it does mean taking race and ethnicity into account.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 20:41:49 No. 666015
>>665971 >No they exist because there are groups of people who are culturally similar and perceive themselves as a nation. So you're low key ethno nationalist then ?
If cultural battles negated the concept of nations, there would be hardly any.
>There are nations which exist despite having no recognition of administrative apparatus. No there's people who want to have a nation, but are denied the dedicated administrative apparatus that nations have.
Nation states are administrative regions, don't get sidetracked by the propensity of nation states to instill sentimentality in their citizens.
"race as a social reality" ?
It's not structural racism when you call it a "social reality"
Are you pulling my leg ?
We need race-identity-managers ?
Nope, I'm out, you're trolling me.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 20:52:30 No. 666025
>>666015 >So you're low key ethno nationalist then ? Uhh no? I didn't endorse the creation of ethnically pure nation states. I just described what a nation is.
>Nation states are administrative regions Yes, nation
states are, but nations are not. The Polish nation didn't magically pop into existence when Poland became independent in 1918. The entire concept of a nation state presupposes a nucleus of a self-idefnified nation around which to base the state apparatus, borders, etc.
>It's not structural racism when you call it a "social reality" What about anything I said implies structural racism? I'm saying that race as a social construct impacts how people behave, see the world, and interact with other social categories. This has to be taken into account when making policy and addressing social contradictions.
>We need race-identity-managers ? We need to consider how race affects people's behaviour, perceptions, and relationships. We need to examine and solve problems which stem from structural racism, which by definition requires the recognition of race as a social reality. Again, you can solve the unique problems which face black Americans without acknowledging that "black" exists as a social category.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 20:54:46 No. 666028
Because postmodernism is fake bourgeois psychosis who’s only use is in allowing retards to pretend that they’re smart and for fucked up freaks to rationalize their sick perversions. Anybody advocating postmodernism should be shot, as they were under Stalin
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 21:14:06 No. 666053
>>666047 Obviously Stalin used the immortal science of dialectical materialism to predict exactly which unborn children in the USSR would grow up to be postmodernists, and then had them all aborted.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 21:33:07 No. 666065
>>666047 Yes, because the Soviet Union nipped such decadence in the bud before reactionary ideologies could form. There’s a reason China, the DPRK, and other AES states have no concept of postmodernism or the things that directly lead to it. Zhdanov was right again
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 22:45:59 No. 666129
Love how it's always the same cretins being pushed on here.
Foucault. Stirner. Nietzsche. Bordiga. Deleuze.
These people have nothing to offer us proletarian communists. You're better off wiping your arse with them.
>>666028 Don't forget Zhdanov, another great Bolshevik murdered by reaction.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 22:48:26 No. 666132
>>666129 Indeed, may Trotsky and his lackey Khruschev burn in the deepest pits of hell. When socialism triumphs, they will be regarded the world over on the same level as Hitler
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 23:27:37 No. 666166
>>666132 I really hope this is b8, because it would be really unsettling to know that there are people out there posting stuff like this unironically.
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 23:34:52 No. 666179
>>666166 Leave it to the retard flying anarchist colors who always concern trolls about Stalin to claim the truth is “just trolling”. How about go fuck yourself and cry back to your Twitter safe space?
Anonymous 2021-12-29 (Wed) 23:55:35 No. 666190
>>666179 >Leave it to the retard flying anarchist colors who always concern trolls about Stalin Idk what that even means. Stalin was based but the shit you posted is actual insanity.
Anonymous 2021-12-31 (Fri) 22:41:15 No. 668461
>>664806 >>664816 It rejects "narratives" and thinks all ideas have equal value. This sort of thinking goes back to Nietzsche and beyond. As communists we stand for proletarian hegemony and the correctness of our scientific outlook.
https://www.bannedthought.net/India/PeoplesMarch/PM1999-2006/publications/post-modernism/contents.htm Anonymous 2021-12-31 (Fri) 23:20:50 No. 668512
>>668461 “proletariat” isn’t a word for you to throw around like a toy
Unique IPs: 53