/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"I ain’t driving twenty minutes to riot"

Mode: Reply

Max message length: 8192


Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion. Join our matrix! https://matrix.to/#/+leftychat:matrix.org

(289.42 KB 1524x2126 2015_42_walter_benjamin.jpg)
(564.10 KB 1000x1442 Deleuze.jpg)
(191.68 KB 1200x914 derrida.jpg)
Unorthodox and experimental Marxisms Anonymous 08/01/2020 (Sat) 15:27:44 No. 737032
I realize /leftypol/ is a majority ML board, but I've always wondered why there's little discussion, for or against, the more unorthodox marxist traditions that sprung up across the 20th century and beyond. It seems to me like it's all worth taking seriously, but whenever it gets brought up here it's instantly dismissed as being bourgeois or liberal. Why is that? Shouldn't we take seriously all developments in theory, irregardless how neatly it fits into Marx's original DiaMat?
>>737032 bump. People here usually doesnt have much theory and like you said, have a lot of prejudice towards pomo literature especially, and it is me talking, someone who is not fond of pomo.
(87.52 KB 288x408 Gramsci.png)
>>737061 The attitude towards pomo in general I find pretty reactionary. More often people's gripes against it are based in false generalizations.
(245.92 KB 1200x1560 deng.jpeg)
>Unorthodox and experimental marxists
(679.41 KB 2100x1500 pardnerhowdy.png)
>>737032 /leftypol/ is half ML and half ansynd/ancom I think
>>737032 I'm a normal ML, but I certainly think we can learn things from nonMLs, even non-Marxists sometimes. Currently I am interested in figuring out what the Situationists were all about.
>>737257 Despite all appearances, Situationism fits pretty nicely into the Marxist tradition. Its serious change, which only Guy Debord really attempted to posit, is that it argues that the structure of late capitalism is that of consumption rather than production. It's hard to call it Postmodern in a way because its underlying methodology remains Dialectical Materialism.
>>737244 Definitely not. Maybe around 40-50% ML, and 20% anarchist.
>>737288 there ain't even jews in my country bro
(131.66 KB 568x747 LO28906_AngelusNovus.jpg)
Benjamin a best
>>737032 >benjamin >deleuze >derrida Literally who?
>>737288 >>737282 Resident kike-hating schizo has arrived go mourn your cock skin somewhere else you obese mutt
>>737361 is this ironic
>>737061 >a lot of prejudice towards pomo literature they don't believe there is an objective reality and all they do is talk about what sets people apart If you wanted to make this at all useful for theory you not only have to invert it, but also compress it to it's actual information content, because most of the jargon they use just references other jargon, which looks like somebody had taken a file with a very small amount of information and artificial increased the file size without actually increasing the information it contains. It would take a lot of effort for making this usable, and it seems like it would be easier to have a do-over and start from a materialist basis, and try to figure out what kind of audio-visual stimulation makes people realise their class position in capitalism.
>>737374 read a fucking book my man... what you wrote might be favourable in the eyes of other leftypoltards, but stop fooling yourself in front of those who have read and know about theory.
>>737371 mostly. I've heard of Derrida and Deleuze but nothing about them beyond marxist theorists.
>>737374 >they don't believe there is an objective reality what the fuck does this even mean? >inb4 uhh they're idealists therefore reality for them is idealist or some retarded shit like that
>>737374 >they don't believe there is an objective reality This isn't really accurate. Understanding the world as a matter of interpretation, or competing narratives, doesn't remove objective reality but just complicates any claim to "knowing" or "having direct access" to that reality. Saying that it's always already filtered in some way doesn't remove reality altogether. >it seems like it would be easier to have a do-over and start from a materialist basis A lot of this stuff is pretty materialist. Deleuze in particular. >>737383 They were both Marxists, but not traditional marxists. Deleuze's unwritten book, before he died, was going to be titled "The Greatness of Marx". Left Accelerationism is basically an attempt to make a Deleuzian Marxist movement. Derrida's Marxism is pretty apparent in "Spectres of Marx", where he was maybe the first and only to say at the time that Marx's tradition will remain more relevant than ever despite the USSR's fall.
>>737074 He did some work on culture but was he even that unorthodox?
>>737288 >>737282 You need to go back
(66.27 KB 600x769 c62.jpg)
(55.29 KB 300x100 marxism_1.png)
(28.58 KB 300x100 marxism_8.png)
(54.59 KB 300x100 marxism_9.png)
>>737032 >I realize /leftypol/ is a majority ML board, but I've always wondered why there's little discussion, for or against, the more unorthodox marxist traditions that sprung up across the 20th century and beyond. Believing that something called "Marxism" exists and possesses some kind of "orthodox" interpretation or structure is really the first mistake. The transformation of Marx's ideas into a kind of dogmatic ideology or worldview was something that happened after his death and was really a function of the need to get everyone organized into a singular political movement, which itself was a questionable strategy. Marx's ideas were often fragmentary and unfinished; his different theories sometimes lacking a satisfying conclusion or 'neatness'. Even his terminology was often left vague and poorly defined. This is why Vilifredo Pareto said that Marx's words are like bats, "one can see in them both birds and mice." When Marx's ideas were later transformed into the worldview of "Marxism", this later proved to be a problem since the kind of catechisms required for mass instruction in parties and labor movements could not allow for nuance or multiple interpretations. The most fruitful approach to Marx is to accept his ideas and theses as being the starting point for further investigation while not using his texts as a kind of holy writ by which we measure the truth of all things. Marx's own ideas changed and developed over time even if there remained a "core" of concepts that pushed forward his thinking. But even the premise of his thought contained ambiguity and an unfortunate lack of empirical work. This is why there remains disagreement over the nature of Marxist materialism and historical theory. >It seems to me like it's all worth taking seriously, but whenever it gets brought up here it's instantly dismissed as being bourgeois or liberal. There's a bigger trend and a smaller trend. The big trend is that Marxist ideas, because of their political content, tend to become mere instruments in the hands of political parties and sects. This reduces real theory and real philosophy from its open-ended origin to a much more restricted and ideological purpose. Over time, ideology prevails over real theory and stupid ideas are repeated again and again while the real theory is buried under ideological garbage. The smaller trend is basically that well-read Marxists tend to shed their ideology over time and become less comfortable in settings where everything is measured in terms of "orthodoxy", leading to well-read people simply leaving parties and discussion groups due to feeling out of step. The result of all of this is that Marxist theory tends to be pulled toward dogmatic and ideological interpretations in spite of how contradictory this was to Marx's own method of thinking.
>>737432 based. Agree all around, and good post.
>>737432 based
>>737432 I agree in many regards but I still hold Trotskyism/Leninism as important when in comes to ideas such as permanent revolution and the vanguard.
>>737094 The more I learn about Deng (/dʌŋ/) the worse he gets.
>>737457 even Bordiga would agree with that though. I don’t think too many Marxists disagree with that except the w*stern anarchist interpreters
>>737432 What’s even worse is that Sakai is taken to be an example Maoism by stupidpol redditors and Badiou is only mentioned once in a blue moon here.
>>737457 What do you as a Trotskyist think of Bordiga's critique of Stalinism (if you've read it)? Also what are your agreements / disagreements with him overall?
>>737533 >>737539 ICP hivemind
(299.13 KB 1868x550 Marx and ideology.png)
>>737432 Based and Saved
Zizek is my preferred marxist-pop-philosopher. Deleuze is a great philosopher but not the most marxist, and is at odds with lacan and therefore Zizek. Derrida is half genius half meme and helped inspire postcolonialism but with the side effect that all Derrideans try to copy his awful prose. They attempt a more exact use of language, I guess. I enjoyed seeing Zizek wave his hands and say "the pre-moderns implied all of that [purple prose]." I think that for my stupid layman ass with limited capability, Zizek offers the most value by continuing rich traditions (Hegel/Marx and Freud/Lacan) that are systemic and subject-oriented and more applicable to one's experience of their life and today's world
>>737890 I can understand why people don’t like Zizek as a whole, but in my opinion he’s the first philosopher to put French Structuralism and Hegel into 90% plain English without the bluffing, and no matter what he says, that makes him useful.
>>737890 Pervert's Guide is kino and personally helped me break out of the pop-philosophy rut I was in as a young lad. (Yes I know that the film was also pop-phil).
I feel like some people here would put you in the gulag for reading shit like Nick Land and Deleuze and Guattari. Absolutely insane orthodoxism, fuck off, no one likes you.
>>738186 it depends. anti-oedipus? definitely gulag material. difference and repetition is good though.
>>738203 Often the same people who try to shit on threads or theory for not being immediately "useful" for orgnizing
>>738309 meant to quote >>738186
>>737288 So non jewish capital is good?
>>737432 >The most fruitful approach to Marx is to accept his ideas and theses as being the starting point for further investigation Muke i agreeing at this
>>737061 >>737080 If I'm honest, I don't like pomo and I couldn't give you a concrete reason besides it always feels like there's something I'm missing. I dunno, I'm a simple man, a lot of classical Marxism goes over my head too.
>>738765 Pomo philsophy or Pomo art? I'd say, in general, there's a lot less to "get" than the stereotype portrays.
>>738529 I have read this before and I could be convinced to again, but what I remember is thinking there are almost as many misconceptions or quibblings as there are good points. It also seems to have been written by a "vulgar communist," one with a utopian idea of (as Zizek says) "actually-existing-communism" and anything besides that some kind of failure. Regarding this, I think that unfortunately due to the USSR, communism has been relegated to a mere "spirit" at best, an internal feeling not too far from the New Agey nonsense that is Zizek's main punching bag. This is true in the eyes of liberals, this seemingly deviationist idea of the mere "spectre" of communism having anything to do with the mild socdem reforms that Zizek calls for. In conclusion, if you are an actual organizing communist who introduces theirself as such, I doubt you need more philosophy than Marx, and academics are narcissists and windbags. That said, the 'celebrity communist' Zizek offers more of a praxis than other modern theorists in helping an individual's "emancipation" from ideology or other confused thoughts.
>>738529 holy shit, /leftypol/ btfo by this >>740585 you are guilty of exactly the kind of liberal distortion of marx's argument that zizek is the emblem of i mean fucking hell, >communism has been relegated to a mere "spirit" at best how did you manage to find this board before understanding even the first thing about what the fuck communism actually is >Zizek offers more of a praxis than other modern theorists in helping an individual's "emancipation" from ideology or other confused thoughts and here we see the final apotheosis of the dead-end left: having discarded marx like the world economy discarded the commodity in 1971, the liberal is free to disappear entirely up his own asshole by declaring 'emancipation from ideology' to be something relevant to communism
>>740964 >like the world economy discarded the commodity in 1971 Can you explain this?
FYI: if you hate postmodern philosophy because of your preconceived notions, I promise nobody gives a fuck what you have to say about it, so don’t bother posting in these threads with the same rehashed arguments.
>>738529 in conclusion, Deleuze & Guattari > Lacan for Marxist praxis
>>741041 Deleuze & Guettari don’t have any praxis. it’s just a bunch of pseud posturing to pretend and metaphors that mean absolutely nothing insightful.
It's rare when I carefully read every post in a thread. >>737032 Putting these three together is kinda random. I got the impression from Benjamin that he was genuinely interested in furthering Marxism but simply didn't have the discipline to gather the tools necessary to successfully achieve this (he never read the major works of Marx, he merely frequented Marxist circles) and therefore just repeated the most radically sounding slogans of the time and used them in his analyses as loose basis. He reminded me a lot of Roland Barthes actually, not just because he was merely a fellow traveler of Marxism (Barthes renounced his views later and my bet is that Benjamin would have had a similar future ahead of him if he wasn't killed by Nazis), but because his 'semiotics' is pretty much Benjamin does a lot of times too. It creeps the fuck out of me, quite frankly, because I find it to be based on a mixture of very loose linguistic theory and creative fiction. Statements like "The surgeon represents the polar opposite of the magician." (Benjamin) are literally untrue and theoretically unsound even if followed by an explanation of how the surgeon fixes you up and the magician breaks you down during the magic trick. It's theoretically unsound because "the surgeon" doesn't "represent" shit by himself thus semiotics relies on as its founding gesture reifying the (author's interpretation of a culturally shared) eye of the beholder and attributing it to "the surgeon"... but it sure sounds cool as fuck if you are into that sort of thing (hint: continental aesthetics departments love Benjamin and Barthes). I prefer leaving the art to the artists (I respect Brecht from the Franky School a lot) and my theorists doing proper theoretical work, thank you. Overall I read 3 books by Benjamin, had to take 2 courses on him in university, and I'm pretty sure I'll never use him ever again. I'm not saying he's "useless" though. I just dislike reading a 100 pages to find 2 paragraphs in total that I find to be a decent ideas or nice formulations but lacking an overarching and coherent system to hold them together. Deleuze & Guitar E are a pair of theorists that I know to be wrong and harmful and haven't read them because of it. (To be fair D's essay on Democritus is on my reading list because I'm a sucker for ontology.) Their "schizoanalysis" was mere "I'm more radical than thou" posturing, hurting an actually working (if imperfect) discipline without offering anything workable as an alternative. It's what wrecking looks like in the intellectual world. Guattari broke Lacan's heart to become a celebrity - it's that fucking simple. Someone ITT said that Deleuze is at least materialist. Yes, that is true, although a materialist of the wrong kind, a Spinozean, and I say this as an admirer of Althusser (who, IMO, in The Underground Current of the Materialism of the Encounter moves beyond Spinoza). I find Deleuze to be completely destructive in his effects to this very day. Picrel from a true comrade from another thread is relevant I think. Deleuzian pro-desirers are the useful idiots of capital. The "rhizome" loving faggots I personally know basically regurgitate contemporary anarchist doxa and fetishize horizontalism, ensuring that we'll never take power. No wonder that behind Graeber in terms of popularity among the student demographic came Deleuze (via Negri and Hardt) at OWS as far as I know. I swear to God I'm this close shouting "STFU YOU BOURGEOIS STOOGE" when I hear someone use the term "Multitude" IRL, because in essence it's just openly declaring that you don't give a shit about class anymore and whoever comes into your little drum circle is okay in your book if they "add to the creative power of the Multitude by helping us spread rhizomatically in the neighborhood through reterritorializing". Fuck. You. So long story short Badiou was completely based and redpilled when he organized sabotages of Deleuze's lectures. Derrida. Fun to read. A genuinely talented guy. He basically hinted at the fact that he could go on forever writing his pomo texts (webm related if you want the secret to endless creativity). He helped solidify the view in the West that universalism and 'totalizing' philosophy (read: Hegel, Marx) necessarily lead to the gulag without that being his intention really. (Derrida just wanted to play and have fun.) Someone ITT said that his Marxism (???) is apparent in the Spectres text because he predicted that Marxism will go on despite the fall of the USSR. Horseshit. What he actually does there is to separate Marxism (as an intellectual enterprise) from communism (as in concrete movement) and celebrates the fall of the latter and play lip service to the former. Who the fuck would call this person a Marxist: >The ‘New International’ is an untimely link, without status ... without coordination, without party, without country, without national community, without co-citizenship, without common belonging to a class. [...] It is a call for them to ally themselves, in a new, concrete and real way, even if this alliance no longer takes the form of a party or a workers’ international, in the critique of the state of international law, the concepts of State and nation, and so forth: in order to renew this critique, and especially to radicalise it. ??? It's some kind of post-Marxism if I'm being overly generous, because the most accurate description I have is that a random twitter post-left anarchist got into a time machine and delivered a lecture in 1993 and appeared radical because he said something positive about (a parody of) Marxism after the fall of the USSR. Even his list of problems with capitalism in that text are nonsense from a Marxist POV (the problem is not the market as such, but specific markets like arms dealing; the problem is not imperialism as such, but ethnic tensions, etc). So no, saying something nice about (an obviously bastardized version of) Marxism after the fall of the USSR doesn't make him Marxist. If you ask me he did it because it was the punk thing to do, because Derrida dgaf. Fun guy. Never was a Marxist, though. >Shouldn't we take seriously all developments in theory Whose theory? That's the main question. I think we can agree to the following: to be consider writing Marxist theory one is expected to have at least read the major works of Marx. This rules out Benjamin. On the political front at the very minimum it must advocate for 1. using a party (vanguardist or not), 2. a movement based on the working classes. Here's Engels being completely and quite unusually categorical on 1 & 2: >AS regards our tactics we have one firm rule for all modern countries and for all times and that is to prevail upon the workers to form their own independent party in opposition to all bourgeois parties. [M&E Collected works v.49 p.515] These are non-negotiable. Capish? This rules out Deleuze from being classified a Marxist. If you and I meet IRL and you tell me that you are a "Deleuzian Marxist" I'll know that you are a fucking brainlet, because the "multitude" is a recipe for class collaboration and under the model of the "rhizome" a very loosely affiliated anarchist collective is to be understood at best (and OWS shittery at worst).
(6.90 KB 444x112 f u.png)
cont. >>741047 And finally Derrida: you simply can't claim to be a Marxist if you think that systemic study of the totality of human history (its modes of production) or belief in its laws (class struggle) makes someone a totalitarian. >Noooo! You can't do philosophy, economics, history, sociology, etc. at the same time. That's totalitarian!! Shut the fuck up, yes I can. Now I'm not the one saying you shouldn't read these people. They can be fun, interesting, motivating, even useful depending on what your interests are. Just please go read Marx and Engels before declaring yourself a "Deleuzian Trotskyist with Derridian overtones" on twitter, okay? >>737432 >well-read people simply leaving parties and discussion groups due to feeling out of step I have a completely different experience regarding "well-read" people on the left. I'd say I met about 6 in total (who weren't professional academics, usually a separate breed of vampires) in roughly the 10 years of me being leftist. About half of these people were deeply confused and barely on the left at all, because being an intellectual for them meant first of all a quantitative enterprise where you get as much data in the shortest time possible and don't bother with qualitative evaluation. So guess what happens? They read everything that is half a success as a book, because as an intellectual you have to be able to show that you read the current chic, so they end up regurgitating back half baked criticism and ideas (the transformation problem proves planning impossible, Piketty is the Marx of the 21st century, red fascism, etc. etc.). I'm a 100% sure these people read too fast too, because only very superficial stuff seem to stick to their memory and you can't talk to them about, say, the structure of a book, steps in a chain of reasoning, comparing something from the end of a book to something in the beginning. The other three well read people I know would deserve their own case studies. One seems to be unable to tell you her true positions out of fear of becoming disliked which leaves me suspicious of her (either a coward, a sycophant, or someone who values unprincipled company more than the quest for truth). Another is a literal autist who can't into people. And the third is the stereotypical completely sectarian armchair leftcom. Only the first three left "parties and discussion groups". When it came to conflict or debate over ideas the last three did their thing: the suspected sycophant remained silent; the autist underperformed due to obvious reasons; and you could have debated with the leftcom all night if you wanted fruitlessly, because you are either a "Stalinist revisionist" or an "individualist anarchist" in his eyes, since he considers himself to be the last of the mohicans holding the torch of communism.
>>741047 >>741048 Wish you didn't spare Baudrillard in this (quite good) rant. He was even worse than Derrida and Deleuze in my view. >On the political front at the very minimum it must advocate for >1. using a party (vanguardist or not), >2. a movement based on the working classes. In other words: The political element. When someone's politics are horseshit, it casts legitimate doubts on their theory too. I've met two "Deleuzeian Marxists" in real life quite similar to how you depict those people, and both were staunch supporters of Israel. Of course, could be because I live in G*rmany, but when your politics amount to things like that I'm getting very sceptical about your intellectual substance. >>737432 >leading to well-read people simply leaving parties and discussion groups due to feeling out of step This might be more reflective of your own experience, but when somebody is worth their salt, they're able to put themselves aside for a cause, if you're an intellectual but are so thin-skinned that "feeling out of touch" incentivizes you to leave an organization you're probably shit anyway. I don't know how to respond to the rest of your post, it's a giant strawman.
>>741174 Since we are already exposing dirty secrets of certain tendencies: I had a Deleuzian ancom professor who almost had me kicked out of university on my last semester because I told one of his colleagues that if he doesn't start doing his job ASAP (actually teach courses, for which we were paying, btw) I'll tell the administration of him having his little harem of lady students getting better grades in exchange for flirting with his old ass. The same Deleuzian fucker who told me that "we no longer live in capitalism because the law of value doesn't hold anymore because of the internet". Get it? As an ancom he was opposing AES for having the law of value when it still existed, but after the regime change capitalism ceased to have the law of value in his opinion, so no problem with that, lol. The same Deleuzian fucker who when confronted with the idea of a revolution pointed at his glasses and said "they would come for me first." Get it? A fucking elitist afraid of the dirty, brutal, dangerous proles. The same Deleuzian fucker I could namedrop right now because he has a few completely insignificant and mundane publications but won't because I actually wish to shelter people and public attention from his cancerous ilk. Also there's the simple fact that Deleuzianism seems to be super easily turned into outright reactionary philosophy without much tinkering needed thanks to some of his positions (monism, vitalism). Nick Land is actually a consistent Deleuzian. You don't need proles as a political subject, and there's no need to bother with the vague multitude, either. Let capitalism do what its best at: capturing desires, deterritorializing, growing and collapsing and then reinventing itself, because you sure as hell can't compete with its efficiency, so the logical route is nihilistic accelerationism and schadenfreude at the stupid proles getting chewed up in the machinery. Also Zizek mentions several times that they are training IDF soldiers through Deleuzian terminology in Israel. With a little googling I was able to find the name of the book that mentioned it and download it from libgen (I forgot the author and name of the book). The excerpts in it read like a consistent Deleuzian text. What in the Thousand Plateous denotes multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points for the IDF means actually blasting open a Palestinian's house's wall and traveling through the occupied territory like so from house to house.
>>741231 >What in the Thousand Plateous denotes multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points *I'm talking about the rhizome
>>740964 You're right, let's go start communism, it's literally that easy. We'll just call the liberals 'libs' until they realize they've been insulted. Right, comrade? The USSR lives through us. Nothing that you've said is new to any leftist academic, in fact they are dealing more with that reality than you who are pretending to be the last true communist. I'm not even sure why you'd open a thread about philosophy if you just want to LARP. Organizing, a thing much more helpful than philosophy but I bet you do none of, hardly requires a 'communist.' What, then, is a western communist in today's world? Someone who has... Internal beliefs (like I said)? You also missed my distancing from Zizek in calling him a socdem and a deviationist, also my sadness at the 'aetheticization of communism.' It is hardly our decision whether communism is possible or in sight. Your concerns aren't misguided but they stink of internet-tankieism and I think a bit of literacy would help with regards to both words and world affairs.
>>741231 https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/walking-through-walls This is related to what you said. I read this in a garbage sociology class, what it highlights is how the IDF utilizes theory for how to kill Palestinians better. Here is an excerpt: "everal of the concepts in A Thousand Plateaus became instrumental for us … allowing us to explain contemporary situations in a way that we could not have otherwise explained. It problematized our own paradigms.… Most important was the distinction they have pointed out between the concepts of ʻsmoothʼ and ʻstriatedʼ space … [that accordingly reflect] the organizational concepts of the ʻwar machineʼ and the ʻstate apparatusʼ.… In the IDF we now often use the term ʻto smoothen out spaceʼ when we want to refer to an operation in a space as if it had no borders. We try to produce the operational space in such a manner that borders do not affect us. Palestinian areas could indeed be thought of as ʻstriatedʼ in the sense that they are enclosed by fences, walls, ditches, roadblocks and so on … We want to confront the ʻstriatedʼ space of traditional, old-fashioned military practice [the way most IDF units presently operate] with a smoothness that allows for movement through space, across any borders and barriers. Rather than contain and organize our forces according to existing borders, we want to move through them."
>>740974 rejection of the gold standard/bretton woods by Nixon i would assume, could be majorly wrong though
>>741235 The more we talk about Deleuze the more I feel like I should read him for two reasons. One is that he's a super intelligent bloke, without a shadow of a doubt. You can't inspire so many different people and disciplines (military, art, programming, politics, etc.) without doing *something* right. My basest premonition tells me that what made him successful is that he basically described how actually capitalism works and spreads in a language filled to the brim with neologisms and metaphors and explained the proposed (fake) resistance to capitalism with the very same terms and the very same logic how capital is described. Because sure as fuck that's what his followers do. The closest parallel I can draw is the well known story of Utopian internet (socialist or capitalist) libertarians who thought that if they ensure that the internet grows horizontally and on its own with no state intervention it will give us Utopia but oh now and now it's owned by 5 companies what could have happened here?! - and Deleuze would be the one capable of offering you the very same perspective in philosophy. The second is that he's obviously dangerous and probably didn't realize what he created.
Jameson said somewhere that the entire leftist project in late capitalism is to simply improve capitalism. Internet tankies would not read this as a despairing, learned statement but as a statement by a dumb lib who doesn't understand Marx. Internet tankies strive to validate Marx, chirp "See? See?" as if only they understand, and are immediately sated by the authoritative Holy Word on the subject. They never do anything with said idea, not even wonder why no one seems to listen; they are this content with its radiant truth. So often they seem like ironic expressions of late capitalism's nostalgia for a future that was promised.
>>741047 You bring up an interesting question. At what point does someone cease to be a Marxist? I would say that Marx himself already quantified the bare minimum. >My own contribution was 1. to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; 2. that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3. that this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society. I think that those are the main points. There are certainly more, but if one disagrees with any of those points, they certainly cannot be viewed as a Marxist
>>741263 I'm such an "internet tankie" and I like Jameson. If you actually read his political proposals you'd know that he's pretty fucking close to a tankie himself. He wants a planned economy, he wants full employment, he wants to militarize 100% of the population, he wants to make sure that everybody works until death even if it means merely symbolic "30 minutes a day floor sweeping" by the elderly as in Mao's time, and he knows that imperialism is a cornerstone of late stage capitalism, he wants American culture out of the rest of the world. In fact I've read works from him where he shitted on the ilks of you. I find it highly likely that when you read from him (sauce?) "that entire leftist project in late capitalism is to simply improve capitalism" he was talking about you and not me considering that you seem to be actually afraid to challenge a lot of good posts ITT that were made in good faith and call out anti-Marxist horseshit in a very precise fashion. In other words you give the impression that you are irrational. You don't know what a tankie is. You don't know that Jameson is one. You don't understand why tankies don't like, say, Deleuze, even when they tell you. Since you can't even defend your heroes you become frustrated and go on a sour rant at tankies. This tells me you don't actually read or read thoroughly your heroes. Which is pseud101 behavior. Fun fact: seeing this behavior several times as an ancom gave me the clue that I needed to become a Leninist, because people around me were pathetic and unintelligent like you are.
>>741274 A usual tactic is that they relativize each one of these point to mean the opposite.
>>741278 Why do you think there is no difference between an internet tankie and a tankie. You may think you are the definition of an tnternet tankie but internet tankies are also trans women with goddamn anime avatars, do you think Jameson would rally behind that?
>>737032 >I realize /leftypol/ is a majority ML board It's not majority ML, it's plurality ML, we had a poll.
(179.38 KB 700x475 dqawd.jpeg)
>tfw people on /leftypol/ haven't even heard of Walter Benjamin
>>741278 I would like to know what a tankie is, I was using it disparagingly. If all internet tankies read Jameson, then I admit to stupidity, but this does not seem to be my impression. I think that "to the letter" Marxists seem to be common, being those who only read Marx and uncritically swallowed his views. I am no Deleuze boogeyman but I still appreciate your passionate defense of Jameson and MLism. I was not aware of Jameson's universal conscription, I guess I am a lib for thinking that like many good ideas it is unlikely to happen, which if true could be a proof of that opening statement. The mere acknowledgement of this fact seems to other me from you, as if it could otherwise be spoken into existence except for my being in the way. This seems like a common dogma of tankies, an excessive ingrouping, an exasperation at others for not fully committing, whatever that means. Unfortunately, a more meaningful effort (in America, at least) would be attempting to get a bunch of socdems with no theory in them to take away healthcare as a bargaining chip to use against unions. Conscripting everyone remains a theoretical principle at the present and the philosophers at least can admit this, their readers, maybe less so.
>>741278 >it's a anon thinks his personal experience applies to everyone else who adopts the same label as him episode
>>737432 Imagine if Marx hadn't died so prematurely. Imagine if him and his bro could have lived their full natural lives just writing and doing bro shit. Fuc this shitty timeline.
>>741352 I mean, Marx was pretty estranged when he was old, he probably wouldn't have written much.
>>741352 >Lenin meeting a bedridden, old Marx and telling him of the revolution. Don't put these images in my head.
>>741313 maybe consider stopping using buzzwords when interacting with your surroundings and you'll get a better picture of the people you are dealing with?
>>741329 I over-"identify" with "tankyism" (a buzzword, a mere anglo slur) exactly because Zizek taught me it works. >y-you want people in gulags and spread communism with tanks <yes, what are you going to do about it, bitch? I tried long time ago back on 8ch to explain to people how these slurs actually fuck up normal conversation but it didn't work because they took it as the slur working ("haha, you salty because you were called a tankie" - Bobby, 15 years old anarchist). So I did what pretty much every Leninist figured out: fill the term with positive content in our groups on the one hand and overidentify with it if attacked by some limp dicked liberal. You reap what you sow.
>>741426 >Stalin was antisemitic >National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism. >Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism. >In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.
>>741429 Nonsense. Where did you find this?
>every fucking thread getting derailed with muh joos shit What the fuck is going on?
>>741473 the guy who got his muh joos thread deleted is now making shitty "stalin was raycist" shit
>>741488 yep. it is the "muh joois bankas" faggot
>>741490 There we go. Off topic discussion deleted.
This boards arguments against """postmodernism""" is straight out of Jordan Peterson videos Come to /dead/
>>741498 >Come to /dead/ I have. All of you are autists.
>>741498 Leave
>>741441 Even Arch J. Getty, a bourgeois historian and expert on the purges admit that the purges were non-discriminating between ethnicities. They fucking purged stamp collectors and Esperanto clubs. Other (similarly bourgeois) historians actually call the great purge democratized terror where a lot of intellectuals and factory engineers were purged because workers snitched on them if they weren't satisfied with them. Now the centihorror thread >>660833 is mostly a meme, but I think it proves that after the revolution taking over the terror from the masses and giving it into the hand of an official body like the cheka actually is a good idea, because during an ongoing revolution people can go mob justice, vigilantism, and revenge mode that ends up at higher excess deaths and injustices, frankly, not to mention counter-productive shit (like Russian anarchists bombing Red Cross buildings and Embassies of foreign countries). Anarchist Spain wasn't to keen on official bodies hence the excess death rate per year is actually higher as a % of total population than in Russia. What Stalin did (for various reasons: sure, the political need to survive, but also legit threat from the West) was to let out steam exactly around when adopting the new constitution by allowing the populace and the party to participate in a loosely controlled manner in founding and inaugurating the new revolutionary state through this giving back the terror to them for a brief period. Yes, pretty fucking scary, call it bloody political opportunism even as with Mao's cult.rev., but it allowed the USSR's survival. The end result was that the Nazis had completely outdated information on the technological, logistic, etc. conditions of Russia because they literally had no informants left, and when starting the war they very soon realized that their maps and intelligence on the technological capabilities of Russia were like 10 years outdated (and that the five year plans did their magic). On a side note: it's kinda funny that we are in a "y no tankies read" and it turns into the opposite, were the supposed "Unorthodox Marxist" bibliophiles are proven to be booklets.
>>741498 subversive. Reactionary. Stop mentioning off topic people. Someone ban him.
>>741446 (you)
>>741500 but he's actually right
>>741499 this. /dead/ is actually much more anti-intellectual than /leftypol/ in the sense that that insufferable cripple of a BO there can't even respond to basic criticism. I tried to debate with him way before our migration to bunkerchan and he proved to me that he's a complete booklet who chooses ideologies like you choose between a can of beans or peas in a mall. It's a waste of time and an embarrassment to allow it to exist.
wordfilter j e w
>>741498 >"""postmodernism""" Are you actually denying that postmodernism (as a loosely affiliated movement in the arts and philosophy) isn't a thing or that the postmodern condition itself isn't a thing when these authors openly call themselves postmodernists and even Marxists like Jameson agree that postmodernity as the cultural logic of late capitalism is a thing? You can't have it both ways. You can't advocate for postmodernism on the one hand and then deny its existence when it gets criticized. This is exactly the mental gymnastics and intellectual honesty characteristic of that fucking board you shill constantly. It's literally one deeply fucked up guy asking for friends but not putting the work necessary for retaining them, leaving it to be an intellectually vacuous "boo-hoo zone" where social estrangement is celebrated and "normies" are shat upon. Fucking sad, dude.
>>741519 What's wrong about postmodernism?
>>741519 i think they used quotes to indicate that the people who criticise postmodernism "usually" don't know what postmodernism is
>>741523 There's a lot wrong with postmodernism, philosophically and otherwise, but I'll give you a reason that relates to socialism and class struggle. When postmodernists reject metanarratives, they're basically saying that we have a world split into different, local struggles. Frederic Jameson calls it the ideology of late capitalism. In postmodernist thinking, you can never have a united struggle against racism, sexism, etc. let alone a class struggle against the class system, you can have only particular struggles. We see this in the BLM movement, which wishes to be a movement led by black people for black people with "white allies" in tow. They do not see their struggle as universal to all of the working class in the world, they see it as particular to black people in the United States, weakening their movement and dooming their cause. Only one struggle matters, the class struggle, and that is the metanarrative that postmodernism rejects.
(7.89 MB 800x600 1460169806299.gif)
>>741523 Wrong, as in morally wrong not much. The art and philosophy movement isn't much more than a collection of (IMO idealist and ultimately merely semi-left) thinkers and artists who eventually started by wanting to reform Marxism but failed and have been losing ground ever since. In my opinion they aren't any more morally wrong than honest conservative idealist philosophers. (Yes, idealism ultimately always sides with the status quo but you have to prove it intellectually not just call them names. However, as Lenin pointed out in WitBD having fake allies instead of open enemies can be more destructive to Marxism.) As for the condition itself you can't really call it morally wrong either since its basically capitalism's latest superstructure and it's a mixed baggage as usual (it got rid of some classical spooks while substituting it with nothing else except deep seated cynicism. If you want to read up on this see for example Walter Benjamin's Capitalism as Religion essay fragment). So for example while the era of Fordism and Taylorism (dominant types of organizational modes and management types of workplaces) through their high rate of absolute exploitation (daily work hours) and the deskilling (which is another way of saying mental pauperization) of workers (assembly lines) brought with them the cultures of working class solidarity and optimism (which brought us globally the 8 hours work day) on the one hand and reaction and fascism on the other, while generally introducing a culture of direct standardization and oppression (which either led you to realize the similarities you had with your fellow workers or to fascist resentment) and making the workers (to the extent not actually seen by Marx but correctly predicted by him) mere appendages of the machinery, resulting in a culture of unseen monotony and bleakness, while progressively offering more in terms of real wages to the workers and thus a kind of complacency (boomers) took hold too and the bases of what we call a consumer society with its known dull niceties were created by (really depends on the author) the early fifties in West. (If you want to read up on this I recommend Sohn-Rethels chapter on Taylorism from his Intellectual and Manual Labor if you can take his bombastic passages on the abolition of the division of labor with a grain of salt, or basically anything by Adorno). (I'm being schematically reductive here because to properly understand a culture corresponding to a specific stage of a mode of production you have to take into account two dozen more things like available technology, imperialism and racism in capitalism case, the question of basic units and institutions of society like families and schools, but I've recently been "criticized" for writing too long essays, so...) As for what happened from the 60's onward I'm going to refer to this Jameson talk and ask you to read me further if you are finished listening to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_eM-ySEDjA ...from the further availability of consumer goods and services and commercialization of basic social modes of interaction and activities (fitness and nutrition experts and quacks, gyms, the self-help industry, gurus, etc.) the cultural novelties of postmodernity included further deskilling of people but now in their private and familiar lives as well (including the inability to know how to cook as pointed out by Jodi Dean or to parent as pointed out by Mark Fisher). With the complete market domination of the intersocial and mechanisms of representation itself arises the society of spectacle/simulacrum/virtual(/they have like dozen different names for the basically the insight, sigh...) leading us to phenomena like Disney World (shit all you want on Baudrillard [and there's legitimate shitting to be had], but neither those dependencies relating to the base and the superstructure for the first Disney World opened in 1971 were there merely 20-30 years before), of brands widely viewed as a form of self-expression, of a thorough cult of stars (marketed as experts on how to live our lives), etc. arise and cultural products become completely self referential, mass produced, endlessly repeating on the same themes (see for example how we are stuck in capeshit cartoons and movies since forever) leading us to lose our very sense of history (see Jameson's pastiche) and social ontology (Fisher's business ontology, or just take a look at flat earth shit which is largely an expression of a feeling of being stuck in a "no way out" flat world that is hidden by the elites, imo). Finally (and leaving out a bunch of important shit as usual) through the rise of technology such as VHS, cheap cameras, the internet, mobile phones, social media, etc. the speed and frequency of our participation in maintaining and participating in the spectacle(/virtual/whatever) increases and become unknowing participants of generating profits to Facebook, Google, etc. by merely liking, commenting, uploading, memeing, retweeting, etc. by helping them further improve their algorithms to the point where we get stuck in algorithmically created (economic [advertisements] and political propaganda, friendship, interests, consumption pattern, etc.) bubbles. In this sense what I earlier mentioned under Taylorism as direct standardization of people, culture, and things becomes indirectly standardized and some theorists celebrate this as the democratization of culture and uplifting us from direct yokes. (Horseshit, as would Zizek point out, we are less free than ever - we don't even understand our unfreedom.) In the workplace new managerial styles emerge (Google's """friendly""" workplace, which just makes you be creative for the company for free) accompanied by the "manager/boss who is [not] your friend" as Zizek puts it, and the """voluntary""" contractualization at the office increases (P.R., H.R., behaviour trainings, etc.). (Also of note and related are the precarious jobs, the gig economy, zombie corps, and hipster products/startups, etc. that are just porky's last grasp at trying to fill in what little gaps the system has left to commercialize like take out food, über, juicero, airbnb, etc.)
cont. >>741722 With the halt to real wage growth (due to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall) around the seventies neoliberalization begins with increasing civilian and private debts, social services being destroyed, etc. and a final potential for green line go up (meaningfully) is injected into the system due to the fall of the Eastern Bloc offering new markets. Jodi Dean relies on a sociologist (can't remember her name now and I haven't slept for 30 hours) who basically shows that current day working youth became so atomized that they actually flaunt that they are still surviving as individuals instead of being motivated or able to unionize the gig economy and thanks to postmodernity's inbuilt skepticism towards all grand narratives (add up in your head all that was just said and you'll see why) a culture of pure cynicism, of post-irony, of trolling, hedonistic nihilism, conspiracy theories, interpassivity (Pfaller) take hold, where speech about values, truth, reality as such is frowned upon by some sections of the intelligentsia. So to finally answer your question: is it wrong? Well, some theorists (G. M. Tamás most notably) came to the conclusion in the 2000s that this culture complex is pretty much antagonistic of fascism proper rising (hence honk honk, pepe, "but what about the memes," God Emperor Trump type of fucking clown world) but seemed to not realize that these conditions were as equally antagonistic to us, communists, and he was involved politically in the same old radlib shit. (Naturally since then, after two economic crises -- one ongioin -- he went full paranoid about fascism, but it's kinda understandable in the Eastern-European context, because it seems we are slowly approaching to pre-WW1 conditions from the Balkan to its North.) I think we should think in terms of Karatani's reformulation of the Marxist conception of the lumpenproletariat as the class of the unrepresented for a few reasons: 1. capitalism seems to speed up in producing a steady supply of surplus population (mainly young men as Badiou notes); 2. the very fact of the above mentioned pseudo-democratization of these representational practices seem to me have proven to be a great pacifying force (so our duty is to advocate for the left to detach itself from them and encourage the right to participate in them further - *rubs hands*); 3. voooting already seems to have become a game by the unrepresented (yet mostly not majority lumpenized in the classical sense) to fuck with what they perceive as the Elite as Mark Blyth noticed (Trump, Brexit, the successes of various European "joke political parties"); 4. and because the useful idiots anarchists want us to keep on pushing the "representational politics is reactionary" line, which under current conditions could not be further from the truth. We need a new "Peace, Land and Bread" for the 21st century, my níggers.
>>741047 I'm not a Deleuze guy but I think you have a fundamentally wrong impression of Benjamin. >he never read the major works of Marx For starters this is false. Although it's true that he was not as versed in Marx as Adorno or Horkheimer, we know for a fact that he spent serious time studying Marx's historical works, particularly the 18th Brumaire, his writings on France in general, and The German Ideology. >just repeated the most radically sounding slogans of the time and used them in his analyses as loose basis I'm actually just not sure where you're getting this impression from. >It's theoretically unsound because "the surgeon" doesn't "represent" shit You're missing the core of this description: <The magician maintains the natural distance between himself and the patient…the surgeon does the opposite: he reduces the distance to the patent a great deal (by actually going inside him)…Magician and surgeon behave like painter and cameraman. The painter, while working, observes a natural distance from the subject; the cameraman, on the other hand, penetrates deep into the subject’s tissue. Your general gripe against "semiotics" here seems reactionary to me. I'm not sure why it is that you feel that investigating the symbolic, ideological landscape of capitalism isn't worthy territory of a theorist, particularly when it's precisely in that landscape that people navigate. "Leaving art to the artists" is precisely the sort of functionalist statement that Benjamin, among others, sought to breakdown. >but lacking an overarching and coherent system to hold them together This can hardly be blamed on Benjamin. He died before he was able to complete that overarching system in The Arcades.
(114.89 KB 773x185 2.png)
(79.83 KB 948x339 3.png)
(58.86 KB 1057x242 1.png)
>>741768 >he never read the major works of Marx <For starters this is false. this is wrong. I was educated by one of the most prominent Benjaminians in my country and he actually flaunted the fact the Benjamin didn't "need to" read Marx to become a Marxist.
>>737432 That's all well and good if you think of Marx primarily as a philosopher and wish to further refine the philosophy. But the man himself could not have been more pleased I think to see his ideas brutally instrumentalized even at the cost of truncating further philosophical investigation. Changing the world and all that.
>>741725 This stuff is God tier
>>741768 >Your general gripe against "semiotics" here seems reactionary to me. I'm pretty sure you don't understand what the term "reactionary" denotes. Claiming that the mere fact of existence of a social unit WITHOUT need of mediation is capable in representing [whatever] is something that fucking Hegel already criticized. The formula of "the butcher [by itself] represents X" is demonstrably false, and relies on a positioning of the butcher as (what Marx would have called) a kind of Robinson Crusoe of bourgeois mythology.
(208.96 KB 454x1548 1421334760262-1.jpg)
>>741781 >TJ Clark I read his essay when writing my thesis on Benjamin: it's not very compelling (not to mention his essay starts out by apologizing for an overly sensational title). For one precisely because all of Benjamin's historical theory is born out of the 18th Brumaire, and his experiential theory out of an interpretation of Commodity Fetishism. Clark's real point, which is valid and uncontroversial, is that Benjamin is an extremely unorthodox Marxist that wishes to read a lot of Marx's notions in a different, literary, way. But reading through the Arcades, its incredibly difficult to claim that he's simply not grappling or "doesn't need" Marx.
>>741725 So are you telling me that the leftist (for lack of a better term) intellectual project in the 20th century was anti-fascist to the point of cannibalism? And our choices is to either fall back on old narratives or to create new values like some Niezschean Ubermensch?
>>741788 >Claiming that the mere fact of existence of a social unit WITHOUT need of mediation is capable in representing Which Benjamin doesn't do. Benjamin's real impact in historical and literary theory is the very point that everything is always already mediated. His use of literary figures in his work isn't a claim that they "objectively exist in this way". In the very magician v scientist example we're talking about he's utilizing a specific difference in their characters as a means to lay out a point about film. Another way of saying this: there's something incredibly strange claiming that a metaphor is objectively "wrong". Nowhere will you see Benjamin say something exists in an unmediated way "by itself". My calling it a reactionary thought is a broader point about your general position that, for some reason, sequesters anything other than rigorous material analysis as a lower form of thought, or as being wholly uninvolved or separate from any marxist analysis. I apologise if this isn't the full "well actually Reactionary refers to a ideological tendency wishing to return to former social relations" whatever, but your general unwillingness to acknowledge how aesthetic, experiential, and material relationships may not, in fact, be so clear cut, or may not be related in the way that Marx lays out, I just find embarrassing.
>>741791 And not to put too neat of a point on it: What Clark argues here is also completely the opposite of what Brecht and Adorno themselves made of Benjamin's work. There's no single Walter Benjamin. His legacy and form of thought has been debated and fought over since his death. With Scholem claiming that his interactions with Marxism corroded his Jewish theological thought, Arendt and Sontag claiming his thought should be taken as literary, Adorno as philsophical and incomplete, Brecht as Marxism corrupted by his interests in culture and theology, etc. Classifying Benjamin as any single thing is just too simplistic.
(218.19 KB 513x364 1.png)
>>741804 >Which Benjamin doesn't do.
(32.62 KB 200x380 kabbalah.png)
(911.07 KB 876x1286 friedman-spinoza-chart.jpg)
>Benjamin is regularly called a messianic "Marxist" >he borrows more from Jewish tradition (nothing wrong with that in itself) like Spinoza in his Ethics [kabbalah] >he spent his life reading fiction primarily, being a cultural theorist
>>741174 >This might be more reflective of your own experience, but when somebody is worth their salt, they're able to put themselves aside for a cause, if you're an intellectual but are so thin-skinned that "feeling out of touch" incentivizes you to leave an organization you're probably shit anyway. First of all, this isn't "my experience" but rather what I've observed over decades watching people drop out. Marxist groups generally have a high turnover especially when it comes to those who actually study - because those people eventually realize that many Marxist organizations embrace ideologies which are antithetical to Marx's ideas or because the organization functions in a completely non-productive way. Second, why would anyone "put themselves aside for a cause" when they disagree with the goals of the organization? >I don't know how to respond to the rest of your post, it's a giant strawman. If you're going to call it a strawman you should at least explain why.
>>741822 Sounds pretty based, why are you saging?
>>741816 Please show me. And please show me how he's claiming that this is an objective analysis rather than utilizing characters in an allegorical way.
>>741833 He literally wasn't a Marxist. That does not mean we, or I, as Marxist(s) should push him aside, because I already said he had legit striving. As I've shown ITT several times I've read him, I can quote him, I can think with him, rely on him. Doesn't make me want to uncritically agree with him and discard the legit problems from a Marxist POV of his whole theoretical edifice.
>>741836 Do you want me to quote basically all of his Arcades Project?
>>741841 >He literally wasn't a Marxist You really haven't shown this. He's an experimental and unorthodox Marxist >>741843 >Do you want me to quote basically all of his Arcades Project? I want you to try and tackle with this quote, from the Arcades: >Marx lays bare the causal connection between economy and culture. For us, what matters is the thread of expression. It is not the economic origins of culture that will be presented, but the expression of the economy in its culture. At issue, in other words, is the attempt to grasp an economic process as perceptible Ur-phenomenon, from out of which proceed all manifestations of life in the arcades (and, accordingly, in the nineteenth century). [Nla,6] >This research--which deals fundamentally with the expressive character of the earliest industrial products, the earliest industrial architecture, the earliest ma­chines, but also the earliest department stores, advertisements, and so on-thus becomes important for Marxism in two ways. First, it will demonstrate how the milieu in which Marx's doctrine arose affected that doctrine through its expres­sive character (which is to say, not only through causal connections); but, second, it will also show in what respects Marxism, too, shares the expressive character of the material products contemporary with it. [Nla,7]
Just going to use the opportunity to plug "The Dialectics of Seeing" by Susan Buck-Morss. It's an amazing piece of scholarship. You can find it on libgen. >Walter Benjamin's magnum opus was a book he did not live to write. In The Dialectics of Seeing, Susan Buck-Morss offers an inventive reconstruction of the Passagen Werk, or Arcades Project, as it might have taken form. Working with Benjamin's vast files of citations and commentary which contain a myriad of historical details from the dawn of consumer culture, Buck-Morss makes visible the conceptual structure that gives these fragments philosophical coherence. She uses images throughout the book to demonstrate that Benjamin took the debris of mass culture seriously as the source of philosophical truth. The Paris Arcades that so fascinated Benjamin (as they did the Surrealists whose "materialist metaphysics" he admired) were the prototype, the 19th century "ur-form" of the modern shopping mall. Benjamin's dialectics of seeing demonstrate how to read these consumer dream houses and so many other material objects of the time—from air balloons to women's fashions, from Baudelaire's poetry to Grandville's cartoons—as anticipations of social utopia and, simultaneously, as clues for a radical political critique. Buck-Morss plots Benjamin's intellectual orientation on axes running east and west, north and south—Moscow Paris, Berlin-Naples—and shows how such thinking in coordinates can explain his understanding of "dialectics at a standstill." She argues for the continuing relevance of Benjamin's insights but then allows a set of "afterimages" to have the last word.
>>741858 Seconding. Buck-Morss is an amazing scholar.
>I read this whole book and it took me days to do so so you shiyying on it is not welcome <Mao: To read too many books [uncritically] is harmful!
>in this book I'm trying to reconstruct the context in which X was written to further elucidate the concrete conditions of the fact of its begottening
>>741867 Why? She's just a great reader. I found her and Esther Leslie's work pretty essential to getting into Benjamin and Adorno. I dunno what else to say.
>>741836 My criticism comes from a Lacanian background in which the positing of a Big Other (qua Benjamin's and Barthes' "objective spectator" / general social view) is a big no-no for obvious reasons. I don't need to go much farther than to assert the obvious: a butcher doesn't 'represent' in himself. A butcher to someone whose father was a butcher as well brings up ideations of familiarity, to the vegan of cruelty, to the bourgeois lowlyness, to the health inspector possible unvleanliness, and so on. To even assert that a "butcher represents X" (to a universal, that is, non-existent, and non-particular subject - unless you want to bring in Hegel's Objective Spirit, or what fucking ever version of teleological and idealist POV or force). This is the point where I become a Deleuzian, if you like, a Spinozean of sorts, and educate you on the fact that this purely theoretical construction doesn't exist. Q. fucking E. D. that semiotics is wrong and largely subjectivist idealism - a regression from even Hegel, if you read, for example Lenin's Conspectus of reading him. You litetally bring out from me the non-existant Stirnerite and make me want to denounce your ridiculous spooks, which, no matter how much you quote Benjamin discussing Marx (he didn't actually read), and no matter how hard you call me a "reactionary" (which doesn't mean "you hurt my feelings," btw), I will denounce AS SHIT-TIER THEORY.
>>741872 rarely do I find biographers enlightening
>>741904 She's not a biographer, friend :)
>>741897 not him but in what way do Spinoza and Deleuze reject a theoretical construction? I always thought Spinoza was at least all about removing the “deontological” dimension and separating Ought from Is.
>>741897 You are not showing here how Benjamin is talking in objective terms here, especially when his work focuses on the changing roles of figures within the realm of culture. >A butcher doesn't 'represent' in himself A butcher does, however, represents, a butcher comes to represent in a culture; a butcher is utilized as a figure in popular imagination, plays a role in that imagination. The "butcher" in this sense is not the objective butcher as the worker, but the figure, the character of the butcher within a specific cultural-historical frame, which absolutely can be seen from literary works. Or are you really going as far to argue against any use, whatsoever, of allegory? >he didn't actually read This, again, is completely baseless. >>741904 She's not a biographer. That'd be Michael Jennings.
>>741808 >There's no single Walter Benjamin. What a typical fucking cope, right?! You are literally not allowed to criticize an author unless you have read EVERYTHING from him and even than you "just don't get it properly!" It all boils down to anti-intellectualism and gate-keeping culture. "If you don't appreciate X like >>I<< do, u r reactionary! I simply can't fathom how you read books and kept on repearing these self-justifying memes. This, btw, is what reactionarism is like, laughing my fucking ass off!
>>741930 no investigation no right to speak faggot, either read his books or fuck off
>>741924 and last point about the Marx: >Has a literal section in Arcades dedicated to Marx, full of quotations and excerpts from his available works >Has several essays devoted to Marx & Engels, engaging with their theory and commenting on their letters (Edward Fuchs, in particular, stems from an analysis of a letter Engels wrote) >You can literally read his exchanges with Adorno and Brecht about Marxist theory >He didn't acktually read Marx You're retarded.
>>741930 >You are literally not allowed to criticize an author unless you have read EVERYTHING from him and even than you "just don't get it properly!" You're completely allowed to criticize him; it's just that yours don't track, and you're going after him for reasons that aren't as clear cut as you want them to be. Stay mad. There are good critiques of Benjamin to be had, "he's not a marxist" or "he's talking objectively (using metaphors)" isn't one of them.
>>741917 I'm not your "friend". I'm your class enemy, and will literally work for your cultural marginalization, possible execution, or gulagization. I'm the fucking fist of the working classes literally going "kill anti-materialist glasses" and you should fucking fear my kind, because when WE come to power, Vaush- and Philosophy Tube types will have no place in society. You may interpret this as a mere empty threat, but as Leninists we'll fucking do it (again!), so good luck with spreading literal idealism and trying to portray it as 'progressive,' lmao.
IMO debating whether X was a Marxist is non-productive. The question itself creates the idea that something called Marxism even exists which I would consider false in view of the long and convoluted history of the ideology. Asking whether or not someone aligns to an imagined Marxist doctrine forces us to engage in reconstructions of "what Marx really intended" or "the essence of Marx's thought" and shifts the focus from the material world to the terrain of ideology, doctrine, dogma, etc. Marx's early works can be read as an attempt to break free from ideology. Whether he achieved that is another question. >>741783 >That's all well and good if you think of Marx primarily as a philosopher and wish to further refine the philosophy. I'm not sure if I was really clear on this. My goal would be beyond just refining the philosophy or ideas. I don't want to simply argue against the "wrong interpretations" of Marx, of which there are many, but rather to move past the obsession with adhering to the 'true Marx' or the 'true Marxism' in some ideological sense. The fallacy committed by Marxists as a whole has been two-sided. On the one hand, Marxists have used Marx's ideas to construct something which never existed nor was intended to exist. On the other hand, in constructing this new system, they have attached an undue importance to ideological thinking itself. And the rejection of that mode of thought was Marx's starting point. All of the later debates about the fundamental "Marxist" political programme or philosophy seem like a massive waste of energy in retrospect. That's not to say that debates about politics or philosophy are always pointless. Rather, the proofs need to be decided by something other than "Marx said this, Lenin said this", etc. I always thought that Roman Rosdolsky summed it up very well in this quote: "There are two ways to look at Marx and Engels: as the creators of a brilliant, but in its deepest essence, thoroughly critical, scientific method; or as church fathers of some sort, the bronzed figures of some monument." >But the man himself could not have been more pleased I think to see his ideas brutally instrumentalized even at the cost of truncating further philosophical investigation. I think he would have seen it as very ironic considering how often he rejected personality cults and the idea that he was trying to create his own "system" - whether moral or ideological.
>>741947 >moving the goalpoasts from wheter a theory is right or wrong from a purely Marxist theory to whether it being right in a moralist sense nigga, u already dead, u realize that, right?! We will literally execute you. Might as well shilling for Joe Biden as tbe usefull idiot u r.
>>741945 >>741953 >strawman strawman strawman
>>741936 >You are literally not allowed to criticize an author unless you have read EVERYTHING from him Said nobody ever. You'll be executed for the simple reason of shilling non-materialist interpretation for class socirty. You've been just identified of what Hegel calls the "good soul" disease. Your ilk will be executed systematically (as you should be, according to Marx, Engels, and Lenin, and you'll become a mere joke who went " who was actually killed, "who was killed" etc. And you will look the fucking obvious stand-out. TL;DR: We will literally conspire to end u.
>>741947 >IMO debating whether X was a materialist is nonsense And the warm gulag will welcome u.
Deleuze is weird, Derrida I plan on getting some of his books, I can give or take the Frankfurt School
(23.51 KB 250x332 marx_terror_quote.jpg)
>>741921 >not him but in what way do Spinoza and Deleuze reject a theoretical construction? Is this even a viable, an understandable sentence? No. >I always thought Spinoza was at least all about removing the “deontological” dimension and separating Ought from Is. Your "ought" from "is" will be removed in the gulag. Literally nobody argued for a "deontological ethics," you pure pseud. >>741924 >You are not showing here how Benjamin is talking in objective terms here You will literally perish for even positing the view that Spinozeans can even grasp the "objective". You are a dead man talking. >>741932 >no investigation no right to speak faggot Except every investigation shows thoroughly that Benjamin had no fucking idea what Marxism was. >>741933 >a literal open idealist "has a section about Marx," whom'st he literally didn't read, therefore the game is over! i concede that point, honestly. >>741945 Based. Gulag is end destination for these idiots. >>741953 Based. Fuck em. Kill em. All of them. These idealists have a big mouth right now, but will go silent as shit when it comes to the movement of the working classes, lmao. >>742028 >i have zero content to add TL;DR: Benjamin has been proven to be a subjective idealist, and all faggots quote-unquote "supporting him still" are literal shills. End of fucking story. You will be killed, you realize that, when the time of the working class comes, right? Literally all of you shills will be fucking purged for good, and this is not even vaguely controversial, lmao!
>>742049 >You will literally perish for even positing the view that Spinozeans can even grasp the "objective". Literally where did I post this. >Except every investigation shows thoroughly that Benjamin had no fucking idea what Marxism was. Bro can you actually prove this instead of posting the same sentence over and over?
>>741924 >You are not showing here how Benjamin is talking in objective terms here I literally am. You'll be fucking gulage'd like the rest of them. Cheers. Go fear about "Marxism" while you can.
>>742069 The only thing you've "shown" here is a vague flirtation with Lacan. Not any actual engagement with Benjamin or my responses. Don't pretend to have any intellectual interest in this shit if you're unwilling to actually talk about them.
>>741722 >>741725 good posts
Can anyone explain to me what the fuck autonomism is?
>>738186 You are making up strawmen just to cry about muh tankies
>Unorthodox it's called heterodox


no cookies?