/lit/ - Literature

I've never heard of it. You should stick with Foucault and Bourdieu.

>>4641881
>You should stick with Foucault and Bourdieu.
Tronti, Bologna, Wright, Eden, Midnight Notes, Radical Amerika, Processed World, Paul Cardan

>>4641881
>Foucault
think I'll just stick with pic related - he did it better.
Sartre on Foucault: 'the last barricade of the bourgeoisie'

>Bourdieu
his field and habitus is quite interesting. I esp. love his theorizing about social capital. I myself feel like this has been significant in my life - the bourgeois (and/or constituent fractions) tend, especially today, to keep other classes out/down by using class-cultural bigotry disguised as 'preference' or even 'morality'. interesting...

>>4641886
>Tronti, Bologna, Wright, Eden, Midnight Notes, Radical Amerika, Processed World, Paul Cardan
could you commentary that a little more, please?

>>4641921
>Sartre on Foucault: 'the last barricade of the bourgeoisie'
Sartre on the USSR his whole fucking life: "Shit's dope, yo!"

USSR on workers who tried to run their own industry in Spain and Russia: BOURGEOIS!!!111

>>4641921
forgot the pic

>>4641925
>hurr durr ur a commie!
are you twelve? He was also out in the streets in 68 leading.

At any rate, that doesn't make Foucault any less of a disgusting bourgeois liberal traitor

Baudrillard: "Forget Foucault"
Althusser: "Student, I am dissapoint"

>>4641921
Foucault is to 1968 as the Social Democrat theorists were to 1916. Foucault echos the most conservative and repressive sentiments of the moment, like a modern Kautsky.

In contrast, the findings located _from the shop floor_, like 1916 in the AAUD (Rühle, Gramsci, etc/_, are far more useful in actually preparing the class for struggle. Which is why I strung off the standard autonomist list. If you've not read anything, start with Solidarity (UK)'s pamphlets, James & Dalla Costa's _Power of Women_, then go _Lenin in England_, and Steve Wright's free history of autonomism online. Radical Amerika and Processed World are both interesting from the 1970s and 1980s in the US respectively.

>>4641921
Also, unlike Bordieu the autonomists don't invent new categories mischeviously named like old categories "social 'Capital'" my arse. The autonomists deal with capital par capital as in the movement of the value form through expanded reproduction.

>>4641937
Foucault was in the streets too....

Foucault only "betrayed" The Communist Party, which he was quite right to. The Communist Party supported shithead dictators, abuse of human rights and command economy. He protested capitalist governments as well as the USSR, whereas the Communist Party not only turned a blind eye to abusive communist governments, but outright backed them.

>>4641944
Quite wrong. Foucault flirted with anarchism if anything.

>>4641974
Do you even understand the "X is to Y as A is to B" construction?

>>4641981
Yes, I do. And it doesn't work here because Foucault was MORE radical than The Communist Party, not less.

>>4641992

>reading any of these fucking plebs

which has fallen further in the past 200 years, philosophy or art?

>>4642003
They're both quite useless.

>>4641992
>Yes, I do. And it doesn't work here because Foucault was MORE radical than The Communist Party, not less.
And Kautsky was more radical than the UK Labour Party.

This proves nothing.

Foucault provided an army of bourgeois academics with the tools to inform sociologists of how to repress insurgent self-articulating proletarian organisations.

And Kautsky taught the state how to fuck unions.

>>4642010

answer the question you clown

>(And, no, pomofags, I don't want your opinion - I know 'its all relative/subjective, maaaaaaan'; got it.)

Watch those edges kiddo.

You sound like an idiot and I highly doubt you have the capacity to read this book without letting your half-baked preconceptions corrupt the conclusion you draw from it.

>>4642003
Go back the Enlightenment, Trinstram Shandy

>>4642014
Have you even read any of Foucault? he didn't give tools, he exposed tools. He woke people up to prison as something not "progressive" but dangerous as fuck.

>>4642003
Things change. Schopenhauer is pretty bad philosophy by today's standards, he can't hold a candle to Foucault. Thinking that you are special for reading a 200 year old pessimist, is pretty laughable, especially to explain today's world.

>>4642003
art by a long shot, the degeneracy is insane

>>4642025

you're the one who needs a history lesson

>>4642026

confirmed for having read the wiki and nothing else

both of you make me sick. please add a trip so i can filter you

>>4642031
>you're the one who needs a history lesson
Please provide of Foucault's works being used to oppress or control.

>>4642041
>an example

>>4642031
>confirmed for having read the wiki and nothing else

I've read all volumes of the world as idea and representation as a curiosity and his essay on pessimism. Nietzsche is much better.

You sound like a butthurt fanboy.

>>4642041
Discipline and Punish is unironically used by Criminologist prison reformers to make "better" prisons.

>>4642041

>please provide evidence that oppression and control are not integral to the human condition

>>4642047
How is this a bad thing?

>>4642026

>pretty bad philosophy

these people didn't think so

>>4642051
…

>>4642047
Uh, that's not oppression. Foucault also got prisoners interviewed on TV for prison reform.

>>4642050
They are. It's a constant struggle against them. Foucault does not believe in THE revolution, he seems to believe that revolutions must occur again and again no matter what. Sort of like I's philosophy in We.

>>4642057
>If I can count more names he's better.

Schopenhauer was an aesthete, look at those names again, most of them are artists not philosophags. Also he has 150 years on Foucault.

>>4642063
All the reform Foucault effected was a matter of making prisons more humane.

>>4642072

>foucunt will still be read in 150 years

my sides

seeing as Nietzsche has been more influential than all the 20th century 'philosophers' put together, I don't see any way Schopenhauer will ever lose relevancy

except maybe at the university level, but then we all know what those people are worth

>>4642073
>All the reform Foucault effected was a matter of making prisons more humane.
You really don't get what's at stake here do you? You're actually _praising_ Foucault for being as bad as Kautsky.

>>4642079
Art, science, philosophy, and mathematics cannot be divided from politics.

>>4642079

Could you elaborate more on what is 'philosophy' and what is 'university philosophy'?

>>4642064
>that's not oppression
Bigger cages! Longer chains!

Bigger cages! Longer chains!

BIGGER CAGES! LONGER CHAINS!

And you wonder why I'm attacking Foucault for being the reactionary section of the right of 1968? Are you deaf, blind or have a mouth full of cocks? Because at least in the third you have pleasure as the reason for your ignorance.

>[a prison] is not oppression
This is the spawn of Foucault: the repressers who convince themselves that their repression is liberation.

>>4641873
>I remember trying to read this in college and not being able to make heads or tails of it

I read it in high school and thought it was incredibly lucid. I know this is self-serving but...you sound like you have some issues with comprehension.

>>4642085

au contraire, my friend

philosophy and politics are antipodal

if you knew anything about history, you'd know that in Greece, where both originated, it was typical for politicians and philosophers to despise one another

also

>political math

do you read this shit before you post?

>>4642085
> you can't study art, science, philosophy, and mathematics without studying politics

1/10 made me reply.

>>4642079
You're saying that the only writers worth anything are the best sellers or high culture writers. We can't all be the very best, the most ironic part is that you probably don't have any discernible talent that qualifies you to make such a remark?

>>4642095

This guy knows what's up. Nietzsche's passage on the irreconcilable divide between politics and culture in 'Twilight of the Idols' should be required reading.

>>4642057
oh look another non-thinking dipshit who doesn't understand how wikipedia works (cuz if you did, you wouldn't use it as an authority on anything).

>>4642092
>We shouldn't have prisons

Look at this utopian and laugh. You sound like Foucault if you've read him.

>>4642091

University philosophy is only read in the universities. It circulates through scholarly articles, journals, etc.

Actual philosophy exists in its own right, independent of the universities, although admittedly the latter often misappropriates it for their own purposes

It's mostly the spirit under which philosophy is pursued that distinguishes the two.

>The salaried investigation and teaching of philosophy ought to be carefully watched, for philosophy, which is always an inquiry into knowledge of truth, is open to all sorts of perversions when one earns his bread off it. The “professor of philosophy” is susceptible to the influence of the university, the prevailing opinions of the day, of his colleagues, and of his religion(s).

>>4642097

even if I did, you're already so poorly disposed to me that you will deny it with all available means, so why would i bother to respond to that charge?

cretin

>>4642107

Name any philosophical text/author. Somewhere, that text/author is being studied in a university.

>what now faggot?
>muh arbitrary dichotomies

>>4642115
>even if I did

Ok mysterious genius. Are you a discovered or undiscovered gem?

>>4642117
>although admittedly the latter often misappropriates it for their own purposes

try reading my post next time before you respond

>>4642107

>Kant
>Hegel
>Heidegger
>Wittgenstein
>Quine
>Davidson
>Kripke

You're right, that's not real philosophy.

you people are awful. discuss the ideas, not philosophers. "hurr lets turn this into a x vs y thread cuz we can carry on the veneer of intelligence without admitting we haven't put in the work and read the texts"

>>4642121
>>4642123

>I get to say what is misappropriation and what isn't

Cut out your arbitrary bullshit. Philosophy is philosophy.

>What is Plato's Academy
>What is Aristotle's Lyceum
>What is the Stoa
>What is Antisthenes' Cynosarges
>Epicurus' Garden
>why are you so fucking retarded

>>4642104
You have learnt everything about Foucault and nothing about the revolution.

>>4642128

>an ancient university is the same as a modern one

>>4642092
if you wanna hang with the big boys you're gonna have to learn the difference between repression and oppression.

>>4642134
>>4642123

Either way, you're wrong as fuck. Now take your anti-intellectualism and leave.

>>4642139

anti-intellectualism is the distinguishing characteristic of university claptrap

>>4642092
That's not reactionary at all. None of the thinkers then were opposed to prison, I don't think many now are.

This is what Foucault said as opinion
>People do revolt; that is a fact. And that is how subjectivity (not that of great men, but that of anyone) is brought into history, breathing life into it. A convict risks his life to protest unjust punishments; a madman can no longer bear being confined and humiliated; a people refuses the regime that oppresses it. That doesn’t make the first innocent, doesn’t cure the second, and doesn’t ensure for the third the tomorrow it was promised. Moreover, no one is obliged to support them. No one is obliged to find that these confused voices sing better than the others and speak the truth itself. It is enough that they exist and that they have against them everything that is dead set on shutting them up for there to be a sense in listening to them and in seeing what they mean to say. A question of ethics? Perhaps. A question of reality, without a doubt. All the disenchantments of history won’t alter the fact of the matter: it is because there are such voices that the time of human beings does not have the form of evolution but that of “history,” precisely.

Making things more human in prison might seem retarded to you, but if you were doing life inside, you'd feel differently.

>>4642134
Yeah, it's so wrong to concentrate people of similar interests in one place so they can exchange ideas and educate each other.

Have you ever tried talking about science or philosophy with a layperson? Have you ever had an Internet argument? We would still be in the stone ages if it wasn't for universities.

>>4642120

you affect to care because ...

>>4642139
The College de France is nothing like a university in the common conception.

>>4642161
Yes, but we'd advance far faster if they were all along the lines of Paris VIII.

>>4642161

but that's not what actually happens

the 'exchange' is a bunch of kids sitting in a room and listening to an old professor drone on for two hours, maybe stopping to answer a few dumb questions, and then assigning some passage to read for the next class

it's not the romantic forum you imagine it to be. it's a bureaucracy and a business with pretensions to intellectualism and culture

and that's true whether you go to community college or harvard

>>4642154
>That's not reactionary at all. None of the thinkers then were opposed to prison, I don't think many now are.
I'm sorry, but you make an argument ad populo bellow, so let me do the same: IF YOU WERE DOING TIME WOULDN'T YOU WANT PRISONS ABOLISHED?

Foucault's evocation of "history" is pathetically naïve, and bears no relationship to historiography.

Additionally, Foucault inserts the bourgeois subject into his account, mystifying the actual subject.

This is a way to dissect praxis.

>Making things more human in prison might seem retarded to you, but if you were doing life inside, you'd feel differently.

You need to read more on 1968 if you don't understand the slogan "Bigger cages, longer chains."

>>4642168
I want to ridicule you for your faux-elitism.

>>4641925
Red herring tastes good with mashed potatoes.

>>4642136
Oh no! Maybe someone might talk about exploitation! Prisons put the lp in P mate.

>>4642182

You're not going to change my opinion of myself and I'm not going to change your opinion of me

This is what we call a waste of breath

>>4642187
Just admit you were wrong, dude. No need to spiral into incoherence.

>>4642183
It's not a red herring, it's an illustration of Sartre's conception of "bourgeois" (anyone who defies the USSR)

>>4642177
>I'm sorry, but you make an argument ad populo bellow, so let me do the same: IF YOU WERE DOING TIME WOULDN'T YOU WANT PRISONS ABOLISHED?
Yes, and? aren't you arguing that Foucault was reactionary because he didn't publicly call for abolition of prison?

>You need to read more on 1968 if you don't understand the slogan "Bigger cages, longer chains."
Bigger prisons and longer chains make it easier to see out the window.

>>4642175
>it's not the romantic forum you imagine it to be.

It's the best we can do. If you read about actual universities of the past it was even worse with rampant faggotry, it was just a fashionable country club for the high society youth to have sex and party under the pretension of high culture and learning it still is, but more open and democratized.

>it's a bureaucracy and a business with pretensions to intellectualism and culture

Yeah, it's a real thing, not a romantic illusion. This doesn't make it a bad thing though. It sure doesn't negate my point neither.

>>4642201

>it's definitely shit but it used to be shittier and besides shit is the best we can have

I'll stick to my private studies

thanks tho

>>4642192
You're entirely unfamiliar with exploitation and you think you can talk about oppression and repression? Read the length of the working day for starters.

>>4642214
Good luck. You do know what a gate-keeper is, right?

>>4642201
University on the whole is pretty shit. There's St. John's, which promotes students contradicting the teachers if so inclined, but most uni's are just preliminary to being a corporate bitch like the teacher is.

>>4642215
>Read the length of the working day for starters.
Read how much inmates get paid

>>4642219
>University on the whole is pretty shit.

Everything on the whole is pretty shit. There's still lots to be done, it's work in progress.

>>4642199
My argument has consistently been that Foucault was the right reaction out of 1968. I've demonstrated this at length. Foucault solidified the repressive structure of bigger cages and longer chains, when the proletarian demand was for the abolition of oppression and exploitation. Foucault did this knowingly: like Kautsky he had intellectual access to the tools of self-liberation. Foucault did this to produce a career, and meanwhile armed three generations of sociologists to produce the Supermax. All of Foucaults' ironies have been taken seriously, in precisely the manner intended. Foucault offers the elimination of the possibility of collective historical subjectivity, and the means for the bourgeoisie to achieve it. And in that attempt, the discursive systems that Foucault outlined have been cemented as a form of tactics by the bourgeoisie.

He is to France's social problem what the Boys from Chicago were to Chilean trade unionists.

And your defence of this is that we need and require prisons that are more humane? You, sir, are Foucault's thermidorean bullyboy.

>>4642228 Need another 1968

>>4642218

You do know what a private fortune is, right?

>>4642194
What Sartre thinks of the USSR is irrelevant.

>>4642234
Foucault was scandalously pro revolution and rioting.

>>4642242
How Sartre is using the word "bourgeois" or the term "defending the bourgeoisie", however, is not.

>>4642238
Oh, you're going old-School. Who do you test your ideas against? Do you even test your ideas?

>>4642245
>Foucault was scandalously pro revolution and rioting.
And yet his life's work is a manual of disempowerment and repression. The lady doth protest.

>>4642260

Against those of my mentors, naturally.

And against myself. What was written at nineteen does not cut as fair a figure before the eyes of twenty and three.

>>4642261
Protest means "apologize" in that quote.

His work is not a manual of anything. It is a questioning of why this and why that.

>>4642249
It's very possible to use a word in two different contexts, one correct and one incorrect. Lenin would call the czar bourgeois and be correct. And he would call his vanguard party not bourgeois and be wrong.

>>4642276
Thesis 11 mate: by questioning of why of this and that it is a manual of repression.

>>4642261
>And yet his life's work is a manual of disempowerment and repression.

So was das kapital. What do you think inspired the bourgeoise to buy off the proletariat?

>Foucault did this to produce a career

You can say this about anyone revered ever.

>>4642267
And your mentors are just friends or scholars for hire from a university?

>>4642285
There's nothing exterior of the machine, so no.

>>4642294

They're all dead

>>4641944
thanks. Gramsci is so underrated among the (real) Left and so bougeoisified among the (wannabe left) liberals, imho.

>>4641947
i haven't gotten much into that lit yet. Can you explain what you mean? A good book selection?

>>4641967
>Foucault was in the streets too....
yes, I know. I'm always reminded...

>>4642003
>uses 'pleb'
opinion disregarded

>>4642010
haha. this

>>4642289
>What do you think inspired the bourgeoise to buy off the proletariat?
Fordism is pretty fucking obviously the result of the IWW in the United States and the 1917 revolutions. Do some labour history before you spout your shit chute in public counter to well known results.

>>4642295
Reread Marx on alienation in production. It is a vitally important research finding: the proletariat has no property form to impose on the social division of labour. And they have demonstrated a capacity to form subjectivity in history.

>>4642303
>Fordism is pretty fucking obviously the result of the IWW

Yes socialist ideals and organizing were beginning to take hold in, especially Europe, but also in America around the turn of the century. Social democratic theory was the only viable antidote of the bourgeoise to prevent riots and revolution.

>the real left

>>4642303
>>4642328
y'all read Kolko's The Triumph of Conservatism?

>>4642303

>Reread Marx on alienation in production. It is a vitally important research finding: the proletariat has no property form to impose on the social division of labour.
I've read it, you've read it, we've all read it. Marx is nothing new or revolutionary, he wrote in the mid 19th Century.

>And they have demonstrated a capacity to form subjectivity in history.
Yes, they have. Now you're sounding like Foucault.

>>4642302
>i haven't gotten much into that lit yet. Can you explain what you mean? A good book selection?
The autonomists began as a number of traditions inspecting the factory floor, the actual site of reproduction of capital, in the 1950s. They subsequently investigated "society" from the view of the reproduction of capital, not from the view of society as "independent" as an ideological sphere. Thus the question of the reproduction of labour power: the wages for house work debate. They take the categories developed in Marx seriously enough to determine if they apply in the key site of struggle. Also, they identify the key site of struggle correctly: the site of production.

>>4642333
No, but, thanks.

>>4642333
Nope.

>>4642342
>Yes, they have. Now you're sounding like Foucault.
I refer you to your previous quote where foucault references bourgeois subjectivity in three repressed individuals on the basis of their specific oppression. Marx's claim is that a generalised condition of exploitation, common to a class, forms a collective subjectivity.

If you can't read the difference between these two things you had better return to your sociology tutorial. And it is obvious from your previous conduct that you're incapable of understanding the insult in the previous sentence.

>reading anything on the subject of PoMo

>>4642389
>tfw I largely ignored continental/pomo thought since I like analytic philosophy more
>tfw these constant threads the past few days have made me insanely interested in 20th century marxism and its related fields
Step up Tyrone. Let's get your intellectual interests well-rounded.

>>4642003
If art is shit, it's because the philosophy is shit

>>4642397

>wasting time on exploded philosophical systems and their derivations which circulate nowhere outside the university madhouses

>>4642405

as retarded as that sounds, you might have a point

they seem to have declined in lockstep with one another

the rise of politics and science is probably to blame

>>4642362
>>4642352
the tl;dr version is that the New Deal was corporatism

>>4642352
>The autonomists
do you have any recommended lit? like, the 'if you had to read one book on this' type recommendation.

>>4642411
;_; I like university...

>>4642411
>>4642389
>>>/pol/

>>4642397
let us not confuse pomo with marx and related...

>>4642421
That's why I had the qualifier of "and related fields." Plus I'm still learning what's what and who's who in regards to all this. I'll just keep silent in these threads unless it's an obvious troll.

>>4642381
Marx fails to take into account that you don't need property to exert power over others.

>>4642415
>the rise of politics and science is probably to blame

Politics not so much, but science, e.g reason, anti-dogma, industrialization, massproduction and everything else that defines modernity is linked to modernism, obviously.

>>4642416
>the tl;dr version is that the New Deal was corporatism

Did a google search, interesting stuff. Bad ratings on good reads guarantees it's good. As it obviously have provided people with cognitive dissonance.

>>4642425
no, don't keep silent, I just want to put that out there.
plus, what the fuck do i know. personally, though, I see Foucault and anything else doing in that direction from Marx as analogous to Young Hegelian ideology, at best. I think something like this is what Habermas means when he calls Foucault a 'young conservative'. All this stuff just devolves off into petty idealism, to me.

>>4642430
>you don't need property to exert power over others
come again? you've got to be kidding

>>4642435
kolko is a main contributor to Counterpunch and was a big New Left academic

>>4642439
I'm not keeping silent out of fear of flaunting my ignorance or anything like that. I just meant that I (usually) keep silent in threads like these until I feel I have an adequate knowledge of the topic that goes beyond the surface.

>>4642416
>>The autonomists
>do you have any recommended lit? like, the 'if you had to read one book on this' type recommendation.
Steve Wright's history (libcom) is the most accessible short work.

>>4642446
No, I'm not. Property is just a major component of power, but it's not the only source. And your misconception is why, as Foucault says, Marxism doesn't breathe outside of the 19th Century.

>>4642430
>Marx fails to take into account that you don't need property to exert power over others.
I think you need to reread the definition of property as a social relation. Exercising power over others is having property in them. cf: Serfdom, Slavery and Hydraulic societies.

>>4642466
Nope. Power is much more intricate and insidious, it is the relation between a therapist and a patient, between someone who is too timid to object and a pushy person. Most power is hidden.

>>4642473
>individualised bourgeois relations
Mate, get your fucking head from out your girlfriend's thighs and work for a year.

>>4642464
>Marxism doesn't breathe outside of the 19th Century.
What was 56, a fucking zombie attack? Your claims are trivially falsified.

>>4642481
Address the argument, please, this jab is meaningless because I am a woman, I have worked blue collar, I currently work as a writer, and I don't have my head in the clouds. I'm directly referencing Foucault's conception of power and why he thinks politics must be related to personal experience.

>>4642484
I don't think you get it: property is by nature an expression of power; it isn't power itself. Just like law comes from power, power doesn't come from law.

>>4642491
You've got the tools to address it for yourself, and the jab isn't meaningless, you're luxuriating in individualised subjectivity. The politics of the household aren't the fucking politics of the bedroom, but the politics of the kitchen where the house is reproduced. The making of power relations isn't individualised, but rather a social process. Power doesn't subsist in a summed series of individual interactions (Foucault here is mirroring precisely the formal, but not substantive, economic relations of capital: this is a sociological Friedman); it subsists substantively in the reduction of the mass of the population to subsistence by sale of labour. The expression of all other exploitation in our society is trivially derivable in the reproduction of this system (James, Dalla Costa).

>>4642494
>power as an ahistorical transcendent

And people were arguing Foucault isn't a reactionary.

>>4642460
totally dig libcom, though I haven't spent much time there. I found their 'what was the USSR' article(s) quite stimulating.

>>4642464
>Property is just a major component of power, but it's not the only source
this is what pomos actually think Marx said. [facepalm]

>Marxism doesn't breathe outside of the 19th Century
that retarded quote again. pomo handbook 101. see below.

>>4642473
>it is the relation between a therapist and a patient, between...
but that's a 'social relation', doofus. Have you read any of the Young Hegelian literature? Marx simply made the groundbreaking discovery that this is set inside, and dependent upon, a larger framework, "in the last instance," pic related.

His main criticism was that you can't just 'think' your way out of it. See: The German Ideology and his parable about gravity. Or anything he wrote on the Young Hegelians, The Holy Family, Theses on Fueurbach, The German Ideology

You're so into bougeois thought that you don't even know it.

>>4642491

>I am a woman
>I have worked blue collar
>I currently work as a writer

daily reminder that this is the kind of person you're arguing with on here

>>4642506


afraid of the possibility that there are things that subsist outside of the constructed system that you cleave to, yet are never the less true?

reality is bigger than you are, transcendent notions are necessary and inevitable in coming to grips with it.

>>4642507

>bourgeois

>>4642506
>(Foucault here is mirroring precisely the formal, but not substantive, economic relations of capital: this is a sociological Friedman)
rekt. And, its no wonder that he had his students read the Austrians.

>And people were arguing Foucault isn't a reactionary
bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
funny thing is, this anon is so ignorant of the subject matter, that anon can't understand what that means, or why you'd say that. lol

I honestly cant even believe I'm hearing this nonsense from a Foucaultian. I think the problem is that Foucault is babby's first sociology, and they don't realize truly what Foucault was *rejecting* (beyond logic, evidence, coherence, and, in general, analytic grip), and assume, rather, that he was doing something Marx/ists didn't do. This is absurd.

>>4642506
>You've got the tools to address it for yourself, and the jab isn't meaningless, you're luxuriating in individualised subjectivity. The politics of the household aren't the fucking politics of the bedroom, but the politics of the kitchen where the house is reproduced. The making of power relations isn't individualised, but rather a social process. Power doesn't subsist in a summed series of individual interactions (Foucault here is mirroring precisely the formal, but not substantive, economic relations of capital: this is a sociological Friedman); it subsists substantively in the reduction of the mass of the population to subsistence by sale of labour. The expression of all other exploitation in our society is trivially derivable in the reproduction of this system (James, Dalla Costa).
But it's not. The forms of power intensify each other, but it isn't reducible to property. Even if you're raised by the community, it is the community that has the power to mold you however they wish.

>And people were arguing Foucault isn't a reactionary.
That's because he wasn't. He was an "infantile leftist" in the words of Lenin

>>4642512
Which of those is /lit/ most critical of?

>>4642515
meme politics: how to act like you've said something, when you've really just shitposted

>>4642514
>transcendent notions are necessary and inevitable
Ladies, Gentlemen: This is Foucault's supporter.

I think we can consider this debate ended.

>>4642531

probably the third one

>>4642532

If that's the case then I'm still doing better than you, mister bombast

>>4642533
Transcendence is basic existentialism, you schmuck.

>>4642507
Wow. A cogent defence of proletarian subjectivity from someone using Althusser. +1, especially for the unexpected.

>>4642534
>probably the third one
I think it's safe to use the word "irony" here

>>4642533


nah im someone else, i just felt like homing in on that one line.

>>4642484
>What was 56, a fucking zombie attack?

lel

>>4642532

>putting Nietzsche and Marx together in an image with guns
>they're not aiming at one another

>>4642547
Nietzsche + Marx = Sartre

>>4642531
>That's because he wasn't. He was an "infantile leftist" in the words of Lenin
Lenin never knew Foucault. But, Habermas called him a 'Young Conservative', among other things.

>>4642533
technically the debate was ended when anon started typing after having no understanding of Marx and reading a few wiki pages on Foucault

>>4642534
>mister bombast
ad hominem. what you do when you don't have any real arguments

>>4642537
thanks. I hear Althusserians are usually dumbasses? I don't know any myself (unless I am one). What's the deal on that? any thoughts?

I've already been through much Gramsci, if that's what you're talking about. I take, personally, read Althusser's totalitarian streak to be based upon context, not theory. But, I don't know enough to be sure. I always have to point out to the fuax Gramscians that I know (academics) that its organic intellectuals that create (counter)hegemony, not traditional ones. then I tell them to btfo, and they call me an evil populist Nazi. [sigh] people are ignorant

>>4642547
I know. I didn't make that. I just thought it was funny, because of the line and Marx holding a gun. been wanting to shoop someone else's head there, but not sure who I would put next to marx (or how to find that style of pic)

>>4642536
>Transcendence is basic existentialism, you schmuck.
You're not making your case any better by digging further into idealism.

>>4642564
so much this.

>>4642564
It's not idealism when shit like Bourdieu and theory of mind validate it empirically.

>>4642557
>thanks. I hear Althusserians are usually dumbasses?

Undergraduates are always dumb asses. People either move right from Althusser into EO Wright or Bourdieu or Foucault; or, move left after rejecting him into class struggle positions centred around subjectivity.

So its rare to find anyone using Althusser, or to find someone with 20 years in the movement or a PhD using Althusser cogently.

>I don't know any myself (unless I am one). What's the deal on that? any thoughts?

Sartre's attempt to save the individual subject's autonomy in revolution failed gloriously. Althusser attempted to ignore Thompson's critique of method (and lost that one). Althusser's own edifice strangled itself trying to defend the party as the priest of the class, and worse, removes the proletariat as a self-composing subject. You try to bring the collective subject back in and you lose the determination of structuralism. So the outcome is either you become a cretinistic instrumentalist (EO Wright), or you become a bourgeois post-structuralist (Foucault), or you consider all Marx's categories to be politicised determinate on the composition of subjectivity by the proletariat (Cleaver, _Reading Capital Politically_).

The problem with the formation of the organic intellectuals is that the University is a disruptive apparatus that doses potential organic intellectuals with bourgeois mysticism, including "academic marxism" as the purest ideology and so on and so on {sniff}. Those men and women who once led trade union branches become now disaffected nurses, teachers, administrators and accountants.

>>4642557
>Lenin never knew Foucault. But, Habermas called him a 'Young Conservative', among other things.
I know Lenin never knew Foucault, I'm saying Foucault fell under the political category of leftist that Lenin called "infantile": in est saying workers should self-manage, as opposed to the state managing them.

>>4642557
>What's the deal on that? any thoughts?
He was vehemently opposed to de-Stalinization, for one thing.

>>4642557

Have you ever considered the possibility that I don't give enough of a fuck to entertain you with an argument?

>>4642584
>in est saying workers should self-manage, as opposed to the state managing them.
You lost this argument a hundred posts ago by defending longer chains.

>>4642595
I also defend a higher minimum wage.

>>4642597
Trotsky on the transitional programme might help you: the only issue is the formation of an effective liberatory collective subjectivity.

>>4642581
>So the outcome is...
So, do you suggest Cleaver?
Or, is there any other way out of this conundrum? Ideology and ISA and Contradiction and Overdetermination really spoke to me. I also took Alth's guidance and when going back and reading TGermanIdeo, and I really felt like I had an epiphany. It hurt - it was like I had to rearrange my whole mind. But, I still feel like there are fissures in my thought that I haven't ironed out yet.

>University is a disruptive apparatus that doses potential organic intellectuals with bourgeois mysticism
I'm a year away from a phd, and I can attest to this. it's painful. I want to pull my hair out. why did i even do this? why didn't i... not sure what else - maybe that's why its so depressing.

Any other suggestions on literature? How to get involved in the community, but avoid this nonsense (i quit my union activism bc they are so full of shit). wat do?


also, silly question: did pic related really commit suicide, you think? or did someone (cia?) not like him?

>>4642642
>Trotsky
Not even once.

>>4642661
The transitional programme is actually quite important, and a debate that goes back to the foundation of German social democracy. That Trotsky voiced it, doesn't diminish the insight of a pedagogical process of praxis.

>>4642663
Does it involve central planning?

>>4642649
Cleaver is indicative of a tactic or process to escape the problem. You could also find the same by writing Braverman's missing volume on resistance from the shop floor. The way out is through the struggle, without the mediation of substitutionalist parties. (Many Lenin inspired groups have turned away from his substitutionalism towards his assessment of the class composition of the bolsheviks between 1908 and 1916, where Lenin himself realised that the composition of the party was indicative of the ideology of the party).

>Ideology, ISA, Contradiction, Overdetermination
These are useful tools.

>union activism bc they are so full of shit
Unionism begins at home. AUT, TEU, NTEU, no idea for the US. And yes, working in your class involves wading through shit. I've never found microparties helpful in this though.

>did Poulantzas kill himself
Probably. Similar reasons to Benjamin, innit?

>>4642677
>Does it involve central planning?
No. It involves demanding things which people believe to be achievable in the present society, but which through struggling to achieve them, empowers people and results in a challenge to present society that it cannot accommodate.

It replaces the "minimal" and "maximal" programmes of the social democrats.

minimal: higher minimum wage
maximal: abolition of the wage system
transitional: universal social wage

>>4642695
>composition of the party was indicative of the ideology of the party
i don't want to be 'like that', but why can a female tell me that I can't speak on women's issues, but when I tell rich kids in grad school they can't speak on poor people issues I get excoriated. - like i'm some horrible person.
honestly the only working class marxist in grad school that i know.

>>4642695
>working in your class involves wading through shit
well, this was actually part of the problem - it was a grad student union, so I was working out of my class, and with a bunch of, well, its like what you said about Lenin's realization

>Benjamin, innit?
I thought Benjamin was about to get caught and tortured by the Nazis? I wasn't aware that someone was after Poulantzas. I'm ignorant of this subject, though. were the cops after him or something?

>Unionism begins at home
idk. right now i'm about to become one of those disaffected teachers or accountants. thinking about biting the bullet, starting a business and giving up altogether. it doesn't seem like there's any active, positive way forward

any other literature that you particularly like, or think I would?

>>4642721


jokes on them, its possible to speak on both (but conditional solipsists cant speak on either).

>>4642728
try making that argument with them and get your balls nipped off!

>>4642721
>any other literature that you particularly like, or think I would?
I find my inspiration from 20th century workplace struggles in the East and the West against the bosses. 1968, the real one, the one in Czechoslovakia is incredibly inspiring. The film _Grin without a Cat_ starts the second half with the Czech party.

>>4642698
Yeah, I'm for that. I'm a Luxemburgist.

I'll take a look at it.

>>4642721
>i don't want to be 'like that', but why can a female tell me that I can't speak on women's issues, but when I tell rich kids in grad school they can't speak on poor people issues I get excoriated. - like i'm some horrible person.
I forgot to say: "That's capitalism."

Unless you're very erudite in this field, and can use bourgeois academic Marxism to obliterate them, don't try. Just laugh and them privately.

You'll never win with them, because they'll all get "good jobs" teaching "Marx and philosophy" at nice universities; while you'll schlep tutes on casual for the rest of your life to make rent. Unless you can pull their pissant ideological apparatus apart. Which is a neat trick, but the real trick (thesis 11) is to pull their pissant mode of production apart, possibly involving feeding their entrails to dogs while they die slowly.

>>4641881
This is a joke, right?

>>4642799
Also
>>4641921
>pinning Jameson as bourgeois while turning around to bump Bourdieu

mfw

>>4642804
who pinned jameson as bourgeois?

>>4642777
>Unless you're very erudite in this field, and can use bourgeois academic Marxism to obliterate them, don't try
The academic ones I know don't even know their arse from a hole in the ground when it comes to marx. they just think marx = saying whites/christians are the biggest evil ever and are oppressing blacks/women/etc. I mean, they aren't even marxists, but just simple-minded antifas, really.
The activist ones in the union - those i don't even try. they have their victim routine so down-pat that they can turn the room against this 'big blonde penis-wielding oppressor' with a sniff of their nose.

>>4642777
>pull their pissant mode of production apart, possibly involving feeding their entrails to dogs while they die slowly
if only... i'd be happy with simply knowing more people like you, so I don't have to feel the constant pain of others' cognitive dissonance.

>>4642830
After the next revolution in the west, Marxism will be popular for 15 years as they demand tame bourgeois marxists teach the newest lessons in repression to the sociologists and economists of tomorrow.

Could it be Greece? Will it be Portugal? Or could the Australian Housing Bubble finally burst? You too can profit if you promise to teach Marx, provided that you explain that workers are wrong.

>victim routine
I saw the best activists of my generation, wasted, running privilege mad through meetings sat bored.

>>4642830
>who pinned jameson as bourgeois?

Nvm I misread

>>4642857
>I saw the best activists of my generation, wasted, running privilege mad through meetings sat bored.
gold

>>4642857
>After the next revolution in the west, Marxism will be popular for 15 years as they demand tame bourgeois marxists
didn't that already happen - Burnham's revolution; the Managerial One? :-P

>ever reading postmodernist Frankfurt School bullshit
Please, you've already ruined the West. Please, just die so the rest of us can pick up the pieces.

>>4642857
>After the next revolution in the west,
Zapatista movement is the next big thing

>>4642917
>muh big boy command economy like Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin and Mao and Castro and Kim-Jong

>>4642942
What are you on about?

>>4642918
From where you're sitting, friend. The last time 3rd worldism swept the west, China was pretending to be Red and Vietnam was busy murdering local red activists. And the United States was busy sweating blood over the latter.

Chiapas ain't got shit on a portuguese bank collapse.

>>4642079
this is the worst diagram in the history of diagrams

>>4642953
Have you actually read any Zapatista ideological essays? Because it's not world worldism, per se.

>>4642857
are you still there?

you're euro? do you know about this french guy? if so, what do you think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0h17GG3wD4

>>4642969
>third-wolrdism

They say the concept of third-world traces back to Mao and became irrelevant after the conclusion of the Cold War

>>4642857
>could the Australian Housing Bubble finally burst?

Never! NEVER!!

>>4642951
don't listen to him - he's just a stormfag that's been in here trolling.

>>4642917
i call it babby's first bourgeois revisionism

>>4642977
>>4642969
interested in this...

>>4642998
>interested in this...
http://mondediplo.com/1997/09/marcos

>>4642969
I know the Zapatistas aren't third worldist by any stretch; but I am sick and fucking tired of hearing rich white boys praise "Commander" Marcos. "Commander," for fucksake.

>>4642971
Not european. Soral is being reductionist. Patriarchy as a long standing division of labour present in all class societies is a reasonable analysis of an underlying power dynamic. The problem is that failing to reanalyse patriarchy in capitalism leads to an attempt to identify a cross-class alliance amongst "women."

>In reality 3/4th of feminist militants are bourgeois
And here he goes to shit. The politics of feminism in the 20th century: of equality of wages; was precisely that of working class women seeking wage independence in marriage. Wages for housework is the most significant analytical position in the analysis of the household and class politics to have been developed.

>its pretty easy to see most women leaders are bourgeois
Alan: its pretty easy to see most marxist leaders are bourgeois

His analysis of waged childcare is pathetic: it is one of the chief growth industries in my country and indicative of the socialisation of all labour power. We now produce children, cradle of graduation, in a socialised form. Yet children are still "owned" privately...

I mean here we really need to start using some of the work that the "precarious labour" studies people have done. I think too much of it is shit: it denies production and retreats into "ideology." But the kernel of truth, that the reproduction of labour power is the reproduction OF A COMMODITY is fucking useful. Women have largely been unpaid wage slaves, or, their wages have been explicitly paid to their husbands by the state.

I could easily replicate Alan's critique and apply it to "nomenklatura" riding Marxism like a broken down mule, whipping working class leftists bloody to ride this donkey into state power.

oh wait that IS my critique of Leninism

>>4642991
>>could the Australian Housing Bubble finally burst?
>Never! NEVER!!
Thank fuck, because if it does my super is fucked and I have nothing to live for except the class struggle. Oh wait, my super's worthless.

>>4643003
>I know the Zapatistas aren't third worldist by any stretch; but I am sick and fucking tired of hearing rich white boys praise "Commander" Marcos. "Commander," for fucksake.

Who cares, so long as they buy Zapatista coffee.

>>4643044
And spill it on their Che t-shirt from forever 21.

>>4643061
Buying Zapatista coffee actually gets money to the workers' revolution, buying Che Guevara t-shirts does not.

If you can make paying for guns and provisions for leftists insurgents chic, then fuck yeah, let the bourgeois bohemians do it.

>>4643073
The fact that their coffee hasn't spread to my far benighted land indicates the strength of this tactic.

>>4643086
You can buy it online but stores don't tend to carry it for obvious reasons.

http://tangoitalia.com/zapatistas/cafe_active_ideas_en.htm

>>4643003
>cross-class alliance
heresy. You mean, letting the bourgeois come in, run the organization, and steer it away from any meaningful change in class relations, while inculcating potential revolutionaries with revisionist nonsense? This is precisely how the Left died, and we got 'muh identity' and this Foucaultian nonsense.

>chief growth industries in my country
what country is that? in the US, it is not only a class, but a racial oppression issue. rich white women and their hispanic maids...

>feminism in the 20th century
uh... 2nd wave feminism, it seems to me, was precisely what he said. And, there is much evidence that it may have been funded by the CIA (Steinem worked for the CIA) precisely to split the working class movement down a fissure - sex. College girls burning bras in the 60s (let us remember, even working class *men* had little or no chance of going to college in the 60s, let alone Berkeley). idk, man... i support all the proposals (like soral), but you need to wake up and smell the bourgeois usurpation of the Left - because this was the battleground

>We now produce children
the school has been doing that already, and before that the church as far as i can tell.

>apply it to "nomenklatura"
well... that doesn't make soral wrong, though...

Seems like a nerve was touched, and it doesn't seem to me Soral is being reductionist, so much as only speaking about one side of the issue.

>>4643115
>'muh identity' and this Foucaultian nonsense.
You do realize that Foucault and Foucaultian leftists are highly skeptical of identity?

>marxist lingo
filthy jewish kafeers

>>4643115
>And, there is much evidence that it may have been funded by the CIA

This is a barren road to go down as far as things to anchor your argument on. It is very unlikely that the CIA would risk using the very same territory that could get them overthrown (far left ideology) to cause a divide that they wouldn't even be able to measure.

>>4643115
>what country is that? in the US, it is not only a class, but a racial oppression issue. rich white women and their hispanic maids...
Here it is mass day care centres run on franchise models.

>uh... 2nd wave feminism, it seems to me, was precisely what he said … because this was the battleground
Here feminism was the Communist Party / Labor Party run equal pay campaign from the early 1940s.

>the school has been doing that already, and before that the church as far as i can tell.
Read your Engels. Churches rarely got children, and only then for Sunday mornings. Schools were slowly forced on the class in the 19th century, and covered 6-12 years old.

I'm talking about a society where the production of labour power begins socially at about 9 months and runs to 23 years; for 5 days a week. This is vastly different to half a sunday where the commodity "labour power" isn't being produced at all.

Soral is ignoring the very very old tradition of women's emancipation in communism. This might be french specific: I've heard the PCF sucked balls on gender compared to the CPNZ, for example.

>Liberal trash

You probably shouldn't be reading at all if your comprehension is so consistently poor.

Try something on your level. Magic Treehouse and the like.

>>4643169
>shut up you stupid proles and listen to the party

>>4643121
You do realize that there's a huge difference between what the theory says and what activists and activist wannabes do on the ground?

>>4643138
Operation Mockingbird.
yt video of Steinum saying she worked for the CIA
congressional hearing where the CIA admitted to running communist groups, newspapers, etc
>mfw where have you been?

>equal pay campaign
In US 2nd wave started in the 60s and was WAY more than just equal pay

>Read your Engels
yeah, haven't read much. but, schools these days, at least in the US, ARE the babysitter. they even change school hours depending on the local economy (when mom and dad get off work) sometimes

>Soral is ignoring... might be french specific
maybe its a french thing. unions were involved here, too. but, that's not second wave feminism. it's like we're talking about totally different movements.
also, its like we're talking about totally different videos. I think maybe he touched a nerve and you aren't giving him a fair shake, or are reading into his intentions, and then reinterpreting his words based upon that, or something. i truly don't see why any marxist would disagree with him except to tell him to shut up bc its better than nothing, or something like that.

>>4643169
you're a little late, hun. we already discussed all that, and trashed identity upwards and downwards.
apparently this thread is above your comprehension level.
isn't it past your bedtime?

>>4643229
>You do realize that there's a huge difference between what the theory says and what activists and activist wannabes do on the ground?
There's no such thing as "Foucaultian activists" in the sense of Foucaultian manifesto or Foucaultian party; such a thing would be impossible. I seriously doubt that anyone who is really into their identity, is also a fan of Foucault, since Foucault didn't even like to consider his homosexuality as an identity and sort of twitched his nose at the gay identity (although he reluctantly conceded that the gay identity was helpful to the gay movement, but he said that was just a short-term objective)

>>4643229
>In US 2nd wave started in the 60s and was WAY more than just equal pay
I think you mean way less than equal pay.

>i truly don't see why any marxist would disagree with him except to tell him to shut up bc its better than nothing, or something like that.
Read James and Dalla Costa and you'll start to see.

>>4643254
Second-wave feminism is just Beauvoirism, which itself is basically a massive improvement on Engels' Origin of the State

>>4643269
Ismism is basically the terrorist wing of idiotism. I have never read de Beauvoir. So! What are the things adds to the pre-historical grecian iroquis gens? Does she set an exact date on when we are we doing away with that exploitation apparatus that we're calling «the state»?

>>4643291
Just read The Second Sex. Then read Gender Trouble. Even if you don't like feminism, it's worth your while you know exactly what it is and what it comes from and what it has to say.

>>4643302
>it
"it" is what? please summarise the argument of these two books as you have understood them yourself.

>>4643242
>Foucault didn't even like to consider his homosexuality as an identity
no, they are this stupid. I just had a conversation with a fembot on this board the other day - her favorite theoriests were deB, Butler, and Foucault. I tried to explain to her that, at least ostensibly, Foucault's theory would consider *identity itself* to be oppressive, and she called me a retard and a misogynist. (she didn't understand the social construction of subjectivity either, a concept i tried to explain to her numerous times)
Why would i engage in such a conversation? because the activists in grad school did the same thing. again, what the activists preach on the ground (eg. "it's like Foucault said...." or "i'm really inspired in my activism by Foucault") is very different from what is said in the texts. most of the grad students didn't even understand Foucault as far as I can tell.
i know, it's maddening.

>>4643254
>I think you mean way less than equal pay.
I meant it was *about* way more than equal pay

>Read James and Dalla Costa and you'll start to see
can i get a book/article name? I'll give it a shot, but i doubt it, especially since we seem to be talking about different movements and different videos.

>>4643310
The first in an application of the existential concept of essence to gender, the second is a skepticism that even self-defined gender is worthwhile. Economically, the first tends to push for potential within the female gender that could be used for class struggle, but is stopped because women kept in the home are unable to feel solidarity with the proletariat.The second argues that genders are predefined roles suited to particular contexts in order to maximize production of bourgeois power.

Here's the closing from The Second Sex, it's pretty simple.
>The case could not be better stated. It is for man to establish the reign of liberty in the midst of the world of the given. To gain the supreme victory, it is necessary, for one thing, that by and through their natural differentiation men and women unequivocally affirm their brotherhood

>>4643311
>can i get a book/article name? I'll give it a shot, but i doubt it, especially since we seem to be talking about different movements and different videos.
The Power of Women and the Subversion of the Community. Many working class women find the word "feminism" to be a useful expression of the equalisation of wages amongst workers in the household and as a demand for a massive increasing in the remuneration per head of worker. Soral is subsuming this movement, which goes back to the 1830s, beneath the object of his ire. His discussion of "the household" is hopelessly stereotyped and out of date: he is suggesting that housework is primarily provisioned via personal services supplied by sole contractors. It isn't: its primarily provisioned by fellow workers in child care, teaching, nursing, social services. Soral's construction of the consumption of a commodity is pathetic. I obviously exploit "the farmer" doubly when I eat bread...

> but is stopped because women kept in the home are unable to feel solidarity with the proletariat.

The history of the actual working class refutes this claim. I'd suggest looking into the pit top strike support organisations in the Hunter of Victorian Brown coal fields. Oh wait, those were communist women. I'd suggest looking into the Lotta Continua self-purchasing actions in italy. Oh wait, those were communist women.

Feminism is obviously anti-communist IF YOU STRIP IT OF EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE OF COMMUNIST ORGANISATION.

>>4643329
this is that same crazy little twat that I tried to explain this to the other day, that i was talking about here: >>4643311

I spent three hours trying to explain this to her and she just kept saying 'no u'.

it's not even worth trying. she doesn't understand ontology.

she's like 17 and no college. she just keeps naming those two books over and over, probably bc they are the only two she's ever read.

just ignore

>>4643357
>Hunter of Victorian
>of
or obviously

>>4643311
>most of the grad students didn't even understand Foucault as far as I can tell.
My rule of thumb is if someone name-checks Foucault then you're better off ignoring them. There are brilliant people who know Foucault front to back and truly understand the world the way he saw it, but there are a hundred times as many people who have a cursory understanding but have no problem quoting him liberally.

>>4643367
I'm not required to defend Foucault's fans to defend Foucault

>>4643357
>this movement, which goes back to the 1830s
like i said, you're conflating 1st wave feminism with 2nd wave feminism.

>beneath the object of his ire
and what is that, exactly?

I'll stop here bc I think its that important of a question. What is the object of Soral's ire, and what is the evidence for that contention?

>>4643390
huh? I'm just letting you know that trying to explain the difference between the subject in existentialism and in postmodernism, and how that relates to identity politics, is futile in this instance because I am 90% sure that this is the same person that I wasted 3hrs trying to do so wtih the other day

>>4643367
>she's like 17 and no college. she just keeps naming those two books over and over, probably bc they are the only two she's ever read.

[insert abuse]

>>4643400
>>beneath the object of his ire
>and what is that, exactly?
Some kind of French specific phenomena. I'm highly familiar with US and Oceanian radical feminism from the mid 1980s. The phenomena he's talking about simply doesn't exist in these anglophone communities. In fact, the idea that there is a movement of bourgeois and managerial women (ie: less than half of 7% of the population of a "late capitalist" economy) which imposes "double" burdens on working women through maids is bizarre.

That isn't a social phenomena, its department IIb consumption for capitalists. Its social meaning is remote from the general call for an emancipation of women from the particularity of capitalist exploitation. It bears no resemblance to patriarchy theory radfems in the anglophone nations.

>>4643329
>because women kept in the home are unable to feel solidarity with the proletariat.
Your summary makes it sound very much like Vulgar Marxism. Vanilla Marxism is where they were trying to take the woman from the family into economic and political life intending to make both child bearing and child rearing a paid day-time job. Vulgar Marxism is when someone has a fairly faint idea of what marxism is actually supposed to be about but tries to to SOUND like what he believes the Marxists are ought to sound like. If de Bouvoire is a vulgar Marxist I don't see why I should be reading her. If she is a vanilla Marxist I don't see a reason either because I'm not a proletarian and I'm not partial to the idea of their "emancipation" or "enlightenment" as the Marxians intended this to happen. Why should my auntie or my mom feel solidarity to a violent slobs who refuse to pay their rent because they know you're not allowed to throw them out in the winter, because they also need to come up for their booze? How is a lack of solidarity to lazy people even a problem? I'd understand solidarity to the blind, or solidarity to the orphans but in modern society the condition of the working class is entirely their fault. If Marx or Hegel had seen our present day condition in the West they'd have presumed that this is better their communism and their heaven on earth. This is the end of history. Fukuyama dixit.

As to the second one - blank slate argument? again?

>>4643432
>Vulgar Marxism is...
>Vanilla Marxism is...

Please stop trying to degrade the level of discourse to that of some reactionary blog.

>>4643432
this >>4643441

you're pathetic
>>>/pol/

>>4643408
I'm 90% sure all your favorite theorists promote command economy.

>>4643425
>movement of bourgeois and managerial women (ie: less than half of 7% of the population of a "late capitalist" economy) which imposes "double" burdens on working women through maids is bizarre
stopped reading there.
you are twisting what he said. i think you should let your blood pressure go down, and then watch it again; this time being fair to what he's actually saying. you were clearly too angry the first time

also, note that there are cuts in the video because this is from a much longer interview

>>4643463
You even quoted someone talking about the level discourse. That's very ironic.
>>4643441
Right now you are not acting like a hongweibing. That is not how you raise our "level of discourse".

>>4643475
a movement of a few women who can get into newspapers, who command nothing more than the Ministry for Women are of little interest to me; the theory under discussion is more sterile than radical feminism, and of less social importance than pony fuckers.

>>4643496
>implying i didn't do it ironically
now, >>>/pol/

>>4643507
You are in ire, you are reduced to personal attacks. This means I'm right.
Here, print this out: >>4643432
and put it on your wall.

>>4643517
u mad
>>>/pol/

So how do i become a stock broker so I can donate all my profits to the Naxalites since I'm not gonna get into any grad school with this shitty sociology degree and no references?

>>4643425
is feminism a conpiracy theory, too, just like communism?

>>4643534
>Naxalites
if you did go to grad school, you'd never have any money, so i think you've made the better decision

>>4643548
i like how you name all your images using capitalisation and spaces like they were real sentences. it shows you're really dedicated

>>4643534
If you're not smart enough to figure out a way to game the system to get profit, what makes you think you're smart enough to understand something more complex like a superior system of government?

>>4643522
I am basking in your rancor, vulgar silly village marxist.

>>4643534
stock broker is a pain, independent speculator is better

>>4643553
you know in canada unionists are not even legally allowed to go into malls and meet the workers in the workplace to talk to them about organizing? You can in a factory still, but that is irrelevant.

>>4643563
i think you have the idea of which is more complicated backwards

>>4643576
Given that people have not figured out the perfect system of government but have figured out how to make a fuckton of money in the present day system, no, I'm not confident I do have it backwards.

>>4643570
wtf? are you kidding? how so?

>>4642023
only correct answer in this thread