/lit/ - Literature

>>5768843
I should also say this was probably the hardest book I've ever read.

>>5768843
I haven't read it yet, but I do have a few threads I'd like to pursue and I'd appreciate any input.

1) In a conference at EGS, in the year of his death, Derrida said that if the psyche is all a matter of different forces struggling for power (which is a nietzschean idea that probably affected both Freud and Deleuze), then there might not be any point in talking about an unconscious, whether it's in a freudian/lacanian or deleuzian sense. I don't have a comment on it right now, but it sounds like an interesting idea.

2) DeLanda said that Deleuze used topology to explain how it was possible that the mammals we know today (including ourselves) had a common ancestor in some shitty furry rat thingy that was contemporary with the dinosaurs and outlived them as a species. I find this idea fascinating, but I have to admit that I don't understand topology at all outside of mathematics.

>Since I'm a big fan of both of these schools of thought

But those two totally contradict each other, you fuggen dingus

I've got a copy of it and I've read a few pages of it. I don't think I'm quite prepared for it.

>>5769185
>2014
>Not embracing contradiction and being a pure syncretist

>>5769185
> not defining you through contradictions

I haven't read it yet but I've read some people who cite them (mostly Judith Butler) and I do think the concept of human beings as rhizomatic and the subject as defined largely by context is an important one.

>>5769185
>he still believes the propaganda that Marxism isn't anti-capitalist in the sense that it takes liberal-democratic ideology seriously and to its final stage

>>5769185
>But those two totally contradict each other, you fuggen dingus
>what is Freudo-Marxism

>>5768843
Now English isn't my first language and maybe I'm just a retard but I have next to no idea what you are trying to say or what that book is about.

>pay close attention to the flux of experience
>Better to skip free of such Oedipalizing influences into the nomadic realm of possibility, the realm of the schizo experiencing partial objects as though in a vacuum, unattached, new, possible

I'll read elsewhere about the book.

>>5768843
So what's it about?

>>5770732
desiring machines, deterritorialization, coding, capitalism

>>5770552
>reading Judith Butler

It's a no no. :D

>Deleuze and Guattari suggest restraint here, writing that drug addicts and masochists may come closer to truly possessing bodies without organs—and die as a result.

top kek

It's not the slumber of reason that engenders monsters, but vigilant & insomniac rationality

Obscure shit
Yeah, I didnt understand it

>>5771146
yo wuddup tyler

The only thing I learned from this book is to stick to Marx and Freud

>>5770732
Essentially Capitalism and Schizophrenia synthesizes Psychoanalysis, Marxism and Post-structuralism into schizoanalysis.

>>5770674
One could say that Anti-Oedipus is nonsensical in a way: at least the first time I read it, I could keep reading as long as I would like, but the moment I shut the book, I had not understood what I read at all.

>>5771242
lel, same here. Anti-Oedipus. What a crock of shit

How do these dudes relate to Foucault?

>>5771272
Some may find it surprising that the author of “Anti-Oedipus'” glowing introduction kind of hated the book. While Michel Foucault put on airs of amicability towards Deleuze, he was secretly jealous of Deleuze’s popularity. A close friend of Foucault’s claimed “I got the feeling that Foucault saw Deleuze as a rival.”

The rivalry rarely manifested publicly, Deleuze and Foucault could often be seen at public protests together, and Foucault even offered Deleuze a job in his philosophy department (which Deleuze had to initially refuse due to a prior commitment). Foucault even join the ranks of Nietzsche and Spinoza when Deleuze wrote “Foucault.”

Deleuze had offered to write the preface to Jacques Donzelot’s thesis on “Policing the Family.” This, by the way, is the thesis that Deleuze helped Donzelot defend when he got stage fright. When Donzelot told Foucault the news, Foucault remarked “I detest that sort of thing. I can’t stand it when old men come and put their stamp on young people’s work.”

And despite the glowing introduction Foucault wrote for “Anti-Oedipus,” he allegedly hated it. Donzelot stated “Foucault didn’t like Anti-Oedipus and told me so quite often.”

When Foucault ventured into criticizing pyschoanalysis and Lacan in the “History of Sexuality“, Deleuze wrote to Foucault to try to reconcile their theories. But Foucault hated Deleuze’s notion of desire. Foucault told a friend “I can’t stand the word desire; even if you use it different, I can’t stop myself from thinking or feeling that desire equals lack.” But rather then starting a dialogue with Deleuze about their differences, he refused to respond to Deleuze’s letter and broke off their friendship.

It was a trying time for Foucault. The first volume of the “History of Sexuality” was not received well by Foucault’s peers. And as it turns out, it was Baudrillard’s “Forget Foucault” that caused Foucault to abandon the final two volumes of the series for 7 years.

Baudrillard’s “Forget Foucault” was the final straw, so stunning the weakened philosopher that he abandoned the entire edifice that he had planned. It was only after seven years of silence, after having thoroughly revisited its premises, that he published the second volume of his “History of Sexuality.”

Towards the end of his life, he tried to reconcile with Deleuze but never got the chance. When Foucault fell ill, Deleuze called friends of Foucault to inquire about his conditions. An optimistic Deleuze commented “Maybe it’s nothing, Foucault will leave the hospital and come and tell us that everything is all right.”

According to Didier Eribon, one of Foucault’s most heartfelt wishes, knowing that he would not live long, was to reconcile with Deleuze. They never saw each. The fact that Daniel Defert asked Deleuze to speak at Foucault’s funeral was a sign of how much both men wanted to smooth over their differences.

>>5771297
That's sad.

I was wondering if I should read Foucault first though.

>>5771368
there isn't like a historical reason to

After Lacan, Levi-Strauss and Kojeve had laid foundations for post-structuralism, Deleuze, Foucalt, Derrida, Barthes, Althusser, Badiou and Baudrillard started to create their philosophies pretty much side to side.

>>5771389
So if I know basic Levi-Strauss, can I dive directly into D&G?

>>5771400
Freud, Marx, Nietzche and Spinoza are the most important philosophers you should know if you want to understand D&G historically.

I would argue that Anti-Oedipus does not require that much background, as it not only tears down the old, but also establishes a new system.

>>5771400
Nah you should wear Gucci inbetween

>>5770961
Not that anon, but I think that her reading of Antigone has some interesting points.

>>5771422
She's good at having worthwhile ideas but terrible at expressing them.

>>5771400
Read Deleuze's nietzsche and spinoza as well as his difference and repetition to understand his metaphysical basis for his ethics. But you could probably just dive into anti-Oedipus and get something out of it.

>>5771416


underrated post.

All these guys, Deleuze, Guattari, Baudrillard, Debord, Foucault, etc, are just a bunch of communists trying to save communist by saying "yeah the Eastern bloc is shit but you see it the capitalist west is even worse because" and then they invent a whole lot of theory and bullshit to explain how the West is actually extremely repressive.

The fun thing is that meanwhile they pointed their guns at the West, the Stasi was doing this shit in East Germany. Did they care? Of course they didn't, they all dreamt of being agents of the Stasi in a coming communist France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zersetzung

>The Stasi manipulated relations of friendship, love, marriage, and family by anonymous letters, telegrams and telephone calls as well as compromising photos, often altered.[29] In this manner, parents and children were supposed to systematically become strangers to one another.[30] To provoke conflicts and extramarital relations the Stasi put in place targeted seductions by Romeo agents.[16]

>For the Zersetzung of groups, it infiltrated them with official collaborators, sometimes minors.[31] The work of opposition groups was hindered by permanent counter-propositions and discord on the part of official collaborators when making decisions.[32] To sow mistrust within the group, the Stasi made believe that certain members were official collaborators; moreover by spreading rumors and manipulated photos,[33] the Stasi feigned indisretions with official collaborators, or placed members of targeted groups in administrative posts to make believe that this was a reward for the activity of an official collaborator.[16] They even awakened suspicions regarding certain members of the group by assigning privileges, such as housing or a personal car.[16] Moreover the imprisonment of only certain members of the group gave birth to suspicions.[32]

>>5771654
Stormfront get out

>>5771572
He has two books about Spinoza, are both required?

>>5771654


germans confirmed at being better at everything, including being dystopian soviets.

>>5771669
I'm not stormfront, i'm just sad that there will never be any critical theory about life under Stasi because the guys who do such works are crypto-communists who are too emotionally attached to the idea of communism to criticize it more profoundly.

The best they can do it half-assed apology, like Badiou.

>>5771740
So get into it more heavily and then write about how awful communism was.

>>5770571
...What?

>>5771740
But eurocommunism is hostile towards the idea of authoritarian commumism.

>>5771680
they had to be. the russian kgb did the same but the stasi had to put in way more effort because capitalist paradise was right next door and it was relatively easy to run away (compared to when you are a dissident in moscow).

>>5773608
This confuses me. Why do they even consider themselves Marxists at this point? And where does this leave anarcho-communists?

>>5774091
Marxism is basically Christianity for the industrial age. There are hundreds of Christian sects, each with their own spin on Christian doctrine; there are hundreds of socialist sects, each with their own spin on Marxist doctrine.

>>5773608
>>5774091
Paul Mattick in the 30s and 40s already set non-Bolshevik Marxism against the authoritarian state capitalism practiced in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. He considered himself a Marxist because he practiced Marxist analysis, rather than the ossified dogma of the Soviet Union.

Anarcho-communists, left communists, libertarian communists, platform anarchists all have significant overlap. Ideas of Luxemburg, Sorel, Gramsci, Bordiga, have long been part of an anti-authoritarian Marxism that is resistant to organizational tendencies inherent to Bolshevism (and the reification of the October Revolution as the revolution to which all others must be compared) and to the castrated party-politics of Eurocommunism as well.

Just started reading Anti-Oedipus. 8 pages in and taking a break. This shit is dense as fuck.

Pretty funny, but it almost leaves me with the impression that it would be easier to learn French so I can read it in French.

>>5774091
> Why do they even consider themselves Marxists at this point?
They agree with Marxism as an critical theory, just not with Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist/Hoxhaist political theory.
> And where does this leave anarcho-communists?
Anarcho-communism traditionally has been focused on direct actions (collective farms and whatnot) and rural areas, wheareas Eurocommunism is a wider label. Anarchists also label state completelly, which Euros don't.

Also Anarcho-communism was pretty much destroyed in Russian Civil War with Makhnovchina and Antovschina being repressed bloodily by Trotsky.

>>5774504
>Makhnovchina
Makhno was a badass. And Emma Goldman and plenty of others still supported anarcho-communism elsewhere. Errico "Mr. Papagorgio" Malatesta comes to mind as well.

>>5774520
> Isaac Babel, a political commissar in the Red Army in the Ukraine wrote: "Makhno was as protean as nature herself. Haycarts deployed in battle array take towns, a wedding procession approaching the headquarters of a district executive committee suddenly opens a concentrated fire, a little priest, waving above him the black flag of anarchy, orders the authorities to serve up the bourgeoisie, the proletariat, wine and music."

Is there anything the man couldn't do?

>>5774534
Think. Organise societies.

>>5774551
Its good that he had Voline to do those things for him.

Anybody else reading this? We should all read it and discuss.

>>5771297
I demand a film of this!

>>5774910
I demand an HBO series about the history of philosophy, made with a budget on the same order as that of Game of Thrones and written by the greatest minds of our time.

>>5774916
Alright, alright. I'll write it.