Lukacs

[Anonymous No.19110639]

>Marxism is a 19th century process philosophy
It all makes sense now. Why hasn't a more adequate process philosophy attempted a political economy free of 19th century baggage?

[Anonymous No.19110659]

[Anonymous No.19110706]

>>19110659
No 19th century baggage please. Is there a Whiteheadian theory of economics and sociology? Or something from more contemporary

Process philosophy has become more sophisticated since the Hegelian dialectics of Marx and Lukacs, why should there be a pause button in philosophy?

[Anonymous No.19110721]

[Anonymous No.19110918]

>>19110639
Deleuze literally does this, though.

[Anonymous No.19110966]

>>19110918
Any good primary or secondary lit recs, like what Luckas is to Marx, on Deleuzean political economy and historicism? I saw pic.

[Anonymous No.19110982]

what should be immediately apparent is his use of borrowed engineering terms like moment, beam, stress/tension, which suggest visual or mechanistic analogies and rescue him from truly abstract thought. but perhaps translations weaken this effect on non-germans. if hegel lived today he would borrow from astronomy or quantum mechanics to update his charlatan-level.
>we are approaching the black hole of history

[Anonymous No.19111055]

>>19110982
The owl of Minerva flies at dusk mate, science creates tools and concepts to understand particular domains, parts of the whole that philosophers take-up to understand the whole-as-such.

[Anonymous No.19112223]

I think process philosophy might have a lot of potential for ecological thinking (which in turn has many implications for post-liberal polsci/economics, right now sustainability is at best an afterthought for these people), but I don't know much about the state of the field now nor if there ever arose an ecological school of thought devoted to vitalistic thinking. There was a takeover of ecology by mechanistic-economistic thinking around the 50s, not sure what happened afterwards. I'd imagine there might be a few deleuzians here and there; I suspect Schelling might have his acolytes as well.

https://www.academia.edu/5680366/Beyond_European_Civilization_Marxism_Process_Philosophy_and_the_Environment
https://www.openhorizons.org/8203organic-marxism-process-philosophy-and-chinese-thought.html

[Anonymous No.19112229]

>>19110639
fuck this stalinist moron and every pseud grad student that sucks his dick

[Anonymous No.19112241]

>>19110966
>writes a book about D&G
>uses the builfing most symbloc of Fascist Italy
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.19112246]

>>19112241
it's an example of political art by a state

[Anonymous No.19112430]

>>19112241
From the intro, there's an anarchical intent to cast the State as a bete noire that may inform the cover choice.

[Anonymous No.19112462]

>>19112229
Far from a moron, his work on literary critcism and Goethe is outstanding in itself. I think he's by far the most outstanding thinker from a world-historic movement that captured half the globe for most of a century. The fact that he was truly active in it, and not a mere passive thinker, adds credibility to his work. He wasn't content to merely advise or write, he was an active agent, a minister of state.

[Anonymous No.19112500]

>>19112223
Very very interesting, thank you anon. Yes a process philosophy of socio-economic organicism is exactly what I after, 'Organic Marxism' or non-Marxist as long as it includes the centrality of economics and sociology.

[Anonymous No.19112509]

>>19112462
nope, he was a sockpuppet for comintern orthodoxy through and through

[Anonymous No.19112569]

>>19112223
From the bibliography in your second link
>Marx and Whitehead: Process, Dialectics, and the Critique of Capitalism
https://www.sunypress.edu/p-3882-marx-and-whitehead.aspx

[Anonymous No.19112594]

>>19112509
As in the based Hegelian Marxism that embodied the highest aspirations of Weimar Classicism and German Idealism?

[Anonymous No.19113251]

>>19112500
I am a bit skeptical of these contemporary-ish vitalists though, they tend to be rather anarchistic and anti-state which I doubt is a constructive position to hold given the state we're now in. Anarchists can provide a good model for ideal communities but in practice they'll accomplish the opposite of what is intended. The "degrowth" movement is probably at least indirectly relevant to your project, maybe world systems theory as well to help gain a holistic perspective.

https://orgrad.wordpress.com/a-z-of-thinkers/
This website is quite interesting, provides a list of what it calls "organic radicals" , historical and contemporary.

[Anonymous No.19113281]

>>19112594
Sad that he got censored by the regime to ONLY WRITE ON AESTHETICS.

Very aspirations indeed.

I do give it to him though, Destruction of Reason makes all reactionary philosophy look cooler than it is

[Anonymous No.19113408]

>Why hasn't a more adequate process philosophy attempted a political economy free of 19th century baggage?
It was. There was even a name given to the method, Guattari called it Schizoanalysis. The problem is it that basically that we don't have the language necessary to adequately form the kind of philosophy that we need. And the academic institutions are just factories for producing obedient little computer monkey slaves, so there's no hope there. All this being said, the tradition is still alive in the more radical bits of old school European academia that still survive. An example is Maurizio Lazzarato's work, such as his 2016 "Signs and Machines: Capitalism and the Production of Subjectivity."

[Anonymous No.19114090]

>>19113408
I'll check it out.

[Anonymous No.19114121]

>>19113281
>Destruction of Reason
Main Currents of Marxism writes it off as unintellectual and the worst of vulgar Stalinism, where everything non-Stalinist is categorised as "irrational" because it opposes the party's (i.e. Stalin's) line, which as the embodiement of the consciousness of the world-historic agent class (the proles) is the only properly rational truth-maker, and therefore everything else is literally Hitler and creates Nazism.

[Anonymous No.19114126]

>>19110639
>It all makes sense now.
So join your union and fight it and the boss.

>Why hasn't a more adequate process philosophy attempted a political economy free of 19th century baggage?
Because
a) Marx and Engels work were in part a _critique_ of political economy, it says it in the fucking title, "Contribution to a critique of political economy" from _Contribution to a critique of political economy_.
b) You just use Marxism, the c19 baggage isn't too large: value form still value form
c) Everyone else just used Marxism
d) Most everyone else who worked for a living tried to follow my original advice when they realised Marx and Engels were conducting a recurrant process critique of the actual function of enslaving society.

[Anonymous No.19114131]

>>19112229
>this stalinist moron
Might want to read about what happened in '56 chap. Or between 49 and 53 regarding lukacs.

[Anonymous No.19114138]

>>19114121
Kolakowski's thinking period was strangely limited by the Polish Party remember. You should read the post-Lenin chapters with an awareness of literary irony; much like reading a masterpiece on Marxist thought written by a conservative arsehole who successfully functioned in Stalinism: might want to not be a naïve reader here eh?

[Anonymous No.19114251]

>>19114126
>philosophy hit the pause button, Hegel perfected process philosophy
Hegel and Marx clearly struggle to map a philosophy of process and becoming onto a languague of being. It's not until Whitehead that the inadequacies of Western philosophical language and concepts to describe an ontology of process truly emerges.

[Anonymous No.19114258]

>>19114138
Tbh I think it's the least appealing part of Lukacs oeuvre, dated polemics of how everything except the one true faith is literally Hitler.

[Anonymous No.19114281]

>>19114258
It isn't an unreasonable claim for 1941-1944.

Even the soviet working class allied itself with Stalin then. And they did so without seeking any recompense as they had done 1932-1940.

[Anonymous No.19114333]

>>19114281
Perhaps the cause was being leader in a Great Patriotic War for the motherland rather than enthusiasm for Stalin's powers of intellectual exegesis and prophecy, no?

[Anonymous No.19114379]

>>19114333
Yes. But this did mean that he was overloaded as a signifier with the historic mission of the world proletariat at that one moment. At least until Tito and Mao formed at the tip of coherent class compositions with revolutionary potential, etc. Italy and France never quite made it there before 1944 though.

Blaming Lukacs for his idealist failures as a bourgeois philosopher, in his inability to follow the proletariat is like blaming Mao for his hypocrisy in intellectually knowing from to from but not practicing it with the Chinese proletariat.

Moreover, most of Lukacs output is simply bourgeois philosophy, and we don't need to measure his service to class praxis to appreciate him as a bourgeois philosopher. Otherwise we'd have to ditch Marx for being a sectarian splitter cunt who makes James P Cannon look like an honest organiser.

[Anonymous No.19114388]

This kind of threads totally filter me. I have never read Deleuze, Foucault, Guattari, Baudrillard, Lukacs, Gramsci, Jung, Guenon,

What do?

[Anonymous No.19114421]

>>19114388
Skim a wikipedia article, then check out https://plato.stanford.edu/.. Then ask yourself if you really want to get into this stuff or if you just want to have fun arguing with nerds on the internet.

[Anonymous No.19114453]

>>19114388
like >>19114421
says. Also if you get really into this stuff, all you can do is just have fun arguing with nerds on the internet.

Then, if you're stupid, and you want to be really into this stuff, prime with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Beginners then read Wiki versus Stanford per thinker.

Then you're going to have to start on
Engels. Unlike everyone else Engels deliberately wrote for working men. NOT ANTI-DUHRING. After you've read say, Family Private Property and the State, do a minor text from Gramsci. This assumes you've already read the For Beginners and some SEP biographies. SEP is really fucking dodgy on the left by the way.

[Anonymous No.19114455]

>>19114421
>Then ask yourself if you really want to get into this stuff or if you just want to have fun arguing with nerds on the internet.
Yeah, neither. I'll just be a pseud as always

[Anonymous No.19114463]

>>19114455
>lager
Learn to drink ale, if not stout.

[Anonymous No.19114486]

>>19114463
It's an old pic anyway, I'm drinking vodka right now

I barely know the difference between lager ale and stout
I think ale is too light and stout (Guinness?) is too dark

[Anonymous No.19114696]

>>19114486
So try a blonde, red, golden, brown or black ale.

[Anonymous No.19114705]

>>19114090
heh, I like this cover.
WOrks well with the title.

[Anonymous No.19114730]

you have to build off the foundations of the past. it being old does not discredit it. there are more effective arguments you can use against marxism

[Anonymous No.19115775]

>>19114730
The strengths are its ontology of dynamicism and process in its analysis of political economy and society, but the philosophy of dynamic systems and processes have advanced so much since Hegel and Marx (and Lukacs) that attempting a new grand theory of political economy with new conceptual tools would to be profitable (and you can also learn from the other mistakes and limitations of Marxism.)

[Anonymous No.19115781]

>>19115775
>profitable
You meant liberatory, right?

You meant liberatory, right?

[Anonymous No.19115783]

>>19114379
Or Marx and Lukacs were fundamentally wrong about the world-historic role of the working class and the concept of their class consciousness was an affectation, that in actuality capitalism was and is right to treat workers as mere instruments/tools.

[Anonymous No.19115794]

>>19115783
>right

You'll need to work on simulating philosophical empathy while reading people who don't adhere to your own unique ontological and epistemological views. Not only because the business of philosophy is demonstrating things wrong on their own terms, but because you've misread both Marx and Lukacs on whether they valorise capital morally.

[Anonymous No.19115807]

>>19115781
No, I think coming into the analysis with axiomatic moral ends is the original sin that contaminates Marxism (and Hegel before him). Let the analysis determine the moral teleology rather than have the moral teleology of a new end-of-history heaven-on-Earth (reified Judeo-Christian messianism) condition and determine the analysis.

There is no liberation from the creative forces of history and political economy, or at least the analysis shouldn't begin with the assumption.

[Anonymous No.19115836]

>>19115794
There's no value in affectations of self-delusion. Lukacs and Leninism treat the proletariet-as-worker as instruments of their class consciousness, which is the vanguard party, or in practice the personage of party leader. Worker is tool of party/general-secretary which alienates from the worker himself his class consciousness. In any case the actual worker is tool of the forces that create his economic and political life, capital and party/state.

[Anonymous No.19115884]

>>19115836
Read Lukacs around 1956; not just 1919.

[Anonymous No.19115889]

>>19114388
>This kind of threads totally filter me... What do?
don't do anything. this thread is for the most part just pseuds who spout random incoherent philosophical bullshit divorced from reality.

[Anonymous No.19115918]

>>19114388
Lukacs is easy to get into because he's an important litrary critique and writes well himself. Once you've read some lit, Goethe in particular, start with his The Theory of the Novel and Goethe and his Age. The first was written prior to his adoption of Marxism, the second after, both are excellent.

[Anonymous No.19115959]

>I can't attack this philosophy head on so... I'll le attack when it's from!

lol cope. "dude, think about it, this shit is old and probably missing something and maybe we're all stuck in old modes somehow" is at best based on poor reasoning and at worst is actual gaslighting by shills, everyone should always suspect the latter.

[Anonymous No.19116152]

>>19115959
Attacking 19th century Marxism in the 21st century is trivial now, I think it's more interesting to focus on its successes within its historical moment; a dynamic systems theory of political economy, and ask how they can reproduced with the benefits of new conceptual tools that surpass the Hegelian ones Marx had to depend on.

If defending ghosts in their intellectual graveyards of yesteryear is what motivates you then you place yourself outside of history.

[Anonymous No.19116162]

>>19114121
I’m pretty sure you’re kantbot

[Anonymous No.19116172]

>>19112462
Sure, but he was only good for Soul and Form and Theory of the Novel; once he went marxoid he fell off

[Anonymous No.19116181]

>>19116172
I hope daddy rich because you ain't gonna make it like that.

[Anonymous No.19116241]

>>19116172
Not entirely, Goethe and his Age is from 1947, The Historical Novel from 1937. His defence of realism is worth reading and consideration.

[Anonymous No.19116271]

>>19116162
Tale 30-60 minutes out of yor day and read the ~50 pages on Lukacs in Main Currents of Marxism

[Anonymous No.19116429]

>>19110639
read deleuze

[Anonymous No.19116437]

>>19116429
ORGANISE YOUR UNION.