/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5858157]

Why are French intellectuals all about ridiculous provocations and theatrics?

[Anonymous No.5858173]

The French are the worst fucking race of people on this planet. Everything about them is disgusting. I pity them because they will never truly understand just how grossed out everyone is by them, their effeminate shitty language, their weak limp-wristed personalities, and their pathetic unwarranted chauvinism. The French should actually be destroyed and Quebec will never be free.

[Anonymous No.5858175]

Of course, example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aqGYYBwKbQ

[Anonymous No.5858180]

Best place to start with Lacan?

[Anonymous No.5858197]

>>5858180
Kojeve's Hegel

[Anonymous No.5858199]

>>5858157
Not sure but Badiou used to take his gang of student Maoists and raid Delueze's seminars and interrupt and stop his lectures and I think that's fucking hilarious
>>5858175
That was during the 68 riots and was just a kid who read Debord for the first time

[Muck Bulligan !!ryE2gEjGbpu No.5858202]

>>5858157
i've always had a huge crush on that student

i don't have anything to actually contribute to the question but i'm guessing it's to do with la révolution française

>>5858180
whichever seminar seems most interesting to you, and then whatever one interests you the second most

and then stop

[Anonymous No.5858204]

>>5858157
>>5858175
>not being a Situationist
>the year of our Lord, 1968

[Anonymous No.5858209]

>>5858199

>implying Lacan wasn't being a rediculous douche himself

How he talks is as retardedly ostentatious as that stupid Debord kid.

[Anonymous No.5858210]

>>5858180
Bruce Fink
Ignore everyone else

[Anonymous No.5858212]

>>5858209
>How he talks is as retardedly ostentatious
It was fairly normal in French academia

[Anonymous No.5858213]

>>5858157
Britain sucks, get over it

[Anonymous No.5858215]

>>5858202

>i've always had a huge crush on that student

>I like attention whoring

No wonder you're a tripfaggot.

[Anonymous No.5858219]

>>5858199
That's fucking shitty 'cause Deleuze is cool as fuck and better than any other Frenchie that has ever existed before him

[Anonymous No.5858220]

>>5858212

>It was fairly normal in French academia

Hence the point of this thread. Why the redundant theatrics?

[Anonymous No.5858235]

>>5858157

I wonder what that same student is now doing.

Probably has resorted to social democracy and lives in some upper middle class white neighbourhood outside of Paris.

[Anonymous No.5858236]

>>5858220
The French as a culture are very passionate about the things they care about.

[Anonymous No.5858257]

>>5858236

>they act like retards and women

Nice culture.
I prefer German god tierness.
They can and could never produce German idealism with their shitty avant-garde attitude.

[Anonymous No.5858274]

>>5858257

>muh German heritage

[Muck Bulligan !!ryE2gEjGbpu No.5858281]

>>5858215
anyone desires attention who's written or spoken, by preference, to an audience. you desire attention in responding to me; the difference between us is not that i desire attention and you are above that desire—because clearly you are not—but that i desire other things (recognition, answerability, reputation) that you see yourself as above.

and how ridiculous is it that you do

[Anonymous No.5858290]

>>5858281

>I've got a legitimate reason to be an attention whore because we all want love

So deep.

[Anonymous No.5858305]

>>5858173
>race

fuck off /pol/

[Anonymous No.5858344]

>>5858173

Amen to that.

>>5858175

Good God I just want to hit him, that sniveling little wasp.

>>5858180

Up your ass.

>>5858236

Generally speaking, everybody is passionate about the things about which they care - that is the very definition of caring about something, you dolt. Passion doesn't equate to needless bombasticism and pseudo-intellectual theater.

>>5858257

Oh, shut up. The Germans have since the 19th century fallen into the same horribleness as the French. Continentalism turns all it touches to shit. That is why the Anglosphere must stand absolutely steadfast as the last bastion of the good old ways of doing rigorous, bullshit-free philosophy.

>>5858281

See, it is just this attempt to turn absolutely every exchange into something deep and profound - to display one's obvious poetic genius at absolutely every turn; to try and dissect things that aren't there - that makes me wretch when it comes to all this Continental stuff. Just STOP. Some things just are not philosophically, psychologically, or what-have-you-ly interesting. Some things are just MUNDANE AND UNINTERESTING. Some things AREN'T THAT COMPLEX. Some things just aren't philosophy. Your little tu quoque isn't philosophy. It's a big, heaping, steaming pile of shitty nothing. You're nothing, shit-eater. With the attitude you have, you may well achieve recognition among Continental thinkers. But I should be the least among rational people than the greatest among fools.

[Anonymous No.5858380]

>>5858344
>that is the very definition of caring about something, you dolt
Two people could care about the same thing but one could care more passionately you dolt.

The performance is a matter of passion, and was considered acceptable, the language however was most often needed to explicitly make the point that was being said. However once the idea has been explained fully you can then later simplify it into more easily digestible language, which is almost always done.
>Continentalism turns all it touches to shit.
Lmao.
>Just STOP
No.

[Anonymous No.5858389]

>>5858344

>I'm enlightened by my philosophy that serves STEM god tier

[Muck Bulligan !!ryE2gEjGbpu No.5858390]

>>5858344
nothing i said was "deep" or "profound," or was meant to be read as so. i said a fact, followed by an assumption, followed by another fact, followed by a jab. any complexity you picked up on was due to your ineptitude, and not to my convolution (had there been any convolution)

my condolences that you live a life so vacuous that ideas within it requiring more than angry caps and edgy quips to be sufficiently communicated are dismissed on grounds of not concerning "the interesting"

at least you understand that even among those with whom you agree, you fail to amount to much more than the least.

[Anonymous No.5858399]

>>5858173

truer words have not been spoken

easily the most despicable race of people left in europe today. only worthwhile thing they produce today is clothing.

as a people, they are ripe for extinction

[Anonymous No.5858404]

>>5858175
Oh god. I can only watch this video in small segments or the second-hand embarrassment for all parties becomes overwhelming.

[Anonymous No.5858409]

>>5858204
Situationism is great... until you need a praxis for your philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5858426]

I knew /pol/'s obsession with cuckolding had to come from somewhere...

[Anonymous No.5858432]

in terms of cultural values:

bongistan = stability over all else
france = constant radicalism
southern europe = catholics weren't allowed to read so they're all corrupt and enjoy drinking and fucking above all else
eastern europe = orthodox weren't allowed to read so they're all corrupt and enjoy drinking and fucking above all else
USA = frontierism and protestant purity

[Anonymous No.5858443]

>>5858432
>USA = frontierism and protestant purity

More like England + radical capitalism

It's England without the history and with business interest as the highest ideal. A weird sort of individualism where the high aspirations are owning your own business.

[Anonymous No.5858462]

>>5858443

and radical capitalism is just new age frontierism

[Anonymous No.5858468]

>>5858443
>owning your own business
That's like the high ideal. No one ever cares what kind of business it is, until they somehow 'divine' it in a fantasy. "Oh my god, my own business", and invariably it's women these days, coming up with salons or dessert shops. Ah yes, food. So many dessert companies popping up these days, cupcakes this, artisan-crafted piles of chocolate that.

Call me attentive, but I just can't help but see that society is becoming quite obsessed with owning businesses. Everyone needs to own a business! I mean, what the hell. The very nature of Obama pushing everyone to own their own business is beyond dumb, that's not how businesses ever worked, you need people to work under you, and most of those lackeys think they can own their own business as well.

This is related to literature because if these people read, they would realize that for centuries people have been using the masses for profit, and the administrative and processing fees associated with the various intellectual properties and patents involved in new businesses are obviously what these influential people are after.

[Anonymous No.5858481]

>>5858468

>and invariably it's women these days, coming up with salons or dessert shops. Ah yes, food. So many dessert companies popping up these days, cupcakes this, artisan-crafted piles of chocolate that.

that's because thanks to computers existing it's now easy to do things like payroll and taxes

anyway, there is literally nothing wrong with everyone owning/operating their own business. That is how society functioned before industrialization occurred and created interstate monopolies. The greatest thing someone can hope to do with their lives is to create something larger than themselves, even if it's just a random patent on a special door hinge or it's a greenhouse they give to their kids.

[Anonymous No.5858486]

>>5858468

Not to mention that next to owning a (small) business in the public domain, getting loads of pussy is that which dominates the private sphere .

>inb4 hurr it does everywhere life is about procreationn and passing on ur genes

This is the cheap PUA psychology "men are designed to procreate" bullshit that's so endemic in late capitalist America.

[Anonymous No.5858491]

>>5858481
>anyway, there is literally nothing wrong with everyone owning/operating their own business
Iseriouslyhopeyouguysdontdothis

[Anonymous No.5858494]

>>5858491

>everyone operates their own farm
>everyone is self sufficient
>implying this is bad

it certainly worked well before the government got into bed with big corporate growers

[Anonymous No.5858495]

can /pol/ fuck off?

[Anonymous No.5858496]

>>5858481
>That is how society functioned before industrialization occurred and created interstate monopolies
That is actually never how society functioned, forever farmers have been the majority working, and nowadays still are. Opulent countries like Holland or industrial hubs like New York City, much of the northeast section of the colonies, and the industrial areas of England it was popular to own your own business, but you know why? Because the people in those prevailing areas are rich. They have surplus funds to spend on things other than the necessities.

But of course, lets take a side trip into Marx who said that there will always be an increasing number of necessities dividing each class from each other. This applies, because these increasing number of necessities are flattening the monetary pyramid, and causing the rich to get richer. But I'm sure genetically modifying the food (GMO crops) certainly will not cause any harm or more cancer, so our agricultural woes (who needs to stay in touch with the environment anymore) are solved!

[Anonymous No.5858505]

>>5858496

>That is actually never how society functioned, forever farmers have been the majority working, and nowadays still are.

only in euroshit countries, here in the US people were actually allowed to own their own land

> But I'm sure genetically modifying the food (GMO crops) certainly will not cause any harm or more cancer, so our agricultural woes (who needs to stay in touch with the environment anymore) are solved!

since you clearly don't realize that there is nothing unnatural about genetic modification (even the catholic church did it via mendel) you really don't have any authority to be quoting a hack from germany

[Anonymous No.5858519]

>>5858505
Using what we consume as a reference, our total GDP only contains more big businesses than the rest of the world because we use South America and Africa for crop land.

Now it's biting us in the ass as this great recession continues to exacerbate the wealth separation. Luxuries are now sought after more fervently than ever and we are entering a very rocky phase, interest rates are at an all time low and I just don't know what, other than the burgeoning marijuana and renewable energy industries, America is going to do to place value in the dollar again, which is no longer backed by anything natural.

We are entering into a very unnatural phase of history, and that is truly scary.

[Anonymous No.5858575]

>>5858519

>We are entering into a very unnatural phase of history, and that is truly scary.

we entered into the "unnatural" phase sometime around the start of the industrial revolution, where human society became mostly urban and cosmopolitan. It peaked with the Boomers, who grew up exclusively in sheltered, gated parks far away from reality. If anything we are going back to a more natural society where cities take more importance than nation-states. Most of this is reliant on recent technological innovations that allow for easier and cheaper self-sufficiency. Back on point: as a result of this, people will be forced to live more in the practical present instead of just sitting in houses working a 9-5 office job and wondering what college their kids will go to. Wealth inequality will naturalize back to what it was before the 20th century and most people will probably be better off for it.

[Anonymous No.5858625]

>>5858495

can you eat a cock?

you're being culturally enriched, get used to it

[Anonymous No.5858637]

>>5858625
Nice meme, dickhead. Now stop shitting up our board.

[Anonymous No.5858642]

>>5858637

I got news for you buddy:

Your board has always been shit. We're trying to make it better, but these marx-loving faggots have got to go

[Anonymous No.5858646]

>>5858157
It's French tradition.

[Anonymous No.5858698]

>>5858642
>We're trying to make it better, but these marx-loving faggots have got to go
Lmfao
>>5858494
Because society always progresses past it's agricultural stage into industrialization and the way you word things would lead me to presume that it would be a capitalist society.
>capitalism
>ever
shiggy

also there has never been a time in capitalist society where capital and the state have been seperated

[Anonymous No.5858715]

>>5858698

you are borderline illiterate as far as economics go.

try to learn something. at the peak of its power, during the reign of Queen Victoria, government spending in Britain was just 10% of GDP. Today in Great Cuckland, it is 51% of the GDP, and growth has stagnated, quality of life is diminishing, and economic inequality is the worst it's even been.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/14/uk-inequality-wealth-credit-suisse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWrImRnH6bw

get btfo

[Anonymous No.5858725]

>>5858715

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz9TzbyIHFw

Hayek talks about the situation in Great Britain after WWI

[Anonymous No.5858734]

>>5858715
>>5858725

THE MARKET WILL FIX IT BECAUSE IT'S BASICALLY NATURE

[Anonymous No.5858738]

>>5858157
There's too many of them, and they need to stand out somehow, so appeal to the people. Or at least more people (small group) than the ones who critically read intellectual treatises (very small group).

[Anonymous No.5858744]

>>5858715
>>5858715
>you are borderline illiterate as far as economics go.
more like shekelnomics
>try to learn something. at the peak of its power, during the reign of Queen Victoria, government spending in Britain was just 10% of GDP
And under the reign of Queen Victoria poverty and social inequality was rampant
>Today in Great Cuckland, it is 51% of the GDP, and growth has stagnated, quality of life is diminishing, and economic inequality is the worst it's even been.
Correlation doesn't equal causation faggot

also
>Friedman Shekelnomics
Have fun getting assraped by your boss cuck

[Anonymous No.5858754]

>>5858281
Clearly there is a difference between wanting attention at even the most minimal level and attention whoring.

Quit being disingenuous. Rather than separate and clarify what the anon was trying to say you make some petty jab against something weak that doesn't exist.

Embarrassing.

I can't believe you all still get baited with this continental analytic crap. No one but the unimportant care. Use whatever works.

[Anonymous No.5858755]

Deleuze is a great thinker and if you care to watch his A to Z series, you'll see just how noble of a philosopher he was.

Derrida wrote a few stunning essays that make clear what a synthesis of Nietzsche and Heidegger would entail.

Althusser wrote one very good essay that has pretty much been accepted wholesale (even when the person with those ideas is unaware of Althusser) as truth among leftists.

Debord is actually a very interesting thinker who unfortunately gets more attention from annoying post-left pissants than academics.

[Anonymous No.5858758]

Daily reminder that the reason you are able to sit here all day shitposting is because the free market created sufficient prosperity and technological advances to make it possible

[Anonymous No.5858768]

>yfw /lit/ has literally become a communist board replete with censorship, propaganda and thought police

Worst moderation in the history of 4chan, and that's saying something

[Anonymous No.5858770]

>>5858755
>Althusser wrote one very good essay that has pretty much been accepted wholesale (even when the person with those ideas is unaware of Althusser) as truth among leftists
That's not true because Zizek is parroting and expanding upon what Althusser said and he isn't wholesale accepted

Regardless there needs to be more Althusser, Lacan, Lukacs, and Zizek acceptance in the Left.

[Anonymous No.5858773]

>>5858758
Reminder that I really don't care in the feasibility of any end to the "free" market system because I am more concerned with the acting of resistance because everything seeks to overcome limitations on its expression of life (Be that the state, the church; serfdom, or capitalism).

[Anonymous No.5858774]

>>5858768
There's nothing wrong with silencing class traitors Anon

[Anonymous No.5858776]

>>5858758

What's with this right wing bullshit about being eternally thankful for the market or white people or whatever.

This is not feudalism, retard.

[Anonymous No.5858778]

Btw here are the posts that Monsieur Hotpockets deleted:

try to learn something. at the peak of its power, during the reign of Queen Victoria, government spending in Britain was just 10% of GDP. Today in Great Cuckland, it is 51% of the GDP, and growth has stagnated, quality of life is diminishing, and economic inequality is the worst it's even been.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/14/uk-inequality-wealth-credit-suisse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWrImRnH6bw [Embed]

get btfo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz9TzbyIHFw [Embed]

Hayek talks about the situation in Great Britain after WWI

[Anonymous No.5858780]

>>5858770
The Left needs Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Rimbaud.

Everything that is liberation lies in expressions of life (power), language, self-overcoming, direct lived experience, thinking, and a people.

All other expressions of the left will lead to virtuous terror and its accompanying solidification of control over forms of life.

[Anonymous No.5858782]

>>5858778
>helping class traitors
>propagating bourgeois propaganda
Hopefully you'll be banned as well

[Anonymous No.5858786]

>>5858778

Friedman, the same guy who was in bed with Chilean fascists?
Quite the ideological kingpins you have yourself.

[Anonymous No.5858788]

>>5858780
>self-overcoming
>direct lived experiences
>life
nice petit-bourgeois individualism

[Anonymous No.5858790]

>>5858782

I'm a trueborn aristocrat. Your view of the world is small and pathetic.

[Anonymous No.5858793]

>>5858575
No, no I meant unnatural in the sense that wealth is no longer backed by any naturally occurring commodity like gold or silver and the vestiges of value that backed the dollar, like interest on money, which is primarily obtained from the confidence of the faith of the lender, is continually going down due to the rapid increase in competition among borrowers, money is tight so more people are going to borrow.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the dilemma: if we can only loan money to the higher classes, then logically, the amount of competition will go down, thus ameliorating the problem of falling interest. But not for long, because as the mass of people who can no longer afford the incredible amount of daily necessities through income and loans increase, the entire country will have an overspending problem and contract too much debt, as we know not only with the country itself, but also with the individual peoples. This 'loan' bubble, if it pops, would be worse than a mortgage bubble because loans aren't collateralized. And academic loans are especially prevalent in this nation full of spendthrifts.

Your optimism is endearing, but America needs hard labor, as you alluded to, in order to succeed. And we need a shift to focus on agricultural efforts, clearly, as that is the true source of all value that is created.

[Anonymous No.5858796]

>>5858790

>aristocrat
>supports merchant ideologies

Yeah no.
You're just an aspiring nouveau riche, not an aristocrat.
And even if you are, you put your roots to shame.

[Anonymous No.5858805]

>>5858793
School loans are virtually garunteed to be payed back in full or more by the government. Regardless of the rest of your post, that form of financial activity is probably the least likely to collapse right now.

[Anonymous No.5858808]

>>5858788
Enjoy your reign of terror and subsequent execution once some black bloc fuck who read too much Tiqqun thinks you're counter-revolutionary.

All traditional leftist struggles are failures because revolution lies in becoming, not being (the act of revolting, rather than the consolidation of revolt). Once it enters the realm of being, the road of History then it devolves into terror, violence, and a simple reorganization of control over life.

Liberation is a circle. But many others see it as a line. Watch out for the latter.

[Anonymous No.5858810]

>>5858796

>doesn't realize that merchant and banker ideologies are what gave us the Italian Renaissance

Enjoy your cultural stagnation while you waste your whole life crusading for a segment of the population that doesn't care about you and that will never amount to anything no matter how prosperous they become. Money belongs in private hands. Public wealth and welfare are as futile as public property.

[Anonymous No.5858811]

I just found tons of free Steam games at http://getsteamgifts.com/ Go there now as the giveaway is limited!

[Anonymous No.5858814]

>>5858793
One of the smartest things the government could do immediately with no negative consequences at all would be to issue a total forgiveness of all outstanding student loans originating from the government,

[Anonymous No.5858816]

>>5858810

Just don't describe yourself as an aristocrat when you obviously are on the merchant/banker side you doofus.

[Anonymous No.5858817]

>>5858805
But that's exactly what I'm trying to say, the school loans are taken out of the Federal government's pocket. Those are even more dangerous than the mortgage loans. And academia is certainly not going to pay off for every American who goes there, which is at this point an unbelievably high number.

[Anonymous No.5858824]

>>5858808
>implying my ideas are closer to black bloc and Tiqqun than you
shiggy

>All traditional leftist struggles are failures because revolution lies in becoming, not being (the act of revolting, rather than the consolidation of revolt).
>implying the act of revolt doesn't change consciousness
>implying those struggles didn't fail because almost all first attempts fail
>implying the road to capitalism wasn't as bumpy

>Liberation is a circle. But many others see it as a line. Watch out for the latter.
Nice bourgeois pseudo revolutionary thought

[Anonymous No.5858827]

>>5858810

MONEY IS ALL THAT MATTERS MAN, MONEY, CONTRIBOOTIN TO SOCIETY ( how communist btw, it should be egoism that drives that not 'society', watch that collectivist lingo, libertarian genius ) AND PUSSY

Alright, enjoy your vapid shit life revolving around cash and kitsch.
Why are you even on a literature board? /pol/ exile by any chance?

[Anonymous No.5858830]

>>5858796
>merchant ideologies

wtf does this even mean? is this coded anti-semitism?

[Anonymous No.5858832]

>>5858830

You've spend too much time on /pol/ or this website.
I could have well said the bourgeois class. But it refers to the same.

[Anonymous No.5858837]

>>5858816

Aristocrats and bankers have long existed side by side in mutually beneficial relationships.

>>5858827

Prosperity and high culture have never existed independent of one another. You would do well to remember that. It is concentrations which produce prosperity, not distributions.

[Anonymous No.5858838]

>>5858810

the predictable and myopic opinion of those born into wealth. they always think it lasts forever

[Anonymous No.5858839]

>>5858832

no, apparently i don't spend enough time on poll, as i have no idea what this fruitcake language means in normal-people speak.

[Anonymous No.5858843]

>>5858838

It certainly can't last forever when government taxes it to nothing in two or three generations.

[Anonymous No.5858844]

>>5858837

>Aristocrats and bankers have long existed side by side in mutually beneficial relationships.

Uhm no.
Aristocratic order is older than any bank.

>y-yeah but muh Europe

Shut up. The power of aristocracy is not dependent on any bank or trade.

[Anonymous No.5858846]

>>5858843

this is such inflated paranoid crybaby bullshit. did your daddy give you these ideas? you horrible people are not being "taxed to death"

hey but the homelessness and poverty rates are rising!

[Anonymous No.5858847]

>>5858837

>Prosperity and high culture have never existed independent of one another. You would do well to remember that. It is concentrations which produce prosperity, not distributions.

Haven't answered my question, at all.
But alright, you're a /pol/ exile hoping to stir some shit on a board which sometimes touches upon social issues, because how could art and literature not.
But don't expect this board to be welcoming to your joke of an ideology.
Don't cry when we deconstruct it, if you're able to understand it.

[Anonymous No.5858849]

>>5858824
>implying those struggles didn't fail because almost all first attempts fail

The French revolution wasn't the first revolt, but if you're intent on that classification:

-French Revolution
-Russian Revolution
-Chinese revolution
-Cambodian revolution
-Burmese revolution
-Nicaraguan revolution
-Cuban revolution
-68 World-wide
-Italian Insurgency
-German Insurgency
-Late 90s post-left American insurgency

The paragon for liberation are the Zapatistas who just seem to have: a sense of a people, direct lived experience (aka, not a world of representation as is currently lived in the urban West), a close relationship to language, a suspicion of History, and a clear knowledge that resistance without security (of success or safety) is all that matters.

[Anonymous No.5858856]

>>5858849

ok? other than being popular revolts, wtf do any of these uprisings have in common with each other? some are social, some are economic, but no two are alike.

[Anonymous No.5858867]

>>5858847

I'm sure nothing is easier than criticizing an outsider in a liberal echochamber like this, where even the moderators are on your side. But consider the legacy of communism, and then consider that of capitalism. How can you deny the latter has been more successful? What economic system do you imagine would have more success at reducing inequality than free market capitalism? Because with socialism in any form, you are making the very bold assertion that something like 1% of the population can more effectively make decisions for the other 99% than these people can themselves. Socialism is force. You are telling people what to do and what not. When you subsidise unemployment for instance, then naturally there will be a rise in unemployment. When you enforce rent control, the number of low income housing units decreases. When you increase tax rates, tax revenues go down. These are not a few of the empirical failings of socialist policy in economics.

[Anonymous No.5858872]

>>5858867

These are just a few*

Minimum wage is another example. Let us say the minimum wage were increased to 50 dollars an hour. Would unemployment go up or down? Would employers exercise less or more intense discrimination in hiring?

The effect of minimum wage law is to price inexperienced workers out of the labor market. This is the catastrophic effect that liberal policies have had.

[Anonymous No.5858894]

>>5858856
>-Chinese revolution
>-Cambodian revolution
>-Burmese revolution
>-Nicaraguan revolution
>-Cuban revolution

All post-colonial revolts along Leninist lines. All passed through a "purifying" reign of terror and a return to capitalism. In effect, a rupture (with the world hegemonic system) and a redoubling (of that world hegemonic system).

>-French Revolution
>-Russian Revolution

Western revolts between agricultural populace and aristocratic ruling class. Pass through "purifying" reign of terror, creation of totalitarian police states, and an eventual creation and consolidation of a bourgeoisie class.

>-68 World-wide
>-Italian Insurgency
>-German Insurgency
>-Late 90s post-left American insurgency

Western revolts with a strong emphasis on then-contemporary theories of power and the economy. Widespread leftist infighting and ineffectual acts of terror.

Political revolutions within capital-H History all fail those they set out to liberate.

[Anonymous No.5858896]

>>5858872
> Let us say the minimum wage were increased to 50 dollars an hour.
Hyperbolic example
Regardless,
>The effect of minimum wage law is to price inexperienced workers out of the labor market.
Bullshit. Time and time again this is proven to be false.
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

[Anonymous No.5858906]

>>5858894
In conclusion: read Rimbaud, read Nietzche, read Spinoza.

Continually attempt to liberate yourself.

[Anonymous No.5858919]

what i find so craven about corporate apologists is that they use the failure of past populist revolutions as evidence that we should shut up about the ever encroaching feudalist status quo. "shut up about inequality! gawd even after your revolutions fail stability is restored through establishment of the fundamentally unequal society duhh" as though there couldn't be a happy medium. as if as long as there is inequality, then that means we're already living in the best of all worlds. but of course they're a-ok with feudalism, so long as they're the ones on top. the rest of us have to suffer.

[Anonymous No.5858929]

>>5858896

>CEPR

You can't be serious.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/16/minimum-wage-labor-economics-opinions-contributors-art-carden.html

[Anonymous No.5858935]

>>5858929
>refutes a policy think tank with a fucking op-ed from Forbes
>op-ed from Forbes
>Forbes

GTFO you bootlicking scumbag

[Anonymous No.5858936]

>>5858929
>one fringe economist writing an opinion citing faulty studies that collected inaccurate data
>proves me wrong
Kek

Try reading the study scrub

[Anonymous No.5858940]

>>5858929
>comments are turned off for this post

can't imagine why

[Anonymous No.5858943]

>>5858929
>He is a regular contributor to Mises.org
Absolutely disgusting

[Anonymous No.5858947]

>>5858943

saw the Mises line too. libertarian hatethink. surprise.

[Anonymous No.5858965]

>>5858175
>everything i say has traps

[Anonymous No.5858978]

>>5858849
>-Late 90s post-left American insurgency

may i ask what the fuck this is?

[Anonymous No.5858995]

>>5858935
>>5858936
>>5858940
>>5858943
>>5858947

>my think tank is more credible than yours!

You realize this isn't an argument, right?

I bet you think the high rate of unemployment among young black males is due to racism.

How about instead of reading some long winded study for which the conclusions were drawn in advance, you read a short article supported by the research of an actual economist:

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/09/17/minimum-wage-madness-n1701840/page/full

No really, read it. Read it three or four times while I attempt to make sense of this 'study' you posted.

[Anonymous No.5858998]

>>5858995
>I bet you think the high rate of unemployment among young black males is due to racism.
why did u out yourself as a /pol/ user, giving up all credibility. dumb decision dude

[Anonymous No.5859003]

>>5858978
1999 WTO protests, ecoterrorism, general anti-globalization.

[Anonymous No.5859013]

>>5858998

>pointing out factual inaccuracies makes me a /pol/ user

Top Lel

Laughing at this study, funny stuff. Give me a minute

[Anonymous No.5859018]

>>5858978
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njIhIwSqt-g

[Anonymous No.5859020]

To quote a real philosopher

>Baudrillard's concept of hyperreality is bogus, a holdover from the last century when in order to become famous in pseudo-intellectual circles all you had to do was coin some stupid new word and tie it to a pseudo-concept, which became all the more believable because no one could understand it, and thus refute it. But all these tricks are up now. With my arrival on the scene, all pseudo-concepts will be laid bare — it is impossible to deceive me. One would have to have more intellect than me in order to do so, but if any such person arrived why would he need deception? Deception in this sense is only a tool of the weak — and Baudrillard was weak. His weakness can be seen in every single one of his analyses. Analyzing the consumer society yet failing to draw any conclusions from this analysis on how one should act when one found oneself in such a society. What good is the analysis, then, if no conclusions can be drawn from it? And what a pathetic little line he ends the whole thing with! "We will await for events to smash this white Mass!" He will "await" — i.e. sit on his ass while glued for information to the media he so flagrantly despises — while being ready to scribble at any moment. To scribble before and after — but to participate in the events, let alone be instrumental in bringing them about — oh, no. That work is too dirty for the clean hands of an academic. So let's just wait and scribble.
All his analyses are weak in this manner, even the last one, in which he fails to draw any conclusions at all really from his game theory, even going as far as to assert that there is no reason to exalt the rules of the game! This screams to me: bad player, bad player, bad player! But what, deep down, did Baudrillard really know about games? The only game he played was the writing game, and in this, in this confined and limited context of pseudo-intellectual Frenchmen of the twentieth century, he was indeed a master. But the pseudo-intellectual game is not the only game there is, nor even the most important, and drawing your lessons for all games from this little narrow experience is bound to lead you astray.

>The entire "pseudo-concept generation" fagotry is nothing more than a blatant, pathetic attempt to copyright concepts! Oh, the ancients are turning in their graves! You fucking slave pseudo-philosophers! A situation the ancients did not know of because they were all rich and copyright laws didn't exist! They wanted REAL POWER with their books, not your pathetic fame or money! That is why their books shine, and will keep being read and treasured for entire centuries and millennia more than yours! Refreshing, is what their books are! Yours drive even the greatest minds to depression and despair!

[Anonimaj No.5859031]

>>5859020
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Flynn

This guy is a fucking joke and you know it.

[Anonymous No.5859039]

>>5858157
French fag here.
We don't care about Lacan anymore. Basically, a guy who cures people with electricity is either a fool or a cheat.
Also, it is a french tradition to take the weapons of your enemy after you have identified them and to use them against him : they believe the theatrics some complain about (especially Debord) can be unveiled by more theatrics, see Artaud, and that there is some truth in that theatrics which was proved since the making of ancient Greek tragedy. Some did not attack this way, for example Bourdieu, but he had Pierre Carles with him to balance the show. The logical developments of this are a deep cynicism, pessimism, or anything that remains when all this smoky illusions are burst. See Cioran, Leiris, Crevel....


This excentricity you hate makes it all funnier this way, though it kept failing. It doesn't appear when you read the books though and is a detail if you consider the works of someone. You should read more if you can, and help this superficiality.

[Anonymous No.5859042]

>>5859031

That's not who it's from lol

[Anonymous No.5859049]

>>5858896

Alright here we go:


>Executive summary
Very official sounding! I like it
>The employment effect of the minimum wage is one of the most studied topics in all of economics.
Certainly so, for those whose business it is to justify it!
>This report examines the most recent wave of this research –roughly since 2000–to determine the best current estimates of the impact of increases in the minimum wage on the employment prospects of low- wage workers.
Here is your first problem. The scope of this study is limited to the past 13 years; but minimum wage has existed in the United States since the 1940s. Since 2000 however, the real value (not the nominal) of the minimum wage has increased a whopping 3 percent, from 7 dollars to 7.25. That’s it. See attached image
>The weight of that evidence points to little or no employment response to modest increases in the minimum wage.
Naturally, seeing as the minimum wage has only increased in nominal value, and not actual value, over the course of your silly little study! Even in nominal terms, the increases have not come all at once, and have been so small in fact that even if they were expressed in real dollars, they would amount to very little difference!
> The report reviews evidence on eleven possible adjustments to minimum-wage increases that may help to explain why the measured employment effects are so consistently small.
Again, the effects have been so consistently small because the increases to real wages have been so small, in fact almost negligible since 2000.
>The strongest evidence suggests that the most important channels of adjustment are: reductions in labor turnover; improvements in organizational efficiency; reductions in wages of higher earners ("wage compression"); and small price increases.
Pure inference. The casual link between these phenomena is spurious at best, especially when increased to minimum wage have corresponded with a very small increase to real wages.
>Given the relatively small cost to employers of modest increases in the minimum wage, these adjustment mechanisms appear to be more than sufficient to avoid employment losses, even for employers with a large share of low-wage workers.
No doubt an even smaller cost to people like you! I wager not too many employers were consulted for this study.
There is an enormous difference between studying the effects of INCREASES to the minimum wage and studying the difference between having and not having a minimum wage law in place. With a fixed minimum wage, there is an arbitrary cutoff below which an employer cannot legally employ someone, whatever price the market may have placed on his labor. Since this person cannot be underemployed by law, he simply goes unemployed.

[Anonymous No.5859050]

>>5859049

This is what I mean by a study whose conclusions have been drawn at the beginning. The entire thing is designed in such a way that existing policy cannot emerge looking anything worse than harmless. If they wanted to do a real study, they would look at the effects of minimum wage on employment since the 1940s, or from even before then, say between 1900 and 2000. Instead they come up with this carefully crafted piece of nonsense that supports the conclusions they wanted to affirm from the outset.

According to liberal economists, increases to the minimum wage should be indexed to inflation (in other words, minimum wage should keep pace with inflation). In this line of thinking, inflation is taken as a foregone conclusion, which it essentially is with liberal economics. But all this means is that, instead of forcing people to accept paycuts that are psychologically hard to swallow, they will simply keep real wages stagnant by indexing the minimum wage to inflation. So inflation eats away at your purchasing power, but wage increases keep it at the same level as before, and you feel better about your lot because the amount you earn per hour (on paper) goes up.

Liberal malingering at its finest.

[Anonimaj No.5859059]

>>5859042
Well, you really got me. Mind telling us who it actually is? I thought it was that guy because he came up in one of the 15 quotation searches I did.

[Anonymous No.5859083]

>>5858290
"Il suffit que je sois bien malheureuse pour avoir droit a votre bienveillance"

[Anonymous No.5859090]

Can someone explain the Big Other according to Lacan for me in the most accessible terms?

[Anonymous No.5859100]

>/pol/fags
>/int/fags
The worst.

[Anonymous No.5859102]

>>5859100
And now they're going to reply to you by saying you're generalizing (something that most other boards don't give a fuck about, I've never seen a poster of any other board than /pol/ complaining about that) or saying that you want a hugbox.

[Anonymous No.5859141]

>>5859100
There's a difference?

[Anonymous No.5859157]

>>5858173
I live in France and confirm all of this.

[Anonymous No.5859307]

>>5858468
>Call me attentive, but I just can't help but see that society is becoming quite obsessed with owning businesses.
It's not the 50s any more Tim. The middle-class has forgotten about owning their own thing, instead they go to work for useless NGO and government. You are decades behind friend. Hegel would dislike your not up-to-date concern with the dialectic.

[Anonymous No.5859317]

>>5858409
Their praxis propposition is covered in Vaneigem and in the Internationale Situationniste magazines

[Anonymous No.5859340]

>>5858390
Not the guy you're replying to. I don't care about any of that. Here's what I want to know: why only lowercase letters? It can't be laziness, as you spend much of your time typing out these inane replies to people who don't care.

[Anonymous No.5859358]

There are French intellectuals?

[TheOnlyAustralianInBrit/pol/ !SDj8IFD6gY No.5859374]

>>5858344

>snivelling little wasp

You mean Lacan? The student was a pretty big guy.

[TheOnlyAustralianInBrit/pol/ !SDj8IFD6gY No.5859384]

>>5858849
>a close relationship to language

What the fuck am I reading?

[Anonymous No.5859390]

Jesus Christ. What's the average /pol/tard IQ? 50? Either that or they're underage. This thread is cringeworthy.

Luckily is pretty easy to spot the /pol/tards, so one can ignore their replies without too much effort.

[Anonymous No.5859393]

>>5858173
U mad bro?

[Anonymous No.5859394]

>>5859358
Yes, in the Anglo world they are referred to as pseudo-intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.5859399]

>>5858344
>sniveling little WASP

He's white, but he's not Anglo-Saxon, nor are we sure whether he's a Protestant. Way too many assumptions there, pal.

[Anonymous No.5859400]

>>5858281
>anyone desires attention who's written or spoken

rofl, or perhaps to be understood.

what a fundamental schism, and the irony that you are a fucking trip faggot.

priceless

[Anonymous No.5859406]

the student in the video is Jean-Louis Lippert if anyone is interested.

[Deep&Edgy !!BfzNblz4cXS No.5859427]

>ITT:

Yes, Eugene, your LACK of critical thinking informs your supremely poseur oriented website where you attempt to masquerade as an actual Thinker. Undoubtedly you will be hailed as a “thinker” by those of your Brooklyn hipster/conformist ilk who possess no actual critical thinking skills. And of course your gratuitous use of the word “fuck” in relation to actual knowledge – one of the few things of “value” in a world that worships material goods and self aggrandizing bullshit while devaluing anything of real value – proves you are cut from the same cloth as most deluded Americans who are simply wage slaves in search of the Holy Dollar.

What spurred me to write an insulting email to you? Your entry on Jacques Ranciere. The Wikipedia entry on Ranciere is SO much better – though rather too brief – than your stupid “article” about him and his writings it makes you seem like some sort of pathetic puke with an inferiority complex. Unfortunately, I predict your cretinous pretense of intellectualism (which, of course, only serves to mask your utter vapidity and lack of real substance) which owes much to the ad hominem attacks perfected by the knuckle dragging Neanderthals of America’s anti-intellectual “mainstream” will gain you much support amongst those other intellectual lightweights who make up American hipsterdom’s answer to Real Thought.

You belong at a major corporation churning out lies and other bullshit in order to line the litterbox of your “soul” with hundred dollar bills.

You fake piece of shit, may you step in a big slick pile of it and lose your balance and stain your favorite crappy overpriced suit that Mommy and Daddy purchased for you.

You have no shame so neither do I in telling you what a human waste you are.

[Anonymous No.5859440]

>>5859427
What is it from?

[Anonymous No.5859488]

>>5858281

>anyone desires attention who's written or spoken, by preference, to an audience

Actually, at one point I was so afraid of other people that I didn't even want to be in the same room as one. If someone replied to me, I'd start sweating and I'd have no idea how to respond - because I didn't want to think about the fact that the posts on 4chan were made by real people.

So yes, some people do write or speak who don't want attention. Some of us really are self-absorbed enough to think that speaking to ourselves publically, while pretending to engage others, is all there is to it.

Or in other words, language can be completely removed from it's purpose as a form of communication between people.

[Deep&Edgy !!BfzNblz4cXS No.5859500]

>speaking to ourselves publically

>language can be completely removed from it's purpose as a form of communication between people.

>relating the self to itself is not a form of communication between people.

nice meme

[Anonymous No.5859552]

>>5859500

>relating the self to itself is not a form of communication between people

That's an interesting way of looking at it, but it doesn't feel that way to me. The only person in my mind is me. I know what I said to myself while I was saying it, and I know why I said it.

It's a person communicating to themselves things they already know. It's lonely, and I much prefer now, where I've gotten over my fear of other people.

I was mostly just trying to exhibit my past infirmary, to provide a broader perspective to look at the behavior we're calling communication, because sometimes symbolic thought or expression isn't about communication at all.