|
I could never get the hang of Lukacs. Everyone says he's great, but all I can see is that duck cartoon that says "Liberals" over and over again, only saying "realism"
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 17:55 |
|
V. Illych L. posted:I could never get the hang of Lukacs. Everyone says he's great, but all I can see is that duck cartoon that says "Liberals" over and over again, only saying "realism" Ya well Luxemburg and Gramschi then.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:die pomo scum Modernist dinosaur. V. Illych L. posted:For real, though, Foucault is great, but I do think it's good to have an understanding of the subject of a critique prior to the critique itself, and Lenin is both entertaining and lucid as a writer. Also Foucault really loved him some Marxism, so eh Oh totally, I was assuming some familiarity with Marxism already as Zizek was mentioned so I was just dropping what I would consider the best alternative view. Foucault is odd in the sense that he did love Marxism but his work often seemed to disagree with the core philosophy of it and you almost get the feeling that he didn't always want to agree with what his work showed him. He also often spoke of things different to what he spoke much more in an activist role than a strictly academic one, the guy owned. Bourdieu is also something that no one should overlook his analysis of social order and the role of language and culture constructing power arrangements as well as economic capital doing so is fascinating, just good luck with the 200 word sentences!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 17:35
|
|
Foucault was for real a loving boss though. 
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Ya well Luxemburg and Gramschi then. These do indeed own, I embarrassingly only really "got" the state of being of the capitalist (i.e. that it's a social function, not necessarily a specific dude) after reading Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution, and Gramsci is just magical. StoneOfShame posted:Oh totally, I was assuming some familiarity with Marxism already as Zizek was mentioned so I was just dropping what I would consider the best alternative view. Foucault is odd in the sense that he did love Marxism but his work often seemed to disagree with the core philosophy of it and you almost get the feeling that he didn't always want to agree with what his work showed him. He also often spoke of things different to what he spoke much more in an activist role than a strictly academic one, the guy owned. Bourdieu is also something that no one should overlook his analysis of social order and the role of language and culture constructing power arrangements as well as economic capital doing so is fascinating, just good luck with the 200 word sentences! Confession time: I have only ever read secondary sources re: Bourdieu. I keep telling myself that I'll get on him some day and just not doing it. I think the complicated relationship of Foucault and Marxism is similar to his relationship with modernity in general - on one hand, I have always seen him as the last of the great modernists, on the other he's clearly at least a precursor to what we call post-modernism in his methods. It is very confusing. I'd tend to see him as a heterodox Marxist and his critique as a basically internal one rather than as a fundamental rebuttal of the whole Marxian project, but ymmv. I am also not an expert on Foucault, so take it with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Foucault's aspirations are a bit different to Marx's though, obviously; Foucault's dominant categories are power, knowledge, and discourse. He's much more invested in how people think than Marx is, really. He definitely doesn't have the scientism of the orthodox Marxist.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
If you like getting a bit meta I can highly recommend Hardt & Negri's "Empire". The Italian workerists have some great stuff as well, especially Lazzarato's The Making of the Indebted Man (about debt replacing work relations as the main tool of bourgeois oppression) and Paolo Virno's A Grammar of the Multitude. Anything by Mario Tronti is really interesting as well but possibly dense and difficult to get into (Italian academics being what they are).
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Foucault's aspirations are a bit different to Marx's though, obviously; Foucault's dominant categories are power, knowledge, and discourse. He's much more invested in how people think than Marx is, really. He definitely doesn't have the scientism of the orthodox Marxist. Oh, yeah, I don't think this is even contestable. The question is whether Foucault's methods or project contradict the underlying Marxian programme, and I don't think it does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 17:52
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:Oh, yeah, I don't think this is even contestable. The question is whether Foucault's methods or project contradict the underlying Marxian programme, and I don't think it does. I don't think they reconcile too well if they're consistently applied actually. Marxian scientism would have to clearly be put in its place by Foucault's thinking. Plus, Foucault is always going to want to put a case for something like false consciousness much more strongly than Marx. Stoneofshame has already given a problem in terms of the way Marx conceptualises in terms of meta-narratives. On the other hand, Foucault is incredibly obviously a species of post-Marxian thinker who is reliant on the fundamentals of Marx's contribution to do his stuff. I sort of see Foucault as what happens if you mix up Marx with some Wittgenstein, and also Nietzschean ideas of genealogy. But I'm inclined to see it that way as an intellectual historian. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
If you say so, I guess. I suppose I tend to think the whole "metanarrative" point is one that tends to be overstated, both for how destructive the critique is and for how fundamental it really is to the central premises of marxism, but I really am a little exposed when discussing Foucault, so I won't argue the point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:07
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:If you say so, I guess. I suppose I tend to think the whole "metanarrative" point is one that tends to be overstated, both for how destructive the critique is and for how fundamental it really is to the central premises of marxism, but I really am a little exposed when discussing Foucault, so I won't argue the point. Two essential points that Foucault will make are: (a) You're pretty hosed because you can never be sure that your original reference points and terminology, and entire way of thinking is shaped by power in your discourse. You say you want 'freedom' (to pick an easy example) - but what the gently caress does that mean? Your conceptualisation will always be constrained by your socialisation. Of course, Marx is out to say some similar things, but Foucault is much more sceptical about how easy it is to bust out of this, and the beneficiary of much more thought on the subject of language (which is where Wittgenstein gets involved) (b) Forms and structures of knowledge contain organising principles that are mutable and changeable, and the presence of these principles can obscure knowledge as surely as revealing it. Marx is clearly the victim of this by accepting certain Victorian normative ways of thinking about historical progression and so on.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
OK, so how do you use that as a critique of e.g. the historical-materialist approach as such? Do you outright reject the notion of historical "progress"? That doesn't seem reasonable, IMO. Like, I get that Foucault does different things than simply restating or elaborating on an original Marxian basis. I don't get how it contradicts that basis, in the sense that one cannot coherently use both modes of analysis simultaneously. Of course Foucault will be used to interrogate Marxian narratives as much as other ones, but my point is that interrogation does not necessarily mean a fundamental rejection of the premises. To put it in dialectical terms, a critique may negate the original thesis without fundamentally being alien to that thesis - certainly I can accept that a lot of the relatively high-level stuff in Marx's view of history, escathology etc., must be rejected by a consistent Foucauldian, but I don't see a basic rejection of the Marxist/Marxian programme as such is necessary, if that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Obviously you can use both forms of analysis but you sound pretty desperate to have your cake and eat it.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:For real, though, Foucault is great, but I do think it's good to have an understanding of the subject of a critique prior to the critique itself, and Lenin is both entertaining and lucid as a writer. Also Foucault really loved him some Marxism, so eh Foucault could easily be described as 'love the marxism, hate the marxist'. With his interest (both personal and academic) in identity politics, as well as his sexual orientation, the social conservative of French Marxism at the time definitely left an impression. Happy to provide any possible readings depending on the subject of interest. Also, I'm not really sure false consciousness is really the correct term - due to the social construction inherent in understanding, and that knowledge is the result of power relations, I'm not sure there can be a 'false' consciousness. It would be more that there are 'competing' consciousnesses, some more dominant than others. Pesmerga fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Obviously you can use both forms of analysis but you sound pretty desperate to have your cake and eat it. Don't see why not - Foucault himself said that he wasn't intended on providing a universal, or even consistent theory, but an analytical toolbox, where people could take or leave whatever was useful to them. You could use the power/knowledge and work it into a more Marxist-structuralist framework and get away with it I think, as long as you were explicit about what you were doing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:51
|
|
Pesmerga posted:Don't see why not - Foucault himself said that he wasn't intended on providing a universal, or even consistent theory, but an analytical toolbox, where people could take or leave whatever was useful to them. You could use the power/knowledge and work it into a more Marxist-structuralist framework and get away with it I think, as long as you were explicit about what you were doing. My point is you are still going to cause issues for purestrain 19th century as-espoused-by-Marx Marxism when you turn that toolbox on it. I didn't say Foucault was a negation of Marx at all, but I think Foucault is going to want to say there's a naivety in the Marxist claim to scientism. We can reconcile that difference for sure, but I don't think Marx himself ever could have. You'd have an easier time with the early Marx, I think. Pesmerga posted:Also, I'm not really sure false consciousness is really the correct term - due to the social construction inherent in understanding, and that knowledge is the result of power relations, I'm not sure there can be a 'false' consciousness. It would be more that there are 'competing' consciousnesses, some more dominant than others. Hence the use of 'something like' in that sentence - I was merely hinting at one route a person might try to go down to reconcile Marx and Foucault. It is certainly one of the ways that Marx prefigures Foucault. Also, this discussion really does not belong here.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:My point is you are still going to cause issues for purestrain 19th century as-espoused-by-Marx Marxism when you turn that toolbox on it. I didn't say Foucault was a negation of Marx at all, but I think Foucault is going to want to say there's a naivety in the Marxist claim to scientism. We can reconcile that difference for sure, but I don't think Marx himself ever could have. Well, that's getting into the whole structuralist/post-structuralist as well as structure/agency debate, which is fun but irreconcilable. Good thought exercise though. Disinterested posted:Hence the use of 'something like' in that sentence - I was merely hinting at one route a person might try to go down to reconcile Marx and Foucault. It is certainly one of the ways that Marx prefigures Foucault. Fair enough, I wasn't criticising!  Disinterested posted:Also, this discussion really does not belong here. Shame, it's the most interesting the thread has been in a while. :/
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Well the Marxism thread is in the gas chamber.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
I am considering doing a non-troll Marxism thread or A/T thread.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Also, this discussion really does not belong here. It would if those meddling eurocrats hadn't given us the wrong tag! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:09
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:It would if those meddling eurocrats hadn't given us the wrong tag! Give me
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:a non-troll Marxism thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:49
|
|
Guavanaut posted:This happening in SA is about as likely as full communism happening in the current parliament. Oh fine: a Marxism thread without a full troll OP. But actually in a few threads a fairly non-troll discussion of Marxism has taken place (e.g. Help D&D debate and discuss thread).
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:This happening in SA is about as likely as full communism happening in the current parliament. For good reason
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
 I think Poe's Law just kicked in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
heh that's amazing. Not only did this guy torture, behead, set fire to, or otherwise maim or kill innocent human beings, the family are scumbags on benefits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
£25000 for playing scrabble? that's extortionate. death to e-sports, soccer included because it's basically an e-sport on a field
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
There's an astounding Vice article about the UKIP Spring Conference http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-ukip-conference-was-more-insane-than-we-imagined-189 It's all gold, but I know who'd get my vote: quote:Shortly after, a man called Prophet Zebediah rocked up. A founding member of the Al-Zebabist Nation of OOOG, he's running against Farage in the constituency, demanding that Thanet be cut off from England to form an independent state. His manifesto pledges include "the peaceful annihilation of Broadstairs, giving one half to Margate and the other half to Ramsgate", as well as turning "the college into a barracks to train the youth ready for the coming war against England". He was up for battle with the People's Army of UKIP, it seemed, telling me that "England is doomed."
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
An interesting correlation suggested here between key dates of paedophile trials and bail extensions. He's suggesting the CPS were doing it to avoid juries seeing celebrities being let off without charge. quote:Mr Gambaccini was arrested on 29 October 2013 and police handed papers to the Crown Prosecution Service on 10 February 2014. quote:Giving evidence to the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, the former Radio 1 DJ said he believed he was used as human "fly paper" to encourage other people to come forward and make allegations against him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:
Sensible policies for a happier Britain
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:There's an astounding Vice article about the UKIP Spring Conference http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-ukip-conference-was-more-insane-than-we-imagined-189 This is genius quote:"It's like when you get into a lift," she said, on immigration. "At first you can all fit in, but then people don't."
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
I'm completely shocked that most UKIP voters are elderly. Its also why the Tories have to be far more scared of what will happen to their votes than Labour and the greens
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
Voter demographics have shifted in recent years, according to YouGov the primary reason the Conservatives polling figures have recovered is due to a surge in the 18-24 range. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
Article on voter demographics: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/mar/04/election-2015-support-for-ukip-among-gen-y-voters-doubles-in-a-year
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 10:13
|
|
|
tdrules posted:Voter demographics have shifted in recent years, according to YouGov the primary reason the Conservatives polling figures have recovered is due to a surge in the 18-24 range.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
The Guardian posted:Meanwhile, the proportion of younger voters who say they will not vote in May has increased to more than 12%, from just under 10% in 2013 This is the biggest problem with polling at that age range
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
It was less scary to tell myself that the prevalence of right-wingers I have to suffer was just endemic to where and what I study. Any time talk of politics has come up here it has quickly turned into a sort of Hitler Youth brainstorming session 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 11:09
|
|
|
gorki posted:It was less scary to tell myself that the prevalence of right-wingers I have to suffer was just endemic to where and what I study. Any time talk of politics has come up here it has quickly turned into a sort of Hitler Youth brainstorming session bash the fash imo
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 11:46
|
|
|
A guy I work with is trying to bring his wife over from overseas. He accidentally picked the wrong thing in a dropdown on the online form for her visa application. UKVI claim they can't fix it and that he has to start from scratch, and pay like £1k in fees to start over. What. A. Joke.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
I thoroughly support the annihilation of Broadstairs
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 13:00
|
|
