Lacan wrote that...

So you don't mind if I fuck your gf?

or Saddam/Assad really are shady people with dubious governments but Western intervention against them is still Imperialism.

Let me portray this with BO's recent writing:
>Existing socialist or "anti-war" organizations are either completely FBI/CIA-controlled honeypots (such as Code Pink or the Democrat Cops of America), or broken, heavily-infiltrated, and amateurish parties (such as PSL). Anyone who becomes heavily involved in either kind of organization will find themsleves ensnared by law enforcement one way or another, and will thus be rendered useless to anti-imperialism. Many socialists engage in borderline disgraceful practices such as posting about politics on Facebook, which will also lead to their arrest or demise. Not only is law enforcement working against you, but your own past actions are as well. Delete your posts and/or accounts while you still can, and you will hopefully become a lower priority or evade the eyes of local law enforcement.
Even if BO is factually correct (we are constantly being observed, monitored, and logged by CIA, etc.), xir's proposals are pathological, meaning that they (in a political sense) end up fragmenting and destroying our communist movement: delete your social presence, your posts, stay behind 20 firewalls, watch out for the Big Other!

Basically this is it… For those interested in politics Lacan says the following: "the big other doesn't exist!" – this is not an empirical statement (CIA might be actually watching you), but a phenomenological one: "Act as if the Big Other didn't exist!" In other words: no matter if CIA logs you, you are a fucking communist, and BO is a paranoid jerk.

Everything else, IMO, is playing into the hands of the status quo.

>>>/netcom/

*

[since deleted]
record here: >>>/netcom/391

good lord

Holy shit, the BO has ascended into armchair heaven.

Attached: XubT4ci.jpg (900x693, 729.13K)

BO here. I guess you'd think Lenin is "pathological" for making the exact same argument against amateurishness in What Is To Be Done? Adopting professional security practices doesn't "fragment and destroy" our communist movement (what movement, one might ask?), the POLICE fragment and destroy communist movements. Professional security practices are necessary to thwart the police– and any organizational or popularity gains made without the necessary precautions will evaporate when the police crackdown begins.
Similar points (vs what you implied): how exactly do you expect to gain the trust of the workers when wherever you go, a band of cops and feds follows? What enduring contacts with workers will you forge when you are perpetually bouncing in and out of solitary confinement?
Your dismissal of security is typical of communists in bourgeois democracies where communism has been so thoroughly disarmed that it can be "legalized." You make the same errors that the German communists did prior to WWI and the rise of German fascism, which Lenin criticizes in detail in Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. You really have no excuse, since all modern, credible revolutionary movements and parties have only found success due to their strict discipline and secrecy measures. Ignoring their example is basic chauvinism.

Not sure where Zizek or Lacan specifies that the jealous husband doesn't have any evidence. I really think its a meme argument, can the husband take any action that wouldn't be interpreted as pathological? Seeking to confirm his suspicions with evidence (see the Soviet proverb: "Trust but verify") would be pathological. Getting angry about cheating i.e. a real break of trust and and threat to the husband's health) is pathological. Doing anything at all about it can be interpreted as a pathology even if it includes the husband calmly explaining his grievance or leaving his wife. Isn't the husband ruining what was otherwise a happy relationship over jealousy regarding the jouissance that his wife experiences in her trysts.

Zizek explained it here
youtube.com/watch?v=SkSV4xyKkds
The Nazi's needed the idea of the Jew to sustain their ideology. Whether or not the Jews actually did do things related to what the Nazi's claimed (some did), it still would not justify the original accusation which was based on an unverified claim or the ideology as a whole. If the US claims there are nuclear weapons in a middle eastern country with no proof of such, then invades said country and finds them, does it justify the original unverified accusations or the invasion?

Psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience. Might as well cite Jung while you are at it.

argument not found

I get you, but just to play devil's advocate, what if the opposite is true? What if a need to publicly expose your radical beliefs all over social media is itself pathological? Going around saying Stalin did nothing wrong lmao while having a USSR flag for your profile pic is, first of all quite cringey, but it also reveals heavy levels of alienation and possibly narcissism on the part of the subject.

its fucking implied by them calling it pathological in the first place, of course its not "pathological" to suspect cheating if you have actual evidence or probable cause. this isnt self abusive tumblr goodboy #3345445 saying this.
"pathological jealousy" is distinct from normal concern in the face of actal evidence. you could defend literally any neurotic, paranoid, or toxic behavior by being fucking obtuse and willfully blind to what the speaker is talkinig about like this. this is like accusing someone talking about controlling and manipulative partners of insinuating people in a relationsihp shouldnt give a shit about or do anything for each other.

If you have to suspect you're being cucked at all, you've already lost.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (640x432, 364.03K)

I agree with both of you. I think in some instances, a degree of pathological behavior might be necessary.

if it's necessary it's not pathological by fucking definition

He's jealous he can't do the same or have that sort of influence on people and have that kind of sexual freedom.

Also his dick is small probably.

It's pure gaslighting.

its a good observation but this is really terrible propogand and you shouldnt be memeing it.

Not even sure where to start with this soyboy shit

just LOL you faggot

I remember a point made by Lacan where he said there are good, rational reasons for jealousy (e.g. some people really do have a more varied and enjoyable life than you; some people really do have easier, more enjoyable lives and experience levels of fulfillment and happiness that you don't etc.) but he goes on to say that just because a subject's jealousy and resentment is based on reason and fact that doesn't mean that they aren't acting in a pathological manner.

Based on this, I don't think my interpretation is off-the mark.

On that note, it doesn't follow that a jealous husband displaying pathological behavior is necessarily one that doesn't have evidence of his spouse's betrayal. Let's say that we have a husband whose wife is cheating on him and he has good evidence of this and he responds to her infidelity by beating her. Was his behavior justified just because he caught his wife being a slut? Of course not.

I've seen dysfunctional relationships like this, she cheats and he knows and he beats her but somehow they still stay together. That's pathological even if the husband's is completely right about everything.

But what I'm saying is Lacan/Zizek's logic here can be taken to some pretty ridiculous extremes on their own terms, so what is the real political use of this psychological observation?

You are so incredibly fucking stupid.

Zizek applies this to the Nazis and fascism/nationalism. I.e even if what the Nazis thought about Jews was true it would still be false because they need the figure of the Jew to propagate their ideas and hegemony. Watch Zizek pls.

Lenin was openly communist. He didn't avoid organisations nor did he not publish anything that identified him as a commie.

...

His point isn't that anyone who blames the Jews is pathological, he's saying that there politics requires a figure like the Jew, hence why he refers to is as "phantasmagoric". It's not even just how they treat the Jews, he means the entire hegemony they installed from the system of governance to foreign policy.

BO here,
Lenin was CONSTANTLY IN HIDING, on the run, underground, or IN DISGUISE for much of the time. Oh yeah, and "Lenin" wasn't even his real name. "Lenin" was one of many pseudonyms that he used. As well, he advocated both legal and illegal methods, meaning that he was in fact for publications and propaganda that were not openly communist, but served communist purposes. Even some of his most important works, such as Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism were deliberately written to avoid saying things that would provoke censorship.
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/pref01.htm

Yes, he became the foremost figure and leader of the Bolsheviks, meaning he did have to settle on a set public identity, but even right in the lead-up to 1917 he spent a considerable amount of time in hiding. Stalin and other Bolsheviks helped keep his location secret (Stalin's real name also wasn't Stalin, starting to get the picture yet?).
To put it simply, you are flat wrong. Yes, communists are straightforward and don't conceal their views in their capacity as communists, in propaganda and so on– they're not "entryists." But when they are in enemy territory or times of danger, they will take the necessary steps to preserve their lives and their movement.

"their politics"? Are you referring to fascism? #notallfascists

As for the general point you are making, all modes of thought that humans engage in are susceptible to this. It is nothing unique to NSDAP or fascism. All humans to some degree are pathological or fall on such a spectrum due to our species being. Who'd thunk???

That's actually precisely the point Žižek makes in his critique of ideology as the operative mode of symbolic control. He uses the 'Jew' as an active example of the joint pathology of the ideology and private suspicion, but he extends this concept across his canon to discuss ontological assumptions and the historicity of many modes of modern philosophy.

Except you aren't Lenin, fam, and this isn't 1917. You are writing on a chinese etch-a-sketch board about century-old communists. You're never gonna be arrested for posting here. Of course you should have a degree of op-sec and you shouldn't allow your org to be infiltrated or show yourself doing something that can get you in jail, but closing all accounts and hiding in a bunker in fear of the big, scary feds is gonna accomplish nothing but kill all potential for you to affect anything. It is this exaggerated, pathological fear that kills movements, and it's exactly the kind of thing counter-revolutionaries want.

Attached: 6139bf045035b3008d5ef71117f8b30d77091a2a82ccfef24168ac2ac52b8ade.jpg (230x255, 15.67K)

that isn't what Zizek/Lacan talk about at all, you turning it into a MRA issue somehow is truly pathological

Don't be rude I'm just shitposting.

You see pathology, I see heuristic. I view such a mode of diagnosis as a pathology of vulgar materialism and positivism and the replication of the primacy of class historiography and weltanschuang.

big dinks

pepe memes, jpeg infographics and nazi pamphlets are a superior mode of analysis than class analysis for sure

This sentence is a good example of trying and failing to match the sophistication of someone who knows more than you do.

Did I make such a claim? Getting a little pathological on me are you? ;^)

I wasn't aware it was a competition. I made a reply, which is much more significant than a statement.

They're not necessarily mutually exclusive, as the assumption of there being a pathological agency or ideological compunction does not imply this relation to be illusory, just never capable of resolving being as such. As to the accusations of positivism and vulgar materialism, i'm not sure from where you glean that understanding as the works of the psychoanalysts is not that of the orienteer but much more prominently aleatory - a notable departure from the analytical teleology of more orthodox philosophers within the Marxian tradition. While there still exists the sublimation, to necessarily assume that these ideas are predicated by class in this context (as well as world view, which you spelled incorrectly in German - though orthography is hardly the issue) is to fall prey, twofold, to the essentialism you accuse the Lacan-Žižek tradition of.

how so?

I'm not accusing Zizek or any psychoanalyst of that in particular within his works. I am accusing those who to turn to psychoanalysis as a means to to invalidate others without realizing the flaws within their own historical worldview. I have not seen Zizek, lacan et al do this, but it is a generalized trend that I have noticed that Marxists often turn to psychoanalysis to understand why class consciousness did not rise as it was presupposed to.

Did I do this. that is claim that either are "guilty" of essentialism? I know enough to know that isn't the case. To me the notion that there is no essence in itself is a manner of reifying a self refuting claim; to claim that there is no essence is to essentialize that claim.

Ah, forgive me, I only began following along the last few posts - forgive the bellicose tone.

This just indicates that the prominent position is that there will always exist some non-valent, irresolvable within any singular context that is indicative of the antinomies of trying to create a closed system - a particularist universalism. Dealing solely in empirics will obviously never amount to a consistency of collective being, as there must exist some aperture to render it within being. This, of course, is the introduction of language - seemingly Heideggerian, but plays an enormous role in the rendering of the symbolic, real, and imaginary bodies within psychoanalysis. This connects back with the conception of an aleatory/ontological gap model of the human subject, which links to your third remark regarding the absence of essence - it can't function as indicative of manque precisely because it assumes it and then derelicts it. The final, definitive act is a return to Hegel at least for a communist and the fundamental issues of a distention between ontology and epistemology

I've very rarely experienced it within this context, though I suppose some of the works of Adorno, Horkheimer, Fromm, etc. could be understood in this fashion. Typically, psychoanalysis within leftist theory has been terribly impious and idiosyncratic - diverging from orthodoxy and determinism seen in the extant forms of ML and other tendencies. I'd recommend Really Existing Nationalisms by Erica Benner to see a historicity of Marxist theory in regards to those confounding variables that disturbed the simple, revanchist sentiments prominent within a number of communist groups. It deals with how the philosophical background of communism fully appreciated and dealt with ideas of ethnic nationalism, etc.

OK, I'll bite. What made Lenin Lenin was his marvelous pragmatism with which he could reorient the party to the ever changing circumstances to best fit the communist goal. WitBD was written for Tsarist Russia, where spreading the "wrong kind" of pamphlets, for instance, could get you a five year prison sentence. Lenin compiles and argues against the wrong kind of attitudes, org.models, delusions spread in the "socialist" press, etc. with the intent of giving radicals a reality check.

Later, after the Russian people toppled the Tsar, new circumstances arrived with new enemies (bourg & their parliament) but also with newfound freedoms, needing the party to reorient itself from the conspiratorial model to a mass party one.

The correct orientation of communist praxis starts with measuring up the political field you walk upon. Under a repressive colonialist regime a guerrilla movement practicing protracted people's war is likely the correct praxis befitting the circumstances. Under a monarchy or non-parliamentary bourgeois dictatorship a conspiratorial model could be the key to success… I'm not trying to give a blueprint here, because the the crucial details of each monarchy will differ from another, just trying to make a general point.

If so far we agree, we can also agree that we must differ in how we measure up… the US, I presume?

I remember reading an old (i.e. the good kind of) Maoist's political experiences from the sixties compiled into a ~20 pages .pdf that was available on Kasamaproject (I miss that site). The dude was part of a communist cell not satisfied with what was left of the radical parties, intent on overthrowing the USA in the middle of the cold war. Each comrade applied for a job in a different factory (he, for a car manufacturer) in the South, no less, and started earning the trust of their fellow workers very slowlike. Only after a year or so could he even begin voicing his slight criticisms, talking about the horrific work conditions etc. to the fellow workers. Some of his less cautious comrades in other factories were caught, either fired, and/or trialed as an agent of a hostile country. He didn't even begin talking about the USSR. Slowly, after mapping out possible snitches and kiss-ups, could he inject systemic criticism to his fellow workers.

I think I needn't go on, and you get the point: we are (in the West, generally) not in this situation, IMO. It is true that with the interwebs came new modes of surveillance, but we are not in a cold war (well, at least in the sense of a cold war between opposing ideologies/systems). You can, right now, create a Facebook event for an openly communist meeting with friends, gather, talk about a violent revolution against the state, go home, and jerk off after. It is not advised, of course, but sure as hell you won't get jailed for it (could get shot on the way, tho, if you's black). Nothing is stopping our (your) amateur parties to go agitating into factories, farms. Nothing. Nothing is stopping the workers from striking (in the sense that they won't get fucking shot en mass like in the beginning of the 20th century), and they do strike, and do unionize (under reformist banners, ofc).

In my experience those who are obsessed with "internet security" are comrades whose praxis consists mainly of symbolic and internet politics. By symbolic I mean things like the lame protests PSL does (still better than nothing, tho), and by internet politics I mean posting online, having reading groups on discord, etc. These are all fine and dandy, and a good start, but I don't see comrades working among workers cry about internet security. In fact, I don't see comrades working among workers, at all.

cheers

That you're a cuck

It is, but then again """internet politics""" is pathological, through and through.

This is an interesting point, and I think I agree. In rare and extreme instances where nothing else is possible a "passage to the act" or "acting out" could actually yield results a "sane" or calculated action could never.

Freudians would disagree. Conforming to social norms (waiting in a line, being polite, opening doors for people, not slapping your teacher when he deserves it, eating with a closed mouth, not touching your dick on the street etc.) is necessary to a high degree, but also pretty much pathological as far as your psychic life is concerned. You just normalized it to such a degree that you believe that rappers on MTV squeezing their crotches while waving a gun at the camera are the pathological ones, while in fact you yourself know, deep down, that the opposite is true, that this rapper's message is effective exactly because he's saying: "fuck your society, man, I touch my dick when I want to and get all the bichez and shoot you if we start having a problem."

And, ironically, this is the exact reason why netsec paranoia WILL remain only pure paranoia.

No offense taken, we are on an image board after all :-) I may have deserved a bellicose tone for my mischievous posts.

Well I would have to agree with that, my "racism" and "anti-semitism" (strange word) does not directly emanate from any desire to abolish the present system, at least directly. Rather it is to maintain a particular mode of society, that is a productive mode of society with real value that supports the developments that will bring true emancipation through the abolition of the human condition. I do not see the social problem being resolved in any other manner, especially given the limited time frame we are given when faced with resource/energy depletion et al

I disagree, I think the field is far more fraught with incomprehensibility. To me frame of reference that is individual being comes prior to idealistic notions like language or class relations. Although class itself is a form of frame of reference. Outside of such quantifiable and knowable (through the self) frames of reference we are open to the problems of game theory. That is in part what I believe to cause social problems amongst humans.

I meant people, not writers. Probably shouldn't have capitalized. But yeah those are the ones I understand to be the gulteral margsisms yes?

I wasn't aware that Marxism was considered in any sense strictly hard deterministic, except for a few groups like leftcoms and their disdain for opportunists.

Thanks for the reading recommendation though, I will add it to my to read list.

Attached: 6cb9bbf6b434f03d71c10af84c868166179c9439.jpg (619x620, 39.45K)

Same with god! Check mate atheists!

I also stated that class is a material basis. Class relations, that is relations between thinking beings belonging to different classes is idealistic. Class is not.

Also what is up with that image? Why hide the nazi flag under the nazi flag???

what the fuck happened here.
The replies should have stopped at this post

class relations aren't when you talk to your boss, class relations are how society organizes itself based on relation to the means of production. they exist objectively, regardless of our ideas and agency. if you are a factory owner and I am a worker, our personal relations as thinking beings are idealistic, but the observation that you wield power over me due to owning the MoP isn't, just like how it isn't idealistic to observe that it becomes dark when the sun sets

Claiming that it gets dark when the sun sets is pure idealism. It is simply lack. Not a state in of itself.

And for that matter, how can society organize outside of agency? You cannot consciously exploit your workers without thinking about it. Why would talking about any of this matter if class relations existed in drives outside agency?

I also did not claim this. What I stated was ambiguous.

...

...

...

who would win? Brainlet singularity, or big brained nerd? :V

...

But I was talking about existing organizations, which you can and will get arrested for participating in, and if they were getting particularly effective, you can even get killed (see all the assassinated Ferguson activists).

You're creating a strawman. You should stop using your Facebook account for anything organization-related or which marks you as a socialist– AND THEN leave your dumb internet bubble and actually start agitating and organizing IRL.
In all your stupid complacency the thing I find most hilarious is the idea that Facebook is even usable for propaganda. You know they're just going to detect danger phrases in your posts and then demote them, right? They won't reach a tenth of your "friends." If you really piss off Facebook (usually by trying to post an article from dissident news outlets), they won't even let you post. This is all while flagging YOU as someone for the cops to go visit some day– have you ever posted in support of Palestine? Bring this guy up on charges of aid to terrorism. The sooner you start learning how to spread propaganda and organize without "using" (getting used by) imperialist social media, the better off you and your movement will be.

T.cuckold

You ignored the second part of my post, what a surprise. Seriously, read Left Wing Communism. The idea that Bolshevik-style practices aren't needed in "free, democratic" countries is completely refuted. Again, part of the purpose of taking "needless" precaution now is that you will develop the necessary training and skills for when the crackdown does begin.
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/

But again, even WITBD discusses this:
> because, naturally, the police, in almost every case, knew the principal leaders of the local movement, since they had already “gained a reputation” for themselves in their student days, and the police waited only for the right moment to make their raid. They deliberately allowed the study circle sufficient time to develop its work so that they might, obtain a palpable corpus delicti, and they always permitted several of the persons known to them to remain at liberty “for breeding” (which, as far as I know, is the technical term used both by our people and by the gendarmes).
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/iv.htm
This is what's happening right now.

More BS. So the Soviets conducted everything in the open after establishing the DOTP? I guess they just broadcasted all their military plans to the White Army and later the Nazis… no need for pathological secrecy after all…

I'm not advocating "internet security," I'm saying for the most part, the internet is just not secure. It should be used, yes, but it should be compartmentalized and understood to be dangerous territory.