Important Postmodern Philosophers

Of course postmodern philosophy is based on bourgeois idealism, but like any bourgeois theory or science, there could be something of use to Marxists in it. How do we sort the wheat from the chaff in postmodern philosophy, take the useful observations, and explain them in terms of dialectical materialism? Who are the postmodern philosophers who have theories that can be of use to Marxism? Which theories, and why?

Personally I've downloaded some of Baudrillard's works recently after reading a summary of his theory of simulacrum. It basically seems to be an argument that the process of accumulation of image and memes is analogous to the process of accumulation of capital that Marx describes in Capital V.1:
"If a capital of £1,000 beget yearly a surplus-value of £200, and if this surplus-value be consumed every year, it is clear that at the end of 5 years the surplus-value consumed will amount to 5 × £200 or the £1,000 originally advanced. If only a part, say one half, were consumed, the same result would follow at the end of 10 years, since 10 × £100= £1,000. General Rule: The value of the capital advanced divided by the surplus-value annually consumed, gives the number of years, or reproduction periods, at the expiration of which the capital originally advanced has been consumed by the capitalist and has disappeared. The capitalist thinks, that he is consuming the produce of the unpaid labour of others, i.e., the surplus-value, and is keeping intact his original capital; but what he thinks cannot alter facts. After the lapse of a certain number of years, the capital value he then possesses is equal to the sum total of the surplus-value appropriated by him during those years, and the total value he has consumed is equal to that of his original capital. It is true, he has in hand a capital whose amount has not changed, and of which a part, viz., the buildings, machinery, &c., were already there when the work of his business began. But what we have to do with here, is not the material elements, but the value, of that capital. When a person gets through all his property, by taking upon himself debts equal to the value of that property, it is clear that his property represents nothing but the sum total of his debts. And so it is with the capitalist; when he has consumed the equivalent of his original capital, the value of his present capital represents nothing but the total amount of the surplus-value appropriated by him without payment. Not a single atom of the value of his old capital continues to exist. "
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch23.htm
I don't know whether or not Baudrillard makes the comparison in S&S, but he was an (idealist, critical) reader of Marx so he could also have ripped it off without giving credit. Either way, it rings true and hints to me possible inroads for Marxist analysis of mass culture.

Attached: Jean Baudrillard.jpg (1408x792, 205.78K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Fg0lMebGt9I
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Ah fuck, I know I'll get shit on for this but Foucault was pretty interesting to me. The whole idea that those who have power shape where society is headed (for example there could be a society just as advanced as ours but they chose to never develop nuclear weapons because their leaders never need to) is obviously a pomo take. Of course, people in power often get it because the have vast sums of capital to reach it and Foucault never really lays down a plan for how to change the world for the better but its a fun idea none the less. Just goes to show modernism doesn't explain everything.

Jameson, Deleuze, Derrida, Fisher. With the exception of Heidegger, if you even consider him Postmodern, a lot of the fundamental postmodernist philosophers were explicitly Marxist; which makes sense given that a whole lot of it is founded on the Frankfurts' interpretation of Marx's approach to commodities and ideology.


Foucault becomes a lot less exciting once you've read your Adorno and Arendt

Heidegger is grandfather of pomo. Marx was taken more seriously and Marxist movements had more force then, so it makes sense that any pomo would be quite familiar with Marx and his background, but I would not go as far as to say that some were explicitly Marxist. If they were Marxist they probably changed their tune over their career (Baudrillard, Lyotard, Foucault[?] or were just sympathetic (Deleuze)

Postmodernism should be understood here as critique of power and society post-May 68.

Explain that.

Baudrillard is somewhat interesting due to his writings on hyperreality and virtuality, however I thought his critique of Marxism in PDFs related (insofar I understood it) was absolute garbage. The idea that Marx' critique of capitalism "didn't go far enough" because it didn't eliminate use value, only exchange value, and that this makes Marxist capitalism critique "bourgeois" (as opposed to the "aristocratic" capitalism critique of Bataille/Nietzsche) is very idealist. It's like a pomo version of the fascist propaganda about Marxism and capitalism being "two sides of the same materialist coin". Moreover, his vision of history is often idealized on an aesthetical basis as well, for example when he describes the traditional form as warfare as something "passionate" and a "duel" in The Gulf War Didn't Take Place. His writing style can be very compelling sometimes, but that's about the best thing about his work.

Well first of all I don't think someone like Derrida was really Marxist, at least it would be a stretch to say so. And secondly the main philosophers that basically everyone agrees to be "postmodernists" - like Lyotard and Baudrillard - were definitely not Marxists. Jameson is an exception tbh, and perhaps Foucault if you also consider him Marxist.

Don't all contemporary strands of Marxism come to the same conclusions without throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Doesn't already the principle "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" imply the abolition of both exchange and use value? Isn't it clear to any serious reader of Marx that communism isn't about managing capital differently, but getting rid of its logic of operation?

OH NO NO NO NO NO HAHAHAHAHA

Just kill this bullshit with fire already.

Why not?

No, because you're assuming there are objectgive "needs," which isn't true

Can you say more about why you think it's idealist? I keep seeing this dismissal of Baudrillard but I'd like to read more about this critique of his work. Also, just because fascists said that capitalism and communism faced similar detriments doesn't mean they're wrong- this is a gesture toward engaging with people on a level more like spirituality, honor, memes, passions, instead of the level of interests, rationality, identity, etc. It's certainly a threat to Marxism, which is why it makes sense for Marxists to be against it, but you don't seem to be providing much of a defense. "Everything I don't like is fascist idealism." Say more, please!

Also his point about the Gulf War is totally true and not even really hard to understand. His point is that it's not a war because there was never an existential threat to the US. This is more like a "set piece" whose purpose is to fool the masses into thinking that victory can be won through force (similar to Afghanistan after 9/11- "at least we're doing something"). The passion and duel aspect comes in because in a true war you are fighting for the survival of your country, not the security of your hegemony which may be vital to the current incarnation of the "nation" but which is definitely lower stakes than, say, the Eastern front in WW2.

So this is the power of Baudrillard.

...

To give an example, if you're in a position where death is imminent, you don't need food, i.e. you're a soldier on the last step of a suicide mission or you're about to commit suicide. Alternatively, we may use genetic engineering or other tech to no longer need food.
These examples show that there is no transhistorical need for food. That means that we can't simply appeal to needs as a given (i.e. communism is producing for need, not exchange). What is socially necessary is subject to change and emerges from priorities which do not arise from economic interest.
Another way to understand it might be to invoke Hume's point that reason serves the passions. We want to eat because we want to be part of the world (there is no need, only desire). But in turn our desires derive from our social context (what Baudrillard calls the symbolic).

don't disgust me or my son ever again

liberalism ltd.

shoo shoo liberal

hard agree

The Mirror of Production by Jean Baudrillard, translated by Mark Poster
From the translator's introduction:
This sounds so stupid and idealistic that it feels like a parody. Should I really read the whole thing?

Genetic engineering won't let you escape from the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.

we are reaching sartre levels of wokeness here

Lyotard is the best pomo

What about Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus? Does it count as post-modernism?

I'm quoting a few passages from Victoria Grace's book Baudrillard's Challenge which you can find online. They're kind of long but not as long as MoP lmao (which of course itself is not that long).

Page 106:

Page 148:

Page 180:

So in the first quote, we see a critique of the accusation of idealism by interrogating the supposed difference between signs, AKA mental stuff or ideas, and the "real" AKA the material. It goes without saying that our conceptions of matter are all signs, and that signs take place in material brains. Especially as we see with commodification moving into leisure time and taking over all social space, it's clear that the realm of signification is not separate from the realm of the material reproduction of capitalist economic relations. Also note that the part you quoted is not Baudrillard but Mark Poster, who fundamentally doesn't agree with Baudrillard and IMO is a moron. According to Baudrillard the logic of economic necessity is a simulation model which is used to create the justification for the necessity of capitalism. Baudrillard criticizes Marx for not interrogating concepts like production, labor, and nature enough in his analysis. I see Baudrillard as performing an imminent critique of Marxism, ultimately in line with its goals but criticizing theoretical hangups.

The second quote is saying that creating "laws of history," which Marx and Engels were trying to do, is itself idealist in the sense that you are taking away from the "sovereignty of the world" by claiming to have come up with "laws," AKA conceptual ideas, that all matter must eternally affirm. Instead of "laws," Baudrillard likes rules (as in a game), because they don't pretend to be universal and embrace contingency. Also note here the emphasis on that which cannot be communicated or articulated. This is very important for Baudrillard, that the truth cannot simply be drawn out into the open plainly. Thus, for Baudrillard to claim that any statement is true would be an error (and arguably idealist), because ultimately the truth lies in things which we cannot express in words. This does not mean that Baudrillard is against science, just that we should give up the arrogance of the category of truth. If we "obviously" don't mean the ultimate truth, then we should use language which reflects that. "The fundamental laws of thermodynamics" is not a known truth about the world but simply a name given to a pattern which we don't even really understand. You don't really know whether we will be able to overcome it or not: to say we can't because it's an established idea is the definition of idealism, is it not?

The final paragraph is showing how normal conceptions of materialism are idealist. You are insisting on the "realness" of your idea of materialism because of the part it plays in the rest of your beliefs- your identity as a Marxist and how it structures your social relationships with other people. Baudrillard doesn't consider himself materialist or idealist but more along the lines of the "poetic" as mentioned here, although there are many words one could use and in fact no word really does it justice since it's all about how words don't really get at the truth.


Are you saying that you can't always starve or kill yourself? The implication of your argument is that "it's obvious" what people should want to do and what they "need" to do it. Isn't this a form of imperialism whereby you wish to tell people what they need on the basis of your "objective" knowledge?

More broadly, I think the reason why Baudrillard is so important at the moment is that we are seeing the results of the implosion of base and superstructure more and more clearly these days. To engage the forces of production you need labor, but for labor you need human beings who are wrapped up in accelerating and dividing spheres of socialization. Above all, it's clear that we will not get through to people on the basis of rational argument- especially because our enemies the spies can simply program a million bots to spam bullshit drowning out all possible reasoning. We need bold action which is resonant, which means we must engage with people at the level of their conception of honor, of their ties and duties as individuals (not as workers) to the people around them that they care about (even if it's caring of hatred). This is the important of emphasizing the ineffable- it is not a theory which will get people to do something but a challenge.

is mayonnaise imperialism?

That's fair and a lot of people have done this without throwing the whole Marxist framework out the window.

This is a strawman and vulgar understanding of Marxism. Read Pannekoek's Lenin as Philosopher. Just by defending a non-vulgar understanding of historical materialism he comes to pretty much the same conclusions as Baudrillard e.g. laws of nature are just human approximations that help us understand the world, just like the concept of matter itself.
What Baudrillard wants to sell as his own unique discovery by wrapping it in super deep "reality don't real" tier pseudo-philosophical terms is just Marxism correctly understood.

This "imperialism" has nothing to do with imperialism in the sense Lenin originally used it. But perhaps I'm only being "imperialist" by your definition in imposing my definition on you.

This is nothing but the liberal conception of freedom in its most cynical form.
>What if the proles want to be oppressed? Who are you to tell them what to desire?

I was under the impression that our intention is to get rid of commodity production altogether?

Well, mostly what I said about his critique of Marx. He talks about "abolishing use value" but is such a thing really possible? Specifically I think he's idealist for denying the essential and fundamental role economy plays in society, nowadays and in all societies that have existed. He talks about returning to a more "symbolic" world order, which he believes is somehow above the economical; he ignores that, even in times where humans had a more symbolic "experience" of the world, the actual basis of that world was still material and for a large part determined by economical circumstances. To put it another way, Marx DOES actually have the goal of making human life more meaningful by diminishing the role that use value and the desire for material gains play in our life, but he also recognizes the necessity of starting from the viewpoint of a sober economical analysis before we can actually make that change. Baudrillard on the other hand thinks he's "bourgeois" for not immediately abolishing all talk of use value and reverting to the primacy of some kind of symbolic order instead. This is what I call idealist. Or at least, a lack of economical and political realism.
u wot
I didn't say Baudrillard is a fascist, that would just be sentimentalism. However I did think there's an interesting analogy between his line of thought about Marxism not abolishing use value and the fascist argument that Marxism is not anti-materialist enough. Even though he's not a fascist, I felt like these ideas both stem from the same antirealistic/irrational source. And both are fueled by an excessive nostalgy for a more "symbolic" world order, which is to some extent a thing that really existed, but is IMO also romanticized in the way he presents it.
I know, I did understand that from the book and agree with it. As I said I find his ideas on virtuality etc. one of the more interesting aspects. However the idea of people fighting to "defend their nation" is just an overly romantic representation of the past - and most importantly it ignores the reality of poor proles being used as warriors by the elites, because it suggests all wars in history were the result of some desire inherent to the common people to fight for their country/people.
Also, his writing really is overly verbose at times. I don't have a problem with philosophical terminology but some of the Gulf War book and his other writings is just endlessly rephrasing the same points in an overly difficult way. Which is even more ridiculous because, as you say, at its core are some very easy to grasp ideas.

To be fair I did not even read most of that book myself. I read his book on the Gulf War, The Spirit of Terrorism, the first chapter of Simulacra & Simulation and two or three shorter texts he wrote late in his life. Maybe read the first chapter of Simulacra & Simulation for fun - I actually had a blast reading this together with a mate who also studies philosophy because some of it (the sections about how Watergate is exactly the same scenario as Disneyland and how you cannot organize a fake holdup) just read like unintentional self-parody.

>The Mirror of Production by Jean Baudrillard, translated by Mark Poster

Leave.

Yeah but diamat calls this "relative truth" which grows ever-more approximate to the absolute truth.

none

Yes. It's very model of pomo shit. I love it, Anti-Oedipus is one of the most fun theory books I've read. Deleuze solo work is not as fun or weird as AO and ATP, but Guattari on the other hand is batshit and fun to read. I recommend Chaosmosis and Three Ecologies from him.

something tells me you're one of those people who would link to the wiki article of Herbert Marcuse to show he was linked to the CIA and then believe you've made the entirety of 20th century philosophy invalid by doing that

No, but are you really defending the CIA right now? Yikes.

Where do you think I did that?

I think Derrida and Foucault are generally very interesting. Considering pomo is an elaborate form of criticism that describes how fucked up capitalism is, I don't see the problem.

I have been willing to read books/texts by both Derrida and Foucault for a long time, where should I start? Have you read Spectres of Marx?

Shut the fuck up jesus christ you are a living embodiment of a parody

...

Not the poster you replied to, but how is Capitalism and Schizophrenia?

Attached: don't hate cuz I'm kawaii.png (1163x129, 20.61K)

Capitalism and Schizophrenia is composed of two volumes: Anti-Oedipus(AO) and A Thousand Plateaus(ATP). While AO is a more coherent experience with a more or less traditional academic structure, ATP is composed of 11 autonomous chapters called Plateaus. Each of these chapters can be read solo, with others and in whatever order you want. Personally I've found AO to be a better book and with a more consistent quality overall, while ATP had some ups and lows due to how it was organized and written as well as dealing with far more subjects than AO. I recommend reading both, while Deleuze himself would suggest going raw with little experience as possible to make the text your own, it's nice to get an idea of Marx, Freud, Melanie Klein, Lacan, Structuralist linguistics(Saussure and his followers in france, forget Bloomfield) and some german idealism and Espinosa; as they are the main intelectual influences to both writers.
If you like their style go for Guattari, as he writes in that style, for the ideas discussed go for Deleuze and Guattari, and people like Suely Rolnik and Eduardo Viveiros de Castro.

...

Well it depends on what you mean by "the whole Marxist framework." To give a stupid example, Jesus is a prophet in Islam but he's not the whole point. Can't we appreciate Marx for what he did without making him the central theoretical figure? Not that Baudrillard should be, but that we don't need a key thinker or to just have fidelity to "Marxism" as an a priori value.
I don't think Baudrillard is trying to sell himself as the discoverer of something. I think you can speak to his position as one of bring Marx's theory in contact with semiology a la Saussure. Obviously there was no Saussure when Marx was writing, so we can't judge Marx personally for the limitations of his theory. But in general I think it's not about the thinker, it's about the thought, so I would agree that people who want to assert the primacy of their pet philosopher over all else are stupid because it's not about the thinker. Finally, though, I do think part of what Baudrillard is against is this common sense idea of reality. It really doesn't hold up when you interrogate it.

Lenin didn't invent the idea of imperialism. Why should I remain beholden to his definition…? What I mean is precisely that you're imposing your way of thinking universally. Certainly Baudrillard can be accused of this as well, which is why I think the concept of the ineffable is so important. Baudrillard's thought does not impose a determinate concept on everything, it imposes indeterminacy which can never be expressed. That's paradoxical too, but perhaps paradox is simply inevitable in language.

Doesn't the economy have to arise from nature? Hence we experience ourselves as thrown into a world we didn't make. Economically we're born into structures of production, but those structures were born out of evolution and before that, physics, which I don't think we can understand as economic. Thus in order to think in economic terms we have to already be here, which invokes the mystery of being (why is there stuff?). Further, we do things to attain goals, but why do we value the goals? I don't think economics has the answers here, although imo a "completed" economics would take everything Baudrillard raises into account, but it could just as easily be called a completed politics or religion or art, etc.
pretty clear ad hominem fallacy no?
I don't think Baudrillard thinks the proles necessarily gave a shit about the nation, but that the Gulf war served a huge function as something people watch on TV. The mediated consumption of images of conflict is new to this time. I'm not defending Baudrillard's choices in how he wrote, like Zizek I'm pissed they don't (didn't) do more outwardly.

Why would you decide whether to read something based on part of the translator's introduction that's super dumb

But it's still thinking you're getting closer to objective reality. When really we'd be better of dispensing with this concept.

You clearly know nothing of Baudrillard if you think this would hurt my feelings LMAO. To wit, for Baudrillard power is always only the parodicization of power.


My homies

Was sagt man dazu?

actually we wouldn't be better off, idealist.

Yes you would, because you can't say what material things you're talking about when you say "real." So it's better not to act as if you're certain of things you're not certain about. Not sure why you have to call me names just because you're a fucking idiot

These philosophers are really great and you all should spend more time studying that stuff instead of doing mindless activism.
t. CIA nigger

'Objective reality' as something intersubjective or something inapproximable and outside human consciousness (I think that would be Lacan's Real order)? All that we humans may know is intersubjective reality, the only reality that we may consider real and material. We only know things out of their functions. youtube.com/watch?v=Fg0lMebGt9I

Fuck off Berkeleyites

Except this is not the empiricist subjective idealism of Berkeley: it is by definition intersubjective. It is not simple intersubjectivisation of this subjective idealism either for what I'm saying involves the very existence of these intersubjective things as far as human praxis is concerned. Of course they actually exist: human praxis is ABSOLUTE in the world of reason.

...

Wow, this Baudrillard guy is really deep. Marxists mistakenly think that for the production of wealth the wealth has to be produced. In believing that, Marx was pure ideology. This is probably too deep for leftypol, so we should discuss this further on discord.