ITT: theorists who are never discussed on here, who should be

it looks more like the 1990s though. probably has more to do with the death throes of Puritanism.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1179x604, 71.84K)

Isn't Nagle a sucdem?

learn 2 english

She's a Marxist of the"class reductionist" variety. She doesn't belong to a retarded sect, but she seems pretty redpilled. I recall her remarking in an interview how she's suspicious of countercultures because of how the West was able to use them against USSR.

Bumping this thread with the suggestion of Fredric Jameson. He isn't an orthodox Marxist, but his writings about postmodernism and Hegel are always interesting.

Cool. Care to summarize his theories?

We should turn every leftist theorist into a huge meme. That way their theories will be easy to spread to the masses.

Agreed.

Attached: adorno-foucault.jpg (447x637, 59.9K)

I'll give a basic summary of his views on postmodernism in art, since it's what he's most well-known for and because I'd find it difficult to summarize his interpretation and expansion of Hegel.

Probably the best summation of postmodernism is Jameson's own, namely that it's "the cultural logic of late capitalism," or, more explicitly, the cultural logic of a capitalism that is proceeding to detach itself from the nation-state and social obligations to it (becoming "multinational"). Postmodernism in art can be considered a movement after the end of history, a kind of art that has abandoned any notion of utopia or artistic separateness from the world ("creating a world in its self") but rather seeks to reproduce the world as it exists, or reproduce others' ideas for lack of any faith in itself or any new vision beyond the world as it is.

It abandons the separation between high and low art, often indulging in a form of populism, which helps to create the sense that there is no world beyond or higher than the cultural products of capital which would have been considered kitsch by someone like Adorno. Even art that poses as oppositional to this order is (or is sensed as) used by that same order, coopted and reabsorbed as commodities like virtually everything else. Fundamentally, it's art for a society that feels lost, without any direction nor a sense that there is any place further to go.

That would imply that the first cultural duty of socialists should be to reinvent history, right?

Why did Poulantzas turn EuroComm and then an hero?

Deleuze and Guattari.

Influenced Debord and Baudrillard, not particularly leftist but his work is a treat.

Attached: Georges_Bataille_vers_1943.jpg (1027x1500, 683.07K)

Pierre Bourdieu is good if you want to study the relationship between class and culture.

marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu-forms-capital.htm

Adorno.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=3JmFa2Q40lg
Fug u

Love Bataille.

What's the difference between Althusser and Bourdieu?

Have you read a single line from him or are you just "memeing," you absolute fuck?

The former is an actual Marxist.

I mean in the way they understand power and subjugation. For example, I've heard anarkiddies claim Bourdieu BTFO'd Althusser without giving examples.

This. Every good anarchist in particular should read Bataille.

whats a good place to start?

In my opinion, Althusser sees power and subjugation reinforced through ideological apparatuses; while Bourdieu sees power as reinforcing itself through class-based distinctions or cultural norms. Both are pretty interesting, but I would personally refrain from getting to deep into either (since they are very academic). However, Bourdieu in the 1990's was one of a handful of French intellectuals who still supported and wrote about the working-class, whereas all the old communists either became Eurocommunists or outright reactionary, so one has to give him some credit.

Attached: 50771c9e73385a55ffdf44b77612febd.jpg (750x1460, 243.18K)

Yes, in a way. Jameson thinks that the object currently should be not as much to reinvent the grand narratives that create history (although this is certainly one goal) but rather bring the buried grand narratives under which we actually live into full explicitness. That is, socialists would need to dig up the buried grand narrative and critique that in order to reinvent history, because to do the latter implies in itself the replacement of the implicit grand narratives of late capitalism.

The Accursed Share, probably, if you want a more systematic treatment. The Bataille Reader if you just want a selection. The Trial of Gilles de Rais if you want something more "fun" as an introduction. Story of the Eye if you'd rather read fiction or are into de Sade.

Very interesting.

Dunno. Sometimes Bataille comes off as an eastern mystic.

literally just a marxist then

Most Marxists aren't economic reductionists.

Has anyone here read any Karl Korsch? I was thinking about cracking open Marxism and Philosophy, anyone know if it's any good?

He's similar to Lukács IIRC.

thanks. is eroticism any good/have you read it? its the only bataille i own in print…

also anyone read nick lands book on bataille? must at least be fun to read

Attached: 41ntp4UMRiL._SX351_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (353x499, 28.98K)

Alexandre Kojeve. Yes unironically.

Althusser is one of my favorites.

Bordieu comes off a red liberal if that's the case, concern trolling the working class.

No but it looks good.

Daniel Bensaïd.

He was a Trot, but he was OUR Trot.

most people who call themselves Marxist aren't Marxists

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (736x2364, 1.81M)

hm
mondediplo.com/2011/06/18cosmetics

He and Michael Löwy are GOAT trots. At least Löwy has a lot of respect for peasant revolts in Latin America.

He was the one who truly inverted (and BTFO'd) Hegel, not Marx. Mad respect.

Not a leftist theorist of course but anyway: is Nietzsche worth reading if you're a post-left insurrectionist "fuck shit up" type?

Neitzsche is just a spayed and neutered version of Max Stirner, that's why he was declared one of the great philosophers by the powers that be.

Not really no.

Did you forget about me, Anons?

Attached: avakian123.jpg (960x720, 55.26K)

Attached: Bob Avakian the builder.jpg (480x377, 67.61K)

Attached: BA.png (236x255, 12.81K)

So much this. Best of Nietzsche, best of Marx, best of Freud all rolled into one.

Fuck off Facebook

Attached: young-georg-lukacs.jpg (541x417, 29.78K)

I have to admit, that I had always heard how great Lukacs was, especially as I was surrounded by Western Marxist types. Upon reading him however, I felt he really didn't add anything and instead was just a hard to read version of Marx and Lenin with obscure philosophical phrases added in.

this.

FeelsBadGirl.

monsieur dupont

Attached: nihcomcover.jpg (400x547, 50.37K)

Cool stuff. We need more nihilists on the left.

The idea that not everyone will be a communist is ridiculously lucid. If every leftist had that firmly in their mind it would be a definite improvement.

Are there any Marxist Deleuzians out there?

Negri

A bit off-topic, but are there any leftist theorists who were into really weird shit which influenced their Marxism/anarchism? The only ones I can think of are Benjamin, Ilyenkov, and of course Posadas.

imo deleuze is to some degree incompatible with marx, maybe incompatible with the left altogether. for me, he was a gateway drug to the more interesting strands of anarchism (tiqqun and agamben and shit)

Sraffa.

lmao that post by Ollie Bellend

How are Deleuze and Marx incompatible? And please don't pull the "you MUST worship Hegel in order to be a Marxist at all" card.

Mark fisher

beyond semantics, what's really the difference here?

Really? That actually sounds good. I enjoy many of Stirner's points like his points on protestant morals and other spooks and such but I don't entirely buy into the whole psychological egoism thing

Fully Based tho

The SLA issued an ultimatum to the Hearst family: that they would release Patty in exchange for the freedom of Remiro and Little. When such an arrangement proved impossible, the SLA demanded a ransom, in the form of a food distribution program. The value of food to be distributed fluctuated: on February 23 the demand was for $4 million; it peaked at $400 million. Although free food was distributed, the operation was halted when violence erupted at one of the four distribution points.[11] This happened because the crowds were much greater than expected, and people were injured as panicked workers threw boxes of food off moving trucks into the crowd. After the SLA demanded that a community coalition called the Western Addition Project Area Committee be put in charge of the food distribution, 100,000 bags of groceries were handed out at 16 locations across four counties between February 26 and the end of March.

Not at all true. Bourdieu talks about the subjugation of the body to ritual whereas Althusser talks about the subjugation of the mind to ideology. No reason why they can't be combined, in fact Foucault makes heavy use of both.

As dumb as intersectionality is as a theory, heralding that page as some oasis of reason is even dumber, especially when they were exposed to be pretty reactionary. For fuck's sake, those are the same kind of people who equate trans people existing with """"identity politics"""", much like phil greaves or cockshott btw.

Yes, Communism is inherently negative and leaves no space for identity, since it works on its abolition, but that does not somehow warrant those reactionary positions, which are literally undifferentiable from right-wingers complaining about "social justice destroying the family" and so on. The format is reactionary as well, with the photos of their faces, as if how someone looks means anything to a Communist, as if the majority of all the channers here didn't look the same. From what position are you even bringing up that image, pretending that you've surpassed "identity politics" when you could not be more entrenched in it?

Indifferentiable from the current capitalist system, really. I have not seen anything more pointless in my entire life, seriously, it defeats all the purpose of Communism by replacing it with some kind of left-technocracy, esentially boiling down to some "oh the masses are dumb, they could never be smart commies like us".

Who the fuck do you think you are? You do not matter as an individual and when an actual movement will take place you will be either be swept away with your kindergarten pastiche of ideologies or join the fascists.

Then the position isn't necessarily reactionary, unless you're implying that Greaves and Cockshott are both reactionary as well. I'm fairly sure that their position is that "transgender" as a category is incompatible with Marxism, though, not that it's per se identity politics.

The point of doing so is that it isn't the people who it's assumed will be offended by the post being offended but rather people being offended by the post for the people who it's assumed will be offended. The pictures do help demonstrate that.

I don't think insulting people for their looks is inherently reactionary, but that isn't what's happening in the image regardless.

He 100% is. The American Left didn't want him (nor did the American Left deserve him).

So why the fuck are transgender people posed as incompatible with Marxism whereas 'man' or 'woman', which are equally incompatible with Communism insofar as they are identities/social roles, are not even brought up into the TERF-y discussion. Why does this even need to be stated?

Not a theorist, but the USSR was into a lot of esoteric stuff even in the beginning. Look up Soviet research on ESP and UFOs.

Hm, i can see where you got that interpretation, and I don't disagree, but my readings of Distinction tended more towards it being through class based cultural norms relating to the extent of ones cultural, economic and social capital, rather then being simply the subjugation of the body ala Foucault. But my reading was through an orthodox Marxist bias, so idk.

That's not really the arguement that Cockshott or materialist TERF's are making. Both seek to abolish the gender based distinctions, and both include trans people contrary to popular opinion since at that point it wouldn't neccesarily matter. However, the fine point that they are making is that the direction the trans movement has gone into strays from abolishing gender based differences, into arguing that fundamental sex differences (such as the ability to reproduce, hormones, and certain sex based medical treatments) are false, thus reverting to an unscientific arguement. Further, the movement has cemented itself on this position and has succumbed to being taken over by sexual liberals who posit that ones social identity can simply be changed at the whisk of ones thoughts, rather then their actual material place within our class and gender based society. Another major problematic area within the trans movement is that a significant part has actually begun to reify gender norms and form a new essentialism, arguing that trans people are in reality born with gender based brains, thereby essentializing gender differences. Not meaning to argue, just want to point out their actual criticisms of the movement to further discussion.

It's in response to the usual lol u r ciswhite shit. Four of those posts bring up skin color.
It apparently means a lot to "intersectional" fuckos.

"Man" and "Woman" are taxonomical categories, not "social roles". Gender isn't real, the modern idea of gender was literally invented in the 1950s by a sexologist whose work has to be SERIOUSLY questioned (look up Dr. John Money).

In order for the trans"gender" argument to make sense, you have to buy into the notion that "man" and "woman" have meaning that they don't actually have, that there is something special about "the performance" of gender (and further that trans people always pass, or even want to pass - I get the sense that many of these people just want to do their thing and aren't invested in queer theory or queer ideology the way the TRAs insist they must be).

Bump