I find it very difficult to find any examples of a thinker more deliberately obtuse, retarded...

There is nothing wrong with being uninterested in philosophy, and anyone who tells you studying it is necessary to be a good socialist is bullshitting as it seems like you know. But disparaging a ubiquitous and crucial field of human inquiry and saying it is irrelevant and a waste of time just makes you sound like a retard and borders on reactionary anti-intellectualism. You may as well say that painting or math is unnecessary.

This is extremely complicated shit to actually apply in reality lmao, it is dead end idealism to say "just love freedom and hate oppression bro"

What does openly and clearly mean? Open as opposed to what, the cloister of academia? Clearly as opposed to what, redundant academic jargon? Ok good, we agree on both of those, and so do plenty of philosophers and theorists. But if openly and clearly means "easily", what does that mean? What is easy to understand for poor people who don't have access, time, or energy to study long texts and learn a lot of new vocabulary? Sure, that should be the direction of theory's distillation into propaganda and summary, but why are we going to idealize conditions of poverty and inaccessibility and make a virtue out of necessity by pulling this liberal move "if it's inaccessible it's not revolutionary" which is absurd because the whole point of revolution is to make accessible those basic elements of human flourishing restricted to most of us.

You mention systems that enable oppression, what do you mean by that? The presence of bosses and heirarchical beaurachracy? The exploitation of labor? The basic Marxist premise is that the material is primary, and it creates our complex psychic and social worlds. But those psychic and social worlds still exist, and their complexity compounds on itself, contradicts itself, creates new schemas for how we on various levels justify maintenance of material conditions that aren't to our benefit. It is complicated and philosophy is a very flighty and redundant field but examining the assumptions we base everything else on will always be necessary and worthwhile. Obfuscation is reactionary, but so is the attempt to reduce everything to unproblematic fundamentals and then claim you're somehow working outside of a philosophical framework. And when I hear someone justify anti-intellectualism with populist shit about inaccessibility I want to reach for my gun.

Attached: b01f4025ef761fd41bcfe82adbe0b6a3e322a9354fb0b9882296d2c5f43b7f11.png (960x520, 490.73K)

But Deleuze is actually the poststructuralist with the most substance and his books on other philosophers are pretty damn good.

Attached: a4739dd60d8816b3e71703b2c0b1603c197876cb.jpg (480x319, 38.85K)

His book on Kant is considered to be very good by kant specialists, likewise for his work on Spinoza and Leibniz. But he himself says he most seriously worked on Spinoza.

t. Lacan

I thought Althusser was supposed to be the best theorist though

The spirit of terrorism is a bitchin little essay shut up

Reminder that Deleuze & Guattari did not consider deterritorialization a good thing, it wasn't a value judgement and their analysis was usually positioned as a critique of, among other things, the way capitalist ideologies subsume dissent into themselves, especially on the level of academic thought.

Attached: 8e90c2bdc34187324f97c1a30a63d4848eec1ca1679cda5b59156cb7d6e273d4.jpg (560x232, 11.99K)

You don't understand what the difference is between a fractal non-oriented rhizome and a recursive oriented tree.

This guys is really good
youtube.com/watch?v=Pt4W-sDK3nM
youtube.com/watch?v=1b3dupCOITw

fantastic 7 hour lecture by him
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD1szxop5A91gPCci-enrKnBfOBriemru

This is a pretty good one for A Thousand Plateaus
youtube.com/watch?v=0pH--FtP0j4

Difference and Repetition is the most important
youtube.com/watch?v=AUQTYlCTfek

A lot of people over focus on rhizomes and miss the point just like they do with hegel and the thesis/anti-thesis crap. He uses a lot of words in very similar ways or as analogies to make points. Manifold in French is multiplicitie, and while English translations of Deleuze have translated it multiplicity, the reference to Riemann was intentional. Do you into maths?

This article explains a lot of things in everyday practical terms.
quora.com/What-did-Deleuze-mean-by-becoming-molecular

Its kind of really difficult to explain without getting into it and these people have done a great job
ribbonfarm.com/2014/07/09/a-koan-is-not-a-riddle/

just read

If you have specific questions I can answer

Nobody is pretty bad.

Attached: 6752876b4eb161734599780efe3b552964d4bbdae7eae175a6e195d1ae09fc52.png (302x199, 73.48K)

Dialectical materialism is the end of philosophy and any attempt by “post-structuralist” or “post-modernists” to move “beyond” dialectical materialism is fideism. Read Lenin’s Empirio-Criticism and Materialism

I'm not sure if they do try to move "beyond" dialectical materialism in the way you mean here.

Dialectics are largely unscientific to this day.

Attached: d6ba90fa8bce9fa0a17520712a0bbc6d1d6c0abedf58d6171b194fc80facd88d.jpeg (750x712, 56.54K)

Dialectics aren't formalized through mathematics, they can't predict shit. I'm not skeptical of philosophy though, that's what your pic says.

Dialectical materialism relies on the fundamental acceptance of the fact that OBJECTIVE REALITY exists, that consciousness is a product of the material world and that material reality is all that exists. Class conflict based on material conditions not a conflict of ideas is what drives human progress and the goal of dialectical materialists is to end class conflict through communism and reduce conflict to that between man and nature.

All postmodernism starts with the assumption that objective reality does not exist and post structuralists are a strain of that anti Marxist thought because they believe that there are structures of truth which has the ultimate implication of the idea of the proletariat being the class which will bring about socialism to not be an objectively real but rather a Marxist structure of truth.

All postmodernists are middle class hacks who exist to prevent Marxism from prevailing by disorienting would be vanguard party members(who are generally middle class) to opportunist politics

Delusional. The postmodern bogeyman shit needs to end.

Most people who demonize "postmodernists" (who never qualified themselves in such a way) barely even know what "modernity" is.

Do tell.

I could make an entire semester of lectures just answering that.

Sounds just like Jordan Peterson shills saying "Its too complicated for you", "you don't get the nuance man".

"Modernity" is an anti-Marxist idea just like Mach's ideas of complexes of sensation. There is no such thing as modernity, there is simply man discovering truth through science and finding laws which govern society as Marx did through Capital. Its either dialectical materialism or idealism and postmodernism and all of its strains, no matter how much they pretend to be otherwise have a logical end towards idealism.

...

The fact that you two can't even explain postmodernism or even modernity just shows that you have no idea what you're talking about

Stay tuned for more!

Ask me for the bibliography if you want but Marx is in there obviously

Postmodernism is a historical condition not an ideology, let alone an ideology specially formulated to sideline Marxism lmao. Read some Frederic Jameson. You can and should be critical of the postmodern condition, and it does produce theorists who sideline class and material analysis which we should absolutely challenge. Foucault, Butler, Derrida etc fall into this category. That doesn't mean they should be entirely dismissed or aren't worth having some understanding of, because they are, like all philosophy and thought, full of contradictions that lead us back to material circumstances, and the nature of those contradictions has bearing on the way we experience and respond to material circumstances. Deleuze & Guattari don't deny this even if they diverge significantly from Marxist vocabulary, their project still has plenty of valuable, reconciliable elements.

"postmodernism is just a conspiracy to keep the red man down" is the kind of ridiculous brainletism that shit like and leads to.

Attached: 1554431080617.gif (368x498, 3.59M)

false

youtube.com/watch?v=WQMjZfj0iuM
even the nazis are evolving. it would probably be in your interest to to yourself a learn

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (801x518, 88.46K)

Mach and bogdnov also called themselves marxists. Denying objective reality is the common current of ALL postmodernist writers and the logical conclusion of this philosophy is to sideline the class struggle as the proletariat is no longer considered to be an objectively revolutionary force….because objective reality doesn’t exist according to postmodernists. It’s not a conspiracy but rather the function of postmodernists in capitalist society as postmodernism produced the confusion among the middle class neccesary to create reformist illusions and support for anti working class ideology like Maoism, castroism, and identity politics which deny the working class as the sole revolutionary force

just shut the fuck up you fucking retard