Has critical theory killed any chance of the left ever succeeding?

Has critical theory killed any chance of the left ever succeeding?

Other urls found in this thread:

zulfahmed.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/disciplineandpunish.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

implying you read anything other than the Torah

Why is leftism so overwhelming Jewish at its intellectual core? I already know the answer but maybe you should try asking yourself a few more questions about your core ideology.

basically nobody who isn't a leftist university student or a pol memer looking into jewish conspiracies knows what critical theory is

mfw

Yep Gramsci is arguably even more at fault than Foucault for the current debacle.

In politics, equality is not the same as identity. Yes, they are equals.

Critical theory is a radical theory with the revolutionary aspects removed for academic use. Marx without class struggle, for example, becomes a critical theorist of capitalism; sanitized and ready to be utilized to provide bourgeois "insight" to some topic of study, and, of course, to be challenged and fill volume upon volume of academic journals with petty, self-interested "debate".

Gramsci is no more at fault than Marx for the misuse of his writings, and Foucault, unlike Gramsci, was not writing while imprisoned by fascists. Foucault is far more "responsible" in that he had the opportunity to shape the interpretation of his own theories.

No he wasn't, read Althusser, Gramsci limited himself in only analyzing the super structure and two it can be changed by the revolutionary proles. Foucault collapsed the two into one with his whole "power discourse".

It's like saying Zizek is similar to Judith Butler because he studies ideology (i.e. theoretical justifications for politics), yet they have nothing in common philosophically.

If you go into Discipline & Punish thinking it is a discussion of freedom in society, or how free you are in society, the very first sentence is going to disabuse you of that notion "On 2 March 1757 Damiens the regicide was condemned 'to make the amende honorable before the main door of the Church of Paris', where he was to be 'taken and conveyed in a cart, wearing nothing but a shirt, holding a torch of burning wax, weighing two pounds'; then, 'in the said cart, to the Place de Greve, where on a scaffold that will be erected there, the flesh will be torn from his breasts, arms, thighs and calves with red-hot pincers, his right hand, holding the knife with which he committed the said parricide, burnt with sulfur, and, on those places where the flesh will be torn away, poured molten lead, boiling oil, burning resin, wax and sulphur melted together and then his body drawn and quartered by four horses and his limbs and body consumed by fire, reduced to ashes and his ashes thrown to the winds'.

These were the good-old days when the power that was wielded was more explicit. New disciplinary forms of power however operate surreptitiously, wherein one doesn't, or perhaps cannot, notice which ways one is influenced. In a way, this thinking is dangerous because it's easy to identify the source of power when looking at a model of sovereignty or a spectacle of punishment; it's easy to say 'that's the source of my alienation; let's just get rid of the king.' The point is, here, to talk about the transition of a system of punishment before the French revolution. The system of punishment that existed was such that the sovereign would extract some sort of justice, or retribution, on the body of the criminal, done publicly as an expression of power, and with the complicity of the public. Foucault is not interested in notions of human nature, and universal rights, justice, humanism, objective truth, et c, and was instead obsessed with the dominance of power, the central theme of his work. Foucault is against this very idea of painting the above as savages, and then we got the notion of human rights, we had great reformers like Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill, et al. who argued that we should punish more humanely, the sovereign lost power, and everybody was happy. He does concede, fundamentally, that there was a change in the form of the state apparatus, but rather that the sublation of so-called "rights" obscures how efficient the system actually is—that power is still exerted by the state, just in more subtle ways. Particularly, the old system was becoming more dangerous for the sovereign, and Foucault emphasizes this by talking about the ways in which things can go wrong, and how a crowd can end up sympathizing with the condemned body being humiliated, tortured, or executed. The genealogy of the new system however depends a lot on the development of a mercantilist economy and other elements in the social order, an appeal to markets and ideological diffusion, that make discipline a more palatable form of control.

...

Whatever you say

Is Holla Forums just a place to dump overly-intellectual clap-trap with no context and claim that you won an argument on the internet?

No, I'm trying to talk about theory without devolving into idpol, sectarian bullshit. Too bad cripplechan isn't letting me post the .pdf of Discipline and Punish.

Ergo, fuck off if you don't want to talk about leftism.

zulfahmed.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/disciplineandpunish.pdf

It still baffles me that a guy like Foucault who is about as anti-identitarian as one can get is lumped in with SJWs because he talked about gay and trans people sometimes. I mean, we're talking about a guy saying that bourgeois society is the most moralized society in existence so far, the influence of power becoming more decentralized and dispersed over time but losing none of its effectiveness of expression and suppression under capitalism

I think the radical left as a whole still isn't ready to accept guys like Foucault or the Frankfurt School, we remain stuck within the trauma of Stalinism and it puts blinders on our ability to theorize further about capitalism and the structures of power.

He's kind of like Fanon, who is beloved by SJWs yet wrote things like this:

fuck off name/avatarfag.

fuck you, unlike your post Yui's has some actual content

i care about the content (which is good) just as much as you do which is why i want the content only instead of name and avatarfaggotry and the circlejerk that comes along with it.

how could I have missed that?

as much as I dislike namefags, the only circlejerk is the one whre people oppose the namefags, if you dont like it, just ignore it, or adress the content and discredit him

Do I need to read others before Foucault or can I just start reading it right now?

no because the content is good and i generally agree. the avatar and namefaggotry is just pointless pretentiousness and i don't understand why we're tolerating that cancer.

Because the content is good
Now stop whining

Holla Forums, and Holla Forums no less, or at least these vanguard apologetics of anti-political correctness, have respite in their inversive breastwork, but it carries the heavy risks of irony when you think by decrying one form of idpol you don't belie yourself the contrapositive; being apolitical is itself a political attitude

foucault characterizes this best: "Visibility is a trap."

I think it would be wrong to say that he thinks bourgeois society is the most moralized. Punishment is a manifestation of the power of the sovereign and proto-Capitalists, yes, but it's also important, he notes, that there's an entire system dedicated to supporting this model of necessity. The king is in a position wherein he maintains his monopoly on violence through the body politic, and subversion of norms. This is just another feature of power for Foucault, that it's going to be self organizing, wherein fluctuations determine which form of power is most pervasive, such as when he talks about how the accused are not allowed to see the evidence against them, some so-called panel of judges reinforcing the most effective means of observation and discipline. It is self-consciously a form of education both militarily and culturally, and it is disingenuous to characterize the discipline emerging merely through the ushering into an industrial age, the rise of a middle-class, and the over-throwing of a monarch; discipline, as a concept in his book, is tied to observation, and the panoptic society, wherein the people ordered under a power structure are influenced to police themselves—the idea of the inquisition is already there, and indeed the ways of organizing punishment through institutions like monarchial law, reforming jurists, and the prison.

>tfw very troubled by foucault's dynamics

This is precisely the problem, since yui is normally full of shit when they post good content it's likely to get ignored by people who know that yui is generally full of shit, and worse being good here gives a false authority to the shit they're posting for people who can't tell that yui is generally full of shit which is to say they are bluffing a lot of the time

Elaborate on this plz?

Visibility is a trap explains the actual and real condition of an individual when the supervisor or controller, which warranties order in the individual, becomes invisible. In such situations, the individual is kept under constant scrutiny and no retreat or privacy is allowed to him/her, regardless of whether a tangible institution or not present, such as whether political correctness or Holla Forums exists or not.

>regardless of whether a tangible institution or not is* present

Tripfaggotry really does need to be banned. It has only ever shit up every board it has been allowed on.

I hope we can talk more about books on Holla Forums.

Let's not ritually destroy written material because some meme has informed us of a moral dialectic.

THE ABRIDGED WISDOM OF MICHEL FOUCAULT
On sexuality: "I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead."
On liberation: "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken."
On confession: "Never apologize, mister. It's a sign of weakness."
On power: "When I'm being fucked, I like to get kissed a lot."
On pleasure: "Yeehaw!"

...

...

...

*Or become analytical philosopher and question the official death toll

So Foucult is responsible for people thinking that being willfull bastards without the ability to admit fault is a good thing, because it makes them "strong". All it really does is makes them stupid, destined to despair in failure after failure, because of stubborn pride, unable to consider that they were wrong and offer an apology to those they hurt by being wrong.

No wonder Holla Forums has a hard-on for this faggot.

Hulk Hogan wrecked Gawker like niGGers only fantasized about, while they devolved into holier than thou vitrue-signaling. After defeating Gawker, the Hulkster endorsed Trump.

most people here hate him, lurk more faggot

you're posting in a thread started by OP to attack him, how little self-awareness do you have

No. Confer with flag.

name even one bad thing gramsci did nigger, i dare you

this. they don't even try to fucking gloss over the works of the evil masterminds that undermined their society. the right has absolutely no concept of 'know your enemy', just confirmation bias that everything they don't like is secretly working together.

Bakunin, Proudhon, Stirner and Kropotkin were not.

Ok

George Costanza is an Honorary Aryan, after he joined the Klan

Eh.

pretty sure even his supporters called him out on that line

No, not really. It is most certainly possible to praise accomplishments while simultaneously criticizing failings. Holla Forums would do well to learn this lesson.

And this is a refutation of our point of view, how?

kek, because we really need to avoid "cracking consensus" and focus on the ebil jews, right?

also

Looks like we've caught a special breed of retard today.

no, faggot. Culture that arises from human interaction and individual creation, as opposed to "keeping up with the Joneses" bullshit, or an obsession with cuckolding.

try harder

Hey, who deleted that comment? It might have been retarded shitposting, but it didn't require removal.

The Situationists also memed May '68.