Other urls found in this thread:
10/10 would strangle
over 9000 jouissances
No idea why post-left anarchists and Kampuchea fanboys don't adopt an Althusserian outlook.
Absolutely based. Completely right about the meaning of '68 and how the New Left could only fail to do anything more than recuperate and strengthen the logic of capital (localize production, combat social inequities, humanize and democratize enterprise, etc.).
His concept of how and why the 20th century communist powers would eventually collapse also came to be accurate, and his pessimism on this subject angered quite a lot of his peers despite the fact that he was always a Leninist.
Damn, these quote images are stupid. Let's pat ourselves on the back for calling ourselves communists instead of actually learning something about theory.
Cool and all but Kołakowski rekt him hard.
His book on Macchiaveli is pretty fucking good (Macchiaveli and us), and the one on Lenin is brilliant (Lenin and Philosophy, I think)
Lenin and Philosophy is the shit. Nothing beats the ISA essay, or Lenin Before Hegel.
cool story, bro
Adorno is better.
Their projects are completely different. Althusser: infinitely more practical; Adorno: infinitely more dense in them dialectics.
So why not love both?
How the fuck can Adorno and Althusser be combined?
What are their irresolvable differences in your opinion?
In what way?
Is there anything that wasn't either fascist or capitalist to Adorno?
Is there anything under (the now) globalized capitalism that isn't… capitalism? Isn't fascism capitalism's last resolve?
It's this side of marxism that prevents me from being a marxist.
What concepts? Capital? It has its own inner logic, you know. Fascism? Take a look at world history.
What agency? Capital isn't agency. Fascism isn't agency. These are processes, conjunctures.
Maybe it is your preconceptions that prevent you.
We speak different languages, so when I hear you speak of capitalism I hear of a function in marxism that is projected as an active agent.
It functions the same and is spoken of in the same terms.
It took me awhile to realize the pure ideology of marxism.
Then you are not listening (or barely trying), to be honest. And please stop mixing up capital and capitalism. The former is a process expressed in the relationship between people, the latter is the system organized around such process.
Marxism is the only school of thought that even attempts dealing with ideology, and does so rather effectively. That is why you never read a fucking line on theories of ideology on places like /pol, and why it is littered in this place.
Please stop pretending and start studying. You are being very transparent.
No, I'm not accepting definitions which carry implications that leads to the problem of begging the question. The map is not the territory, this can not be repeated enough.
Marxism falls apart at the meta-level, a level that Holla Forums theories never reach.
you forgot your flag
also, here's a free AD HOMINEM for you
It's not just humanism and metaphysics. It's that Althusser and Adorno are irreconcilable. Also most Adornotards become neocons.
He was a structuralist anons.
I still find it unbelievable that he accidentally strangled his wife while giving her a neck massage.
How do you fuck up that badly?
He went into a psychotic blackout and strangled her to death by accident. His autobiography has the details.