READ JODI DEAN

Bookchin > Jodi tbh

The Communist Horizon
by Jodi Dean

Bookchin is an imperialist shill and a nonsensical ideologist. Don't even compare him to Jodi.

t. never read Bookchin

On the other hand I'd like to see you give reasons to back up your (baseless) accusations. Because post modernism has been degenerated into a petty insult with which to accuse anyone you don't immediately understand, apparently.

Give up, you got BTFO weeks ago in the previous Bookchin thread. Bookchin is an imperialist, anti-communist charlatan who make shit up with no basis in history or contemporary events.

PDFs here:

I don't know why you keep posting that article as if it's somehow damning, when really all he's saying in it is that both Israel and the arab world is shit. Nothing "imperialist" about that tbh. You should probably actually read him instead of just repeating tired strawmen ad nauseum tbh

Not at all a fan of Leninism or Lacanian psychoanalysis myself, but this is cringy. Lacan is quintessentially structuralist (categories and such, huge Freud fanboy who even said that he was a "Freudian", not a "Lacanian") and some of the most seminal texts in post-structuralism and post-modernism are the attacks on him in the two volumes of "Capitalism And Schizophrenia".
Many aspects of postmodernism are now "common sense", that is, pure ideology in the Zizekian sense.

When will Leninists learn to stop being didactic towards the proletariat and read Marx's letter to Arnold Ruge? The impetus towards socialism that is communism is inherent in the proletarian condition and active. You can't "teach" them to be socialists. This would imply that socialism had to have arisen in the first place out of its advocacy by Marx or another "philosopher". Instead, it arose as a spontaneous, anti-political tendency and remains such to this day. Addressing the proletariat indirectly (interpellation) does not change this. You will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past until you bother to read and understand Marx. In fact, you come across as an anarchist caricature of Marxism, akin to that in the opening chapter of "Statism And Anarchy". Althusser's attempt with "materialisme aleatoire" to remove any traces of Hegel and Feuerbach from Marx (completing Lenin's positivistic revisionist project) leaves him with what's a poor man's Kropotkin (entirely deprived of the positive aspects of his mechanistic materialism and its possible augmentations via the addition of process philosophy and cybernetics) at best with structuralist theory piled on top. You know what, you would do well to read anarchist literature and then read Marx. This way, you at least would have a chance to unfuck yourself and not repeat past mistakes like Jodi Dean.

>lol he doesn't support Palestine uncritically, therefore he's an imperialist and therefore he's wrong! Argument won, sucker! I don't need to say anything more! You're an imperialist! I don't need to listen to what you have to say, you're already wrong because of your position!
libcom.org/blog/syria-imperialism-left-1-08082012
Stop being an anti-imperialist. You're being reactionary. Even Lenin didn't call for support of the pre-revolutionary governments of peripheral countries - he argued to revolt against those . Not even that flawed position is defended in your thesis. Instead, you have the illiterate, self-interested aristocratic reactionary Mao, and I doubt you've even read him. You probably became a "leftist" by going to liberal protests where you chant about how Palestine is oppressed by the meany Israelis (never mind that even principled but naive Leninists such as Ross Wolfe have made well-written criticisms of modern "anti-imperialism" from a position which authentically reflects that which Lenin put forth).
I just now read that Bookchin article, because I'm sick of seeing it posted as an argument for "Bookchin is a Palestine-hating imperialist!". Rather than engage in an idealistic nationalist particularism, he engages in an act of observing the factually apparent, an which serves as a fundament for materialist analysis and critique in lclassical leftist authors. You, on the other hand, from the start screech and reject this because it doesn't conform to your ready-made conclusions about "right and wrong". Who else does this? A certain ideology which claims that "Jews are always bad and must be eliminated for the white race to be free under a fatherly state". Who else does this? A certain ideology which claims that "men are always bad and must be eliminated for womynkind to be free of oppression under a progressive, multicultural regime". I can tell you right now as an actual leftist, Bookchin did nothing wrong in that article, and I'm not even a communalist!
You're going to conveniently ignore this because I'm not sufficiently "anti-imperialist" and call for your daddy BO to ban me for saying mean words which hurt your bleeding heart pro-Palestinian fee-fees though, aren't you, you pathetic twit? End yourself.

First of all, to be able to discuss this issue we'd require to have a definition of so called "post-modernism," and most importantly, "post-modernist theory." You surely understand the difference between the two, no?
"Post-modernism" is a state of being, something we are effectively under, something we are suffering, and "pomo-theory" is something which tries to justify this hellhole…

Lacan isn't a "totally misunderstood author," he really isn't, because he can be understood rather easily. If you have troubles approaching his though I can give you some pedagogic texts for you. Please ask for them!

Exactly.

denk u

Hi. Funny story here. I'm not trying to be didactic. Telling anyone what "x" is isn't pedantic; it's only telling people what "x" is…
I'm trying to be factual. This is a strange phenomenon on Holla Forums where everybody who hasn't read a single page from [author] "x" is an expert on him.

I agree based on principles but disagree based on the empirical reality that surrounds us, namely, that we, in the West, have more of a "precariat problem" than a proletariat one; more of a "ghetto" problem than a factory one; more of a "disposable people" problem than a "cog in the machine people" one. The contradictions of capitalism since Marx moved on and took different shapes. Do you understand? This isn't the 20th century.

I'm fascinated not by the meaning of this sentence but by where you put the quotation marks: yes, fucking yes, you can "teach" people to be socialists, you absolute moron. I was a conservative 8 years ago and I was thought to be a socialist. Where's the problem here?!

Marx was not an "anti-politician". This is a fact. Nothing about the labour movement was "spontaneous" – this is another fact. You seriously need to delve into proletariat history.
As Trump would say: SAD!

cont.

This is not "interpellation." You have no idea what you are talking about.

>You will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past until you bother to read and understand Marx.
This is a crucial point of disagreement, and it is good you brought it up! First, the problem with 20th century communism was more to do with too much fidelity towards Marx than improvisations around it; second, people who bring up "Marx" as an ultimate source of knowledge/praxis are the biggest idiots of 21st century radicals, since the are totally unaware of the social, historical context they are doing it.

So yeah: "LEL"

JEJ, let me change my flag!

Many things here. First, Althusser didn't try to "remove [t]races of Hegel and Feuerbach from Marx" because Marx did it himself. The problem: there's no positive proof, only negative ones, meaning that you can't find Marx positively proclaiming this shift. If you look at the progression'' of Marx's oeuvre you'll see a certain patterns, patterns that confirm a kind of progression. Many of Marx's later works were not meant to be publicized (and he didn't – another fact); he scribbled shit for himself. To quote Althusser himself:

[Althusser: 1976, Essays in Self-Criticism]
So please, tell me why this Feuerbachian concept (alienation) and this Hegelian concept and movement [neg. of neg.] suddenly disappeared from Marx's texts! What's your explanation for this phenomenon?

Lenin was never, and I repeat, never was a positivist. His very theory of revolutionary openings would easily contradict this shit-tier claim. Though, one must admit that Lenin was closest to positivism in his Empirio-Criticism.

cont.

I already did. That's why I moved on from anarcho-communism to became a Marxist.

I mean… This is just big words from a simpleton who didn't even read Althusser, Lacan, or Dean (as has been proven above). Who the fuck do you think you are, you narcissistic shithead? Attempting to provide people with penitence when you have no authority on the subject?! I won't even comment on it, you waste of a communist!

Ross Wolfe (who is a genuine comrade, unlike you, a miserable larper) did a comradely interview with Jodi Dean and follows her work closely: platypus1917.org/2013/03/01/what-is-to-be-done-with-the-actually-existing-marxist-left-an-interview-with-jodi-dean/

Wow. And they ban me every month for "sperging out"?!

Because Lacan was around before the postmodernists and part of a different academic generation and they all defined themselves to a greater or lesser degree against him. Postmodernists are also known as post-structuralists and figures like Lacan and Roland Barthes are the very essence of structuralism.

Lacan is also pretty useless. He was a captivating and personally charismatic svengali whose 'theory' was just a way to rope people into his cult of personality and get them paying thousands for thirty second sessions while he banged their daughters. He's an interesting character and his life is worth study if you have time but I really regret the time I spent familiarizing myself with his theoretical 'contributions'.

Pretty sure that was addressed to someone else you sperg :^)

Everything I knew I must reevaluate!!!!

Crowds and Party is really great.

Yes. Yes, it is.

It is damning, and you are a piece of shit too.

Obligatory webm dump.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

IMPORDANGD

IMPORDANGD

thank you based dumper

IMPORDANGD

I feel like all I need to know about her is in that one video where she says anarchists are useless because they're afraid of power, and that toothless organizations like OWS are an example of anarchism.

If anarchism can be shit upon because there's not enough examples, then Leninism/Marxist-Leninism can be doubly shit upon because there's endless examples, and all of them turned out terribly. At the best they're just expansive state-capitalist welfare states, and at their worst they're undemocratic, murderous dictatorships which creates a new ruling class. If your definition of "power" is statism and vanguard parties, then you'd have to be insane, extremely dumb, or psychopathic to not be afraid of it.

butthurt anarchist detected

...

THIS is Holla Forums's mommy?
HAHAHAHAHA GOOD GOD

Our mummy is better than yours
Your mummy is old and worn out
*sticks tounge out*

Your thoughtless response only makes your position look bad.

Fact: most anarchists have been and are afraid of power.
Fact: (the good kind of anarchists, e.g. Makhno) are not afraid of power.

This doesn't mean they are useless. This merely points to the fact that some anarchists when faced with historical necessity adapt, and some are pinned to their moralistic ideals.

Jodi Dean in her "The Communist Horizon" calls OWS a vanguard.

read books, form opinions later

Actually we stand with the people of Donbass against western imperialism.
Have you got the Rasputin webm?

Are you serious lol? Natalia isn't a white supremacist you mong.

Donbass vote was a ruler change, and nothing more. If you thunk that it would mean a commie society (when they are merely playing on USSR propaganda) you are no better than YPG droolers.

You know what? I would. She's like 50-something, but I still would.

I'm telling BO-sama.

I think we all would

Jodi 'Garden Gnome' Dean is a voluptuous beast and I will insert my spermiums into her gnomey woman hole.

If you're including people who identity as Anarchists like antifa and general smashies, then they don't seem to shy away from violence at all, the most direct form of power. By that definition the only Anarchist actually afraid of power would be Anarcho-Pacifists, and there's not that many of them around.
Makhno's army had democratically elected officers and the Free Territory had no state. If by power you mean authoritarian organizations like states and parties, then he also rejected power.

If by power you just mean organization at all, which would be a pretty retarded definition, then I would agree Anarchists seem allergic to genuine organization and think affinity groups and hazy organizations are good enough. But this is a problem with the culture, not the theory, and it's not that way because Anarchists are afraid of power, it's just because a lot of them are stupid, nor is it a problem of horizontalism, it's a problem of horizontalism done badly and meaninglessly.

lmao asspain

tbh I wouldn't. I want her as my literal mom, not a sexual relationship.

It's really not though, but stay mad m8

...

She should clarify what she means by a party. How it should be organized etc

Wow how insightful! Why does anyone take this idiot seriously again?

wut
saging because I've bumped this thread too many times already

I have a bit of a MILF fetish, so banging someone else's mom is exactly what I'm all about

Considering that a lot of people on the left mindlessly suck palestines dick, I would say it is insightful

boo

hoo

and people ITT were telling me she wasn't into pomo

Feels good to be a communalist tbh

Can't wait until America pulls the rug out from under the kurds' feet yet again so that the communalist meme will finally fucking die.

Bookchin has dicksucking lips

any day now amiright :^)

America has been waving the whole "kurdish ethnostate" thing in front of them for decades and has never once delivered.

DFSNS doesn't even want an ethno-state. What they really want is a federalized Syria, Syria at the moment currently being an actual ethno-state dominated by alawites

captcha: POC AUG

DFSNS does want a state, they just don't want an ethno-state. They're simply not nationalists in any way or form. Of course, many of the Kurds part of it are nationalists, but they're not the ones deciding the future of Rojava.

Yeah, the USA is.

Your shitty ideology survived 27 years after your russian ethnostate failed, we will see how we do :^)

lmao literally

Who exactly? You sound like you're still stuck in 2005.

Obviously times have changed massively and there are conditions today so different from marx's day or lenin's, but fixating on this "20th century over" stuff makes me cringe
Where's your materialism if the world changes based on arbitrary dates, there are a lot of ways the world hasn't changed so much either
Have you considered that problems we need to confront today are in ghettos AND factories? we have precariats AND proletariats, the old problems don't disappear because muh 21st century

>>Fact: most anarchists have been and are afraid of power.
>If you're including people who identity as Anarchists like antifa and general smashies, then they don't seem to shy away from violence at all
Let's exercise basic reading comprehension together, shall we? Power ain't violence in itself.

By the time of Makhno's second commune this order has totally collapsed. Makhno centralized most of the organization and made recruitment mandatory. (.pdf related)

It is symptomatic of anarchism that you cling to the idea of anarchist revolution and disregard the facts of anarchist revolution.

No, in fact, he did not. He made a "platform" (as closest you can get to Leninism inside anarchism) which was 1) centralized; 2) only semi-democratic; 3) authoritarian. The steps he took were in accordance with the historical reality he faced. I'm not blaming him.

Something that Makhno despised and scorned throughout the history of his 2 communes. Yup, Makhno was as an anti-individualist anarchist as it gets.

No, you are totally mistaken. This is a problem of both: anarchist culture and theory. Makhno despised most of it. Again, read .pdf related.

Makhno was not, in fact, afraid of power; today's anarchist are, in fact, afraid of power. See the last chapter of .pdf related which discusses puss-whipped Western anarchists theoretical response to the hero of an actual revolution. TL;DR: they hated the man (who actually had IRL experience).

Maybe read her books where she does that?

Communism. Wut?

You can make the same argument regardless. She chose a shortcut. If you think that you are in fact self-identical you are most likely a psychotic person.

Well, it might make you cringe, but what makes most of us cringe is the fact that cumrags have an intense sense of nostalgic empathy towards the USSR. As long as the latter persists, we shall proclaim 21st century communism. (BTW, the negative model among the populace persists, as an ultimate evil [meaning communism]).

History doesn't stop because you stopped analyzing it.

In your several Jodi-Dean-spam threads I noticed a particular pattern in how you argue, OP. It starts with you making some really silly-sounding sentence like this one:
and when that causes the attention that you want, though not quite your favorite flavor of attention ("dafuq is that crack-smoker talking about"), and you are asked to explain yourself, you always resort to saying the following (in way too many words):
>3. You are all stupid since you lack the ability to obtain through pure reasoning the actual special meanings of these words that appear to you in this text floating in a vacuum without any social real-life-interaction embedding you could search for cues. Oh, woe is me that I can't find a soul on here as deep and profound as I am! ;^(

Shortcut to the garbage can.

OP here, this is the first thread I ever made about the commie mommy.

tl;dr

Top bakka

I don't think USSR nostalgia is very useful either, I didn't utilize that i my comment, and your criticisms that I was addressing went further then that
You were going to the point of saying essentially that working class/proletariat politics is now irrelevant, that's what I was addressing, not anything about USSR but you didn't even mention what I was actually talking about

"precariat" by and large is still working class, even if they're not and even if you count all the NEET's out there, the precariat is a dwarf compared to the working class, im working class as are most people in society.

Black Panthers were already figuring out what you're saying in the 70s and they were still mostly old school commie, but they organized people who were excluded from the entire world of production

can anyone give any real definition for what 21st century communism is?

the trotskyist? lmfao kys

...

No, he's literally imperialist.

He rejected Marxism and openly attacked marxist efforts to resist imperialism while also pandering to western liberals/anarcho-liberals in the first world. He was basically Chomsky but not nearly as intelligent nor as concerned with the American led rape of the third world.

I go to the same university as her son and grabbed a beer with him the other night after a communist presentation at our uni, weird coincidence to see this post about her all of a sudden lol

Anyways apparently they're friends with Zizek and he's at their house visiting every once and a while in NY or something and this is 100% a true story that he told me about the first time he met Zizek. I didn't believe it when he told me at first because its an absurdly Zizek story

So basically when he was like 15 he comes home from school one day and Zizek is sitting at a table in the kitchen or whatever and he's just like really sweaty, drenched in sweat and he's eating cheese dip while going on this big rant to Jodi Dean about the hypocrisy of "right wing zionism." The kid is just standing there and then Zizek turns to him and says "Hey kid, do you play *sniff* how you say, uhh, Call of Duty" and he just says "yeah." "Do you play the uhh Zombie *sniff* zombie mode?" Yeah" "Alright what level did you get to?" "I got to level 13" Zizek throws up 2 middle fingers and tells him to go fuck himself and says "fuck you i got to level 32 with my nephew, bitch" and then turns back around and keeps talking about zionism over cheese dip

LOL

The cheese dip is what makes the story believable.

This is too much like Zizek to be fake

Stop being such a LARPing faggot. Your "efforts" are actually just virtue signalling to ease your white guilt and feel relevant. None gives a shit about a bunch of edgy teenagers threatening the Empire, you aren't helping at all. Only general strikes and sabotage can really stop the war machine. You and your sect are just petit bourgeois moralists, nothing more.

(You)

bump..

...