Hey Leftypol

Hey Leftypol,

Starting new podcast: Struggle Session.

soundcloud.com/struggle-session-618688589

It's me (Jonathan Daniel Brown), Leslie Lee III (from Jacobin Magazine) and Jack Allison (Jimmy Kimmel Live) talking shop (movies, tv, comics, vidya, wrestling) through a Socialist lens.

We're gonna discuss (and make fun of) overpaid celebrities, shitty execs, bad working conditions, fake PR wokeness, bad journalism, and all others facets of the reactionary hellhole that is modern American pop culture.

Episode 1 is about how superhero movies are fascists, why Alan Moore kicks so much, and the exact moment when Frank Miller lost it.

Shoot us an email thestrugglesession AT gmail if you have suggestions for guests, topics, etc.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01.htm
youtu.be/feepQg_Dx7U?t=12m14s
youtube.com/watch?v=uGld3FbDY6s;
thecharnelhouse.org/2016/07/05/against-political-determinism/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

top kek

Why are you people even real?

Nazis were obsessed with the Ubermensch.. Superheroes were an American response. As America becomes more and more right-wing, the Superheroes are portrayed more and more like the Ubermensch your pathetic Nazi ass will never be even close to becoming.

Superheros are a literal Jewish power fantasy

But pretty much all the creators of Marvel/DC superhero characters were Jewish

Hahahahaha.

This is sounding like a somehow even worse Chapo and it's a carbon copy of it in many places (le ebin vaporwave track intro, three hipster-tier beardfags, "ironic" humor and quips, etc.). Do you think you're doing anything original here?

Sage for being shit but also for advertising and e-begging.

I'll give it a shot.

...

Fascism != white paramilitary anti-democratism. Zionism, "labour Jewry", et cetera, are all fascistic expressions of specifically Jewish character, but fascism first of all is just this paramilitary anti-democratism; it knows no inherent racial character whatsoever. Its mission is, by force, ensuring the mainstay of capital, and it can do so perfectly without racism. What it needs however is some kind of mystifying ideology, and in Germany this happened to become the Jews. Under Mussolini, it was the vague notion of pseudo-syndicates standing against capital (when Mussolini and the PNF enriched themselves off of it at the expense of others since day one, like capitalists extraordinaire).

I don't see how that magically precludes them from being fascist, especially their modern incarnations.

ill give it a shot but try to talk about something other than pop culture, like marxist theory, economics, etc.

Can you source the claim that Mussolini was insincere porky in it for personal enrichment?

I'd also contend that "mystification" is a slur on the human spirit itself that means little, whereas materialists tend to deny there's anything more to this universe than aggregates of Laplacian billiard balls, giving rise to the cold, mechanistic nature of Communist systems that most people find so off putting and dehumanizing.

Marxist metaphysics, as usual, gives an incomplete and stunted picture of what human beings are, and shoehorning in an (ironicaly highly idealist) psychoanalytic esoteric system over the top just makes it worse.

le pop culture xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

The Kibbutzim were one of the more redeeming excrements of fascistic Judaism (Zionism), yeah. Do you want to take an informed guess and tell me why you think kibbutzim are a meme today, wilfully abandoned by the Zionist project to its own meekly proto-socialistic principles?

Basically look at everything he did since the events following the first big war in Libya (the one long before his reign), notably what he did in the PSI ("liberal socialist"), and what he actually did in the high towers of fascist Italy.

Vulgar materialism as such is only found in the original machinic materialists (Diderot, Feuerbach, etc.). Marx set out to make a materialist dialectic, one that knows that humans are not just matter, but that the human subject matter is a sensuous one, of sensuous human activity. It is only pre-Marx that we find people who thought that the history of all hitherto societies was that of capital as historical subject, and not of class struggle (emotive, sensuous activity).

Please tell us, oh great one, how Marx and Engels imagined communism and, when you've finally found out that they defined it as "the free association of individuals, the realization of the individual no longer chained to private property", tell us how this is Orwell's (famous socialist who fought with the communist POUM in Spain) nightmare!

Bahah.

I guess we can both agree that Chapo Trap House is pop left-liberal horseshit, and that this is a shit-tier attempt at making it even remotely close to as sufferable.

This thread has Reddit written all over it. Why did you advertise your shitty podcast here? Fuck off.

Yeah, no thanks.

Zionism is ethnonationalist and tends to extremes of chauvinism, I'd stick to that line of attack on far right movements tbh, rather than "fascist", which means everything and nothing to most.
Read Culture of Critique.
Cool, got a good book recc?

My issue with all this is, if OG Fascist were just evil ur-capitalism, why was Bordiga imprisoned rather than executed? Seems like an oversight.

The lofty rhetoric of the foundational thinkers has nothing to do with the actual results in practice. Hitler gave some quite inspiring speeches too. I have no idea how they imagined it.

Interesting take, thx.

Did I mention Orwell? Don't be disingenous, you know he was more complex than this, and later favored the anarkiddies, etc. You have image issues with this is all I'm saying. Bit rich coming from me I know…

"all i wanna be is el chapo"

Lol, basically all you've said here is that Zionism, just like Nazism or what we may call a specific "Italian fascism", are all different subsets of the same fascistic political tendency, which is exactly as I described it above.

Nah, I'd rather not reread something that is literally inspired by the anti-materialist and political determinist Gramsci but from the right and, speaking of our old pal Gramsci, we'll be mentioning him again later in cameo again.

I'd also like to, since you like to pile everything on da joos again, not just ask you make a more informed guess on the irrelevance of kibbutzim over time but, also, to explain the little peril national "sociaIism" had with our friends Gregor and Otto in the kitchen, thank you very much. Ayo halt, we war Übermenschen n Scheiss, es war da Joos again! Am I right?

Angelo Tasca, Rise of Italian Fascism. From the empirical-statistical angle, there's always the freely accessible data the Italian State has maintained in archives, from the very first modern Italian state post-mercantile mode starting in the mid-19th century until now, complete with bookkeeping and spending records. You're welcome.

Don't forget our cameo-man Gramsci, also imprisoned. To get to your question: fascists, as much as they are a representation of capital's reactionary tendency, are also mere sensuous individuals, with their own notions of then how to safeguard capital best. We must remember that fascism in Italy required the repression of dissidents, but in whatever form best suited the mainstay of their rule. They found that perhaps incinerating them or putting them to slave labour would delegitimize the "divine justice" or "fascism's essentiality of man", and thus merely imprisoned them; those poor souls who dared to resist the feels.

Tell me exactly how the communist movement expressed itself until the things you most associate with its horrors (Stalinism, likely your no. 1, etc.) and, just like fascism, tell me its roots; where it came from, how it came to power, and so on. I recommend Zizek's take here: fascism is first horror then tragedy, communism first tragedy then horror; fascism meant bad guys saying they would do bad things and then doing bad things, communism meant good guys saying they would do good things and then doing bad things.

But more than that, I'd like you to tell me on what payroll (if any), on what principles, on what basis, et cetera the texts and speeches by communists (Marx, Engels, Lenin) versus fascists (Mussolini, Hitler, Franco) were based. I'm all ears.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01.htm

I'm a communist and never did I not favour anarchists: youtu.be/feepQg_Dx7U?t=12m14s (timestamped for ya).

...

Haha the hacks are already coming out of the woodwork to copy Chapos simple formula. Can't wait for these irony podcasts to start gluting the market and crash weird Twitter culture with no survivors.

What exactly did they achieve lol?
I'm not defending fascism but even the nationalist Polish resistance did more than them.

I tend to agree with the argument presented in CoC, ethnic behavioral diversity and self-interest has more of a foundation in heritable neuropsychology than anyone might have thought 20 years ago. Makes far more sense to me than the endless epicycles and circularities piled on to Marxist dialectical analyses to give a workable account, or pomo cultural relativism which is just plain nonsensical.

I think it's safe to say almost all revolutions purge dissent while suring up a loyal power structure and consensus ideology, I mean, I could one up you here and talk about USSR purging leftcoms, Mensheviks, other Bolshys, crushing unions, etc. etc.


ty

This doesn't really explain anything though. This is like "people did things because they were people doing what people do". Then the weakness of your theory's explanatory power is leveraged into "well we can't know what sensuous individuals will do, they might even try socialism, so they cannot be trusted without a communist MoP which legitimizes their now liberated minds and activities", regardless of any evidence of their actions contrary. See the issue I'm getting at?

These are far too overbroad questions for a quick rundown. I cannot fully account for the motives of all of these people in some simplistic overarching framework, nor would I boil it down to some quip like Zizek, who talks shit. I mean I could go into it, but it'd be a few thousand pages at least.

I've read it.

Yeah for now, but you'll be the first to put a bullet in their head post coup as they will become a liability, be honest.

They managed to survive as underground resistance movement (that during Vichy did nothing but grow in numbers!) which fucked with Philippe's régime for years and, most importantly, shows that the Vichyites weren't even capable of having much of a totalizing grip on the situation at all. When the western Allies to the west started having a slow peacemeal towards Paris and the eastern Allies were basically almost done humiliating the Nazis elsewhere, the French resistance exploded out of nowhere and did half the work of roasting what was going on in Paris.


So you're the real vulgar materialist, but also just a limited one; you believe that there is indeed no free human spirit, not even a free human spirit within the confines of your ancestry, and that deterministically fascism appears (just like your crude depiction of communism!) out of nowhere to confirm this standpoint epistemological worldview when the time comes.

What epicyles, what circularities? I am talking to the man who thinks history is cyclical, as the man who thinks history is the most evolutionary and revolutionary thing we foundationally stand on. You end up trashing post-modernists (post-structuralists) there, when you have up until now shown yourself to in fact be little more than a right-postmodernist in every single way. Just look at this: youtube.com/watch?v=uGld3FbDY6s; you effectively embody religious (idealistic!) slave morality to a T, just in a different jacket that is only non-nominally religious slave morality.

No doubt. It's actually an inextricable part of the process.

Oh absolutely, but, a mere few sentences ago I was reading you espouse ideological teleology, which shows that you're the one here convinced that this is all machinic; that man has no subjectivity, that material conditioning is not known here, and so on. Again here you communicate a belief in vulgar materialism, which is in fact just idealism with the facet of matter by omission.

Do read that text, and don't go doing like you did with the text I posted right after that and look at the historical archives of the Italian state on expenditures during all regimes and compare them to that during Mussolini's reign.

You're just thick. If you want a more long-winded text explaining the Marxist position, look at: thecharnelhouse.org/2016/07/05/against-political-determinism/ (politics != activity in general, or activity as necessarily being political as enduring maxim!).

Make a fucking attempt at least, geeze. Stop trying to wiggle yourself out of this by reaching out to subjectivities and dare to make your theory speak rather than sit there.

Zizek is fucking amazing and he at least dares to speak his shit and confront those who disagree, often humiliating them entirely because they act exactly in the way they accuse the materialists of being: empty husks that have no creative critical thinking. You are going to read Zizek and/or listen (he's good at this so prefer this pedagogical option) about him on the subject of communism and fascism, and you're going to challenge yourself.

Alas, such is reality in the realm of matter and the element of the inherent qualities of man as sensuous creatures.

And again, reread the part where I talked about kibbutzim versus our friends Gregor and Otto. What happened there? I'm curious about your explanations.

I listened. Im not really interested in comic books or movies, but it held my attention. Nothing that was said was anything i hadnt heard elsewhere phrased differently. 45 mins is a good amount of time, an hour is too long.

I fucking hate soundcloud because it doesnt work well on my mobile browser, it keeps skipping and shit, so it took me an hour and 3\4 to listen to. Plese mirror on youtube.

Why would Nietszche's ideas be fascist or antisemitic? He was an anti-antisemite

nope nope nope nope nope

Some of his unreleased works were later released edited with some antisemitism thrown in.

Also drop the sion.

Just, Struggle Sesh

Wrong. It is far from black and white.
This sentence makes little sense. Your attempt to portray me as more deterministic or programmatically fatalistic than communists will fail miserably in due course of the argument, if we continue, however.

From my personal experience in recovering from Marxism and its millions upon millions of pages of apologia that explains very little, but rather only exists to defend Marxism. I don't have a list of examples handy, for now I will leave it to the reader to see if this account accords with their own experience.

What? In what way have I said history is cyclical? If anything I'm more of a Hegelian. Have you actually read Hegel, or just taken Marx et al's buttflustered word for it in German Ideology and on?

>You end up trashing post-modernists (post-structuralists) there, when you have up until now shown yourself to in fact be little more than a right-postmodernist in every single way. Just look at this: youtube.com/watch?v=uGld3FbDY6s; you effectively embody religious (idealistic!) slave morality to a T, just in a different jacket that is only non-nominally religious slave morality.
Nietzsche, while based and one of the greatest trolls of all time, his originality is vastly overstated. His "slave morality" is literally just proto-Gramscian pomo shit and based on the master slave dialectic, which is all pretty much anyone bothers to read of Hegel, and maybe the intro of Phenomenology of Spirit, including of course the "French" postmodernist neoliberal charlatans after Kojeve (one of the founders of the EU, another pure coincidence?), gave them his distorted Lite version of it, and they never even bothered to read the original, something even Derrida and his proteges now admits.

I'm not a right postmodernist, this is a contradiction in terms. Irony and satire has been around for a lot longer than this cancer which only exists to infiltrate and destroy the academy. There is an "objective" morality, something even Peter Singer of all people now admits is a possibility, not just this simplistic reactive shit which fails, as always, because of its infinite recursion. Postmodernism is a product of, and basically just is, Talmudic Judaism.

I fail to see how this is the case. What does "vulgar" mean to you, by the way?

Will do. I have other things to attend to in service of my family and people but it's high on the list when I get a chance.

As with this.

I'm not going to post a whole political theory on Holla Forums m8, plus it requires a bit of wider reading than most here are capable of, you'd probably be the only one that would understand 90% of it, I'll release a book at some point if we haven't first been Samson Optioned by the bourgeoisie "fascist" elite tribal cult you fellate, and the great irony here is you would have to liquidate a large percentage of them anyway if you won.

Yes he is, but for every gem of insight there's a bunch of silly shit where he boils it down to "good things/bad things". Sorry the aphorism was unimpressive.

Can you expand on what you mean by "sensuous"? How do you bridge the ontological gap? Pro-tip: you can't. Zizek at least acknowledged it was a problem, yet it's just Kantianism v2434968.0

Ephemera of the promulgation of Judaic "leftist" ideology which evaporated as Jews seized more of world power and no longer needed to subvert and fucking ruin real socialism to their own tribal ends.

...

Your neckbearded obesity sickens me to the core.

Read David Graeber The Utopia of Rules fam its got a whole essay on this shit

This is why all of you end up as zionist pawns so fucking easily. It's like a running joke at this point

Please elaborate.

It's complicated, but to lead you in the right direction, it's like the classic example of saying "there is no truth" which is self-refuting on its face. Denying a higher standard by which to judge anything undermines the position of the arguer, they are then admitting that everything they say is not so much a quest for a greater truth, but merely another volley in a war of attrition in the field of words. In this case there is no point to debate and whatever happens, happens. To defeat your arguer you might as well just poison them before the debate. What's the difference? "Might is right" being the sole province of the right wing is false.

To put it simply, morality means nothing unless it is, in the last instance, general, and a byproduct of empathic conscious agency. It's mysterious, but then so is the latter. The issue is more to do with our inability to have direct, unmediated access to this higher morality as individuals.

You're right, that was a complicated ghost story.

ITT: Kulaks

Can't wait to burn every copy of Stirner you amoral pieces of shit. ;^)

An objective morality would have to be external in nature. Religious morality often makes that claim.
Is that what you're talking about?
That morality is discovered and not created?

What's the morality on LARPing?

What's fascist about one punch man?
He's kind of like an egoist hero, in some ways.

He's not a superhero. He's a gag.

One punch man isn't a superhero story told straight, it's a satire meant to be a play on common superhero themes and story elements.

It's not external, more closer to "emergent". "Society" in toto is always bigger than any one individual can possibility comprehend, yet we don't seem to have a problem with it as a concept, couldn't have any theory without it.

(Edited by his fascist sister)

Societies differ culturally, so their respective moralities should also differ culturally.

This is the reason I stopped listening to chapo, you guys had it too good and easy in life, stop pretending to be awkward nerds and losers because yo clearly are not

Let us burn their filthy neck beards.

True, but this variance doesn't negate the meta-standard. Being a child abusing slave owner is objectively wrong, why insist there may be exceptions due to muh culture? Because you think it is "just" to respect differences? In which case you already assume an objective frame of justice aka morality.

How moral >8^)

Who/what determines that being a child-abusing slave owner is wrong?

The divine spook

I love that guy!

We do, imperfectly through our moral sense, which is compassion and empathy. Morality, if it means anything at all, is like Truth, which we work out through cognition, learning, debate, science, etc. It's an eternal ideal that we can't hope to capture perfectly with our limited language, but we can approach. Both of which can also be distorted by powerful institutions that make their claim on it, through ideology, like the Church for instance.

If there is no such thing as morality, ultimately, then who gives a shit what happens? It also defeats any notion of "progress", which would more accurately be called "change".

You sound like a neo-Platonist.

Bingo.

You hit on something I was feeling about Chapo and this massive coopting of nerd culture in general but couldn't articulate.

Is not a coopting of nerd culture but people pretending to be losers and nerds out of fashion and I don't mean it on the "nurd girl who only watches TBBT" type of stuff but these people clearly have no sort of disadvantages on life yet they think that real disadvantages that in other eras would had made people nerds like social ineptitude or emotional underdevelopment are funny.
Something that we should see as a tragedy was turned into a joke and now it has lost the context and meaning it had originally