Why do leftist hate Foucault?

Video pls.

youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8

Summary: youtube.com/watch?v=-0dM6j7pzQA.

He made some good points here and there, but it seems that many academics only seize on the pomo hack parts of his work.

t. people who have never read Foucault and simply want to jump on the bandwagon of calling everything idpol

Reminder that Foucault was a charlatan and shill for neoliberalism.

I don't understand that second video, is the uploader claiming there's no such thing as human nature? Because that would be absurd

His work and life precedes generalization the post-modernist academic theory. It is honestly not surprising that such a things would be the primary inheretor of his legacy given the historical context, but it is a disservice to theoretical work to lump him in with the pomo crowd and discard him as such.

...

Blaming Foucault for SJW/idpol is like blaming Nietzsche for Nazis.or Marx for the Soviet Union ;^)

You mean like how Foucault did? This was one of the few things he was right about. The big othering of history can be traced directly to Marx, and as much as you meme, tankies did know theory.

Nietzsche can be blamed for the nazis in this way as well, considering the nazis appropriated his idealism.

And the thought of SJWs, the fetishizing of the body, that can also be brought back to Foucault.

Even if you like Marx, Nietzsche or Foucault, you must still be critical of them for what in their thought lead to such terrible consequences.

such as

Well, to be fair, it does exist, as it is the set of all existing human behaviors. It just doesn't make much sense to use it as a justification for any particular ideology.

Human nature out of society means nothing. So no, there's no such things as a purely "human nature".

Good posts, it sounds like he was building off on Adorno and applied his analysis to the subject rather than the structure.

This is so deterministic that it hurts. Just because an idea exists doesn't mean that people have to follow it. Nazis would have done the same atrocities, just without aesthetic justification. Same goes for the SJW's, they would have claimed the same things without Foucault. I doubt any SJW without a background in academia even knows the name Foucault. The USSR and Marx isn't really sound either. Here lies the problem of opposing ideologies. They have to battle it out. The end result of this is the collapse of one of the ideologies. The conditions weren't favourable for the USSR, without being able to destroy capitalism, their ideology retreated to revisionism just to survive. The problem here is that this wouldn't have been different if the ideology would have been something else than communism. It would still lead to this battle, and still, cause one of the sides to crumble.

What exactly do you think historical materialism is m8? If you reduce away the self interest and well being of people from reasons to achieve communism because of muh moralism or muh materialism, as many tankie and leftcom thinkers actual did, then all you are left with is history.

It's the exact opposite. These movements, or something similar, would have happened either way. The fact that these ideas could be used by these movements, despite their original good intentions means that the original thought needs to be critiqued in order for the logic that led to the shittiness be avoided.

That said, ideological justification IS important to movements. If the ideological justification was different for the nazis, or the sjws or the soviets, things may have turned out very differently. As much as you'd like to, you cannot completely divorce theory from action, but I think the inverse is also true. Theory does not equal praxis because praxis is also produced by the material and structural relations of an organization or movement. All these things interact together in an overdetermined manner.

ITT : People discover Foucault actually makes sense

he was a champion for neoliberalism

He is a bit too honest: it's that kind of honesty which is fine at an individual level but totally at odds with any sort of organization.
With Foucault as a cornerstone there can be no Communist Party (which Foucault knew, and expressed how jaded he was regarding to similar projects virtually every time he mentions them).
It seems to be a problem of all those people who design Nietzsche as one of their main inspirations.

Speaking the truth about the reality of power structures immediatly qualify any sort of organization as a compromise at best, which is terrible, given how radical most active leftists are.
I guess that for most communist philosophers the praxis has always been to keep these truths hidden, for they are not as severe as one might think, and generally lead to complete political paralysis.
the establishment can afford to have no momentum, for it is already established, and for it can justify any pro of society as a direct result of its presence, and every con as a random misfire, usually due to corruption and small fishes (but hey, it's the real world, or at least this is what they will say), yet other independent parties can't same the same thing, for their starting position is for the most part, at least in the West, pathetic.
If one desires a revolution and political activity, he should forget these insights rooted in individualism, for this is not the time for individualism.

Which is ironic, because if anything, neoliberalism has only strengthened the very power structures he spent his life critiquing

some idpolers see foucault as a secular saint of sorts, which is weird considering the man himself was a self described 'classical liberal' who praised Hayek and Thatcher towards the end of his life.

Foucault=French Milo

One of the weird side effects of the postmodern condition, which i can't quite understand yet, is the simultaneous liquidation of the human subject and the exclusive centering of the individual. It's silly to blame Foucault for this, or any individual philosopher for that matter, they were, after all describing a world that had been a long way in the making. Intersectionality theory owes a lot to Foucault. Vulgar 'Postmodernism' became a class ideology among the post 68 professional intelligentsia. It speaks to the fundamental pessimism of the age, as well as the solipsistic subject of late capitalism. The end of grand narratives ends up abetting the grandest of all narratives. Foucault advised the French government on the 'integration' of immigrant populations.

Because what he wrote was mostly just shit that the average prole already knew but documented in an "academic" way that upper middle class LeftComs could intellectualise about and wank off over from now until the end of time.

Foucault was not a leftcom. if he's got anything to do with Marxism at all, it is with the antihumanist marxism of Althusser.

He did the opposite of what you've described, by the way.

He was initially an AnCom which isn't too far from. These days it's mostly LeftComs who love his writings the most.

many leftcoms are humanists, though.

I know Yugofags hate books, but that's just too fucking much.

...

You've managed to outdo pic related. Congrats. Beautiful.

How is the emphasis on discourse as power not idealistic af?

If being able to distinguish shameless LeftCom intellectual masturbation when I see it means "not being well read" to you people. Then I am guilty as charged.

i think you have no idea what 'leftcom' means.

I think you have no idea how worn out your armchair is at this point

It is.

He praised neoliberalism and Hayek, that's all you need to know.

wow incredible analysis wow much leftist much knowledge

WHO KNEW

Who are you and why are you knowledgeable unlike the rest of this board?

Foucault was the stupid nigra whose ideas led to idpol.

The west entered a period of hyper individualism and identity politics starting around when JFK was elected. I think its peak was obama.
Its end was trump. I think most people noticed how belligerent liberals became in the obama years, social justice warriors as they were called, and it all ends with them getting TRUMPED.
Trump is pretty much the personification of THE post modern president. He is straight out of a pynchon novel. A game show host that somehow became president, is at war with the deep state and political establishment , with insane hair, and who has a press secretary who walked out of central casting for goodfellas

There have been articles written that steve bannon was really interested in the idea of the 4th turning.
I do think 2016 was a generational cross over, a real one, obama didnt change anything beyond the skin color of the neolib in charge. Trump is a mad man who is crashing the plane with no survivors. Had clinton won it probably would have locked in neoliberal idpol permanently

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss–Howe_generational_theory

Lots of articles saying gen z will be conservative, i dont buy that. I think they will be apolitical.
A new silent generation.
The millennials were like a bad remake of the 60's generation, except with nothing really to fight for beyond inane things like video games and movies. And the actual important things like black lives matter and occupy wall street failed hard. And at a point where the hippie generation is the establishment, they just came off as this weird bizarro world liberal version of the moral majority, except wanting to shove feminism into video games instead of Christianity
I think a combination of the president be a literal troll and gas lighting sjw's for the next 4 to 8 years will demoralize them, that part of their brains that process outrage must look like a raisin by now.

I think gen z will see the insanity and failures of the alt right and sjw's, and just check out.

Look, the millenial generation did produce a significant minority of actual radicals (not sjws), more than alot of the previous generation, And I'm guessing that gen Z will also have quite a few lefties. I think your perspective on sjws vs alt right is very skewed by being online, offline most people don't give two shits about SJWS other than one segment on fox news. Your forgetting about the vast silent majority of 'normies'