Who was correct here?

This place has always been a liberal shithole, the point is to change it. This starts by accepting that no conspiracies have been or are necessary to make it that way. Drop the good discourse and maybe we can have a positive effect. Nobody needs to agree, but if there is disagreement it needs to become discursive and interesting.

Over my dead body, comrade.

Excellent post.

Fuck yeah. Save us daddy

Oh come on dude, it was just a silly bait, no need to get that worked up.
I was the user to whom you explained how Lacanian psychoanalysis is materialist last week, and while my skepticism toward Lacan didn't vanish, you convinced me to explore his theory at some point in the future but not right now, I want to read and listen to beginner material on the history of western philosophy to get more mileage out of contemporary texts tbqh fam
Not saying that we can't have interesting discussions here, but this is an imageboard, and stupid memeing is a staple of the medium.

The posterteriat cannot be saved. It is a revolutionary subject which must emancipate itself {|*[:^)

"In what is for some the most excellent song in The Measure Taken, a celebration of the Party, Brecht proposes something that is much more unique and precise than it may appear. That is to say, it seems that Brecht is simply elevating the Party into the incarnation of Absolute Knowledge, a historical agent which has complete and perfect insight into the historical situation—a subject supposed to know if ever there was one: “You have two eyes, but the Party has thousand eyes!” A close reading of this poem, however, makes it clear that something very different is going on: in reprimanding the young Communist, the Chorus says that the Party does not know all, that the young Communist may be right in his disagreement with the predominant Party line:

This means that the authority of the Party is not that of determinate positive knowledge, but that of the form of knowledge, of a new type of knowledge linked to a collective political subject. The only crucial point on which the Chorus insists is that if the young comrade thinks that he is right, he should fight for his position within the collective form of the Party, not outside it—to put it in a somewhat pathetic way: if the young comrade is right, then the Party needs him even more than its other members. What the Party demands is that we agree to ground our “I” in the “we” of the Party’s collective identity: fight with us, fight for us, fight for your truth against the Party line – just don’t do it alone, outside the Party. Exactly as in Lacan’s formula of the discourse of the analyst, what is important about the Party’s knowledge is not its content, but the fact that it occupies the place of Truth."

(Zizek / Lenin - Revolution at the Gates)

Thanks.

Apologies then, but it's more often than not impossible to tell satire and authenticity apart here. Take a simple

And I still think that last thing I said applies here. You can't tell me that it's all just been satire or really anything but minority satire at all.

Dialectical and organic as fuck. I like it. Good to know this place has such noticeably based mods.

Good shit but I feel like we need to achieve this principle on a basic level at least on the board (which is not a Party) to begin with.

Also the section titled The Organic Principle: Enter the [i]Lyon Theses (ctrl + F it or scroll down a bit) from this text: libcom.org/library/brain-society-notes-bordiga-organic-centralism-limitations-party-form-c-derrick-varn might interest you and I'd like to hear your thotties relating to the Party and centralism question here.

I don't see any points of contention here.

Did you just check out the original Lyon Theses (perhaps already knew about them?) or did you also check out the text's commentary on them? Just wanna be sure.

I agree, and this was all written in the mid-'20s. Do you then do you think there's something lacking in it then, something that is in some way supplemented by recent commentaries on the Party form in Zizek, Dean, etc.? Because I've checked out a lot of the texts you recommend on the subject and I at least have not been able to find much that is truly novel or groundbreaking (maybe I didn't look right is what I'm saying).

I checked the article,not the original. On the phone, btw.

What makes Dean, Z genuine is reformulating the theory in Lacanian terms, the four diacourses, specifically. This is important b/c the fourD claims that it encompasses all the possible types of social links, thus posits the party form (as diac. of the analyst) in the broader whole. This has obv. theoretical advantages, enabling us to analyze the whole of revolutionary process: party (dota), bureaucracy (dotu), leaders/technocrats/dictator (what have you – dotm), revolutionary masses/phases of transitioning (doth, pushed by the dota of the party).

But there's obviously more. We get a toolkit to detect when something goes wrong: when the party starts to act as dotu (clearly:"ML") when the bureaucrats as doth (basically: Stalin's road to power as asserting himself as dotm), etc.

Even further! Remember Z's tirade about the 'philosopher policeforce' (via that theologians whose name I can't recall now)? It allows us to detect the underlying social (possibly pathological) functioning of a group: hystericed anarchist platform with a hidden leader, a union functioning as dotu, etc. Since jouissance is always included with Lacan, gou can get surprisingly good hints at the broader problem by merely consulting an individual of said group.

Here's a hint for a good excercise: try reading Lenin's State&Rev with Lacan's fourD, and try to reactualize it with Zizek's "let's make the state act in a non-statal way" in mind.

cheers

the classical excellent of the party all to often gets boggled down in the prole vs bourg dicothomy. (From Marx, to Lenin, Althusser…) While the dichotomy is correct, it misses a broader context: you can have a dysfunctional prole party, state, bur., fuck it, even ppl in different ways.

G. K. Chesterton

...

Neither.

Thanks, this is good food for thought. Will get back on this once I sort it all out.

I really should compile a "Four Discourses" reading list. I think you already know about the best intro I could find, Paul Verhaeghe's Does the Woman Exist, ch. 7. SIC series no.6 Reflections on Seminar XVII - The Other side of Psychoanalysis (ed. Russell Grigg) Part II-III has some really great ways of introducing the reader on how to apply the 4D (I'm just gonna call it 4D from now on…). Ofc, there's the translated Lacan's SEMXVII too.

You definitely should. And if necessary include the theoretical background knowledge one might need for it to be accessible.

For a long time now I've been thinking about creating an alternate youtube channel focusing on theory. There are some setbacks, tho (muh accent, that my laptop lacks a mic slot, general dislike of identity/utube-fagging, lack of time), but more and more I see it as an inevitability/duty.

What would be a good name for a leftypol oriented theory channel?

Why video and not text?

Because a good chunk of this community is under 20, because 2-8 minutes webms trump 3-10 pages of texts…

so basically: cuz ima lelninist and I work with what I'm given

If you're down we could do this together. While not being a native English speaker I'm always told I sound like an American so that part's solved, I have a decent microphone and the motivation to do something like this (translated the article here and want to do more).

It's time to stop.

Very tempting, but ima control freak. Let's take a hypothetical situation wherein I send you a 3 pgs long text, asking you to send back a reading out in .ogg format… I can guarantee you that I wouldn't be satisfied with it, asking for remakes of rerecordings…

And there's also the issue of disagreements. I'm very solidly on the side of Lenin when he does get into conflict with Bordiga (esp. the party).

ref.
>>>Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without
(Lenin)
vs. Bordiga's Party and Class:
a prev. leftcom explanation of above:

STILL ASKIN'

But in any case, if you are down to get some mails being exchanged, send one to this temp mail.

Which seminar do I need to read to find this?

Gingeet's Interesting Psudeo-Science Streams or GIPPS.

...

lel, should have just scrolled down

here we go!

I want to give it a try at any rate.

[email protected]/* */

hmmm

Make your own fake one and send me an email. I'll then send you back a reading of whatever as a test.

To authenticate it's you include a short explanation of the divided subject (nobody here outside of pretenses has read Lacan so it's foolproof).

No way, sherlock. I already made a fake ITP:

Variance

Which of Lacan's seminars would you say mare most essential? Also, which would you say are most valuable to Leftists.

Excuse me, didn't notice through all the sages.

What should I read?

Feels good to be a native Frenchman.

>[email protected]/* */
done

10 min Materialism
Diving in the Trashcan
Marxist-Snowflakist Missives
At the Virtual Cafe
March of History

Can you go into this a little more? Sounds interesting.

Not him, but the society of spectacle is basically arguing people are literally hypnotized and there is no genuine human interaction anymore for a large majority of the population. Basically we act out in very limited frameworks delimited by bourgeois ideology that passively coerce us to assume servile and docile attitudes.
Guy Debord's Society of Spectacle is the book referenced here but google things like Foucault's panopticon, it's a good analogy too

I would read a Ginjeet blog. I already read Deep Comrade's blog. I even read AW's bullshit

IMO while SotS is an important text, it's overrated, not because it's not "true" (… whatever that means), but because Debord fails to give us the encompassing theoretical system in which these imaginary forms (images, jingles, adverts, etc.) "activate" themselves.

Nevertheless, you should read it and use this guide: reddit.com/r/ReadingSOTS/

Well I fucking wouldn't!

nig, u got it?

ffs

just send me a message here:

Yeah that throwaway email website was trash and doesn't work. Gonna send it with another email.

What did you want me to read?

Utterly unimportant to me. Before making a video we'll flesh out if it's supposed to represent some historical figure's position (whether we believe they're right or wrong) or if it comes from the channel's position and so on. The most immediate aim is explaining shit like the four discourses which is without disagreement.

w8ing
[email protected]/* */

replied

Daily reminder that all leftcoms are deeply trigguring, p.roblematic s.hitlords.

did you get it? are you gonna reply, or what?

youtube.com/watch?v=FlvskzTxlkA

youtube.com/watch?v=FjeMDvCdrtc

Question still open: what be the name of a theory oriented leftypol-friendly youtube channel?

Discourse on discourse. Metadiscourse?

i.e. pomo… no thx. Any other takers?