Which intellectual has caused more damage to marxism?

which intellectual has caused more damage to marxism?

Other urls found in this thread:


What are you on about OP?

Thank you OP for ensuring the quality of this board.


If you mean "which guy in general said the most damaging shit on communism" imho it would be archipelago man (solzethyn or whatever) I mean he is probably the most important single perpetrator of LE COMMUNISMS ARE LE RED FASCINAZIS Xdddddddddd



wtf lukacs basically established marxism as a field of legitimate study. i will not have you slander him near me

Butler was an Althusserian, tho

Nietzsche was an Althusserian, tho.

Spotted the Althusserian.


I see at least 2 Althusserians in that pic.

You're all Althusserians. None of you are free from Althusserianism.

how ?

Friedrich Hayek
Josef Mengele

Just different ways of spelling "Louis Althusser."

*hands you Lire le Capital*


Whomever came up with this reactionary identity politics garbage.



it was althusser.


Both Foucault and Butler were really influenced by Althusser's ideas about the death of the human subject. Think of Foucault was a more literate french version of Milo.


what is with all this althusser hate that has only began since two weeks ago? whosoever is responsible for this please reveal yourself.

Why do you guys hate Focault?

You're right in a sense but at least Althusser was a Marxist, the same can't be said of Focault and all his followers and fellow travelers. The worst thing about today's left is that the majority of people who consider themselves "radical leftists" aren't even nominally Marxist or even syndicalist because of fuckers like Focault.

anti historical-materialist

Is Althusser worth reading

Habermas was right when he called him a young conservative. The guy was a more sophisticated version of Jordan Peterson crying over the Gulags and muh gorrillions.


just read 'the reproduction of capitalism' or even just the chapter 'ideology and ideological state appartaus'

Foucault sounds like a fun dude, ie. he was paid in species with hash for the famous debate with chomsky, but definitely not a leftist. a self proclaimed fan of Friederich Hayek, one of the founders of neoliberalism. Foucault did a good job describing the cybernetic societies of control, but was far too ambiguous about them.

Habermas is a yung socdem at best

Better then a young con tbqh

Judith Butler is still alive.

Reeee post-structuralism is not French :(
It may have started here, but most people despise them and it only gained traction in America.




Althusser hated humanists. I do too.


Foucault has his used but overall he and his descendants shouldn't be idolized by the left. His philosophy has ironically done alot to obscure the power of capital while talking about exposing power relations.


Habermas is the official "EU philosopher". Gulag-tier, tbh.

This guy.

I think OP blames Althusser for the rise of post-structuralism and the contemporary left, while this is a very autistic reading it is not without fundament, my own intellectual development went from Anti-humanist structuralism → post-structuralism → Deleuzian right (and yes we're a thing 4pt.su/en/content/deleuze-guattari-new-right)

In other words OP is a Marxist stuck in the past.

I'm pretty sure Focault was a marxist, though.

nigga what are you doing

Foucault rejected most aspects of Marxist theory.

imo this sounds like just another reason to keep bashing the wife strangling frenchman

Not really. He just happened to be in the right country at the right time period.

Nietzsche or Deleuze according to this guy


Deleuze and Guattari


why did althusser hate humanism?

i thought he just saw it as a spook used to define who and what is human by the bourgeoisie, instead of realizing Marxism as best as possible?

One intellectual? Don't know. But the 2º International vulgarized Marx a lot with positivism and determinism.

I nominate 'le jewish nigger' Lassalle.

Karl Marx

read Culp..

what do you think of post-althusserian probabilistic Marxism, though?


There is a ridiculously anti-intellectual movement happening on Holla Forums to delegitimize Foucault, and I honestly cannot imagine a reason for it outside of some retarded idea that he is at fault for liberal identity politics (which is completely untrue).

Personally, I think Foucault's politics outside of his texts were largely shit, which did on some level correspond to neoliberalism (yes we've all read that fucking jacobin article), however this does nothing to discount the massive contribution his work has done for the left. Foucault actually, imo, paved the way for Zizek's style of thought which finds a functioning kernel of class struggle within what appear to be normal institutions. It almost seems as if these 'leftists' on Holla Forums have not bothered to read Madness and Society, a crucial text for understanding how societal power has functioned ideologically in history, while simultaneously claiming to have ANY legitimate understanding of class society in general. How fucking arrogant!

Any Marxist should be ruthlessly critical of Foucault, while not being so stupid as to ignore how important his research has been for the left.


I too, thought that was a bit odd.

can I get a source on this?

every head of the communist party of america

Believe it or not Pierre actually explained this in a recent video
If you don't care about e-celebs then you can just read Foucault yourself, his theory of history was anti-materialist and his conception of power structures wasn't based on the marxist definition of class at all.

I already said this in my post, I don't support Foucault's political inclinations, but that doesn't say anything about the aspects of his work which are critically useful for Marxist theory

His structuring of history hinged upon a kind of anti-structuring: sudden irruptions into the historical record for a subject matter which (he framed) were without precedent and changed the form of the subject matter dramatically - that is, his theory of history involved things suddenly happening which didn't have any historical basis prior (either in material or ideologically). He was also explicitly anti-dialectical and tended to prefer a theory of a balance of powers (really, power-knowledges) forming the threads of the discourse.

No one realizes it yet, but Nick Land will one day become known as the shadow nemesis of Marxism. The future is far more terrifying than you can imagine.

The future belongs to the Stalinist AI god machine. Should be interesting.

And that's precisely what It wants you to think.

She's not and she's shit tier.


As someone getting into reading, is this guy worth getting to eventually?

Yes, you should actually do so. His On the Reproduction of Capitalism is one of his most famous books and I plan to read it.

This is Marx, already.


Althusser has contributed immensely to theories of ideology and the modern conception of materialism. His readings of Marx and Lenin and an array of important political theorists (Machiavelli, Rousseau, etc.) is invaluable too.

Pretty much everyone worth a shit today references Althusser as an important influence: Zizek, Badiou, Cockshott…


he was 🇨🇳 mautist 🇨🇳 like bunch of french people at the time

This thread is full of people who've never read Althusser, Foucualt or Nietzsche, pretending to know a whole lot about them.



fuck off with your stupid intellectualism. foucault wasn't leftist, neither was the better part of the frankfurt school. it's really quite plausible to suspect that both french and west-german post-war "intellectuals" deliberately worked on disrupting the political left from inside, to transform it into a bourgeois-liberal youth culture and/or hedonistic, essentially non-political ideology solely concerned about identity politics, not about class struggle. just like right wingers. it's no secret that some members of the frankfurt school had close links to the cia, by the way.

he had disagreements with marx (so what?), but he did A LOT for the german worker's movement. he should be honored a lot more.

no one who scorns humanism, the enlightment and the french revolution is a leftist. pretty much the opposite, infact. the principles of humanism are the core of communism, socialism etc.

Nice conspiracy theory. If you think generations of people can be brainwashed into political apathy by the secret machinations of a clique of intellectuals you should read some fucking Marx. When you're done, you might also be able to actually fucking read and understand those French and West-German authors you are so quick to spout your uninformed opinions about.

“Althusserian philosophy has an attraction to those intellectuals who are critical of existing society, are committed to social change, but who are not prepared to accept the fundamental changes in their methods of thought and in their scientific work which are implied in Marxist theory.”


That's correct, because they were actually unabashed communists.

kek, exactly, because communists aren't leftist, you liberal pile of turd.

The Frankfurt School is NazBol!1!

i'm sure you never ever read marx yourself besides the communist manifesto (which you interpret wrongly) because you are too dumb for it. and i'm also sure you read a shitload of marcuse (who was a cia agent and thought that class struggle is obsolote) and cia cointelpro guidelines instead.
there you go. you can't make it more obvious, really. springer/bertelsmann/spd/cdu/fdp/grüne shill detected. fuck off back to bild.de/ruhrbarone

they were bourgeois-liberals, not communist at all.

you don't know what either communism or liberalism means. go back to Holla Forums.

Foucault was never a marxist