Really fucking intrigues me, even back when I was a retarded Holla Forumsyp and I can't drop this bewilderment even now when I've been lurking Holla Forums for good while. Who is this guy, and how much is he related to leftism?
Please no "he's a proto-SJW" or "liberal scum" replies, something more in-depth please. I'll stay in this thread and monitor all replies, and if possible, take what I learned from this thread and repeat these points later.
Other urls found in this thread:
jacobinmag.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
He's not related to leftism at all. Post-modernism is capitalism realism and will be exterminated after the revolution.
Foucault is a weird one, a lot of his stuff from what I understand fits into an anarchist perspective (the notion that the way we treat prisoners and crime these days is barbaric compared to what we use to do in the past, we just hide out brutality now for example), but he himself dropped out of radical leftism by the time he was in the stride of his career, and at the end of his life he was an avowed Classical-Liberal.
He rejects all leftist philosophies, what is there to say? He's also a faggot and a Nietzschean.
He was just your standard irreverent homosexual out to "shock the straights" - like an intelligent, French Milo Yiannapolous
pretty sure Foucalt was an """ephebophile"""
Are there some more ideas what he has talked about? I get it that many people in Holla Forums view him as classical liberal and not a socialist but I have a gut feeling that he is one of the engineers of the current neoliberal regime in the west, or at least influenced it to great extent.
He absolutely was.
jacobinmag.com
This would be somewhat correct, or, rather, he engineered aspects of the underlying ideological support structure. His concept of knowledge-power rendered communism itself into a type of discursive power that stood alongside and competed with capitalism, along with many others. It wasn't a dialectical competition per se, but a competition between a constellation of knowledge-powers that may not necessarily resolve dialectically (either ideally or materially) but as the result of sudden historical irruptions into the discourse.
I should have continued that what existed for Foucault wasn't dialectically developed or empirically developed (either alone, at least). "Truth" depended on what aspects of which knowledge-powers the individual credited. Ideologically, this helped effect a split of parts of the left from Marxism and anarchism into more identity-based structuring, each with its own knowledge-power and "truth."
Thanks for the article.
Sorry I'm too much of a brainlet, but as far as I understood your posts, he basically armed the centre-left with perspective from which to attack the far left?
Mostly yes, although he also provided the arguments necessary for parts of the left to move to the center-left and for identity politics on the left more generally. To a certain extent, the left was already moving in this direction historically due to Keyensian capitalism's evolution into neoliberalism (and the further atomization of the workforce, changing the focus of workers from workers as a political group to their local community) and the failures of the USSR (and, connected to that, the discrediting on the left of dialectical materialism as a perspective).
This clarified things for me, especially in reference to Keynesianism, thanks!
My read of Foucault's Birth of Biopolitics was that neo-liberalism trended toward the creation of new unlimited state powers as long as it was for establishing civil society with markets. Like there's a part where he makes fun of a Ordo-liberal's speculations about influencing the weather for the purposes of agricultural reform. It seems he had issues with the welfare state, but that doesn't mean you can conflate him with Hayek and Friedman.
He was actually anti-Marxist. Maybe that's too strong of a term but he definitely was against Marxism and constantly critiqued it.
t. spoke with a Critical Theory scholar
...
sexual transited disease isn't a social construct, he never says that. are you retarded or Holla Forums? probably both.
Foucault advocating for dictatorship of the proletariat: youtube.com
I think Foucault's position on Marx changed at various points though, and there's examples one can find of him supporting or criticizing. There are times when he prefers Nietzsche, but there are also times when he tries to fuse Nietzsche with Marx, like Bataille did.
Yeah no offense to the homos here but I'm not going to listen to some fag that died of AIDS
This is just not true at all. Watch the debate between him and Chomsky he comes off as downright tankie at points
Post-Modernism personified.
Its when you run out of ideas after running into dead ends on purpose for your retarded idealism.
Invent a fucking ideology with sole purpose to serve specific strands of thought.
For a time, he did think AIDS was a hoax, or at least kind of a boogeyman to get gay people to stop having sex. He continued to have unprotected sex with men long after he contracted it.
When one of his friends told him about the disease, he replied:
So the joke has some truth to it.
the problem with Foucault is that by conceptualizing all of society and history as apart of different power structures he deemphasizes and mitigates the role that capitalism and the relationship to the MoP has in maintaining those power structures in favor of a much more vague enemy called "power". He's still useful to an extent but the pomo disease runs strong in his writings.
Part of me feels bad for him now but another part of me is keking out loud
"Tankie" by now official means "whatever, dude". Congrats, anarchists.
Isn't everyone?
Focault was no "proto-SJW" even if some of SJW could be described as vulgar foucaltians. If you want to know what he realy presented it would be best if you read "History of Sexuality" because contrary to popular belief it's actually a good book.
This. Foucault has plenty to be criticized but talking about philosophers as if they're either good or bad monolithically is ridiculous. Liberal academias effective co-opting of Foucault is unfortunate but not irrelevant because the guy did recognize himself how his philosophy was compatible with liberalism, which is shitty. Pomo Foucault drones won't even recognize that as a fundamental problem with his work. But taking that into account he was an incredible and an important thinker.
ITT: People who think writing without a face is identity politics
Power isn't an enemy, that's like foucault 101. Rendering the technologies that capitalism utilizes to craft desiring and productive subjects legible seems pretty integral to anticapitalist projects. idk how y'all don't think humanism is a disease considering the centuries of slavery and dispossession it's wrought.
...