Tfw the best way to write radical leftist theory is to use a combination of obfuscating poetic flights of fancy and...

Can we make a list of theorists/philosophers who can pretty easily be understood by normies for recommendation's sake?

I can't speak to Guattari, but I didn't find Baudrillard to be too terribly difficult if you have a bit of context ahead of time. To be fair though I've only read Simulacra and Simulation and knew a bit about the content ahead of time, so perhaps he is more esoteric in other texts.

All the same, expanding your literary horizons with some of the classics shouldn't be frowned upon or groaned about - it should be virtuous! It is a good activity!

As Lenin said - learn, learn, and learn!

I can't speak to Guattari, but I didn't find Baudrillard to be too terribly difficult if you have a bit of context ahead of time. To be fair though I've only read Simulacra and Simulation and knew a bit about the content ahead of time, so perhaps he is more esoteric in other texts.

All the same, expanding your literary horizons with some of the classics shouldn't be frowned upon or groaned about - it should be virtuous! It is a good activity!

As Lenin said - learn, learn, and learn!

MLs should be shot.

I'd toss Zizek in there, though with the caveats that not only is some of his writing way more difficult than others, but that there's like 100+ hours of his lectures and talks available for free online, which could be a really good jumping off place for someone wanting to see what he's about.

Perlman is pretty good, I always recommend his "Reproduction of Daily Life" to beginners. But Marx can get really hard at times.

I tried to read this, and I just couldn't. I couldn't understand what it was about after reading and re-reading the first 15 statements or so.

How exactly do you expected the workers to rise or trust you if they don't understand half the shit you talk about?
Basically you are just relying on people to just trust you because they should instead of telling them why. Its no different than a bourgeois telling the proletariat that capitalism is good for them. In fact the very terms proletariat and bourgeois are pretentious. Just call them rich people and working class.
Its like a lawyer telling his clients he should just the fuck up instead of trying to make his client understand whats happening and what he means.

Violence, from which the excerpt that posted comes from is one of Zizek's more accessible books, would definitely recommend. Even my classcucked dad enjoyed it.

Try reading Comments on the Society of the Spectacle first.

Working class people don't read. Use common vernacular instead of theoretical words to describe your ideas. Telling people to fuck off and read a book isn't going to spread your ideology.

I'm not bourgeois

Thanks I'll check it out.

To be fair, the transhumanist I was referring to in the previous thread was essentially saying that Debord was as hard to read as Hegel - and I flatly disagree with that assessment.

I'm encouraging anyone who wants to read to read - I'm pointing out that reading certain people can be difficult and to be prepared for that by seeking context for the reading ahead of time. I'm not asking anyone to trust me, I'm offering my opinions about books on a Taiwanese looming appreciation website.

This, on the other hand, does happen - and isn't necessarily bad advice on the part of the lawyer. Young Thug doesn't necessarily need to have a strong handle on legal theory if he has a decent lawyer - this allows him the time to do more… Thug stuff?

People who treat revolutionary movements like fucking bookclubs are the ones who should be shot.

Partially Examined Life #170: Guy Debord's "Society of the Spectacle" (Part One)
youtube.com/watch?v=S3bZOd5-6qE

Partially Examined Life #170: Guy Debord's "Society of the Spectacle" (Part Two)
youtube.com/watch?v=E9ExGfAUz3A

Here's the perfect place to start, you guys!

You don't have to read the work itself to get key pieces of its meaning or appreciate what the author was trying to convey - and if you do really want to dig in you can probably find the book for free online!

I don't have time to read like I wish I did - the same as most wageslaves. But there are ways to get into theory that don't involve sitting alone and reading dense tomes for years and years and years.

Hell I used to listen to Stanford's Philosophy Talk podcast religiously while playing World of Warcraft - if you can find a way to start absorbing theory you'll find it easier and easier to digest.

We gonna' make it, comrades!

what the fuck is this shit

In all fairness, I was a little unfair in listing Baudrillard - readability-wise he's really hit or miss. Spirit of Terrorism and some of the essays in Screened Out aren't too difficult, but I find the more heavy-duty stuff like The Perfect Crime or Simulacra and Simulation to be a nightmare to get through. Especially The Perfect Crime, that book nearly gave me an aneurysm.

I'd say Zizek is another guy who tends to be pretty hit-or-miss when it comes to accessibility.

Nigger what, Debord is barely comprehensible even after the updated translation. And when he starts namedropping Lukacs and other theorists you're pretty much reading a word salad rivaled only by Nick Land's xenofeminist rants.

"Comments" is way more accessible.

Society of the Spectacle is not Debord's only work.

...

Pulled this from the Zizek thread - very helpful.

What about The Invisible Committee? Parts of what they write are pretty clear, other parts seem to sort of jump around a lot.

Your vanguard is a joke and would only accomplish the reproduction of capitalism.

Most frogs are like that. I like them but you'll want to read up on Anarchism first, like some Malatesta.

If I ever write a book. I’ll make sure to make at easy to understand for normal people as possible, while still conveying important ideas.

No one cares about muh elaborate commie theories though.
People want to see results and how things work in practice.

Just as dumb as the neoliberal claim that all workers in the deindustrialized west should just become lawyers/doctors/computer programmers in order to avoid poverty. We need political action and real life community building. Your average prole does not need to fully understand Capital Vol 3 to do that, especially if they are properly organized by people who do understand it.

Lower class people DO NOT READ. Shit, most middle and upper class people don't read. If they do it's certainly not theory or philosophy.

Your average worker is too busy stressing about paying the rent, paying their credit card bill on time and how to fix their leaky radiator in order to keep their car running while waiting for the next paycheck.

I hear you, man. Last thanksgiving, some shithead tried to sell me a map when I got lost on the way to my grandma's house, and flipped over his whole map stand and yelled "fuck you, you elitist cunt sucker"

I am now currently stranded in taiwan

Reddit type humor detected.

Just come out as an aspiring porky.

Most people don't, though some do, and that is fine.

What most people really care about, as far as I can tell, is their close associations and their relative safety, along with having time, energy, and resources to pursue their own desires.

If capitalism is indeed causing these people stress and denying them the time, energy, and resources necessary for them to enjoy their life, having a cohesive alternative to their existing system is important.

Is this not a suitable purpose for theory? You say-

But how do you arrive at results without planning?

Why do you seek results if their achievement serves no established purpose?

Ideas have traditionally been the things that humans rally around. Ideas, when refined, become theory. Theory, when refined becomes memes. Memes, when refined, win presidential elections.

Kek, you lazy fuck.

From what I've heard the borderline obscurantist wording of french philosophy was a kind of protest/attack on the rigid french university system, which didn't allow for any creativity in thought.

I did that, edited a typo cause I'm autistic. Not that guy btw, I do it for free.

I wouldn't make a habit of it, it promotes conspiratorial thinking.

Here I was happy you modfags finally banned the hapastalin and you fuck it all up correcting my drunken mistakes.

Hapastalin? I called him fashtash because of his love in with nazis.

Yeah he said he was half-korean but fashstash fits too.

stop that

It won't happen again, especially because of what mentioned.

Reading is bourgeois tbh. It's not a coincidence that mass literacy in the West was achieved only under bourgie rule.

Fuck off, literacy is one of the good things that capitalism has provided.

I know m8 I'm not against it.

Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

I don't think reading is "bourgeois" as much as it is "industrial." The requirement for participation in advanced economies and advanced workplaces require a significant amount of information to be passed on to the workforce. It is far, far more efficient to have a literate workforce than to attempt to work around illiteracy by pictograph and word of mouth.

Thuoght this would be an OK place to ask –

Any Marxist/general Communist works of philosophy or books which do their best to disprove the "le socialism fails, look at the soviet union/mao/the millions"?

So far on my "list" I only have the Zizek "in defence of lost causes".

Please help, it would be good to know.

It's kind of a lot to condense.

I haven't read The Next Revolution, but I think it touches on the topic.