I figured with the reset and a dearth of constantly resurfacing old threads - it might be worthwhile to have a thread wholly dedicated to the proliferation and discussion of theory. Share, compare or whatever, argue in good faith!

Topical Links





Other urls found in this thread:

libcom.org/files/Monsieur Dupont - Nihilist Communism - A Critique of Optimism in the Far Left.pdf
libcom.org/files/Marcuse, H - One-Dimensional Man, 2nd edn. (Routledge, 2002).pdf
archive.org/stream/pdfy-I3ZjI2B47rFvMjBd/Lacan ecrits_djvu.txt

If you don't read Marx and Engels at least before reading other writers, you're just going to fall for memes. Seriously just fucking go read Marx and Engels. They btfo 99% of the idealism and revisionism on here. And don't ignore historical materialism and Marx's dialectics. A huge source of revisionism is idiots attempting to remove class conflict and violent revolution from Marxism or to subvert it in a number of other ways that a clear understanding of historical materialism would prevent.

Currently re-working through Lacan's seminar XI as well as Alenka Zupancic's "What is Sex."

Both are very very dank if you have any interest in psychoanalysis/ontology


My contribution to this whole deal, just finished reading this shorter piece that is a shorter approach to Badiou and the idea of the Event as a means of altering the logic of an ideological body. This should best be read through a Žižekian lens, and I would recommend reading his works on the abstract subject and its relation to ideology as a sort of abridging universal.

Other potentially interesting works:


Also related:

This. Though don't hesitate in also reading on the philosophical of Marxism in Hegel, Kant, the Jacobi/Spinoza debate, German idealism, etc. Don't fall for the 'vulgar materialism' meme

Antonio Wolf records himself reading and commenting on theory. If you are particularly interested in learning Marxism, he's actually quite helpful even if he is openly critical.


Does anyone have a non-political book that covers basic economic concepts and functioning? Something that would allow me to speak in the same language as an educated cappie.

A.W. also maintains that his idea of a Hegelian totality, in the critique and exposure of the fundamental negativities of a potential or existent order constitute a new universality. For him, a sutured philosophical tendency is itself the proper order of appearance of appearances. He, in that sense, maintains Hegelian critique as a sort of trajectory of consciousness whereby one can discern an essential/absolute knowledge - the major issue being that this advances the same monistic tendencies that he sought to critique in the first place. He seeks, in the establishment of a universal particularity (that of Hegelian critique) to not abnegate the establishment of an abstract universal, but rather order it in another way. In this way, his approach to philosophy serves as an ideological abridging of the inherent tautology of his thought.

In his inability or unwillingness to bridge the topic of the void of appearance, he is duty bound and summoned to address and reject, or reconcile non-pathologically those events that stipulate a non-particular universal (which he is unable to glean from his own philosophical exegeses). This is why I imagine, though he has admitted to having no formal knowledge of Lacanian thought, he attempted to assert the axiomatic subjectivity of mathematical processes and physical science (cahiers.kingston.ac.uk/pdf/cpa10.8.badiou.translation.pdf, the events theses posted above). Besides the idea that the absolute knowledge is derived from the critique of an existing order of how we know what we claim to know, a presupposing game that already reserves space for a pre-cognitive arbitrary logic (that self-negating essential that we know to be a spook ), he then plays into the contours of transcendental antiphilosophy by assuming that this conjecture represents an absolute without following through on the ultimate question of Hegelian thought: Not the organization of appearance, but how it is that we have something like appearance when it is so consistently antinomic, a fate of contradiction that befalls A.W.' own philosophical presuppositions precisely in that they are not pathological as one would assume, but they are a constitutive abstract which interpolates the individual as subject to a generality, regardless of the subject-thought and emergent multiplicities engendered by an Evental statement.

Last and least of all being his consistent impertinence and faux erudite condescension, A.W. stands, trite and spurious, as a testimony to the dangers of presuming philosophy as a truth process, independent of Event or ideological critique

Pretty much every meaningful piece of theory in some way harkens back to Marx, even anarchism. It's essential.

I recommend related, as the history of the development of capital does not function independently from its theoretical assertions (which are fundamentally political in nature, if one remembers that the modern state apparatus was conjured as a defense of the initial appearance of private property), but it also covers a great deal of modern economic thought and its conclusions, such that you'd be able to speak at length with most economically diligent readers.

Friendly reminder that A.W is a brainlet and a lolcow who lies to try to get credit on the board, then throws an enormous tantrum when people call him out. Links related.

Can you say that in clear English? This is some Rosa Lichtenstein level of jargon complaint post.

Do forgive, English isn't my first language.

A.W. thinks an absolute truth can be uncovered in addressing the contradictions of modern culture and society, but this renders this truth contingent simply to whatever order exists, it doesn't produce its own knowledge - only reaction. This said, the insistence on his part is that the Hegelian process of interrogating how appearance and our relation to appearance represents a conceptual approach to absolute knowledge (the truth of being/a universal) which is simply a reshuffling of how appearances are meant to be interacted with, rather than the actual question is: how do we end up with appearances in the first place? His insistence on this specific configuration of understanding (a particularity) as a universal is thus as contradictory (self-negating) as that which he intends to critique, though even more confounding because his critique is founded on it necessarily existing (his universal cannot exist without the existent order to orient itself next to). Thus, his attempt to conceive a purely Hegelian universal is trapped within and plagued by the same issues which he critiques in the other orders of thought (tautology of thought). The rest is just talking about the continued existence of such an approach not being a distinct conscious process, but rather ideological. Again, I apologize for being so unclear

Would you debate him on a livestream over this? I'd love to see it. I have no idea if your criticism is true at all since I've no idea what he says. Doesn't he claim to have no given position on anything?

I'm sure he would use some sleezy dialectic to try to fend off most of your attacks, but it would be awesome to see two theory/philosophyfags have at it compared to our celebrity brainlets.

I kind of shy away from those sort of things, I just enjoy writing is all.

I'd imagine this could be true, but I try (for the most part) to avoid being polemic
I actually don't think so, A.W. is remarkably well acquainted with Hegel, but I am not so sure about what else is in his repertoire, I've asked on occasion if he'd read certain pieces that frame a lot of Hegel' work so that I could maybe activate his neurons
I still think Muke is adorable, and I enjoy FinnBol just to imagine a real Finnish communist existing

Hey theoryfags: economic calculation problem :)

Here you go, friend.

That's a shame. He has written long responses to some people before, so he would likely engage you if you wanted to have essay or blog back and forth.

What have you recommended? Is it critiques of Hegelianism that he refuses to read? I don't know much about Hegel, or philosophy, but if it is anything even halfway readable unlike Hegel I'd like to know. Nothing Lacan tier tho, that's as opaque to me as Hegel.

Don't worry, I'm not gonna open with "Against Understanding". I recommended Letters to Herr Moses Mendelssohn, the piece that incited the debate between orthodox and pantheist conceptions of materiality, one being entirely parochial and the latter being that, without excluding divinity, it is hard to address thoughts about material without a human subject. It became a driving force behind Kant, who in turn was a major influence on Hegel. This religious approach eventually touched off the debate about material/transcendental totality in Hegel, which split them into Left and Right factions; the left of course going on to produce Marx. On this, I recommend this: paulredding.net/pubs2009andearlier/Redding_Hegels-Philosophy-of-Religion.pdf
relatively short and not too obfuscatory, great introductory text which also passes by some of the names of German Idealism. If you'd like to know more, I have no end of books that I could pdf here

It isn't a refusal, but more that he didn't plan to read them, and I was certainly not going to insist on his time

Anything by Adam Smith or Keynes.

If you mean "completely non-political" in the sense that it treats economics like its own objective autistic system of pure material inputs and outputs, no, but if you mean where it isn't discussed specifically through an ideological lens, then these might help.


Adorno - On Jazz

Jacques Camatte - Wandering of Humanity
>A proletariat devoid of class function? Antinomic antagonisms without confrontation? A capitalist world WITHOUT the bourgeoisie!? Yes, indeed! In a shorter piece, Camatte addresses those more nihilistic necessities one must accept to effectively function as a radical leftist in the modern sphere, in distance from the old failed projects and the need for a new universal program to supersede the tired platitudes of old leftism. It will be dark and dreary, but fuck it; the greatest hope is courage in the face of hopelessness and so on and so on

Louis Althusser - On The Reproduction of Capitalism

McKenzie Wark - General Intellects
>What do Otaku philosophy, absolute recoil, and programmers politics have to do with one another? Well, in this book; possessing more features than an a$ap rocky song 1 Train , a plethora of your favorite and soon to be favorite thinkers address the perplexing issue of who will be the seminal thinker of the modern left, the conclusion WILL SHOCK YOU! It's that in an age of unfiltered and easily proliferated informations; expanded subjectivities and spheres, that the best intellect is not singular but a general amalgam. Read some interesting shit, and then skip to the one about Otaku because that and Žižek are the only real reason you care about the book

Good old days.

I feel like these are too specific. I'm mainly looking for something that defines economic concepts and words in a basic and general sense.

In that case wouldn't any old Econ 101 textbook do?

I seriously recommend taking a look at as it done within a comprehensive historical context (factor endowment, elasticities, terms of trade, cost of development, etc.). It will really help and it's pretty short

This is coming in the mail in a week or so.
I'm so shit at consentrating when reading a .PDF help
After that I'm probably gonna try to read Das Kapital. Hope I can get that noggin joggin' fast enough to actually understand it.

I always start highlighting, it makes it easier to review and write on, plus otherwise you get that feel like you've read three pages and don't remember what they've said so you gotta go back. Downside: it slows the process of reading

Contending Economic Theories by our beloved papa Wolff, despite claiming to be written for students who already had some basic economics studies, has very good summaries of the most popular economic schools of thought.

I'd also like to add that I've recently finished this. Anyone else who has read this and share their thoughts on it?

I do that for uni related shit already, I should probably start doing it for /theory/ as well.

The best way for me is to take notes, like an outline of the book with the important things. Finding out what is worth writing down and how to put it into your notes makes reading a lot more active, especially if you are not just copying out sentences. Although if something is really good, you should copy it out. It also helps you review and in consolidating your knowledge.

If you have trouble with distractions, I recommend watching this lecture: youtu.be/IlU-zDU6aQ0 Take notes while watching it!

I always maintain some degree of suspicion about the advancement, albeit necessary advancement, of universal projects - like the redefinition of the fundamental European values, such that we can contend with the reality of a fully disparate population group in the world. I can, in full candor, say that I am with Žižek, but that my foremost concern is that of our inability to establish an effective program that does not seem like a more left echo of what the "third way" left has to offer. This, of course, being the preamble to only more cyclical presupposing violence between progress and reaction, both generated and sublimated to the dominance of capital.

Highlighting is pretty much useless for studying, though. If you want to do that is actually making you learn, check these out: learningscientists.org/downloadable-materials

This is actually really helpful, thank you!

Thanks for the tips, my dude.

I'll check that out, thanks

I have a lot of things going on this month, so at the start I decided that I would just read one or two chapters of Comments on the Society of the Spectacle every day. They are really short chapters, maybe section would be a better name, and there's only 33, so it should be done by the end of November. It actually works out fine so far, it gives me enough space to think about each instead of just racing through. It's a really good book and it's really unfortunate that most people only read the original Society of the Spectacle and no other situationist works.

I've read the Verso translation before so now I thought I would read the Not Bored! translation. It has footnotes for the historical references which makes looking up things easier:

If you're interested in other situationist works, here is a piece called "The Most Radical Gesture" which serves as an orientation piece for the ideas and catalysts of '68 in a post-modern age

Thanks but I've read enough secondary literature about them already, unless it has something very special in it I think I'm going to pass. Have you read it?

Some time ago, but yes. I don't think you'd be missing out on anything in all honesty, but it is a good text for introducing ideas to those who would be more skeptical of the potential theoretical impact of situationism in a more "modern" age. If you're interested in its progenitors and influences in theory and historicity, give it a shot, but for the most part I'd say you're probably good

Recommended for those unable to differentiate hierarchical from economically egalitarian projects, left and right but mainly for socdems


Almost :^)

I am so glad someone took the time to save those, that is hilarious

Not sure if it's theory but here's some behavioral analysis of a subgroup of the porcine class:

When I made them I tried to be as fair as possible and tried to choose a science thread to compare with our Soviet Cybernetics thread, but most of the threads were ranting about jews, sjws, liberals, this or that outrage clickbait article, and other dumb bullshit. The closest "science" thread I could find was one talking about global warming, and you can see some of the truly genius insight they had to offer there. I didn't discriminate in what I chose, just the first several posts, you can see there 33 vs 32 sentences.

I think the results speak for themselves.

A book of particular interest to IdPol as an essential, and fatally symbolic practice necessary to preserve capitalist hegemony against previously revolutionary social trends

I didn't like it so much, it really only restated what Zizek has said much simpler in recent articles he's written online. It's not theoretically robust and kind of superficial. And Zizek himself states that he only writes these types of "shitty political interventions" because his publishers pressure him to do it, he really wants to be known for his philosophy.

I wish AW would quit pretending not not be himself.


Good morning/noon/night theoryfriends! New day means new pdfs to save so that we can spam them at Holla Forumsyps until they leave.

M. Dupont - Nihilist Communism

György Lukács - History and Class Consciousness
>forefront Marxian philosopher and staunch communist by day and also directed Star Wars not really, different guy . Approach a seminal work on the development of Marx' theory of the development of a class paradigm as contradiction, then never read it because the mere mention of Lukács sends reactionaries into the fetal position and that is enough for you.

Enzo Traverso - Leftwing Melancholia






Of course, listen to what you please!

Forgot image

libcom.org/files/Monsieur Dupont - Nihilist Communism - A Critique of Optimism in the Far Left.pdf



Forgive, I guess I am not able to post pdfs, internet sucks

Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses

The Philosophy of the Encounter



Does anyone else get a feeling of wanting to cum while reading Capital? Serious question.

get help.

NO! Quit accussing me! IT'S NOT TRUE I SWEAR!

Aleatory materialism is truly the saving grace of a scientific and not scientistic leftism


Frederic Lordon - "Willing Slaves of Capital - Spinoza and Marx on Desire" (explains why so many proles are classcucked)

Frederic Jameson - "Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism" (excellent take on postmodernism from a Marxist perspective that will make you more informed than almost anyone blabbing about a topic they know nothing about)

Ernesto Laclau/ Chantal Mouffe - "Hegemony and Socialist Strategy" (considered the seminal work of "Post-Marxism", engages critically with Althusser and builds on Gramsci's notion of hegemony. Note that they still consider themselves Marxist in a sense so "Post-Marxism" is misleading)

Terry Eagleton - "Ideology - an Introduction" (excellent contemporary Marxist analysis of ideology)

Cedric J Robinson - "Black Marxism" (documents the traditional of black radicalism as it relates to Marxism)

Kathi Weeks - "The Problem with Work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork politics, and Postwork imaginaries"





Tautology is a spook? Truly this is the power of the EGOIST GANG i mean union

This. The anxieties and minutiae are just gone

Is that meant as a categorical differentiation, as I can't imagine anyone grouping the modern corpus of Marxian philosophy with material essentialism as an abstract? I don't mean this as a polemical statement, just genuine curiosity

He's more of a spinozist tbh. He's not saying Marx and Spinoza are perfectly compatible but is kind of re-reading Marx through the lens of Spinoza and his concept of "conatus," a kind of animating force of desire which employers seek to manipulate to be identical with the interests of capital.

I can understand that in a sense that some common order could effectively experience a universal detraction in the way capitalism manipulates 'conatus', but would that not require conatus to function as an independent in-itself kind of deal, rather than an abstract singular universal? To presume as such would require to some extent a dereliction of the idea of material transience and ontological void in favor of some universal. In this sense, the progressive conatus seems wholly more akin to a self-negating essential, in that an ideological orientation must abridge the fractures in its positive assertions. Forgive me if the wording is wrong, English is not my first language

Theory is best read in a warm pale light, with winds gusting about.


Uhh this sounds more advanced than anything in that book lol. Could you put this in more plain language? What do you mean by "abstract singular universal", "material transience," "ontological void," "self-negating essential"?


Jesus Christ, the word salad is real yo.

Good morning/noon/night you incorrigible bastards!

Short Pieces & Articles

< At Museo Reina Sofía, Slavoj Žižek intervention sets out from the analysis of contemporary fascism, focusing on the issue of refuge today in NSK’s totalitarian fascination, at a time when fascist landmarks are re-emerging (the ideal of racial supremacy and extreme nationalism) and appear to be on the cusp of shaping a new ideological landscape of post-Brexit Europe and the refugee crisis — where the motives and dangers of this fascist temptation are found. Against the atmosphere of neo-liberal jubilation in 1989, Žižek will analyse how the failings of this system have made the potent return of one of the twentieth century’s biggest nightmares possible.

A bulwark in the defense of the combined legacies of Marxian philosophy and theory, Paolucci puts forward a reappraisal, bordering on cathexis, of the whole of the modern relation to Marx' works. Fuck the bourgeoisie, basically

Adorno/Horkheimer - Dialectic of Enlightenment




Forgive me. 'Abstract Singular Universal' and 'Self-Negating Essential' function essentially in the same manner, they describe a philosophical approach that makes assertions about how what constitutes natural (the abstract and self-negating add ons because, as we know, there will always be some subjective exception that means that they cannot truly be universal. "Material Transience" is the Marxian idea that, devoid of any common or unifying meaning, materialism is the encounter of the subject with a void (the ontological void, or a void of meaning) - but then the question comes as, "Well, if all these systems of meaning are flawed, why do we treat them as natural? and why do we use them in the identification and relation of ourselves to practically everything?" - and that's where ideology comes in, as an abridging force that masks the failure of the philosophy to be universally applicable.

Don't worry! I am not advancing an idea of pluralistic truth, just aleatory materialism. Althusser and Badiou, not Agamben and Foucault, ok?

Yeah, I was being overly esoteric for no good reason, I just always write that way, but I guarantee you it all has a meaning in Marxian philosophy. I didn't just drop my cock in the thesaurus and tap out words at random. That said, I really have to fix my syntax and writing in general

I'd swap all your books for a few good archers.

P.S. How does one eliminate "commodity production"?

First part meant for

Nah it's cool that image always gives me a giggle and I hardly ever get the chance to post it.

a non-hierarchical body for economic production, cybernetically driven, and commonly defended. Obviously a whole lot more complicated than just that, but a huge part of its development cannot be simply the removal of class antagonism, because as we know - the productive capability and relations of capitalism are multi-fold, sublimating both social, cultural, and productive relations. To conceptualize a solution as solely being the imposition of force to reject class antagonisms would leave a hierarchical disposition (non-pathological, but ideological - so it doesn't relate to the straight forward base/superstructure relation or the "they know not what they are doing, and nonetheless they are doing it" from Capital), and it's precisely for that reason that all this theoretical reacquainting is necessary, to develop a wholly universal, non-symbolized society.

Is the 'human nature' thing about when he cracked up at Chomsky in the middle of their debate? Plus I am going to get so much use out of this where I am


This, pretty much.

This is what I'm getting from what you're saying, it's probably wrong. Philosophy seeks universals, this effort fails, thus we encounter a void, ideology fills the gap. You're asking if the conatus, or animated desiring force motivating subjects, if it is manipulated by capitalism, does it not function as a force in itself rather than a universal? I don't know, but I would say that capitalism definitely fills in the void of meaning with ideology that serves its interests. This is why you see a lot of porky-pleasing workers who are happy to show up for work, in the absence of any system to give meaning to their exploitation, capitalism just provides the narrative of being a good work and enjoying your exploitation.

No, you've got it, though I always say that one should risk an even more harsh reading - that a huge reason the twentieth century projects fell was our inability to address the partial subject, the subject under capitalism, and how it viewed communism as merely another means to a capitalist end. Like, we can have modern production and organization, moral security and a collective project - just without those nasty class antagonisms. But you got it, I just am sorry I write in such a roundabout way.



What about other languages, though?

The main point would mostly be to avoid Miller, as he tries constantly to reaffirm liberal logic in Lacan, and I'm not privy to specific translators in other languages - mostly just avoid any who follow the Millerian tendency and you'll be good

No it isn’t. It’s best read squatting in the forest in a light rain with a rifle in your other hand.

Or in the passenger seat of a HMMWV as you beat down reactionaries, the pages mildly speckled with blood

that adorno essay is trash for the actual critique and assessment of jazz, he was most likely hearing kitschy german swing at the time


Which works of liberal political theory lend themselves to a socialist interpretation?

My three pics would be Discourse on Inequality (Rousseau), On Liberty (Mill) and Second Treatise of Government (Locke). It seems to me that if we can emphasize the intellectual heritage of socialism in classical liberalism we would find it much easier to bring in normies.

I take it with a grain of salt, as he is making a critique of its music theory and the accompanying appraisals of its radical difference in the way of musical presentation, but aside from his derision of the ideological implications of Jazz within capitalist symbolism, which are one hundred percent valuable in their supposing that no great culture emancipatory potential was present in the advent of mainstream jazz, that he is far too much a partisan of kulturkritik to see precisely how Jazz represented a whole new horizon of expression that, before its being rendered within the horizon of meaning subdued to capital, most definitely represented a errant idea; completely foreign and unrecognizable to the common masses and that is where its first mass appeal emerged

For me: Montesquieu and Kant (through Spinoza). Montesquieu in his assertion of a legal ethics that can be fully divorced from an essential or divine morality, and Kant in settling the Jacobi-Spinoza debate in producing a work separating natural truth into an overarching in-itself (leading to Hegel' development of a law of appearances and our relations to them) and an independent and individual subject that is capable of reifying and rendering being (a closing touch on fully embracing the Cartesian subject and catalyzing a new era in philosophical inquiry - of course birthing Marxism as a later result)

fink is usually superior and miller is a liberal no doubt, but there's literally nothing wrong with his translations.

You're right, my paranoiac fear being that the way he prefaces the works of Lacan occasionally (here is a contextual framework generally, but let the work speak for itself) may influence someones experience of an already very esoteric and misunderstood author. Nonetheless, if the opportunity should present itself, one should take the chance regardless of the extenuating circumstances - in that, we are in total agreement

What about the "unofficial" translations by Cormac G www.lacaninireland.com/

also I found this unofficial translation if anyone is interested academia.edu/28075509/Lacans_La_Troisìeme_-_English_Translation

I'd never actually heard of these before, are you familiar with them?

fashies have no theory, they just make shit up on the fly whenever it's convenient

Happy Thanksgiving to all our Burger comrades don't let those ☭TANKIE☭.s get you down

We're probably all a little bit socially disassociated today, or maybe all tired after being with family - so today will be some interest reading; addressing an issue at the forefront of Holla Forums : ==INCELS & THE AMOROUSLY OR SOCIALLY DEPRESSED==

Alenka Zupančič - What is Sex?
In an era of constant talk of "erosion of values", for whatever that is worth, communists are always accused of "corrupting the youth". Based on mine own observations, perhaps Holla Forums could stand to corrupt the youth even more! This storied allegation, against philosophy and Marxist tendencies, belies a much deeper amalgam of fears - prefaced on the dire worry about the radical emancipatory program of leftism. Then, two pieces on the contemporary place of boys and girls THIS PART WILL INTEREST YOU . Overall, a rapprochement between radical projects and their philosophical cordons, and the individual radical projects of men and women to disrupt the common ideology

Full copy of 'Crises & Critique' all about the centennial of the Bolshevik Revolution, and its impact on the projects of radical leftism in the 21st century

honestly smoking weed while reading Capital sounds like a better idea. Or if you really want that 1800's mindset you smoke opium and hash and get your dick sucked by a cute chinese girl.

LSD and Capital are the ultimate physical contradiction

is this how dialectics work?

Still kind of recommending this for anyone feeling alienated

Nothing too special, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Louis Althusser - Reading Capital

Theodor Adorno - Aesthetic Theory
>Dialectics in art and dialectics in relation to distance? Yes, Adorno is going on about art again. It is an examination of the waning of etherial and traditional imagery and the place of art now that it is free from this erstwhile formalism. The answer is Marxian imagine my shock

Musical Accompaniment


Has there been an uptick of late in tank.ies vigerously refusing to acknowledge any of Marxian philosophy, because they call it idealist?

I’ve seen like four or five long comment chains about how they’re postmodernists or useless.

Noticed it as well, would have thought it was a Holla Forumsyp t-b-aitch




All good resources

A reading list, most all of them available online, for anyone interested in Leninism; provided a common interest in both the empirical-ontological as well as philosophical developments made by our favorite, grumpy Ulyanov

There is this one too

How are you unfamiliar with them? They are quite well known by the english readers of Lacan.

When I first began reading Lacan in English, I just kind of used the first available pdfs I found online, and the stuff at my local library + whatever I could find online that didnt cost too much. I've more spent my time reading and writing as I can, rather than engaging with people; this marks the first time I've ever talked about it extensively with other people



I just don't get how we have this thread - with resources aplenty - and the same, trite questions are walked upon the front page for everyone to squawk at

I recommend every user to read Eric Fromm's The Art of Loving:

It's a very good analysis of what love is and how to do it. It masterfully destroys the fetishistic concept of love that places it as some kind of outside force that comes and goes like the clouds.

I tried reading it before but it's spooked as fuck on religion. Stirner's love is far more realistic.

To follow up on this , I'd recommend kritike.org/journal/issue_14/demandante_june2014.pdf which has an excellent non-symbolic approach to love and sexuality as some necessary yet sutured part of our being, as well as the Zupancic book in


And here are some movies if that suits you better

Get your asses in here, rev up that radical subjectivity and get ready to look like an intellectual pedant - it's motherfucking theory time

All the Capital you want in your life

Reminder that Žižek did nothing wrong, and that you should be reading theory

Currently reading bookchin’s Post Scarcity Anarchism. I don’t consider myself an anarchist (I’m a libcom), but I think he makes really good points in that work about how production should be organized to avoid environmental pitfalls
I mean I think everybody should read his work tbh, even ☭TANKIE☭s. Just ignore the libertarian communist aspects of his writing. It is imperative that any centrally planned socialist society is ecologically conscious, and Bookchin expertly articulated on this subject

Does he make mention of any bureaucratic or organizational bodies for the metering and management or communication between productive groups?

Two papers on the empirical strengths and scientific status of the Labor Theory of Value (LTV)


Absolutely recommend reading this, especially to ☭TANKIE☭s - the non-elliptical relationship of your favorite international intelligence service to your least favorite group of philosophers, the continental philosophers - and why the importance of appreciating philosophy and theoretical spheres plays a huge role in the cultural and collective projects of a population. Also subtly defends Lacan, Sartre, Althusser, etc. which automatically secures my favor

Not so much, its Bookchin. According to his theory, which this is the beginning of his libertarian municipalism, things would be organized by local municipality in a democratic fashion. As non hierarchal as possible, but with structures still in place nevertheless for such management.
Like it or not, its not so much how we organize but how Bookchin envisioned organizing labor that was of particular interest to me, though. I gotta find the quotes, but one such thing that was really interesting to me was how he spoke of decentralizing production. Without simply quoting him, he suggested that production in local areas needs to be diversity. He likened it to a local environment, you cannot have too much of one animal or it throws off the ecosystem. In the same way, having one area simply make a shit load of let's say steel overwhelms the local environment with the particular bioproducts of that particular industry. In another example, having one area devoted to logging would result in irreversible depletion of forests in that hotbed, which is obviously bad. It isn't something that I'd say is overtly revolutionary but nevertheless an important and interesting consideration that I would see as important in any planned economy, centralized or not.

And obviously he does a much better job of explaining it than I.

I'll have to take a look into it, as the dawn of the anthropocene epoch no doubt raises the concerns of necessary and enduring human production within the new axioms of sustainable development. Thank you kindly for the suggestion.

I will say this is sort of an older work, back when he was formulating his ideas, so you might be better off going with a newer work, though I can’t say witch one. Perhaps ecology of freedom, or the philosophy of social ecology

I find it agreeable, the idea of taking some time away from minutia to read Bookchin

I want to basically have a philosophy degree without going to Uni. Is there a guideline to follow specifically a reading list of texts? I am going to start with the Greeks though. But after that whats next? Help?!

So you want to waste time and not even get the piece of paper that says you are qualified to manage a grocery store?


you can try this if you like

I don't know…probably because I fucked up during early college years with bad grades and depression.

…Why? It's worthless, not only that, it seems that most people who have one genuinely don't learn anything actually philosophical. Literally a a degree by and for pseuds.

This is easily fixed, like, seriously. If you really fucked up *that* badly, you could simply do an online associates from a legit university and simply use that to transfer to a legit university. Having really bad grades only matters if you're transferring from that system, shit doesn't follow you around y'know? That's why places need transcripts.

Thank you this is perfect.

Most universities publicly list their classes and their syllabus. You could easily just look them up and read what they have to read.

Get you some theory, find your comfy zone and ignore toilsome labor


Thank you wobbly friend!


These papers fall apart when you factor in firm size. Check out andrew kliman on the labor theory of price in chapter 11 of reclaiming Marx's capital.

I had always suspected some manner of corollary issue to be at play with regards to a purely empirical defense of the LTV, thank you for adding this. As a side note, would you say that Kliman' critique holds for the notions or analyses of capital set forth in the other major works of Shaikh, Cockshott, Cottrell et al. or singularly for the attempted 'empirical vindication'? I've collected a number of these more quantitative works and would benefit from reducing the number of books in my queue, if you feel inclined to comment.

Its basically only for the empirical stuff (allthough cockshott uses Sraffian models sometimes).

Two reading lists for the consummate general leftist and our bread-loving compatriots in black.




READING FOR Holla Forums

Section discontinued for the obvious reason that you don't read

I have some questions about the law of 'falling rates of profit'.

Where I work we produce some products with a 3d printer; and it would almost be trivial to fully automate the process. All that we need to do is remove the finished product from the bed and occasionally refill the plastic roll on the machine.

I don't see how our profit would suddenly fall to zero if we were to do this though…

I thought about it for some time and the answers I came up with almost seemed like wordplay

other ideas like >who would even sell us a 3d printer if it produced free products, they would just keep it and rent it to you

it seems true to me that 3d printers are often rented out instead of sold because designing products for them is 'the labour', so does that mean we get to keep making a profit if we fully automate it?

feel like the 'reductio ad absurdum' argument of 'well what if the entire supply chain was automated' is the strongest in my mind

I'm much more of a philosophy and theory person, but to the best of my knowledge: The process of automation never functions solely for the sake of automation, but rather to dictate the pace of production - this of course being a means to produce, on average, a far greater productive output in a manner requiring less constant and input of factor capital. This never, of course, indicates a parity in international production, precisely for the reason that to maintain cheaper output that labor must sacrifice more of its share in the process of the production of any one commodity, owing to its not being able to outpace development. This massive offset in real production of course leads to an even greater disposition of the division of capital, such that it, being effectively severed from the state apparatus as a regulative and support body in its own self-management, works opposite of the suppositions of those Ricardian positivists, it serves to stratify the distribution of capital in a way which satisfies the conception of profit and the offset of much higher either labor or factor investments, depending on where the production is taking place (which is of course owing to the inability of comparative trade (HOS principle) to effectively meter international development and trade)

/theory/ Special

Andrew Kliman - Reclaiming Marx's "Capital"

Figured, since I have the book and it's been the object of some fascination and discussion of late, take some time to pass it along to the real proletarian revolutionaries! Y'know, Holla Forums! In all seriousness, don't shy away from these more "intimidating" pieces to real more polemical defenses. One must be eclectic in their own defense!

Another day, another pdf to download that will take you six months to read and outline!

David Harvey - A Brief History of Neoliberalism

This is pretty good for reading: youtube.com/watch?v=lSY1tyuR3WQ&t=1441s.
Also, thx for the book.

I like the album thus far, thank you kindly!


Just great for background reading, especially in the winter time

I really liked it when I read it a while ago. Any other similar books.

Up above in the section from 11/22 is Paul Paolucci' "Marx's Scientific Dialectics" as well as an Anwar Shaikh piece on the historical developments of modern comparative trade.

A good piece for anyone interested in the inter-war period and its relation between the crises of fascism and stalinism, as well as between the historical record and the material impulses of capital. Just a great read, overall.

It's really sad that the additional google docs in the guide were brutally raped.

One in perfect condition and maintenance and the other two completely incomprehensible

Where should I go after understanding marxist economics to a degree?
dialectical materialism?
I dont understand what the connection is to psychoanalysis is and where I should start there

Before dialectical materialism, go and learn the origins of Marxian philosophy in Hegel and the early German idealists. Excellent essay posted above from Paul Redding about that period. After Hegel, you can pass the time by reading some of the transcendental philosophers just to acquaint yourself with essentialist critiques of essentialism. The key to a lot of the best modern Marxist philosophers is to understand Hegel through Lacan, who is known through Freud (this needn't function as a reappraisal of the ideas of clinical psychoanalysis; however, one should not dismiss them as they're the critical insight that informs potential praxis and is the material of theory.) Once through the concepts on jouissance, the other as symbolic, imaginary, and real, etc. take your time going on to the Frankfurt school, or Althusser, or Badiou, or anyone you choose really - just don't fall back into essentialism by reading the neo-transcendentalists (e.g. Levinas, Foucault, Agamben, Guattari, Derrida)

Read Korsch: marxists.org/archive/korsch/index.htm

Herbert Marcuse - Reason and Revolution
that "Hegel's basic concepts are hostile to the tendencies that have led into Fascist
theory and practice." Marcuse criticizes the thesis, propounded by Leonard
Trelawny Hobhouse in The Metaphysical Theory of the State (1918), that Hegel
provided an ideological preparation for German authoritarianism, making the case
that Hegel was a revolutionary. Marcuse also discusses the philosophical basis of
Marx's thought, and provides an account of Marx's notion of labour. In an
appendix to the 1960 edition, Marcuse states that the "only major recent
development in the interpretation of Hegel's philosophy is the postwar revival of
Hegel studies in France." Marcuse credits the new French interpretation with
showing clearly the "inner connection between the idealistic and materialistic
dialectic". He provides a list of key works, including Alexandre Kojève's
Introduction to the Reading of Hegel (1947).

Fred Mosely - Marx's Capital and Hegel's Logic

that's an awfully Maoist sentiment

Seems particularly comfy to be honest
It's a nice sentiment though

Started quote hunting for an university assignment, ended up reading whole passages, chapters of Zizek's Organs Without Bodies. Here's one of his juicy elucidations:

What are some good Marxist works dealing with alienation? Specifically looking for examinations of how capitalism alienates people from their nature by depriving them of agency and reducing them to automatons. I’d prefer articles over books but I’ll take anything you guys have.

(too large to upload)

When you're seeking out pieces that are some of the breakdowns of the most fundamental negativities regarding the human subject, you can always trust kulturkritik to be there for you. The Frankfurt School as a whole is a great resource for the human relation to capitals alienating reverberations across history.

libcom.org/files/Marcuse, H - One-Dimensional Man, 2nd edn. (Routledge, 2002).pdf

So the book functions as a critique and re-evaluation of the work of Deleuze as having encountered, within the contours of his system of thought, the irreconcilable ontological void? Is that what it means to say about the results of the "Anti-Oedipus"?

Also, what's the assignment topic?

Read this fam, it has everything you could ever need:

If you enjoy any of Lukács piece from here , the whole work was posted earlier

Does anyone have any worthwhile works to share on the new left? Anything having to do with new leftist projects and their philosophies?

Der Junge Hegel - György Lukács

Écrits - Jacques Lacan (arr. Bruce Fink)

The Soul of Man Under Socialism - Oscar Wilde

Sorry for the slowed rate of theory posting…for like the two or three people who come to this thread, work obligations and whatever.










archive.org/stream/pdfy-I3ZjI2B47rFvMjBd/Lacan ecrits_djvu.txt


fuck my internet to hell

because of lack of pdfs to make post look nice, here are some photos

Yeah that's the single most important idea in the whole essay and it's worth putting into the summary instead of the actual topic.

I usually make comedic shortenings, forgive me if that one was a little off kilter with regards to his critique of 'capitalist vs. universal altruism'

Slavoj Zizek - How to Read Lacan

In the same vein, here's a guide to reading Zizek.

funny, but pic related if serious


Two more unique pieces in a work on the nature and processes of sexual difference and a Lacanian response on the matter from the Lacanian Society of Tokyo.

Tomorrow, thinking about doing a dump of Hegel - if there's any particular works you'd like or want comment on, feel free to ask! If not, well, I know there's not much more than me in this thread anyhow.



Read up!

read Bakunin

Hegel is always welcome! Thank you!

I'm at a point of lack when it comes to anarchist literature, so I'm glad to make an addition.


Could any ☭TANKIE☭s please submit works by their theoretician of choice pls

Everyday Stalinism - Sheila Fitzpatrick

Would have written in some acerbic comment but I am actually reading this right now, and decided to recommend on merit of its refreshing lapse from strict academic philosophy and the other more prevalent genres in the thread

Post at pseudo-scientific Holla Forumsyps until they leave

"Between Karoshi and Surplus" is required reading for everyone.

Damn those are nice. Sauce?


Unfortunately, this will not make much sense out of context (i.e. it requires some background to knowledge be properly deciphered).

We don't do theory. Marxism is a guide to action.


Yeah, that much is abundantly clear - your consistent play at eloquence of text and clarity of thought seems to consistently bely an underlying uncertainty or anxiety of form - there's always some furtive enemy with a plot in the works. You seem rattled about matters or at least consistently contentious.

Thank you for your contribution! I apologize for the wait in acknowledging.

After a good deal of time, I return to my quotidian life of posting pdfs which nobody reads! Long live the revolution of theory (?)!

I'm not sure really what to do here as I've thoroughly exhausted myself with work, and the new works in my collection are all marked with my name.




And how does this apply to me?

In the absence of common project, the easiest way to have a discussion is by being sufficiently opinionated to be challenged by other people.

Does this mean you don't read it yourself?

Nope, was just making mention of the slow rate of traffic on the board of late. I've been completely occupied by work lately, but I enjoy coming here to talk with anons

The first statement meaning yes I've read them, yes. Forgive me, my english is not the best

REMINDER: PoMo theorists are trash.


c0nc0rdance. He has a YouTube channel.


How do you guys respond to Sraffa's and Samuelson's assault on the Labour Theory of Value? They essentially state that Labour has no "special" place in determining prices. Instead, the structure of prices could be perfectly well understood as the result of the monetary costs faced by firms and the behaviour of profit maximising entrepreneurs..

and what are those costs from????