Whats Holla Forumss opinion on Foucault and the stuff he wrote?

Well, there was Freddie Mercury, even though he was bourgeoise as fuck

queen suqs dude, if you're gonna do cheesy dadrock at least go Fleetwood Mac

What means of production did Freddie privately own?

Tbh I'm kinda glad we lost Foucault before he became a cheap college kids philosopher like Bauman did.

I really liked this article (marxistleftreview.org/index.php/no-14-winter-2017/145-foucault-s-history-of-sexuality-a-marxist-engagement) on Foucault, which seems to suggest that his work is worth understanding even if there is a lot that a good Marxist would ultimately disagree with; just as Marxists don’t have to think a history of ideas is worthless merely because ideas don’t ultimately shape history, neither do we have to abandon Foucault just because his analysis avoids talking about class relations explicitly. In fact, as the article lays out, much of Foucault’s thought is weakened because of his knee-jerk attempts to avoid privileging class analysis. That is, a better Foucault would have been a more Marxist one.

The article gives a good analysis of Foucault’s general thought I think, but doesn’t really explain why he seemed to avoid the obvious class analysis to his own detriment. Some articles on the global rise of idpol and the anti-Marxist turn are thus worth reading to understand his thought better.

Let me put it this way: if Foucault were alive today, he'd be getting twice as many sexual harassment claims as Weinstein.

Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Freddy's fucking my arsehole,
No escape from his sodomy.
Open your eyes,
Look up to the skies,
And scream.

Foucault is a pretty competent philosopher when it comes to exposing antagonisms within symbolic orders, the only problem being that the ontology of his thought is not the rejection of the symbolic order, whose relation to possible universality can only be that it continuously conceives new antagonisms that prove that it isn't universal, but rather he assumes there must be necessarily a symbolic order that orders and categorizes dominations - his solution being the rejection of a sum or unity of being in favor of an irreducible infinity of potential subjectivities that cannot be reconciled with a single order. The major problem with this is its teleological assumption that an order of symbolism MUST exist, which restarts the whole process in that it never skirts or derelicts the boundaries of ideology, it only re-orders them in a more "just and universal" manner…which of course collapses and precipitates the reactionary trends we now see.

If you're interested in a critique of this manner of philosophy, here's two pieces (fairly short, the both of them) on an aleatory universalism by Alain Badiou (this one is kind of abstruse, but it definitely accessible) and also a piece on the importance of the material history of theory and the role it has played in the development of the world we see today.

Badiou - lacan.com/badeight.htm

Rockhill - thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-cia-reads-french-theory-on-the-intellectual-labor-of-dismantling-the-cultural-left/

Also this

something something muh pomo

I'd go with Arthur Russell or Klaus Nomi

I like Foucault but most of his followers are insufferable tbh. Also, Holla Forums prefers Foucault or Deleuze?

Derek Jarman too IIRC.

degenerate CIA

He combined Nietzsche and Marx to create the ultimate castration ideology; of everything and anything being akshually a tandem of the world as torture device.

Unsurprisingly, he was a masochist.

Deleuze for his essay on masochism.

Bourgeois =/= Wealthy

His theory is alright. Lots of extraneous garbage, but the central concepts are correct. He and the other post-structuralists did however, play a role in deradicalizing the left. For this reason, I do not consider him to have been a positive figure in any way.