Foucault

Was he wrong about anything?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_(philosophy)
mitpress.mit.edu/books/forget-foucault
rauli.cbs.dk/index.php/foucault-studies/article/viewFile/3464/3823
larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/deleuze-and-guattari-avec-lacan/
critical-theory.com/deleuze-guattari-biography/
arasite.org/BaudFF.html
anarchistwithoutcontent.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/ungovernable-spaces/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

when u hit the discourse too hard

I don't think he was wrong on anything, no.

What's his best book to start with?

He was hardcore into serious degenerate faggot shit like BDSM and scat and anal fisting, apparently

…and then he caught AIDS and fucking died

So yes, i guess you could say he was wrong about at least one thing

I started with the obscure art one for fun (this is not a pipe).

Forgive me, I'm no expert on Foucault, but Yui is mad about Foucault and he recommended one read the one about prisons first.

Archaeology of knowledge and order of things are supposedly must reads as well, also his lectures that one can find somewhere.


He wanted to die.

yes his suicidal nonsense philosophy was pure horseshit

NazBol fuck off

please stop pretending you understand Foucault.

sartre is better

when u hit the discourse too hard>>971547

jej pretend this post never happened

is this a fucking joke

Figures that you'd hold such a shitty urban intellectual up as above a great philosopher like Foucault, but


Sartre was an anarchist who happened to pragmatically support the USSR (until later on when he regretted it) you fool.

It must be, one poster cannot lack so much self awareness.

Spare me. Next time instead of reading the hot new continental philosopher you head about check out a copy of The Emperors New Clothes

You are retracting your self-evidently uneducated opinion then?
Excellent.

it's important to remember there were a lot of those at the time, it seems kinda similar to Rojava now

don't listen to him, man. You know the truth

This may be true, but one must also remember that Camus was a legitimate anarchist and was Sartre's friend (for a while). I find it hard to believe Sartre did not know what he was talking about.


Keep reading your favourite bourgeois intellectual Stalinstache.

No, obviously not, but I would expect a reader of Foucault to have trouble understanding clear English sentences without substituting their own meaning.

Like I mean, Sartre is an irredeemable lost cause, but no one's THAT dense, right? R-Right?!

"His suicidal philosophy was horse shit"
Please tell me what I am falsely extrapolating, since I am evidently misreading you please kindly educate me.

Reminder that Sartre is for bourgeois urban intellectuals, whilst Heidegger is a true man of the people.

Maybe he should've deconstructed his AIDS lol

...

...

Reminder you started reading Heidegger a week ago.

That's not true.

This is false leftcom poster, and I don't appreciate this slander especially because I have respect for you. I read Heidegger a year ago, and I believe it's evident to anyone who has questioned me on my knowledge of Heidegger that I have been studying Heidegger quite in depth for a while.

Enough to come up with much better criticisms of him than these lazy anonymous shitposters, certainly I should think.

In any case, please don't fight with me I love you so much

I'll fight you, with my dick

unzips

U-um, that's a sin before marriage user….

All the cool kids are doing it right now though baby

Or go straight to his Collège de France lectures, these in particular:

I doubt more than two people here have actually read him.

He's trash
His theory doesn't even predict the paramagnetism of diatomic oxygen

Can't do much better for philosophical eccentricity, and less tartuffery than the old ones (Kant, Descartes, Plato). I have a bit of a rift between the redemptive history of Benjamin and Foucault's 'uncovering' of history, though he's lit for calling Descartes psycho (Nietzsche does too).

Pairs well with Badiou and Nietzsche. Philosophers are basically like wine, Zizek is Sangria.

best b8

teach me friendrade!

Historicization isn't automatically a radical gesture anymore (cf. Foucault's genealogy).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_(philosophy)

Zizek from pdf.:


with such a procedure of historicist relativism is that it continues to rely on a set of silent (non-thematized) ontological and epistemological presuppositions about the nature of human knowledge and reality usually a proto-Nietzschean notion that knowledge is not only embedded in but also generated by a complex set of discursive strategies of power (re)production, and so on. So it is crucial to emphasize that Lacan, at this point, parts company with Cultural Studies historicism: for him, modern science is absolutely not one of the 'narratives' comparable in principle to other modes of 'cognitive mapping - modern science touches the Real in a way that is totally absent from premodern discourses.

(See subchapter "The impasse of historicism")

plz stahp

bemp

Baudrillard called Foucault out for being a pussy about his own ideas.

mitpress.mit.edu/books/forget-foucault

Foucault, along with his predecessors Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, theorized that pure desire and the drive to fulfill it would be revolutionary, and would usher in new aspects of revolutionary action and thought.

Baudrillard said that desire is nothing more than another word for the will-to-power and that what matters is showing that it is only a simulacrum, a Spectacle enforced by ideology (Zizek ftw)

Here is a more thorough review:

rauli.cbs.dk/index.php/foucault-studies/article/viewFile/3464/3823

B-but comrade, Heidegger is true prole peasant man!

Baudrillard was the hyperfag.

Have you read Baudrillard's Forget Foucault though? The whole point is that B is radically anti-marxist there and in general.

No, he didn't. Not only is this obvious to anyone that has read him, it is also well know that he privately hated a lot of what Deleuze was writing, including that.

Apart from this

Zizek (with Lacan) thinks that desire is always the desire of the Other. Desire is negative, a circulation around a void, and not sg positive (like dg having to do with will2p).

sure, but at least try to get him right.

who is this semen demon

"I'm fucking well read" – Rebel Derpsudity

Rebel, answer!

I don't think that's Rebel.
There's another Christian commie here

post modernism is shit

I always went with the assumption that since Anti-Oedipus and a Thousand Plateaus were a critique of Lacan:

larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/deleuze-and-guattari-avec-lacan/


critical-theory.com/deleuze-guattari-biography/

Also

Can you elaborate on that? especially the difference between sg and dg? I think I found something here explaining what you said, but I am having trouble stepping through it

arasite.org/BaudFF.html


A while ago I was the one who asked you how desire-machines were supposed to be a source of revolutionary perspectives and you replied with the desire-machine being something about drive, desire and a third element I forgot about. Can you explain?

Yeah I'm not Rebel, Rebel never baited Freudposter tbh (pls no bully)

Foucault's influence is overstated. Reminds me of people who blame Nazism on Nietzsche.

thx for not answering the theory posed

thx for being a tool

;#)

Rebel never answered Fr. tbh
;-)

Are you now getting all postmodern on me fam?

plz don't fam me, fam

all I'm saying: u's full of shat, and you knows it

your comment is a shit
:^(

The point is that any sort of authority that is both strong enough through sufficient amount of biopower and is hip to Foucault's panopticon can call his bluff. He pointed it out, but every day the system says, "what of it, you little faggot, FYIAD."

The elite built themselves a system that is both their life support and their ultimate weapon, but it has grown independent of them. The dead hand of the system can hold everyone hostage to itself; the elite need it to extract rent for themselves and discipline the workers; the workers are alienated from their own means of independent subsistence, and so on. For me this precludes any sort of revolutionary potential until class consciousness reaches a critical mass of people and the people pool such tools together so as to make a certain mass of people independent of the system. In the US, oddly, the farmers would be the most class conscious if not for their false religion of muh property rights and the general right-wing worship of corporations.

In any case, the only way to deal with this system is to multiply zones of opacity and ungovernable spaces and act out of them, per Tiqqun. If we can establish one that is even semi-permanent, like a bunkerchan or Holla Forums over TOR or i2p or some other service like that, that is its own ungovernable space except for mods. Hell, even the mods won't be able to ban anybody because you don't know who they are; automatic filtration of shitposters like on the original /r9k/ can be implemented. The fact that there will be something outside of the system's purview can actually work. Plus it can be moveable; hop on any free wifi router and disappear.

Foucault had some good points but they have no revolutionary potential.

some more info

anarchistwithoutcontent.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/ungovernable-spaces/

It's not me. I know nothing about Baudrillard, as much I wish I were wise on this topic I'm not.

-tiny ungovernable spaces only exist parasitically off of the capitalism that surrounds them
-they are not scalable to a large enough population
-they pose no threat to capitalism, as soon as they pose a threat they will be taken apart. (zapatistas are not a threat, so left a lone). FARC is a threat so is fought hard.

Instead you should raise class consciousness and radically unionize soldiers.

They are scalable if they can be built en masse

Think mesh networks and other peer-based technologies. They try to find them, we build more. We encrypt everything. We build them so they can autonomously relocate. But then what do we do with it?

Revolution happened in Russia due to a political quagmire and mass starvation on part of the peasants. It was literally the brink of barbarism. There was no industry, no factories, nothing. We need to build our own zones of offensive until they form networks, like the soviets of old.

As per the soldiers, you really can't unionize them because of how fully the intelligence services penetrate them. Any attempt at organization can automatically be construed as a conspiracy to mutiny. Many of the lifers have fully bought into the ruling ideology and are paid well enough become petit bourgeois, not to mention the officers.

You are better off with the veterans who are disillusioned, but even that has its own difficulty. They have the system watching them, and the further they have been in the game, the more closely they are watched.

Systems disruption is far more cost effective and rational. Memes then can't be recaptured by Capital are also good.

The National Guard actually has unions. I was shocked when I found out about that.

I can't tell if it is harder to radicalize and unionize soldiers, or the average civilian proletariate. Both is nearly impossible to be sure.

but having soldiers at the barricades would really come in handy, or to protect your TAZ and ZOOs which will very likely be destroyed when they pose even the least bit of threat towards the state and economy.

Then they are the most likely to help. Trotsky organized the Red Guards into the Red Army, expediting the defense of the central committee at the expense of local soviets. We don't need this, yet. Plus some of the National Guard units rotate out into the sandbox every so often and I know for a fact that they hate the Saudis with a passion once they realize that officially the US are their allies but rich Saudi Wahabbists are funding ISIS and other jihadists that are fucking up the work they did when deployed. That is when they get radicalized and either swing hard right or hard left.

The objective is to show how capital flows from the Saudis to the Wall Street fucks who would never shake their hand if they met in the street to the American Military-industrial Complex and how the system they fight for will never stop unless they set up a way to escape from it, through radical action that is constructive towards communes that direct power and people away from the flows, not businesses that become clients of it.

Something like what happened at Bundy Ranch? That is a recipe for getting shat on by the media unless you have a way to meme them to death. You have to win a media war AND a conventional one

For what it's worth, anything that provokes a gut reaction against liberals and against capital flows will work wonders. This can be something like demonstrating how the capital flows facilitate odious behavior and causing people to react against it, ranging from campaigns against unethical medical human experimentation to ridiculous shit like tagthesponsor.com, a website that documents and shames Instagram models by catfishing them, showing the models agreeing to letting oil sheiks engage in degrading sex acts (I know about how no woman's body is any man's property per feminist discourse, but if no one is anyone's property, then anyone is everyone's property per rules of force and radical action becomes the same neutered lifestylist spectacular bullshit that are sports riots).

The problem lies in directing it against the greater flows of capital by getting them to analyze their political situation and how they contributed to capital's flows. We simply have to be there at the right time with the right meme to trigger the correct response.

Also Wahabbists corrects to Wabbits. My sides are in orbit now.

why torture urself tbh

no you shouldn't attack the worst parts of capitalism with some shitty pranks or demonstrations, that will only strengthen capitalism by having it reform itself and once again become legitimate

you have to go after the 'good capitalists' like buffett or bill gates, and ignore people like trump or oil sheiks and prostitution.

I do agree that a certain mass of people will eventually live outside of the system, not being integrated (which should be the goal, really). But I don't think class consciousness will happen, ever, it's way too naive to think that today's masses can be manipulated by some intellectuals. Instead the system will start excluding people through its own excesses and people will develop new relations outside of the system purely out of existential reasons, not fundamentally because of this or that ideology. Look at Greece for example. Whining about their humanitarian crisis is counterrevolutionary when you look at how they're starting to collectively self-organize their everyday life - that's where the real revolution happens, not in a parliament or in a public square or in a street riot, all of which are today only a simulation of politics for the most part.
I'd say Foucault was too optimistic and nostalgic, he thought resistance and opposition is still possible because he still believed domination exists, along with being dominated. What we have now instead is a hegemonic system where everything is integrated and neutralized, we've all become hostages instead of being enemy combatants.
Foucault's way of looking at everything as part of a civil war is still a great way to radicalize yourself to extreme though, and I recommend doing that, but there's no possible action you can take today, in the end it will only serve the system. At best you can humiliate it by symbolic but violent rejection (e.g. Paris 2005) which breaks the forced consensus.
But the only thing technically powerful enough to destroy the system is the system itself, and that's what's slowly happening today and will continue to happen, unless the stupid moralizing left steps in and tries to integrate everyone back into it (as if exclusion from it is bad) with shit like UBI. Then we're really fucked. Another danger is this obsession with making "the networks" even more interconnected and omnipresent. EU is now constantly shilling about single digital market, market as a digital platform, internet of things, services and persons, and shit like that. What's missing on the left is the awareness of how important information and communication technologies are a way of governing people's behavior, opinions, emotions, etc… Not that this awareness would change anything, but it would be nice to at least hear a public critique once in a while. Instead the mainstream left loves technology, because technology is "progressive" and any attack on it is "irrational conservatism", the same way leaving EU can only be a "fascist far-right idea".

no u