@Gavin_F_Brewis I have a question. Rousseau spoke of socialist exuberance in the name of utopia/equity/whatever. He described its function as a curiously socialist expression of ‘compassionate zeal’. I understand that Marx refuted other socialisms as too precious. He saw ppl as a dialectical
@Gavin_F_Brewis function of their material context. Where Hegel saw history as a process of transcendence at odds with itself…Marx rejected as mysticism the notion that life should be transcendentally defined in abstract. As a creative being, man posited himself
@Gavin_F_Brewis as a reflection of the natural world. It was from here (not from within) that man derived the means of his subsistence & comfort from the natural world…which is why Marx said the interior context of man is defined by the material context of his reality.
The sad thing is that critical theory and post modernism have been coopted and all but destroyed by the Marxist left.
Foucault is a particular highlight. As much as he reorganizes and reframes Marxist thought into a coherent, consistent ideology - he is at least grounded.
Rather than deconstructing the power dynamics that inform existence into a void before asking us to cast ourselves in…
Foucault makes clear in multiple of his books that he is unsympathetic with what Sartre would call the totalizing influence of ideological absolutism.
Instead, Foucault is careful to make sure that his writings are not read as answers to anything. These are his thoughts and conjectures about life. They should be read with skepticism and used as, at most, a process of epimeleia heautou (a Greek word meaning
@Biscuithammer0@devtrospective The most recent I can think of was Montesquieu. Dismissed by Marx as a bourgeoisie thinker, Marx appealed to the distinction between his ideology & Montesquieu’s by dismissing his rival as ‘mere ideology’…which, couched in scientific rhetoric, refuted this criticism in substance
@Biscuithammer0@devtrospective If not in content. What I mean is that Marx appealed to his readers by framing his own scientific socialism against what he termed the ‘utopian’ socialism’s of his day. Because his scientific socialism explored history as the expression of history as the function of
@Biscuithammer0@devtrospective historical laws in motion. Promising a complete communism as a ‘historical Inevitability’ he put his ideology against montesquieu’s; carefully framing his scientific objectivity against Hegel & Montesquieu…who were shown, at last, thru Marxist class analysis to be seeking
Being trans is not a leftist monolith. The only reason I am ‘out’ on Twitter is to stand against this narrative. It seems that everyone else is too concerned about the fall out to get their hands dirty and make a scene pissing the intolerant left off.
My goal is simply to show that there is another side. This is not because of the way things ‘are’. This is because the trans movement is now phony and contrived by the postmodern left to wield trans & other counter cultures as a means of destabilizing the larger system itself.
I think this is stupid and I have absolutely no patience for the left. You can treasure yourself in your heart for all of your virtue, blah blah. I don’t buy it. I see intolerance on a scale unimaginable on the right. The left are monsters.
People have a lot of truly stupid preconceptions about anarchists.
That an anarchist could ever look past the interrelated structures of power is shocking.
Basically there’s a lot of Foucault for 13 year olds.
First - Foucault. Foucault takes as his starting point the subject
This individual is defined by force relations. These forces are imposed by institutions of objectivity that enunciate the individual as a reaction to every forces on a societal level. That is - what we call the object is other in the sense that we are distinct from it.
The individual as subject arises as a reaction to the collective power of the state in all of its facets, government, school, prison, hospital, etc. That is - power dynamics are everywhere and unavoidable.
To these anarchist understanders, it seems that the life of the anarchy
Gonna pay poor ppl in alcohol to cut down trees and loiter around towns drunk. We’ll see if we can’t drive down property prices. Next goal is to increase emergency room wait times by repeatedly med seeking antibiotics. The goal is to promote broad spectrum antibiotic resistance
and expose children to mrsa. Next, toss used needles around schools to stress the system. Make sure tax revenue is wasted on bullshit to fuck up budget estimates and screw the politicians, the state and the left. We can avoid breaking the law by repeatedly calling the police
And saying we’ve fallen over and need help. We can call the police on vaccine scofflaws. We can gather plastic bottles meant for deposit and set them on fire in our backyards. Break light bulbs and toss into rivers. Keep the lights on 24/7. Print guns. Grow drugs.
Think of Marx as a Catholic; Hitler as a Lutheran. The Napoleonic Wars set about a sort of Peace of Augsburg where Napoleon’s exile collapsed the French Empire not unlike Ferdinand II. The resulting vacuum of power destabilized Prussia asking the German question
In much the same way that the Holy Roman Empire collapsed into civil war. Just as Bismarck answered the German Question with Hitler; the Peace of Augsburg set the stage for a proxy war between Catholics & Protestants not unlike the July Crisis which underscored German/Russia
Tensions as a proxy war between Serbia & Austria-Hungary exploded in a cascade of treaties and promises bring hostilities to a head in the same manner that the game of thrones characterizing the bohemian revolt finally exposed the religious tensions that had long simmered
(Cont’d) To the left you’re either on their side or your wrong. If you’re wrong…you’re evil. If you’re evil…you forfeit your right to exist. To be left is to speak out against oppression. To be left is to be right. To even deliberate, to debate, to discuss…is to make an excuse
for Nazis. To be left is to be the moral vanguard standing on the edge of oblivion and believing that this is all so fucking clear cut that discussion is silence in the face of violence, a silence so deafening it’s that it becomes singularly responsible for the worst possible
crimes imaginable. There’s no room for debate. If silence is violence discussion is the death camp and ur the singular einsatzgruppen, literally Hitler.
But of course that’s all bullshit. Morals aren’t absolute. Right and wrong abstract into and out of themselves exponentially
I’ve said before that I’d much rather be friends with fundamentalist Christians than the ‘open minded’ left. Normally people dismiss that as hyperbole and performative posturing to ‘own’ the libs.
It’s not. Here’s why.
For the most part - I agree with the sentiments from the left. I’m pro lgbt rights, I think it’s good to be decent, I think it’s shitty to be selfish, to exploit people or the world…I am charitable; as an employer I’d try to consider my employees as more than a means towards
A profit. I don’t think you’re stupid if you want to live in a commune. I actually like critical theory, I love post structuralism and I’m anti war.
By most standards I’d be considered pretty far left.
I used to listen and over think these sorts of people endlessly. I’d buy multiple books just to understand their side, consider it and then decide what to do with that knowledge.
Invariably they were, IMO, simplistic and largely wrong.
I should’ve just taken a hint from
the fact that this sort of arrogance wasn’t born of confidence…but born of trying endlessly (and hopelessly) to make the world fit their expectations. It’s not a good place to seek knowledge from…or share it.
No one is oppressed more than anyone else as a fact of life post 2015.
But we are ALL oppressed by the state.
I clarified it for the world.
It’s not even just a question of whether it’s state or what. I think it’s stupid to live your life trying to account for everyone’s place within the hierarchy of oppression. I don’t think we should waste our time trying to solve for any of that crap…it’s a dead end
Did you know that The Lord of the Rings is Tolkien’s thought experiment in creating an underlying mythological epic to explain and explicate the symbolic significance of why the British Isles are the way they are?
Much like the Aeneid, the Odyssey, the Kalevala, the Mahabharata, etc.
The problem is - no historic parallel exists. From what we can infer from history, there was an underlying mythological framework at some point in the distant past; however, in the past 2k years
Any expression of this mythology has been subverted, syncretically repurposed, lost and even erased intentionally towards empirical cohesion.
As of now, the best we have is a few disparate narratives, themselves a curious product in isolation to each other…these include
Demi Lovato is an entitled piece of shit. A STUPID piece of shit. It’s not every day you get called brave because you hate pink. Having $40 mill in the bank might seem nice…but that $650 omakase plate from Masa NY is as sagaciously epicurean as the artfully beguiling mâitre d’s
doux savoir-faire es tant sagaciously unerring et detente it’s defait at once by that balourd hôte reflecting gendered Nazi bullshit.
The multilingual elite affect french at the abyss between our legs & the vulgarity of our ‘genitovictimhood’ bc…
(je suis opprime; vraiman 🥺)
comme tu aimes le rose, comme la douce miss féminine 'ooh la la'. ma danse de la mort. Alas, Babylon - le danse macabre et sanguin, entendre tres bien the petit mal, the fascist euphemisms of the phallogocentrist parsing of the queer soul…lips casting that Caucasian Question…