/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17498685]

This is it. I have achieved understanding.

[Anonymous No.17498704]

>>17498685
based, now read Confucius, Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss, Mao (pbuh), Deng (pbuh) and Xi (gigapbuh)

[Anonymous No.17498705]

>>17498685
No anon, I have

[Anonymous No.17498708]

>>17498685
based Marxist chad

[Anonymous No.17498797]

>>17498705
Hume despised Spinoza

[Anonymous No.17498822]

>>17498797
And most people wouldn't call Whitehead a materialist, your point? I'm not saying I accept everything they believe.

[Anonymous No.17498829]

>>17498705
You can't like Whitehead and also like Lacan, Heidegger, and Hume.

[Anonymous No.17498839]

>>17498829
And yet I would say Hume, Whitehead, and Heidegger are a good foundation on which to escape the Lacanian subject's dilemma with switching from master to master, better than Zizek's Hegelian solution at least.

[Anonymous No.17498871]

>>17498705
that cigar is broken

[Anonymous No.17498883]

>>17498871
I honestly couldn't even tell it was a cigar, it looks more like my man is chewing on some driftwood.

[Anonymous No.17498998]

>>17498839
Whitehead is in opposition to Hume as he observes that we do not escape causality because it is always already at work empirically, from below. And it is from that standpoint that he develops his metaphysics.
And I don't know how you put Whitehead and Heidegger together. Whitehead does not ask (as Heidegger) why is there something instead of nothing? (which is a nihilistic question: since it demands a reason for existence itself, when it is only within existence, and from an existing standpoint, that questions of value and purpose make any sense), but asks instead: “how is it that there is always something new, rather than just the same old?”. He does not “hearken” to Language, as Heidegger and his deconstructionist heirs are doing, but instead notes language’s inadequacies alongside its unavoidability. He does not yearn for a return before, or a leap beyond, metaphysics, but much more subversively just does metaphysics, inventing his own categories and working through his own problems, in order to make metaphysics speak what it has usually denied and rejected (the body, inconstancy and change, the relativeness of all perspectives and of all formulations). And he does not “critique” the history of philosophy like Heidegger, but instead twists it in wonderfully ungainly ways, finding, for example, arguments in Descartes that are themselves already the best response to Cartesian dualism, or anti-idealist moves in Plato.
And I think he would dislike the Lacanian approach as well. Language is an important part of what makes us human, but I think he would think it is an exaggeration to say that everything is language, everything is textuality, etc and wouldn't accept the idea of some overarching Symbolic Order as the Lacanians do.

So yeah it is questionable to put Whitehead alongside those thinkers.

[Anonymous No.17499000]

>>17498685
Where's your Bible there bud?

[Anonymous No.17499019]

How the hell do people support capitalism in 2021

[Anonymous No.17499022]

>>17498839
Whitehead is in opposition to Hume as he observes that we do not escape causality because it is always already at work empirically, from below. And it is from that standpoint that he develops his metaphysics.
And I don't know how you put Whitehead and Heidegger together. Whitehead does not ask (as Heidegger) why is there something instead of nothing? (which is a nihilistic question: since it demands a reason for existence itself, when it is only within existence, and from an existing standpoint, that questions of value and purpose make any sense), but asks instead: “how is it that there is always something new, rather than just the same old?”. He does not “hearken” to Language, as Heidegger and his deconstructionist heirs are doing, but instead notes language’s inadequacies alongside its unavoidability. He does not long for a return before or a leap beyond metaphysics, but much more subversively just does metaphysics, creating his own categories and working through his own problems, in order to make metaphysics speak what it has usually denied and rejected (the body, inconstancy and change, the relativeness of all perspectives and of all formulations). And he does not “critique” the history of philosophy like Heidegger, but instead twists it in wonderfully ungainly ways, finding, for example, arguments in Descartes that are themselves already the best response to Cartesian dualism, or anti-idealist moves in Plato.
And I think he would dislike the Lacanian approach as well. Language is an important part of what makes us human, but I think he would think it is an exaggeration to say that everything is language, everything is textuality, etc and wouldn't accept the idea of some overarching Symbolic Order as the Lacanians do.

So yeah it is questionable to put Whitehead alongside those thinkers.

[Anonymous No.17499509]

>>17499022
>Whitehead is in opposition to Hume as he observes that we do not escape causality because it is always already at work empirically, from below
On this matter I agree with Whitehead. I more so agree with Hume in his analysis of free will (sorta) being possible within determinism.
>Whitehead does not ask (as Heidegger) why is there something instead of nothing? (which is a nihilistic question: since it demands a reason for existence itself, when it is only within existence, and from an existing standpoint, that questions of value and purpose make any sense)
While I would agree that such a question only makes sense within existence, the same could be applied to meaning itself, and that would itself be a nihilistic position to take. Imo the most coherent position to take is that, while it may be a futile question to ask due to the nature of the origin of the question itself, approaching an answer is the fundamental question of philosophy.
> He does not “hearken” to Language, as Heidegger and his deconstructionist heirs are doing, but instead notes language’s inadequacies alongside its unavoidability. He does not long for a return before or a leap beyond metaphysics, but much more subversively just does metaphysics, creating his own categories and working through his own problems, in order to make metaphysics speak what it has usually denied and rejected (the body, inconstancy and change, the relativeness of all perspectives and of all formulations). And he does not “critique” the history of philosophy like Heidegger, but instead twists it in wonderfully ungainly ways, finding, for example, arguments in Descartes that are themselves already the best response to Cartesian dualism, or anti-idealist moves in Plato.
In this matter I side with Whitehead, I would go further to say Heidegger's essentialist position goes against process philosophy itself, but I am more drawn to other aspects of Heidegger's philosophy, such as his analysis of divinities, technology, and modernity itself.
>And I think he would dislike the Lacanian approach as well. Language is an important part of what makes us human, but I think he would think it is an exaggeration to say that everything is language, everything is textuality, etc and wouldn't accept the idea of some overarching Symbolic Order as the Lacanians do.
I think Lacan overstates his case for language, as I think his model doesn't necessitate him doing so, but his model of the ego-ideal, ideal-ego, and superego is the most accurate understanding of the subject imo. That being said, I think process philosophy and Hume's concept of free will call into question Lacan's conception of the subject moving from master to master.

I get why you think it's questionable though.

[Anonymous No.17499838]

bump

[Anonymous No.17500346]

bump

[Anonymous No.17500360]

>>17498705
>lacan

[Anonymous No.17500366]

>>17500360
Yes

[Anonymous No.17501218]

Bump

[Anonymous No.17501275]

[Anonymous No.17501287]

>>17498685
Are Heinrich and Postone just council communists?

[Anonymous No.17501437]

>>17498685
Pure performativity.

[Anonymous No.17501748]

>>17501275
You can get very far just by calling the marxists white, saying marx was eurocentric and that they arent doing enough to center queer women of colour. There is nothing they can do to argue.

[Anonymous No.17501960]

>>17501287
No
>>17501275
Postone was critical of idpol

[Anonymous No.17502061]

>>17501960
>No
How is his critique of value-form any different than Mattick?

[Anonymous No.17502062]

I updated it, OP.

[Anonymous No.17502077]

>>17499019
This guy is 24? What the fuck happened to his face

[Anonymous No.17502116]

>>17502062
Literally none of the rest talk about idpol

[Anonymous No.17502165]

>>17501287
Council communism is just capitalism without capitalists

[Anonymous No.17502294]

>>17501287
Council communism is capitalists without capitalism

[Anonymous No.17502560]

>>17498705
>sorel
Isn't his book mostly just seething at his contemporaries?

[Anonymous No.17502610]

>>17502560
I mean even if you do a very surface level reading of Sorel no not really. A meme surface level reading of Sorel would be that he's all about myths and shit. Both are wrong, your reading is just odd. He criticizes cotemporary parliamentary socialists but framing it as him seething isn't that accurate I would say.

[Anonymous No.17503000]

Bump

[Anonymous No.17503205]

>>17499022
You can imagine this proffesor in a small new england liberal arts college, kicked off the melville revival before mumford, with a theological exegesis of the confidence man and moby dicks doubloon chapter in relation to calvinism(sojourned for a semester in black mountain, giving seminars on whiteheads process philosophy in relation to weiner's cybernetics the influence of german idealism on the transcendentalists, chauncey wright, cs peirce and the origins of american pragmatism, and attending cage and fuller's premiere of satie's raft of the medusa). He was either a saint or one of the wickedest men to ever live, last time any of his books was checked out of the library system was in 1973.

[Anonymous No.17503346]

>>17498685
*destroy Marx*

How are marxist going to recover from Böhm-Bawerk criticism?

[Anonymous No.17503350]

>>17502116
As we all know Marxism exists mostly as an escapehatch for white guys who want to avoid a serious moral confrontation with their whiteness.

[Anonymous No.17503403]

>>17502077
r-strategy

[Anonymous No.17503484]

>>17498685
I mean have you tried bringing up nietszche or any western philosopher for that matter around your local lgbtsjwtfnpc marxist cattle? In no time you will see their beady stupid cowlike eyes light up in panic. Soon enough they will start with the usual subhuman bleating "wasnt he sexist? Arent you being dangerously eurocentric? Why read books by dead white men when you could have been streaming the latest diverse and inclusive workplace comedies at netflix hulu and disneygo? You should know reading anything except the NYT or YA is ableist against those who are too retarded to read? What are you a russian bot trump supporter? Have you been taking your SSRIs and HRT? it is very important that you take the medication dr goldstein prescribed otherwise we will have to report you to corporate for mandatory sensitivity training".

[Anonymous No.17503608]

bump

[Anonymous No.17503637]

>>17503484
Just ordered Nietzsche's early lectures on education. He saw this shit coming 150 years off.

We are so fucked. Our grandparents were fucked. We're so fucked we don't even know we're fucked.

[Anonymous No.17503674]

>>17503346
Böhm-Bawerk's argument is a bit sillly. He says exploitation under capitalism does not happen because the employer needs a profit in order to pay wage. This is non-sense because Marx's critique of capitalism is that it commodifies the labor power of a class who can only sell it to exist. And this was largely due to how capitalism developed by expropriating land through conquest. Bohm-Bawerk's critique of Marx is really close to solipsism and its largely irrelevant now. The LTV is bunk since marginalism is a better predictor of value, Marx's solution "communism" is completely unworkable because it requires running an economy without price signals which is not possible since you need price to measure scarcity, and the complaints he had against capitalism largely due not exist anymore since plenty of capitalist countries have adopted concessions such as the 8 hour work day, unemployment insurance, the right to join an independent trade union, and social retirement insurance to deal with some of the consequence of being a proletarian which did not exist in his time. There isn't a system, and there won't be a system, that creates more abundance and wealth than capitalism.

[Anonymous No.17503714]

>>17503674
Also, modern austerians are just as fringe as modern marxists. Austerians reject empirical evidence as support for any of them claims, and refer to essentially an frivolous, unfalsifiable Aristotelian rationalism.

[Anonymous No.17503818]

>>17503674
>The LTV is bunk
Marx didn't have a labor theory of value

[Anonymous No.17503841]

>>17503674
Also reading the rest of your post and you obviously haven't read Marx. He was critiquing capital itself those reforms are irrelevant and his critique still remains relevant.

*Ahem*
Reminder if your critique of capitalism is grounded in instability, unfair rent distribution, or struggles between sociological classes, you're to marx essentially utopian & advocating for the sort of socialism the schumpeters of the world found reconcilable with capitalism. if you think the real meat of the problem is simply that surplus value extraction is unfair you'd be much better adjusted being a georgist or roemerian coupon socialist type, a lot less to figure out.
a critique of capitalism is properly grounded in all human life becoming through its embedding in commodity relations merely an appendage of unthinking capital sitting over us and brooking no escape.

Why be a communist today? capitalism renders life impossible, and i'm being literal about that. it represents nothing less than the total subordination of the living to the dead. whatever specific ills we may identify with capitalism (inequality, extreme poverty, inefficiency, irrationality, etc.), it doesn't matter, because we are not at the reins; capital is. until we are free, nothing else can change, no matter how much we want it to.

[Anonymous No.17503847]

>>17503674
As much as against marxists Hayek was writing against Otto Neurath and the positivists who after the experience of WWI believed in the possibility of economic planning in kind. Early 20th century german sociology on the subjective effect of money on society (see simmel weber). The regulative model of the abstract market is extended everywhere with the dissintegration of social bonds the map becomes more real than the thing itself. Price is just a small subset of information mechanisms, on one hand you have the intellectual property and patents and secrecy as constraints on the flow of information the assymetry of mass media, all of which are threatened, cryptocurrency as an abstraction of the logic of the state, everything being turned into monetizable predictive data via iot smartphones and AI. Marx was a hegelian feuerbachian "all things that were once said of god will be said of man" his is ultimately a theological proyect see soviet iconology centered around the horizon of communism which is a secularized theological horizon of transcendece through technology, contrast current day western

[Anonymous No.17503857]

>>17503847
Western elites and their obsession with transhumanism, which is far less democratic but far more of a technical posibility than it was for the soviets

[Anonymous No.17503866]

>>17503674
>>17503818
Also to elaborate since you are probably wondering why I said Marx did not have a labor theory of value even though debate lords who don't read all over the internet constantly try to "debunk" the so called ltv and other debate lords who don't read try to vindicate it...
Debates over Marx's so called "labor theory of value" are irrelevant and pointless. Why? Because he never had a labor theory of value in the first place he had a value theory of labor. I get this from Diane Elson who asked the very important question “what is Marx's theory a theory of?” and the answer she came to is that when Marx talks about value, he’s not coming up with a theory of prices which locates labor as their prime determinant (a theory-of-value which posits labor as its source/substance, ie, a labor theory-of-value) but instead mostly takes the notion of value itself as it’s found in classical political economy (and this is done through what Sam Chambers highlights as a genealogical critique) in order to consider, in a reversal of the Ricardian problem, what value means for labor (a theory-of-labor which focuses on how it is affected by value, ie, a value theory-of-labor). so instead of the classical concern for the regulation of prices by labor-time, Marx is trying to understand how labor itself is regulated by value via the violence of abstraction, domination by time, etc. If you read the first chapter of capital like this, especially with Holloway’s piece on the way to read the very first sentence in mind, the text becomes wildly different. Socially necessary labor time ceases to be a mere economic term which is arrived at theoretically but a kind of self-asserting average which compels the laborer to keep pace with the rhythm of the machine and the constantly increasing tempo of the market.

[Anonymous No.17503872]

>>17503841
>renders life impossible
I'm doing well, thanks for asking

[Anonymous No.17503891]

>>17498685
>NOOOO NOT THE HECKIN PROLETARIATIRINOS! NOOO YOU CAN'T EXPLOIT THE WORKING-CLASSIRONOS! H-HERE READ THIS SATANTIC RECUPERATION OF MARX WRITEN BY BERGSTEIN STEINBERG!

[Anonymous No.17503893]

>>17498685

Isn't Moishe Postone that rapper?

[Anonymous No.17503898]

>>17503891
You should read it so you can stop sounding like a retard

[Anonymous No.17503936]

>>17498705
>no philip mainlander
>no erich neumann
>no buddha
>no plato
>no alfarabi

Im thinking you havent m8

[Anonymous No.17503942]

>>17503898
I've read the 1844 manuscripts. Marx is fucking boring and a non-philosopher. Cultural critic is more suitable title, his historical materialism is comical, he didn't understand Hegel, nor did he read Phenomenology of Spirit for that matter. I'd rather spend time reading actual philosophy, not the likes of a subversive kike that uses their wept tears as lubrication to masturbate over the working class with.

[Anonymous No.17503950]

>>17503936
How are you going to reconcile Buddha with Mainländer?

[Anonymous No.17503955]

>>17498685
Chapter about antisemitism as different from other kinds of racism is kinda weird. The central constitutive principles of capitalist society projected to a jewish scapegoat. Oy vey, the chutzpah! Sure this model of abstract domination by abstract capital is pretty neat but What about the concrete networks of jews linked to the israeli state in banking, politics, technology, intelligence? In england, corbyn was pillored as an antisemite not as a socialist. You can imagine a young reporter coming up to herr rosenberg of der sturmer and with news of the epsteins and maxwells and brockmans, shady israeli cybersecurity firms,we cant print this crap no one will believe it its to crude and outrageous after all we are respectable antisemites!

[Anonymous No.17503967]

>>17503950
How have I* reconciled Buddha with Mainlander? Good question. How do you think?

[Anonymous No.17503986]

>>17503841
>haven't read Marx. He was critiquing capital itself those reforms are irrelevant and his critique still remains relevant.
Marx was a product of his time. He is obviously irrelevant since he was criticizing a capitalism that no longer exists.
>you're to marx essentially utopian & advocating
This is a whole lot of nothing, gibberish, and nobody needs to care about what Marx said or his "personal" opinions since they don't have much weigh besides getting into the mind of resentful college students and Marxian academics.
>if you think the real meat of the problem is simply that surplus value extraction
For someone who claims to know Marx; you really don't even know what generalized commodity production is, and why Marx called for the abolition of the wage system. You're probably a Sovietboos who thinks the USSR would fit Marx's definition of socialism.
>capitalism renders life impossible,
If that was the case, how come the Earth's population has grown exponential under capitalism or the fact that life expectancy has drastically increased because of capitalist competition innovating goods and services in pursuit of profit? We literally live in the richest time in world history where people are living longer, less hunger, have greater access to healthcare, electricity, and shelter than any time in world history because of capitalist markets, competition, trade and profit incentivizing these things. Communism, quite literally, failed. The whole Eastern block of Europe rejected it, China, Vietnam and Cuba have adopted capitalism. You just don't know what you're talking about that's because you're just delusional like every other communist retard who can only push chicanery in suppose of your causes.
>>17503847
Hayek was not against social insurance schemes, and wrote in support of them in his work "The Road to Serfdom" - he was a lot more sensible he's portrayed.
>>17503866
> Socially necessary labor time ceases to be a mere economic term which is arrived at theoretically but a kind of self-asserting average
I already addressed this; you're essentially saying LTV wasn't really "labor creates value", but labor power being sold as a commodity realized as "SLTV" as a cause of alienation? That makes sense which is why Marx called for a shorter work day as a demand. I say his theory is still problematic, Baudrillard pointed out, that it is not enough - labor has to cease at being necessary to any society, and it must happen immediately - and not after the revolution.

[Anonymous No.17503996]

>>17503967
Don't know. You tell me, basedboy. Did you read him in German or through that shitty reddit copy and paste translation. Hint, this is a pseud or-not test.

[Anonymous No.17504003]

>>17503350
Is telling me that whites conquered everyone else supposed to make me feel bad? Who wants to sympathize with the losers?

[Anonymous No.17504007]

>>17503866
(Continued)
The programmatic nature of classic Marxism ignores that life is finite, and we can not wait around until the big day comes. More so, it ignores the fact that classes are heterogeneous, and not necessarily share common goals. A real problem with Marx is the treating of work as a virtue. Marx has this really asinine view that attacked lumpens for not worshiping work as having intrinsical value. Marxism, as a whole, ironically has an irrational hatred towards subjectivist objections to communism, Marxism, yet he seems to offer a very subjectivist critique of capital's labor time as a moral one. There also problems with the Falling Rate of Profit which is not empirically verifiable. He also had some problems with his analysis of the Russian Commune where he assumed the Russian Mir would the basis of communism, in Russia, but that really was not the case since the Russian communes did not hold land in common. They in fact did have private property.

[Anonymous No.17504027]

>>17498685
>Reads three books
>Responds with two useless sentences
You know the valuation of those books can't be very high, right?

[Anonymous No.17504044]

>>17503986
Interested in Hayek's cultural context, how he was influenced by herbert spencer an agnostic who nonetheless presupposed a benevolent divine providence guiding the world towards a state of peaceful anarchy and maximum functional differentiation equivalent with the utilitarian principle of the greatest welfare for the greatest number of people, conveniently justifying british imperialism as an expression of the principle of the survival of the fittest, nature red in tooth and claw, indeed. this is definition of bourgeoisie ideology if you happen to be a marxist. Also Michael Polanyi's theory of tacit knowledge and how it was formulated as an explicit response to the subordination of science to economic planning in the USSR. John Gray writing a book on hayek. like ballard, ian curtis of joy division(band named after k tzetnik's spurious novel a dolls house on prostitution on nazi death camps) and anthony burgess of a clockwork orange fame all enthusiastic supporters of ms thatcher.

[Anonymous No.17504061]

>>17503841
Or you can not be a pacifist faggot and just become a traditionalist.

[Anonymous No.17504076]

>>17504044
Virgin mark fisher acid communism v chad acid thatcherism

[Anonymous No.17504079]

>>17504044
After World War II, there were Ordoliberals who argued in order to counter communism, the state would have to give concessions, and it did that by using state interevention, into the economy, to deal with market failures. Haydek, Truman, and plenty of other western bourgeois members of society saw it as a way to prevent the popularity of movements that threatened social cohesion.

[Anonymous No.17504087]

>>17503866
>If you read the first chapter of capital like this, especially with Holloway’s piece on the way to read the very first sentence in mind, the text becomes wildly different.
This is the sign of poorly written work, btw. I don't know why more people haven't just written Marx off entirely because of this.

[Anonymous No.17504140]

>>17503674
You haven't read Böhm-Bawerk

[Anonymous No.17504142]

>>17504079
Foucault trolling the hell of parisian marxists on his seminars, his friend francois ewald went from being a maoist to advising the french employers association. Marxists rarely talk about credit bureaus or insurance companies or big data surveillance stuff locking into and financial management. There is no mass party which can take power or even build a proletarian consciousness (historical CPs functioned as parallel societies) alism is far more apt at micranaging subjectivity.

[Anonymous No.17504152]

>>17498685
kill yourself you antihumanist faggot commie
you just infected your brain with a mindvirus

[Anonymous No.17504156]

>>17498704
fuck off kikes, all of you

[Anonymous No.17505586]

>>17498685
>understanding
jej

[Anonymous No.17506902]

Buump

[Anonymous No.17507834]

bump

[Anonymous No.17507925]

>>17501748
I actually want to do this. Maybe I'll write a book cherrypicking Marx quotes to portray him as some crypto Nazi.

[Anonymous No.17507932]

>>17502062
>Sakai
Lol that guy is such a blatant fed. How M*rxoids fell for that is beyond me. His PO box was literally across the street from an FBI building,

[Anonymous No.17507987]

Socialists eternally btfo
Reminder that the soviet union is not working because we're not working.

[Anonymous No.17508379]

>>17507987
>wageslaves

[Anonymous No.17510151]

>>17498685
And?
Summarize for me. I have other books to read.

[Anonymous No.17510202]

>>17507987
Well if you read marx you would understand that ‘communism’ only ‘happens’ when the productive forces and economy reach post-scarcity, that is to say automation. We are not there yet. If you look to China this is why they’re using a state-controlled market to develop their productive forces towards the goal of communist transition.

[Anonymous No.17510248]

>>17503205
underrated post