/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18297385]

Why did he define everything in the world around "le class truggle xD"? How can a man be so obscenely marxist?

[Anonymous No.18297407]

>>18297385
He did not, read more

[Anonymous No.18297410]

>>18297385
He didn't

[Anonymous No.18297416]

>>18297407
I will not. Everytime I read this faggot I'm shocked about how wrong he was about everything. It has become unreadable to me.

[Anonymous No.18297421]

>>18297416
name one thing he was wrong about

[Anonymous No.18297429]

>>18297421
Not him but conceiving desire as lack is kind of shit

[Anonymous No.18297455]

>>18297429
Blame the father of philosophy for that (Plato). Also, provide a more compelling take on the essence of desire.
>I believe X will make me happy. I lack X. Therefore I desire X.
This is clearly right at the most essential level.

[Anonymous No.18297466]

>>18297385
he didn't. he defined everything as power structures, even going so far as to say that certain diseases weren't real and only used as mechanisms by those in charge to preserve power.
Until he died of AIDS, of course.

[Anonymous No.18297470]

>>18297385
He didn't. You are a brainless retard.

[Anonymous No.18297479]

>>18297421
Every single historical claim he made. Just for starters >>18297466 this.

[Anonymous No.18297482]

>>18297421
That justice is a social construct based on class struggle.

[Anonymous No.18297490]

>>18297482
He didn't say that

[Anonymous No.18297492]

>>18297466
>Until he died of AIDS, of course.
kek, gues he should've gotten a more powerful anus.

[Anonymous No.18297497]

>>18297490
He did, in the Chomsky debate.

[Anonymous No.18297502]

>>18297492
If i were a religious anon, i'd honestly see Foucault dying of AIDS as some divine message, since he was such an important figure in the emancipation movement. Like when Chris Watts' was watching the TV and an ad came up with a fetus and a skull covered in oil.
Im not religious, though

[Anonymous No.18297528]

>>18297497
that debate never happened

[Anonymous No.18297585]

>>18297455
>Also, provide a more compelling take on the essence of desire
Well, I thought it was obvious where I was aiming at, AO and ATP never got me, but then Guattari said:
>"Since negation is always related to the position of a subject, an object and a reference point, desire, being purely and intensively positive, changes round subjects and objects; its flux and intensity [...] There exists a totally different notion: the idea of a collective force, a collective direction of libido to parts of the body, groups of individuals, constellations of objects and intensities, machines of every kind..." (Molecular Revolutions, p. 72)
Desire being "administrated" is fine, is coherent with Foucault's thought. As lack? It's too, but emerges a totally different thing, to me, Foucault is the enforcer of lacanism, the police of desire, as Allouch says "Lacanism is foucaultian or is not at all"

[Anonymous No.18297782]

>>18297497
No he didn't

[Anonymous No.18297795]

Fucko was a fag and child sex predator. Simple as that.

[Anonymous No.18297806]

Low effort bait faggot. Hang yourself

[Anonymous No.18297813]

>>18297782
yes he did

[Anonymous No.18298025]

>>18297497

> writes books praising mental illness
>LARPS as maoist revolutionary
>fucks underage arab boys
>agrees to debate noam chomsky on the condition he is to be paid in hash
>claims all politics is actually race war
>supports the islamic revolution the sort of people who would have him hanged from a crane(no doubt an exciting prospect i am sure)
>epically trolls marxist fans by becoming an unironic neoliberal
> eyes light up when he heard about new 'AIDS virus'
> pozzes as many faggots as possible before meeting and untimely end
>lived his life like he was playing a videogame
>the left and the right try to cancel him constantly but the man's uncancelable

Can you say BASED

[Anonymous No.18298243]

>>18298025
How can one man be so unfathomably retarded and unfathomably based at the same time

[Anonymous No.18298346]

>>18297385
He isn't about class struggle in the traditional marxist sense, but he does see everything as power dynamics.
Faggots see every interpersonal interaction through the lens of "top" and "bottom".

>>18298243
How can you doubt the based retards?

[Anonymous No.18298360]

>>18297385

[Anonymous No.18298369]

>>18298360
I-I-I'm absorbiiiing.

[Anonymous No.18298405]

He didn't

[Anonymous No.18298502]

>>18297421

[Anonymous No.18298774]

>>18297385
>How can a man be so obscenely marxist?
First you be a normal historical materialist.
Then you join a bdsm sex club.

[Anonymous No.18298796]

>>18298243
They're the same

[Anonymous No.18300223]

Say whatever, but his pandemic management models as tools of social control is interesting.
You got Leprosy in the middle age and exclusion of individuals.
Then Louis XIV wanted to change the political regime to administrative monarchy in 1661 and thankfully there was a plague so he could impose a "Great Lockdown" and gather informations of citizens for his new order (sounds familiar?). The whole society is engaged, instead of specific individuals.
Then in 1798 you get another "epidemic": Smallpox, which was dealt with the first vaccination campaign ever, which is considered by Foucault as the next step of disciplinary politics, intrusion into people's bodies.
I guess the covid is the next level.
Also, his former assistant/lover Maffessoli follows me on Twitter and i've no clue why.

[Anonymous No.18300232]

>>18297782
>>18297813
/lit/ in a nutshell. No reading. No analysis. No thought. Just tepid nonsense. Read Foucault or stop discussing him. Otherwise, kys.

[Anonymous No.18300284]

>>18300223
>Also, his former assistant/lover Maffessoli follows me on Twitter and i've no clue why.
kek

[Anonymous No.18300352]

>>18297482
He's right tho. In a world without class war, there will be no conditions there to create antagonisms between men and therefore justice will serve no purpose. Of course, this will never happen, but he's right.

[Anonymous No.18300402]

>>18297429
>name one thing he was wrong about
>not him

[Anonymous No.18301213]

>>18300223
>Say whatever, but his pandemic management models as tools of social control is interesting.
Specifically right now

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2021/05/how-we-forgot-foucault/
>The justification of the state’s power to put to death also shifts. Once the latter “gave itself the function of administering life,” the death penalty became “a limit, a scandal, and a contradiction.” This does not, again, mean that it vanished, but that it “could not be maintained except by invoking less the enormity of the crime itself than the monstrosity of the criminal, his incorrigibility, and the safeguard of society. One had the right to kill those who represented a kind of biological danger to others.” Increasingly, the deliberate imposition of death was justified not as “eye for an eye” recompense, but in terms of power’s broader mandate to protect life.
>This logic has surfaced in strange ways during the Covid pandemic, such as when a prominent reporter, previously employed by the New York Times, announced on Twitter that he “wanted to find an antimasker and beat them to death.” A more measured version of this sentiment appeared in op-eds declaring to those who refused to cover their faces that “you don’t have a right to kill me.” If, throughout 2020, the unmasked were construed as threats to biological existence, the same discourse is now emerging around vaccination. The notion of “vaccine passports” explicitly defines the unvaccinated as a danger to society, who can be excluded from a variety of spaces on this basis—a prospect many liberal observers appear to relish.
>Such biopolitical imperatives were intuitive to many on both the left and right ends of the spectrum well before Covid appeared on the scene. Consider, in the former instance, the frequency with which the term “lives” appears in political slogans. In the past year, we have seen the simultaneous prominence of “Masks Save Lives” and “Black Lives Matter,” though the latter first gained prominence some years ago. But similar phrasing also emerged several years ago in relation to another issue when the “March for Our Lives” became a site of gun control advocacy.

[Anonymous No.18301219]

>>18301213
>The persistence of such language reveals that the most intense moral passions of today’s Democratic coalition are animated by the protection of what Agamben calls “bare life”—sheer biological existence. Whatever commitment to some vision of the good life exceeds that, it has been far less central to political messaging. When it does appear, it also heavily involves the agencies charged with biopolitical management. Consider the frequent proposals, over the past year, to replace police with social workers. Such proposals follow the logic Foucault identifies in the emergence of biopower, in which the criminologist and the psychiatrist came to enjoy greater prominence than the executioner. The implication here is neutral as to the advisability of the proposal: it is simply to note that it does not abolish power, but alters its operations.
>The Right, for its part, has long embraced biopolitical imperatives. Most obviously, consider the framing of the “pro-life” cause, whose messaging is framed similarly to that of the “lives”-based causes enumerated above. What the pro-life movement shares with the latter is that the emotional impetus of the cause is the protection of sheer biological life per se. The apparent contradictions this has generated, such as “pro-life” activists who have murdered abortion doctors, are resolved when we consider that the logic of protecting life is a primary mode of legitimating violence on the part of the state as well. As Foucault notes, it has become the basis for war as well as the death penalty. “Life”/“lives” movements replicate this broader rationale of power.
>It was also, of course, the political Right that propelled a set of developments around the War on Terror which, as Agamben has noted, anticipated much of the Covid era’s expansion of power. As with the pandemic, the concern for a particular risk to life became the basis for an expansion of unaccountable power, an introduction of new restrictions on daily life, and a new sensibility in which the perception of others as a constant sense of danger shapes behavior. In both instances, in Foucault’s words, “it was life more than the law that became the issue of political struggles, even if the latter were formulated through affirmations concerning rights.” Efforts to resist this power, he notes, have generally underlined the pervasiveness of biopolitical logic: “the forces that resisted relied for support on the very thing it invested, that is, on life and man as a living being.” To step outside of this framing, a political resistance must be willing to surrender life—yet amid the currently prevailing values, such a politics would be seen as sheer madness.

[Anonymous No.18301262]

It's actually insane how relevant is his theory today, no matter what side you're on

[Anonymous No.18301269]

>>18300352
How could you say he's right when you admit such a world will never happen? It can't be observed if it's the case or not.

[Anonymous No.18301301]

>>18301269
He uses some reminiscence of marxist analysis, which posits human behaviour as resulting from human nature of desire combined with social interactions, that is the society of class struggle in which the fulfillment of personal growth is prevented by inequality, leading to antisocial behaviour and the need for justice systems to control it. As such, in a theoretical post-revolutionary world where class struggle and social inequality are eliminated, human growth (the fulfillment of individual desires) happens in a society that doesn't prevent it. As such, no antisocial behaviour appears and there is no need for justice systems.
Mention: I don't subscribe to this, I just presented Foucault's position

[Anonymous No.18301309]

>>18301301
Clarification: I don't subscribe to the idea that this ideal world devoid of struggle will ever be achieved.

[Anonymous No.18301317]

>marx is a profanity

let me guess you're american ?

[Anonymous No.18301426]

>>18297482
He supported the Iranian revolution for contrary reasons, late Foucault didn't have faith in the future of "class struggle" as a a popular means of seeking justice

>>18301301
I don't know what you're getting at. The regulation of individuals isn't just about formal equality or affirmative action or whatever. The most humane society could be more or less of a prison than anywhere else.

[Anonymous No.18301717]

>>18301426
>The most humane society could be more or less of a prison than anywhere else.
You still think of society within the boundaries of current systems, where regulation comes from the top to the bottom, that's why.

[Anonymous No.18301754]

>>18300352
> In a world without class war, there will be no conditions there to create antagonisms between men and therefore justice will serve no purpose.

There are countless things that create antagonisms between men that have nothing to do with class. Do you think ridding the world of class would prevent a man from insulting or reacting with violence when insulted?

On a larger scale, cultural and racial differences would always create antagonisms (and don't say these would not exist in a post-class world, it'd be impossible to mould culture and mix the races to such a degree that these divides would dissolve.)

[Anonymous No.18302144]

>>18301754
>There are countless things that create antagonisms between men that have nothing to do with class.
most of them have to do with class because they result from a society based on competition between buyers and sellers, buyers and buyers, sellers and sellers, which asserts itself on every level, from the pettiest disputes all the way to world wars.

all the remaining possible antagonism is trivial and can be reconciled as it arises in a straightforward way once humanity gains actual control over itself rather than being subjected to the anarchy of competition. then this capacity for dealing with those intermittent antagonisms will never need to alienate itself from society into becoming a "justice" over and above it.

justice is at the bottom only an ideological derivation from law, whose reason of existence is to sanctify and protect private property and to regulate competition of private properties in a way conductive to the propagation of the institution of private property as a whole.

>On a larger scale, cultural and racial differences would always create antagonisms (and don't say these would not exist in a post-class world, it'd be impossible to mould culture and mix the races to such a degree that these divides would dissolve.)
of course they would dissolve for the most part, and whatever would be left of them wouldn't create any non-trivial antagonism. all non-trivial cultural and racial antagonism is currently only a function of the bourgeois state which needs to sustain the myth of a common "nation" in order to make people voluntarily subjugate itself to its power.

it's only the state power that sustains the distinction between "us" who have duties to the state but also the right to its supposed benefits and "them" who belong elsewhere and can only participate on the condition that they're judged useful to "us" and play by our rules. without this fuel any racial and cultural antagonism would promptly fizzle out

[Anonymous No.18302356]

>>18301213
Reading foucault nowadays is enough to make one into a far right extremist. mean have you tried bringing up nietzsche 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? Hasnt it been debunked as fake news pseudoscience?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? Didnt you know reading antything beyond YA literature is ableist towards people who are too retarded to read? How does this further the short term electoral goals of the democratic party?Have you been taking your SSRIs and HRT? it is very important that you take the medication dr goldstein prescribed otherwise we will report you to corporate for mandatory sensitivity training as per the domestic terrorism act of 2021"

[Anonymous No.18302425]

>>18301317
Marxism is.
And if you think otherwise your are an anti-human sociopath.

Marxism is a sect-like system of beliefs that directly led to the largest man-made loss of life perhaps in human history.
Ethically that should mean only one thing for any one thinking and feeling human being - marxism should be destroyed just like nazism.

[Anonymous No.18302459]

>>18297421
>Around this time of this picture [1981] I was warning Foucault about Aids. When I first told him about the disease he said: “Oh that's perfect Edmund: you American puritans, you’re always inventing diseases. And one that singles out blacks, drug users and gays – how perfect!” Gay rights had been so hard to fight for that Aids felt like a real reversal. It just seemed to be too perfect for him to believe in it. I tried to insist that it was real despite its ideological aspects.

*dies of AIDS*

This by itself is definitive proof that God exists and is a top lad.

[Anonymous No.18302504]

>>18300352
>without class war, there will be no conditions there to create antagonisms between men

It actually makes me sad to see how far gone some people are. Other people's bad ideas have lead you down the garden path son.

[Anonymous No.18302605]

>>18302425
stfu brainlet

[Anonymous No.18302634]

>>18298025
> writes books praising mental illness
nope
>LARPS as maoist revolutionary
lol nope
>fucks underage arab boys
quite probably
>agrees to debate noam chomsky on the condition he is to be paid in hash
lol based if true
>claims all politics is actually race war
nope
>supports the islamic revolution the sort of people who would have him hanged from a crane(no doubt an exciting prospect i am sure)
sorta
>epically trolls marxist fans by becoming an unironic neoliberal
true
> eyes light up when he heard about new 'AIDS virus'
k
> pozzes as many faggots as possible before meeting and untimely end
probably not
>lived his life like he was playing a videogame
sure
>the left and the right try to cancel him constantly but the man's uncancelable
lol yep

this doesn't really impact the bottom line that Foucault is based

[Anonymous No.18302644]

>>18297429
Why would you desire something you already have?

[Anonymous No.18302697]

>>18302356
You are a paranoid and delusional person with poor grammar.

[Anonymous No.18302698]

>>18302425
Meds

[Anonymous No.18302808]

>>18302144
Humanity will never escape competition, period. If it's not money or rank then it's literally anything else. Beauty, strength, charisma, love, intelligence... some will be naturally talented, others will improve themselves, talents will be lost through age and time, jealousies will persist and conflict will rage eternally. Humans don't just stop being human when they exist in a post-scarcity (not sure if you're arguing for that, feel free to correct), classless world... in fact I'd argue that the 'negative' aspects of humanity would only become more prominent when they it is no longer distracted by survival. As we have seen in the West, the improvement of one's standards of living does not translate to a dramatically happier or more cohesive society, in many respects it has led to the opposite - I understand you will argue that this does not prove anything since we do not live in a classless society in the West but I believe it's a legitimate point, nothing thus far has demonstrated that humans have the capacity to change without fear, shame and/or reward guiding them (and even then that is not genuine, interenal change but persuasion/coercion, which I understand you are against.)

I am also utterly convinced that we'd start a war out of sheer boredom if we eliminated everything else to complain about; never understimate the influence of boredom!

The idea that justice is only tied to property is ridiculous. Harm will always occur between humans, it's unavoidable for the reasons mentioned above, therefore there will always be the necessity of some form of law.

I think you totally understimate just how different cultures can be even a town over. Hell, don't you remember visiting another school and how different everything was? Even the words they used differed from what they used in my school and they were literally streets away. When humans group together they will inevitably form some sort of culture - look at 4chan, we are a bunch of random, anonymous people of all colours and creeds and have created our own culture. Reddit is the same. Now compare them both! We'd happily rip each other to shreds over our differences in mere personality nevermind anything else. My point here is that if you're discussing an entire WORLD full of human beings, the chances of them not developing their own cultures once again, without some sort of world government preventing it, is impossible.

Racially, there will always be lightskins, darkskins, monolids, and so on, even if they are all different shades of brown. Physical differences will always separate people (and, of course, even in a mixed humanity there will be differences in the biology of particular groups - the sheer distance of, say, China and the US will see to that.)

I think you underestimate the divise power of even trivial differences.

This is an interesting topic and I have more to say but I'm reaching both the word limit and my bed time, so I'll have to catch your reply tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.18302844]

>>18302644
That's not the opposite of lack, at least in terms of desire, it's rather about the movements desire orchestrates, the way it invests things, it organizes the world; It's impossible to see lack in these things, nor does the desire; like I quoted from Guattari some replies above: it's flux and intensity

[Anonymous No.18302876]

>>18301219
Have you read Frank Wilderson's Prison slave as hegemony's silent scandal ? I believe it comments on the interrelation of this concept of bare life and social movements and both wrt antiblackness.

[Anonymous No.18302884]

>>18302425
you're just ridiculous. stop simplifying matters.

[Anonymous No.18303204]

>>18302504
>no argument
Typical

[Anonymous No.18304151]

>>18302808
>Humanity will never escape competition, period.
yes, people will still compete for who can run 100 meters the fastest or even over a woman. but this alone is of an entirely different weight from the antagonisms in present society where people are first and foremost atomized individuals that have to compete with everyone around them for territory -- and where every conflict develops against this background - rather than first and foremost direct members of a unitary society that has rational control over itself

it's very easy to see even today that majority of serious interpersonal conflict has its basis in political interests, in nationalism, in inequality, in the necessity for workers to market themselves as attractive commodities over other workers, and things of similar sort, which are all done away with outside class society. if you count the cases not directly connected to that or not significantly aggravated by that, you're left with a negligible number

>in many respects it has led to the opposite - I understand you will argue that this does not prove anything since we do not live in a classless society in the West but I believe it's a legitimate point
not only is it not legitimate but it's only evidence for the inverse, because what you're describing coincides with the increasing penetration of capital into individual lives.

>The idea that justice is only tied to property is ridiculous. Harm will always occur between humans, it's unavoidable for the reasons mentioned above, therefore there will always be the necessity of some form of law.
some remains of law might persist into a lower phase of communist society, but the harm will be so negligible, as I described above, that full resolution will be perfectly manageable within a local community without intervention of law, and consequently without transformation of this law into a subjective sense of justice.

>My point here is that if you're discussing an entire WORLD full of human beings, the chances of them not developing their own cultures once again, without some sort of world government preventing it, is impossible.
I never said separate cultures wouldn't form at all. they would dissolve for the most part without states sustaining them, especially in those elements that create antagonism or rather that are an expression of material antagonisms ultimately deriving from class society

>Racially, there will always be lightskins, darkskins, monolids, and so on, even if they are all different shades of brown. Physical differences will always separate people
and they will become about as relevant hair colours as soon as they cease to be used by national bourgeoisies to make workers work for their interests and prevent them from associating with other workers

>I think you underestimate the divise power of even trivial differences.
I think you underestimate the level to which those trivial differences are mere pretexts for conflicts that have a genesis elsewhere

[Anonymous No.18304155]

>>18297385

[Anonymous No.18304193]

>>18297502
Idk how true this is, but related to what you said, my professor claimed to have been taught by a man who was very very close to Foucault. According to this man, a catholic, focuault converted to Catholicism on his deathbed.

[Anonymous No.18304273]

>>18304193
He's either in hell or purgatory then
Probably hell

[Anonymous No.18304304]

>>18297385
The idiots debating the retard who made this thread don't realize he took this take from Le Jordan Peterson q&a ffs
Almost everyone here is below 15, especially people who post shit takes without having read the author. Fucking cunts.
>If you respond to this seething, you're automatically a cunt>

[Anonymous No.18304332]

>>18304273
Id guess it would depend whether he converted out or a genuine acceptance or out of a last minute Pascal bet.

[Anonymous No.18305961]

>>18297421
We can't.

[Anonymous No.18306189]

>>18302425
how old are you?

[Anonymous No.18306207]

>>18297421
His entire view of mental health treatment as ostracism of the different.

[Anonymous No.18306518]

>>18297385
Bait?

[Anonymous No.18306750]

>>18304151
>a unitary society that has rational control over itself
Rationalism is not humanity's strong suit, as should be plainly obvious. Even the smartest of us fall prey to irrational behaviours and beliefs depending on our genes, our mood, our company, perceived threats and so on. To believe in a fully (or even competently) rational society post-class is horribly utopian.

>It's very easy to see even today that majority of serious interpersonal conflict has its basis in political interests, in nationalism, in inequality

I see serious interpersonal conflict fought over trivial nonsense all the time. Mere differences in personalities, in tastes and so on is enough to grow genuine resentment between peoples.

What about families? Without demolishing the sturcture of the family, one will always have inner and outer familial disputes that will naturally escalate over time. It's a tale as old as time itself.

>not only is it not legitimate but it's only evidence for the inverse, because what you're describing coincides with the increasing penetration of capital into individual lives.

This depends on what you mean by the increasing penetration of capital. More people now, than ever, have the ability to live a life without work and can exist comfortably, but this has not ultimately changed their behaviour. I recognise you will say that class still exists, and that they are still subservient to the system, but again I simply do not see any evidence that human behaviour will change when [insert ideological goal] is achieved; human history, from prehistory until now, supports my argument, as one can see the same behaviours time and time again. Your belief that humans will change once class divides are removed is merely a hunch.

>I never said separate cultures wouldn't form at all

Then we're basically back where we were. As I said this is an impossible situation to manage without some sort of higher governing power able to settle any possible disputes between cultures. As an example, if two cultures play in a competition, especially over the span of years, resentment can begin to grow and then you have reason for conflict. Look at any sports rivalry, especially ones in Europe which end in bloodshed all the time.

>and they will become about as relevant hair colour

I see you never grew up ginger.

>make workers work for their interests and prevent them from associating with other workers

It is not prejudice that causes racism, it's close proximity that breeds resentment. Ask a white guy from Maine how he feels about blacks and then ask a white guy from Detroit. Look at phenomena of white flight, also.

>I think you underestimate the level to which those trivial differences are mere pretexts for conflicts that have a genesis elsewhere

There will always be a basis for conflict among humans, from territory and hiearchy to, yes, even hair colours.

[Anonymous No.18307067]

>>18302425
Wait until you hear about this thing called Christianity. Marxism has nothing on Jesusism's death rate.

[Anonymous No.18308579]

bump

[Anonymous No.18308609]

>>18297429
he criticized "desire as lack" meme in History of Sexuality