/edu/ - Education

>Deleuze and Guattara
Very compatible with Marxism
>Baudrillard
He even says that he broke with Marxism, but he obviously wouldn't have reached the conclusions about this fucking shitshow we're living in, without Marx
>Foucault
His politics were just weird and he was sometimes an idealist, but his "power has a socio-material problem" thesis is a good and maybe even necessary addition to marxism
>Derrida
His critique of the subject is a good attack on liberal ideology, but other than that deconstruction is an essentially reformist approach and only really suited for sucdems

>>6051
I think they mean existentialists like Sarte and Camus or assume that everyone who is French is the same. I'm pretty sure people who say this usually haven't read any of them. This only happens if they actually are exposed to philosophy. More people learn about it through art so they relate it to a style of expression like impressionism or cubism and assume it can't be materialist and art students need to stop ruining scientific socialism.

>>6051
You should know by now that postmodernism is a catch-all analytic term and it doesn't fucking exist KEK

>>6052
Funnily enough Derrida was the only one of the bunch who remained explicitly marxist.

>>6055
How? He said that he wasn't a marxist. Deleuze wanted to write a book called "The greatness of Marx" so maybe he still had sympathies to marxism?

>>6056
Derrida, not Deleuze. Politically he was a marxist until the very end.
About Deleuze, that he never got to write that book before dying from that accident is fucking tragic.

>Why do some say postmodernism is incompatible with marxism?
Land takes it a step further and says that D&G aren't even leftists.

Justin Murphy: So it sounds like you would basically say that Deleuze and Guattari are not really leftists. They might be writing from a kind of leftist milieu, and they might have some, sort of, leftist connotations, but the core of their project is not leftist because … you think leftism is basically the position of trying to slow down the accelerator?
Nick Land: Yes, I think that project is anti-leftist but smuggled-in — this insidious thing of subverting the Marxist tradition from inside. I think the Marxist tradition is easy to subvert from inside because the Marxist tradition is based upon an analysis of capitalism that has many very valuable aspects. And as soon as you’re doing that, then you are describing the motor of acceleration, and once you then make the further move that Deleuze and Guattari do — and Marx obviously at times does, too — of actually embracing the kind of propulsion that that motor is is generating, then you’re there. I mean, you’ve already crossed the line.

>>6074
What is this bad faith disinfo. He re-defines leftist to mean anti-accelerationist. Basically saying leftism is conservatism, and its not even Land that says that its Justin Murphy, who doesn't know anything but how to insert himself into profitable conversations.

https://youtu.be/UDMVYNX9xPw?t=1108

Right before this he says that ancaps want deregulation and "the left" wants to constrain capitalism. Hes talking about the Labour party: liberals that are for regulation of capitalism. Even in your quote he is calling Marx Deleuze and Guattari accelerationists, Land is just defining acceleration as right wing. He is pointing out that Marx was pro-capitalism but twisting his words to put the audience on his side and agree with Justin.

>24:18 Land: Deleuze and Guattari are only excavating something that is already happening in Marx I mean they're not or they're not really distancing themselves in any in any way from what Marx is doing or even from his configuration of critique they're simply there simply elevating it to an unprecedented point of lucidity

>24:46 Land: you know maybe what you're saying is that there is a kind of a subterranean rightist implication even in what to be at a certain point in history it's its absolute antithesis

>>6075
Justin Murphy? Bad faith disinfo? No..

>>6076
2018 was the year #CaveTwitter died, and Justin Murphy is partially to blame for it.

>>6076
Justin Murphy is a massive theorylet

It seems that Foucault's 'discourse ontology' has contributed to today's constructivism being anti-materialist, whether he intended this or not

>>6118
Reminder that only early Foucault still in his """structuralist""" archeology phase payed more attention to different forms of discourse and how discourse functions (The Order of Things, Archeology of Knowledge). From 70s onward, in his move to genealogy, he focused on materialist (and literally physical) aspects of power, while discourse served as a historical document that confirmed material changes in "power relations" / "technologies of power" (Discipline and Punish, most Collège de France lectures).
This whole meme about Foucault only believing in discourse like some idealistic retard comes from readlets taking burger academics seriously, these academics themselves projecting their misreading of Derrida ("il n'y a pas de hors-texte :DDDD") on everyone else from yurope.
Same goes for Foucault supposedly being the origin of burger idpol and libtardism, when he explicitly predicts this will become just another power game, just a more sinister way to control people. He's actually far more anti-liberal than most of this board, attacking movements that are based on liberation and anti-repression for their naivity. Burgers did this to themselves, no need for some degenerate frog mastermind.

There are enough problems with Foucault that you don't need to invent fake ones.

>>6076
Why would the LCD Soundsystem guy lie to me?

>>6147
well I am a burgoid so that must explain it

Reminder Foucault distanced himself from communist movements because every ML party he joined was filled with massive homophobes.

Lyotard is the only one incompatible with Marxism.

>>6052
>He even says that he broke with Marxism
His critique of Marxism is ultra left in nature not anti communist. But yeah, Baudrillard is compatible

>>6147
>There are enough problems with Foucault that you don't need to invent fake ones.
Such as?

>>6228
Letting famous pedophiles in your movement is politically unwise so good for them i guess.

>>6074
> And as soon as you’re doing that, then you are describing the motor of acceleration, and once you then make the further move that Deleuze and Guattari do — and Marx obviously at times does, too — of actually embracing the kind of propulsion that that motor is is generating, then you’re there.
The more I read Marx the more I think Land is either playing 99-d chess or an actual retard. Like he describes the motor in another interview (or possible the same one) as developing the means of production at the cost of species-being (the more humanist side of Marx) but that's fucking nonsense since that is exactly the type of capital accumulation that takes place in socialist countries like the USSR and China (at least up until the 80s or so).

They put the brakes of accumulation in consumer departments in order to further accelerate accumulation of the means of production. It is the capitalist society that refuses to ever stop accumulation even at the expense of a greater acceleration of it down the road, therefore in capitalist society means of production are not advanced as quickly because of the need to continue accumulation in consumer departments.

Land is unironically a state capitalist vis a vis Lenin or actually talking out of his ass on half his interviews.

How do you from this….

>>6654
…to this?

>>6051
They may coincide with general Marxist ideas, but over-all they divert into ideological pseduo-intellectualism, with various flavors of nihilism and other shite.

>>6148
his goal is blowing marxism to pieces

Because according to post modern theory, china would be Communist

Postmodernism doesn't exist. It was constructed in American academia.

>>6147
Nice post. I have to say being knowledgeable of Marx and Foucault feels like having superpowers ha. Important to note that all of these guys are not impervious to critique (even our beloved Marx, was apt in critiquing even himself) so it's what you do with it in theory and practice moving forward that matters.

We live in the era of libgen and scihub, and so I'm optimistic about the future of theory. No one should do a disservice to themselves by not reading these guys or at least secondary lit on them that is in good faith.

Worst comes to worst watch lectures online.