/edu/ - Education

Education, Literature, History, Science

catalog
Mode: Thread
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


(140.19 KB 902x1280 IMG-20200422-WA0006.jpg)
Basic Graphic Design ? Comrade 04/23/2020 (Thu) 06:57:32 No. 1289 [Reply] [Last]
I want to start making infographics for my college to use them as a way to spread Marxism and leftist theory - Does anyone here studies Graphic Design or something Art-related? - Which principles or rules should I follow when making these contents? - Can you provide some links with examples of leftist media and design?, I'm aware of some artistic currents and their names (Like Soviet Constructivism), but I would like to know <how> to "use" them
As someone with a solid education in art/design, the most important thing I can think of is readability. That is, making the words and main image you use readable from a distance by making them big enough. Other than that, you should really just stick to traditional painter's principles of visual design since that is what I find the most effective even just with 3-color posters. If you want to learn more, look up the work of James Gurney and especially his book 'Color and Light - A Guide for the Realist Painter'. To start you off, look up his own 'Windmill Principle' (https://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2008/04/windmill-principle.html), which helps a ton with understanding how to make text and images contrast against one another effectively.
I've read this many years ago, it is a good introduction.
>>1299 That link is broken.
>>1605 The board's software wasn't smart enough to figure out where the link ends. Try this: https://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2008/04/windmill-principle.html

(124.93 KB 449x600 8955.jpg)
The personification of deadly diseases and the Human coping mechanism for death Comrade 05/13/2020 (Wed) 12:43:57 No. 1600 [Reply] [Last]
To bring up my back ground before getting into the topic at hand. I am a historian and have been interested in seeing how we humans throughout history cope with deadly diseases. As we have seen in recent times of deadly diseases, such as the "spanish" flu, ebloa, sars, etc. Now to focus on thentopic, humans throught hidtory tend to personify diseases. One of the best examples woth the related pictures are from the bubonic plague. Where medieval artists would cope with the death by creating personfications of the plague. This is what intrests me is why do we cope with the death by making into a person? I would like to hear from some of you on this, for its an interesting subject.
>>1600 I don't have any social studies or history background, but I think it's related to the mortality of a human being, thus it's easier to see its end than imagining the end of something we can't even see. I don't have anything to back that up tho.
(102.75 KB 562x1300 corona chan tinder.jpg)
>>1600 You just wanted to make a topic about corona-chan didn't you, admit it.
>>1604 There is already a thread about that on /GET/ already and lets be honest. This is only but another example of what I am trying to tall about. Because during the internet age we have been making art of things like the ebola or now the corona virus. I wanted to have a discussion about why we personify these deadly dieases as we did throughout history. >>1601 This might be the case, I wonder what makes us as humans feel more at ease being able to see the virus as a humanoid. I know from what happened in the mid 14th century with the black plague it drastically changed the world in those five years it lasted. Art changed showing the depiction of death, as a sort of comforting thing.

(181.32 KB 646x900 Kautsky Portrait - 1906ish.jpg)
Untranslated Works Comrade 04/12/2020 (Sun) 21:49:30 No. 840 [Reply] [Last]
Post works which you think should be translated into English here. I'll start: I'm shocked that Karl Kautsky's history of the French Revolution (Die Klassengegensätze von 1789) has never been translated into English. Lenin, Trotsky, and other Bolshevik theorists all had an extensive knowledge of the French Revolution, and Kautsky, the "Pope of Marxism" would presumably have had an immense influence. This work was approved by Engels himself, and may have been foundational in establishing the Marxist theory of bourgeois revolution, yet it has never been translated into English.
46 posts and 8 images omitted.
>>1512 Can you list those translated works?
>>1526 I could pirate the following ebooks as they have an kindle version if anybody is interested "The Woman Priest: A Translation of Sylvain Marechal's Novella, La femme abbe" "The Woman Priest: A Translation of Sylvain Marechal's Novella, La femme abbe" "The Permanent Guillotine: Writings of the Sans-Culottes" "The Great Anger: Ultra-Revolutionary Writing in France from the Atheist Priest to the Bonnot Gang"
>>1527 >The Great Anger This one is available online, I got it from the Marxists archive. >The permanent guillotine That sounds based, would be interested in it
Not to discourage anons from their work here, but I think messageboards are better suited than imageboards for this, because of a more responsive structure for projects and better formatting options. A forum I recommend is leftypol.org even though it's currently not very active, but that shouldn't negatively affect the integrity of this project if others share their attention to both platforms.

(2.38 MB 2757x1551 1583699564335.jpg)
(2.38 MB 2757x1551 1583699564335.jpg)
Decolonization 05/13/2020 (Wed) 05:43:14 No. 1578 [Reply] [Last]
Can someone give me a break down of the decolonization. What is it, how it is a class, and how it functions. I'm not interested in the efficacy of it, so this isn't a political question. What rationalizations are there for it, i.e. why is it important to the left. The whole world was colonized and I think there is still a deep material historical legacy to it. So I'm trying to better understand what it is in the modern sense.
There's an effort post in the Australian general you may find interesting >>500363
>>1588 I think you meant >>>/leftypol/500363
>>1589 Yes, thank you

(227.01 KB 1000x1000 moom.png)
Universities and Education Comrade 04/16/2020 (Thu) 16:04:04 No. 1109 [Reply] [Last]
I saw this thread on leftypol and thought it would be very suited here. Did you guys go to university or any other forms of higher education? Why or why not? Did it help you achieve what you want to achieve? Would you go back in time and choose a different path?
18 posts and 11 images omitted.
>>1120 I just completed my first year in a similar field. It was basically the same experience. I have nothing to show for it and have learned fuck all. I really do feel scammed but I'm conflicted. Is it really going to continue to be like this?Should I just get out while I can?
>>1204 with something like this your only real option is to become a scholar
(197.64 KB 1535x2048 droopy.jpg)
>>1151 > I think with actuarial sciences you'll more likely just be using some shitty business software, that is more or a less a big calculator as opposed to programming in C or something. former actuary, can confirm. the actual math in the actuarial profession never gets more sophisticated than first (mayyyyybe second) year calculus and basic to intermediate probability theory. Maybe if you're working with the quants on option trading and financial modeling there'll be some beefier statistics going on. and some actuaries are now basically becoming specialized data scientists. but that's a relatively new development im an ABC with parents who (very) loosely fit into the tiger parent stereotype. Got good grades in high school, did math competitions and shit. Went to a pretty prestigious liberal arts school and studied math with a computer science minor. I was pretty good at math but it took me way too long to realize I had zero passion for it and just liked the lifestyle of a being a math student (don't really have to worry about anything other than pulling an all nighter every now and then to finish up problem sets, which honestly was kind of enjoyable, at least in those days when I was super depressed and anti-social). i hardly remember any of the topology, abstract algebra, complex analysis, probability theory, etc. that i spent so much time studying. Overall I think getting a major in math, at least the last 2 years, was a huge exercise in masturbation. I didn't know what the fuck I wanted to achieve in life, just being an alienated chinese kid growing up in the suburbs. Had so little perspective going into college that I didn't realize 70% of my classmates were there without financial aid (total cost of attendance came out to about 60k a year). I remember getting close to a girl I liked and when she found out I was there on financial aid she was so surprised, > wow anon, I didn't know your family was... like that Man. Wonder how things would have been different if I had realized earlier on that I was in a school full of rich kids and I wasn't one of them. my family definitely wasn't poor by any means, it didn't occur to me that severe differences in wealth could exist beyond being well off and not well off. Anyway I went into undergrad implicitly assuming I'd go to grad school, but realized by the time I was a junior that I did not want to go into academia. so i started taking actuary exams and landed a consulting job. it's nice making 75k straight out of undergrad, and aspects of my math education (and cs education) made me much much more valuable to my employers than most actuaries, many of whom have a shocking lack of critical thinking ability and really any technical aptitude. but i wanted to blow my brains out after a few years, beyond the soul crushing nature of consulting work you're also just surrounded by peak neolibs. quit my job and now i'm preparing to blow my savings on another two years of school to get a bachelors in civil engineering. dunno if i really have it in me to do another two years of school but fuck, >>1144 >This kind of work strikes me as betraying my class interest to the very highest degree, and I had kind of a crisis of conception when I realized this was what most of my peers would be going into after graduating (assuming they didn't just get a prole job or go to grad school and post doc for eternity).

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

(340.81 KB 626x625 tfw.png)
>>1553 I can't make your decisions for you, but if you feel the same way I do and see no material benefit from continuing your course, I would advise you to drop out now. It doesn't get better. If you want a decent job out of your studies, perhaps go to a community college to study to be an electrician, plumber, etc. If you want to learn a lot and possibly become a professional academic or revolutionary politician, see if you can find a course on Marxism, History, etc.
(158.09 KB 936x829 when she sees your dicc.png)
>>1144 >>1562 Also: For anyone reading this who feels like their (prospective) job betrays their class interests, Don't worry about it. I honestly can't think of many jobs today that don't require fucking over the working class in some direct or indirect way. I don't think it's too productive to contemplate this unless you're planning to make Marxist theory/analysis concerning this. If I was to follow this train of thought for myself, my current art commissions (mainly erotica) could be seen as feeding the culture industries as laid out by Theodor Adorno and Guy Debord, with it also exploiting the sexual frustration of modern man and supplying them their 'fix' instead of encouraging them to seek out their own meaningful relationships. This of course isn't everyone's case, but the trend is there. For me also, there is the fact that while I am sunken into my chair with bloodshot eyes and an aching wrist from my labor, I am not organizing, or even conversing, with anyone. I constantly feel guilty for that. Anyway, the class character of the vanguard, from Marx to Lenin to Mao to Che to Sankara, has always been of the middle class in some form. Even the poorest of the great revolutionaries such as Gramsci and Stalin were able to attain a high-quality academic education at some point in their lives. Point being, you really can't escape from the grip of capital until you abolish it by force, not the least in your job, so don't worry about whether your job is consistent with your class interests or 'ethical' or whatever else. If you are involved with any kind of leftist group (ideally a good political party), then you are already making infinitely more an impact than if you were to spend your time and energy instead searching for that 'perfect job' that aligns with your class interests. This is the same reasoning liberals use when they weigh up which brand of detergent is more 'eco-freindly' at the supermarket. Don't worry about it.

(9.26 KB 275x183 Man and Nature.jpg)
Why humans? Comrade 04/08/2020 (Wed) 14:09:12 No. 557 [Reply] [Last]
What makes us so special? What makes us different? Humans are primates, when I look at other people I see, in every sense of the word, an ape. We are animals,we look like animals, we smell like animals. Thinking of what we really are makes my head spin. What makes us special? What makes us different? What makes our lives meaningful? Are we even special? Are we even different? Are we meant to be in an unending war for dominance of nature that inevitably ends in our mutual destruction? Are we meant to become stewards of the Earth, the next stage in energy usage for Life, living in harmony with the Earth as its first sentient aspect? Why were there no others, why only us? In 500 million years of animal life, why only Man? Can more come after us, if we go extinct? Is our purpose merely to choose for ourselves why we exist? Are we free, or are we slaves? Why do we individually seem so limited, and yet together humanity seems to be without limits? What is the dialectical explanation for Man? His consciousness? His relationship to Nature? His drive to spirituality? Is it a misunderstanding on Man's part? Does Man not see that those aspects he has are those he shares with Nature? Gained from Nature? Marx wrote that many species engage in labor; yet seemingly only man labors first in his mind, then with his body. Why are We in this regard? Our notions of honor, of courage, of willpower, of morality; only we created cultures. And yet, other species experience these emotions from which such ideas rose. Other species experience love. They feel fear. They summon bravery to conquer that fear. The materialist relation between Man and Nature, between Man and Himself; why is Man, why are We? These questions, they haunt me frequently, I wish to understand, to Nature we seemingly stand above as gods, and yet we are of Nature, not apart from it; and to us aspects of Nature, like our Sun, like our Universe; they seem yet greater than we could ever hope to be. Help me to understand.
27 posts and 2 images omitted.
>>1324 Yes. Dolphins are more evolved beings tbh.
>>1327 the ayys have further advanced productive relations than humans, I agree with Posadas on that, but what sort of productive relations do dolphins even have?
>>1327 So are crocodiles what's your point?
>>557 We are able to understand the universe, we are special because we may very well be the most intelligent live in the galaxy if not the universe, modern day science seems to show that the odds of intelligent life forming is incredibly small, it requires shit like the moon and the sun being the same size in our sky and shit.
(138.85 KB 640x640 DolphinMolestation.jpg)
>>1327 And they have a fina nose for the booty.

(21.71 KB 250x260 IMG_5834.jpeg)
United India Historian 03/05/2020 (Thu) 19:41:12 No. 179 [Reply] [Last]
Do you consider a united India to be possible? If not, why so?
1 post omitted.
>>179 No. Indians and Pakistanis hate each other too goddamn much.
>>180 >united, secular India during WW2 damn. i can't even imagine this alt-history
>>180 There was a prominent commander of a womens regiment in the INA who became a communist after the war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakshmi_Sahgal
>>183 amazing
>>181 Only because of Britain's partition.

(121.23 KB 857x741 leftjak.jpg)
Comrade 05/09/2020 (Sat) 16:02:22 No. 1542 [Reply] [Last]
I recently finished reading Capital Volumes 1 and 2 for the first time (took me around 3 weeks) and I feel like I only got around 50-70% of it, is this normal?
6 posts omitted.
>>1542 I think its pretty normal especially when you read as quick as you dont worry about it read some secondary literature or something else and come back to capital later
>>1549 Nice! Look forward to your post on volume 3 if you decide to read it.
>>1542 Capital is something you can go back through. How much other marxist theory did you read prior to starting Capital?
>>1542 >took me around 3 weeks you read too fast. since you read so fast just re-read them and take notes this time.
>>1552 I've read many of the main ML texts, off the top off my head: Anti-Duhring Socialism Utopian and Scientific Value, Price and Profit Principles of Communism Marxism and the National Question State and Rev Imperialism Left Wing Communism The Civil War in France Wage Labour and Capital Right of Nations to Self-Determination On Contradiction Anarchism or Socialism

Capitalism and Modern Science Comrade 05/08/2020 (Fri) 09:55:46 No. 1533 [Reply] [Last]
What is philosophy today? The predominant answer of contemporary scientists is: its time is over. Even the most basic philosophical problems are increasingly becoming scientific ones: the ultimate ontological questions concerning reality (Does our universe have a limit in space and time? Is it caught in determinism, or is there a place for genuine contingency in it?) are today questions addressed by quantum cosmology; the ultimate anthropological questions (Are we free, i.e., do we have free will? etc.) are addressed by evolutionary brain science; even theology is allotted its place within brain science (which aims at translating spiritual and mystical experiences into neuronal processes). At most, what remains of philosophy are epistemological reflections on the process of scientific discoveries. In today’s antideconstructionist turn, there are, however, many attempts to return to a realist ontology, with all the usual caveats (it’s not really a return, because it’s a new ontology of radical contingency, etc.). Perhaps the main precursor of this return to ontology is Louis Althusser’s “aleatoric materialism.” In his two great manuscripts published posthumously, Initiation à la philosophie pour les non-philosophes (1976) and Être marxiste en philosophie (1978), Althusser (among other things) outlines a specific theory of philosophy which overlaps neither with his early “theoreticist” concept of philosophy as “theory of theoretical practice” nor with his later notion of philosophy as “class struggle in theory”; while closer to the second notion, it serves as a kind of mediator between the two. Althusser’s starting point is the omnipresence of ideology, of ideological abstractions which always structure our approach to everyday life and reality; this ideology has two levels, the “spontaneous” everyday texture of implicit meanings, and the organized religion or mythology which initiated a systematic system of these meanings. Then, in ancient Greece, something new and unexpected happened: the rise of science in the guise of mathematics. Mathematics deals with pure, abstract numbers deprived of all mythic reference, it is a game of axioms and rule in which no cosmic meaning resonates, there are no sacred, lucky or damned numbers. Precisely as such, mathematics is subversive; it threatens the universe of cosmic meaning, its homogeneity and stability. The true break happens here, not between mythic ideology and philosophy but between the mythical universe and science—and the function of philosophy is precisely to contain this break. Formally, philosophy also breaks with the mythical universe and obeys the rules of science (rational argumentation, thinking in abstract conceptual terms, etc.), but its function is to reinscribe scientific procedure into the religious universe of cosmic meaning. To put it in mock-Hegelian terms: if science is a negation of religion, philosophy is a negation of negation, i.e., it endeavors to reassert religious meaning within the space (and with the means) of rational argumentation: >All of Plato—the theory of ideas, the opposition of knowledge and opinion, and so on—is based on the break that the first science represents. In a sense, this is because all of Plato is an attempt to control and in a way to “sublate” this break, in a profoundly inventive but also profoundly reactive dialectic. Philosophy, in its idealist Platonist matrix, is thus a reactive invention: the displacement of (the ideological functions of) religion onto the plane of pure (abstract) rationality. It draws from these sciences its “form, the abstraction of its categories, and the demonstrativeness of its reasoning,” as a pure reasoning directly carried out on “abstract” objects, but its function is an ideological one, a mandate and a service delegated, explicitly or otherwise, by the dominant class. Here is the link with Althusser’s second definition of philosophy as class struggle in theory: this pressure to contain the scientific threat, to reassert the all-encompassing religious world-view, is not grounded in some kind of disembodied tendency toward meaningful totalization of our experience, but is pressure exerted as part of the class struggle in order to guarantee the hegemony of the ruling-class ideology. All great philosophers after Plato repeat this gesture of containment, from Descartes (who limits the domain of science to the material world) and Kant (who limits the domain of science to the phenomenal world in order to open up the space for religion and ethics) to today’s neo-Kantian theorists of communication who exempt communication from scientific rationality. Against this predominant idealist form of philosophy (Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Hegel), Althusser asserts the subterranean tradition of materialist counterphilosophy, from the early Greek materialists and Epicureans (who assert the material world of contingent encounters) through Spinoza and even Heidegger. Is not one of the great episodes in this struggle Cantor’s profoundly materialist reconceptualization of the infinite? His basic premise is the multiplicity of infinities which cannot be totalized into an all-encompassing One. Cantor’s great materialist breakthrough concerns the status of infinite numbers (and it is precisely because this breakthrough was materialist that it caused so many psychological traumas to Cantor, a devout Catholic): prior to Cantor, the Infinite was linked to the One, the conceptual form of God in religion and metaphysics, while with Cantor, the Infinite enters the domain of the Multiple—it implies the actual existence of infinite multiplicities, as well as the infinite number of different infinities. But is Platonism really a reaction to the subversive abstraction of mathematical science? Is it not also (or mainly) a reaction to other tendencies like sophist philosophy or pre-Platonic materialism? Moreover, did the ideological recuperation of mathematics not begin prior to Plato, with the Pythagoreans who imbued numbers with cosmic meaning? It is worth mentioning here the continuing dialogue between Alain Badiou and Barbara Cassin, which is best characterized as the new version of the ancient dialogue between Plato and the sophists: the Platonist Badiou against Cassin’s insistence on the irreducibility of the sophists’ rupture. From the strict Hegelian standpoint, Cassin is right to insist, against Badiou, on the irreducible character of the sophist’s position: the self-referential play of the symbolic process has no external support which would allow us to draw a line, within the language games, between truth and falsity. Sophists are the irreducible “vanishing mediators” between mythos and logos, between the traditional mythical universe and philosophical rationality, and, as such, a permanent threat to philosophy. Why? They broke the mythical unity of words and things, playfully asserting the gap that separates words from things; and philosophy proper can be understood only as a reaction to the sophists, as an attempt to close the gap opened up by the sophists, to provide a foundation of truth for words, to return to mythos in the new conditions of rationality. This is where one should locate Plato: he first tried to provide this foundation by his teaching on Ideas, and when, in Parmenides, he was forced to admit the fragility of this foundation, he engaged in a long struggle to reassert a clear line of separation between sophistry and truth. (The opposition between the sophists and Plato is also echoed in the opposition between democracy and corporate organic order: sophists are clearly democratic, teaching the art of seducing and convincing the crowd; while Plato outlines a hierarchical, corporate order in which every individual is in his/her proper place, allowing for no position of singular universality.)
The irony of the history of philosophy is that the line of philosophers who struggle against the sophists’ temptation finishes with Hegel, the “last philosopher” who, in a way, is also the ultimate sophist, asserting self-referential play with no external support of its truth: for Hegel, there is truth, but it is immanent to the symbolic process—the truth is measured not by an external standard, but by the “pragmatic contradiction,” the inner (in)consistency of the discursive process, by the gap between the enunciated content and its position of enunciation. Is not the way Althusser relates to philosophy one of the clearest cases of the gap that separates the position of enunciation from the enunciated (content)? At the level of the enunciated content, he is all modesty: he strongly opposes the idealist philosophical pretension to grasp the structure of the entire universe, to “know it all,” to reveal the absolute truth (or the truth of the Absolute). Against this idealist pretension, he praises accepting limits, openness to contingent encounters, etc., which characterize the materialist undercurrent from Epicurus through Spinoza up to Heidegger (although one might add here that it is difficult to imagine a more “arrogant” philosopher than Spinoza, whose Ethics claims to reveal the inner working of God-Nature—if nothing else, it can be shown that here Spinoza is much more “arrogant” than Hegel). >Idealist philosophers speak for everyone and in everyone’s stead. They think, in fact, that they are in possession of the Truth about everything. Materialist philosophers are much less talkative: they know how to shut up and listen to people. They do not think that they are privy to the Truth about everything. They know that they can become philosophers only gradually, modestly, and that their philosophy will come to them from outside. So they shut up and listen. However, in what Althusser actually does when talking about philosophy, his “process of enunciation,” his approach to philosophy, we can easily discern the exact opposite of what he characterizes as a materialist approach: brutally simplified universal statements which pretend to define the universal key features of philosophy, with no modest provisos. Philosophy as such is class struggle in theory, the eternal battle of two lines, “idealist” and “materialist”; it functions as an empty repetition of the line of demarcation idealism/materialism which produces nothing new; etc., etc. In short, Althusser acts as a supreme Judge imposing his Measure on the wealth of philosophies. No wonder, then, that Althusser is so adamantly anti-Hegelian: Althusser’s opposite here is Hegel, whose enunciated (content) may appear “arrogant” (“absolute Knowing,” etc.), but whose actual approach is much more radically “modest,” “deconstructing” every pretense to directly reach the Absolute, demonstrating how each such claim fails owing to its inherent inconsistencies. The extreme case of this “arrogance” of Althusser’s is his treatment of the digitization/computerization of our lives, which he brutally reduces to technocratic idealism: when the bourgeoisie loses its ability to generate idealist philosophical systems that guarantee the hegemony of its ideology, it begins to rely on the apparently non-ideological “automatism of computers and technocrats,” the “neutral” expert knowledge to which our lives should be entrusted: >In a time in which the bourgeoisie has even given up on producing its eternal philosophical systems, on the prospects and guarantees that ideas can provide it with, and in which it has entrusted its destiny to the automatism of computers and technocrats; in a time in which it is incapable of proposing a viable, conceivable future to the world, the proletariat can rise to the challenge; it can breathe new life into philosophy and, in order to liberate men and women from class domination, make it “an arm for the revolution.” Sounds nice, albeit a bit naive: today, when science seems to be fully incorporated into capitalism, the standard situation in which the task of philosophy is to contain the subversive potential of the sciences seems almost inverted, so that philosophy itself becomes a tool against technocratic domination. However, the very conjunction “computers and technocrats” should immediately arouse our suspicions: as if the two are synonymous, as if there is no potential tension between the two, as if (as should be abundantly clear from today’s ferocious struggles for the control of cyberspace) cyberspace is not one of the privileged terrains of class struggle today, when state apparatuses and corporations desperately try to contain the monster they themselves helped to unleash: “Althusser misunderstands the nature and transformative potential—the proletarization, perhaps—of computation and computer science. In so doing he appears ignorant of the strength of the scientific tools for rethinking and resisting technocratic rule.” In ignoring all these ambiguities and tensions, in brutally imposing a simple universal scheme, it is Althusser who acts like the worst idealist philosopher; consequently, it is Althusser who should have followed his materialist formula: “shut up and listen.”
For Lacan, modern science is defined by two concomitant foreclosures: the foreclosure of the subject and the foreclosure of truth as cause. A scientific text is enounced from a desubjectivized “empty” location, it allows for no references to its subject of enunciation, it is supposed to deliver the impersonal truth which can be repeatedly demonstrated, “anyone can see and say it,” i.e., the truth should be in no way affected by its place of enunciation. We can already see the link with the Cartesian cogito: is not the “empty” enunciator of scientific statements the subject of thought reduced to a vanishing punctuality, deprived of all its properties? This same feature also accounts for the foreclosure of truth as cause: when I commit a slip of the tongue and say something other than what I wanted to say, and this other message tells a truth about me that I am often not ready to recognize, then one can also say that in my slips the truth itself spoke, subverting what I wanted to say. There is truth (a truth about my desire) in such slips, even if they contain factual inexactitude—to take an extremely simple example, when the moderator of a debate, instead of saying “I am thereby opening the session!” says “I am thereby closing the session!” he obviously indicates that he is bored and considers the debate worthless. “Truth” (of my subjective position) is the cause of such slips; when it operates, the subject is directly inscribed into its speech, disturbing the smooth flow of “objective” knowledge. How, then, can Lacan claim that the subject of psychoanalysis—the divided subject, the subject traversed by negativity—is the subject of modern science (and the Cartesian cogito)? Is it not that, by foreclosing truth and subject, modern science also ignores negativity? Is science not a radical attempt to construct a (literally) truthless discourse of knowledge? Modern science breaks with the traditional universe held together by a deeper meaning (like a harmony of cosmic principles—yin and yang, etc.), a universe which forms a teleologically ordered Whole of a multiplicity of hierarchically ordered spheres, a Whole in which everything serves a higher purpose. In the philosophical tradition, the major vestige of the traditional view is Aristotle: Aristotelian Reason is organic-teleological, in clear contrast to the radical contingency of modern science. No wonder today’s Catholic Church attacks Darwinism as “irrational” in comparison with the Aristotelian notion of Reason: the “reason” of which the Church speaks is a Reason for which Darwin’s theory of evolution (and, ultimately, modern science itself, for which the assertion of the contingency of the universe, the break with Aristotelian teleology, is a constitutive axiom) is “irrational.” Freud’s arch-opponent Jung is on the side of this traditional universe: his approach to psychic phenomena is effectively that of “depth psychology,” his vision is that of a closed world sustained by deeper archetypal meanings, a world permeated by spiritual forces which operate at a level “deeper” than that of “mechanical” sciences, a level at which there are no contingencies, where ordinary occurrences partake in a profound spiritual meaning to be unearthed by self-exploration; life has a spiritual purpose beyond material goals, and our task is to discover and fulfill our deep innate potential by embarking on a journey of inner transformation which brings us in contact with the mystical heart of all religions, a journey to meet the self and at the same time to meet the Divine. Rejecting (what he perceived as) Freud’s scientific objectivism, Jung thus advocates a version of pantheism which identifies individual human life with the universe as a whole. In clear contrast to Jung, Freud emphasizes the lack of any harmony between a human being and its environs, any correspondence between human microcosm and natural macrocosm, accepting without any reserve the fact of a contingent meaningless universe. That is Freud’s achievement: psychoanalysis is not a return to a new kind of premodern hermeneutics in search of the unknown deep layers of meaning which regulate the apparently meaningless flow of our lives, it is not a new version of the ancient interpretation of dreams searching for deeper messages hidden in them; our psychic life is thoroughly open to unexpected traumatic encounters, its unconscious processes are a domain of contingent signifying displacements; there is no inner truth at the core of our being, only a cobweb of proton pseudos, primordial lies called “fundamental fantasies”; the task of the psychoanalytic process is not to reconcile ourselves with the fantasmatic core of our being but to “traverse” it, to acquire a distance toward it. This brief description explains how psychoanalysis relates to modern science: it tries to resubjectivize the universe of science, to discern the contours of a subject that fits modern science, a subject that fully participates in the contingent and meaningless “gray world” of the sciences. The question that arises here is: how does capitalism fit into this passage to modern science? “Capitalism then needs to be thought of as the restoration of pre-modernity within modernity, a counter-revolution that neutralizes the emancipatory political potential of scientific revolution.” Although capitalism is intimately linked to the rise of modern science, its ideologico-political and economic organization (liberal egotist individuals pursuing their interests, their messy interaction secretly regulated by the big Other of the Market) signals a return to the premodern universe—but does this mean that Communism extends the logic of modern science also to the ethico-political sphere? Kant’s goal was to do exactly this, to elaborate an ethico-political edifice that would be on the level of modern science—but did he in fact achieve this, or is his theoretical edifice a compromise? Did he not openly say that his goal was to limit knowledge in order to make space for belief? And are not Habermasians doing the same when they exempt intersubjectivity from the domain of objective science? (And, in this vein, does not Hegel stand for a return to the Aristotelian organic-teleological view of reality as a rational Whole? Is his thought not marked by a rejection of the universe of modern science characterized by meaningless contingency?) Which, then, is the ethico-political space that fits modern science, Kant’s or a new one to be invented (for example, the one proposed by brain scientists like Patricia and Paul Churchland)? What if the two are necessarily nonsynchronous, i.e., what if modernity itself needs a premodern ethico-political foundation, what if it cannot stand on its own, what if fully actualized modernity is an exemplary ideological myth?
The return of the traditional order in capitalism is thus not simply an indication that the logic of science is somehow constrained in capitalism, it is an indication that this containment is immanent to the universe of modern science, implied by the foreclosure of the subject. To put it bluntly: science cannot stand completely on its own, it cannot account for itself (no matter how much positivist accounts try to do so), i.e., the universality of science is based on an exception. When and how, then, will politics be synchronized with modern science? It is not that the universe of modern science should directly impose itself onto the sphere of politics, so that social life will be regulated by the insights based on the cognitivist/biogenetic naturalization of human life (the tech-gnostic vision of society regulated by the digital big Other). It is simply that the subject engaged in politics should no longer be conceived as the liberal free agent pursuing its interests but as the subject of modern science, the Cartesian cogito, which, as Lacan said, is the subject of psychoanalysis. Therein lies the problem: can we imagine an emancipatory politics whose agent is the empty Cartesian subject? Jacques-Alain Miller’s answer is that the domain of politics is by definition the domain of imaginary and symbolic collective identifications, so that all that psychoanalysis can do is to retain a healthy cynical distance toward the sphere of politics—psychoanalysis cannot ground a specific form of political engagement. The wager of the Communist hypothesis is, on the contrary, that there is a politics based on the empty Cartesian subject: the political name of the empty Cartesian subject is a proletarian, an agent reduced to the empty point of substanceless subjectivity. A politics of radical universal emancipation can be grounded only on the proletarian experience.
OP Here, I cobbled together excerpts from zizek in an attempt at something like an entry point into his project. Something that connected the three different realms of hegel, marx, and freud. With any luck it generated some interest and/or understanding in you. It was based on this talk http://zizekpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/surplus-value-surplus-enjoyment-surplus-knowledgepart1.mp3 and came from his book "incontinence of the void"
>>1537 Whoops here's the book. Although I'm not sure I'd recommend it as a starting point for zizek. That's part of how the whole idea for this thread came about. While it's not a book, this short pdf he writes about different varieties of surplus might be better https://problemi.si/issues/p2017-1/01problemi_international_2017_1_zizek.pdf This starts through an introduction of object a. Which is a good thing to know about. But offers little in the way of a contextual introduction. That's what I like about this as a starting point, it starts with some relevant philosophical history. It's a real struggle, where to begin with zizek. I thought about posting this to /leftypol/ but considering that the focus on this isn't explicitly on politics, and that this board is more likely to have a background in some of the more advanced concepts required to read higher level zizek, figured this was better. Feedback, questions, etc.. welcome.

(41.52 KB 304x201 cast.jpg)
Socialist Grenada Historian 03/11/2020 (Wed) 12:27:28 No. 33 [Reply] [Last]
Does anyone here knows any book or more information, about the socialist revolution, that happened in the Caribbean island of Grenada. And also, what are your thoughts on Maurice Bishop
I already talked about this on leftypol(>>347039), but I'll share the thoughts of a Grenadian on Bishop here too >"As far as the common person goes, people seemed to really like Maurice Bishop. Both sides of my family say a lot of positive things about him (most were living in the country at the time he was Prime Minister). Many people went to free him from house arrest after members of his own party detained him. And, as was mentioned in an earlier comment, the island’s airport was named after him. I think it’s safe to say he was well-liked, but for those who think that’s a stretch, we can at least say a lot of people past and present like(d) him." >"Why was Bishop so well-liked? There are a few reasons, but I’m going to boil them down to the most essential: <His predecessor, Eric Gairy, was abusing in a way that frustrated the Grenadian people. <Bishop and his party members worked in a very grassroots manner, giving them face time with people such that people would feel heard. <Bishop was pretty charismatic, so that always helps with being liked. <After Bishop and his party took power, things were getting better in Grenada. I understand “better” is subjective, but here’s what I’m defining as better: GDP was up, illiteracy was down, and unemployment was way down." >"A lot of the “better” results came from Bishop wanting Grenada to be a more self-sufficient nation (a goal you see a lot with revolutionary/socialist leaders of third-world countries). He figured there’s a lot that Grenada can do for itself and not rely on other countries for. Why import so much food when you can produce it yourself? Why send your fruits/vegetables out of the country to be refined into goods when you can build the proper infrastructure to do it yourself? If you want a country with a thriving tourism industry, why not have a standard, up-to-snuff international airport instead of having people fly into another country, then fly/boat from there to Grenada? Being more self-sufficient is a dream anyone would buy into, so it’s not a shock that the people of Grenada (at least a sizable amount of them) bought into it, liking Bishop in the process." >"Obviously, everything wasn’t all perfect. After the government was taken down, there were people who said that they were imprisoned for speaking out against the government (which is believable, given that happens with a lot of socialist governments). There were plots to overthrow the government during its time, and the final plot was actually successful. It was actually members of the ruling party turning on Bishop. I won’t lay out all the details, but just know that it ended with Bishop and a few other Bishop loyalists being killed, followed by a US invasion to topple the whole thing about a week after the killings."

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKhRE61VE0E Here is Michael Parenti talking about Grenada
After the Venezuela Shitpost of Pigs. I was looking for info about coups foiled like that. And found this book, I posted some days earlier. It's a noovelized history of the "Bayou of Pigs". The failed neo nazi coup in Dominica. But according to the book, it started as an anticommunist coup idea to Maurice Bishop and the JEWEL goverment. So in 2 chapters (even 3) they make mention on the situation of Grenada and the rise of power of Bishop.
>>34 >I already talked about this on leftypol(>>347039), but I'll share the thoughts of a Grenadian on Bishop here too >>>/leftypol/347039

Delete
Report

no cookies?