I keep hearing that foucault was a crypto-fascist, but no one is able to elaborate on it...

I keep hearing that foucault was a crypto-fascist, but no one is able to elaborate on it. What connections does he have with fascism, other than his love for Heidegger and leather outfits?

Other urls found in this thread:

richardpayton.pbworks.com/w/page/12580685/Preface to Anti-Oedipus
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>man literally analysed fascist regimes as forms of biological power and control
>whole life he was against all authority relations in society
>yet some people say he's crypto-fascist because he respected Heidegger and wore leather jackets
Veeky Forums at it's finest

He himself said that we could never escape from power, so that alone isn't an argument against it.

They said Deleuze was a crypto fascist, not Focò. As for the reason why, I don't have the faintest idea.

In this sense theory does not express, translate, or serve to apply practice: it is practice. But it is local and regional, as you said, and not totalising. This is a struggle against power, a struggle aimed at revealing and undermining power where it is most invisible and insidious. It is not to "awaken consciousness" that we struggle (the masses have been aware for some time that consciousness is a form of knowledge; and consciousness as the basis of subjectivity is a prerogative of the bourgeoisie), but to sap power, to take power; it is an activity conducted alongside those who struggle for power, and not their illumination from a safe distance. A "theory " is the regional system of this struggle.

Before Heidegger, loved Machiavelli and Nietzsche; obsessed with power to the point of being literally unable not to talk about it whenever he opens his mouth; spoke a Romance language; unequivocally fascist haircut; constantly recruiting and agitating impressionable youngsters; faggot though one out of the closet unlike the rest; spent his whole life writing manuals on how to tyrannize the people in service of the powers that be and their dystopian ambitions.

Nice, I fucked up twice. This post is an excerpt form 'Intellectuals and power: A conversation between Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze'

When you read Deleuze you soon realize that what he wants is fascism and what he describes as fascism never existed.

He was a homosexual.

Care to elaborate? I never read Deleuze.

He essentially wants to abolish individualism and create a society where each person derives their entire identity from the greater whole of the collective. The whole obsession with schizophrenics is that many of them feel connected to everything, in an ego-death sort of way.

So why doesn't he just openly adopt fascism then? That's the most blatant form of fascism there is.

Also what work was it that he expounds his visions of society?

>So why doesn't he just openly adopt fascism then?
Gee I don't know, why didn't the Frenchman openly support fascism in the 60s?

>Also what work was it that he expounds his visions of society?
You can find it throughout Anti-Oedipus

In what way does fascism, as deleuze describes it, not really exist, then?

My dog is a crypto-fascist.

>faggot though one out of the closet unlike the rest;
>spent his whole life writing manuals on how to tyrannize the people
Oh he's definitely a fascist now.

Fascism for the whole crowd that people tend to think of as "postmodern" generally ends up being a word to describe anything the author doesn't particularly like at the moment. Deleuze uses it to describe individualism, a lust for power, a desire to be a slave, a desire to impress, etc, concepts that are mutually exclusive.

>Deleuze uses it to describe individualism
Really? That seems like a massive fucking mistake to make, because it's obvious to anyone that fascism is anti-individualist.

Also did you major in philosophy?

No I majored in economics, I took philosophy courses when I could though.

>majoring in econ

Lmao you got memed friend

HMMMM YA THINK SO?

>cypto-fascist
This is the cuck's fantasy at someone more authentically Left than you calling you a faggot (while being an AIDS-riddled faggot themselves.)

>memed
Worked out pretty good so far. Business degree without having to actually take business classes.

Crypto-fascist has become about as meme tier as people who spout cultural marxism tbqh

What makes fascist aesthetics so appealing?

the emphasis on strength and conventional(ie. real) beauty

Because fascism is interlinked with aesthetics. There is no need to make ugly art as a form of social criticism, because the best way to propagate fascism is to show the value of beauty, and it thereby propagates fascism. Fascist aesthetics are actually aesthetic.

Effort.

yeah

Uniforms designed by Hugo Boss.

...

fascists make ugly art of their own accord no manufacture of necessity is needed
losing wars and being destroyed by technocapital is very strong
correct

Butthurt commie detected.

Because all liberalism is just fascism in progress.

t. retard

you fucking nigger

How is it retarded? It is essentially Foucault's hypothesis. The liberal project began with the mercantile class, took on the form of Terror and a Tyrant (Bonaparte) within a very short period. The great institutions were all "progressive" in nature, hospitals for the ill, prisons for the poor, sexual discourses to inform polite society. Currently the liberal project has advanced as a global military/cultural hegemony. Everywhere the vestigial or regressive forms from liberalism's progress are curtailed by force. You should actually read Foucault.

so liberalism is bad, still how is any of that fascist in any sense?

I am not even saying liberalism is bad, only that it is inexorably progressing towards a sort of "fascism" ; take for instance the move to take the mentally ill out of asylums and treat them in "the community" (this is common with criminals too); this is seen as decent and liberal since it is move away from consolidated, institutional power.The problem is that by decentralizing power, power is not going away, but becoming diffuse; it is reaching "into the community". Liberalism is vaguely the belief that the people can use state technology to improve society and liberate them selves; but as is seen with all technologies, a dependence is developed at every new stage. Globalization is liberal.

Fascist is an insult, insults are for things considered bad by the speaker.

I havn't read the man can someone explain how he both managed to be interpreted as a fascist yet is also the father of the abortion known as queer theory?

...

so he is using fascism just a meme word for bad as this guy said

same way Nietzsche influenced both

>yfw nobdy itt actually knows what fascism is
>he best way to propagate fascism is to show the value of beauty, and it thereby propagates fascism
>Fascist aesthetics are actually aesthetic.
lol kys yr statements make no fucking sense

how is that guy wrong?

Oh enlighten us then, Duce

by confusing fascism with aesthetics

The concepts of beauty and aethstetics have nothing to do with fascist ideology. Saying things like "Fascist aesthetics are actually aesthetic" is at least tautology. I mean can there ever be an aesthetic that is not "actually" aesthetic? Wtf this is supposed to mean?

But fascism is intrinsically linked to aesthetics, moreso than any other ideology you dummy.

the link is eugenics, the move is from nazi-style aggressive, coercive, concentration campy approach to social darwinism to one that actually bothers with persuading you
as pro abortion heroine margaret sanger succintly put it:
>We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
when you think about it is even more efficient because instead of gassing poor people and blacks they can be killed before theyre even born, search for yourself the demographics of people getting abortions by income and race
greater efficiency is also what foucault discusses in the move from public torture to a more modern prison system in d&p the transitions advertise themselves as humanitarian but theyre anything but
public torture gives the victim a platform to speak whereas a prison keeps her separate from the population
and why youre at it consider interpreting foucault's own supposed progressiveness itself as having some hidden motives of his own

Because it appeals to everything that is best in man. Capitalist / democratic aesthetics appeal to people who have given up and are resentful against life.

>expecting LARPers to make sense

Obviously fascism is a bad word to use but the age of liberal revolution did eventually birth the age of fascist revolution; fascism is a form of liberalism to be sure.Exactly. And now they are able to edit genome and soon we will have an elite who are actually genetically superior to us possibly capable of transcending humanity while the rest of us are seen as so much cattle

>Obviously fascism is a bad word to use but the age of liberal revolution did eventually birth the age of fascist revolution; fascism is a form of liberalism to be sure.
Liberalism giving birth to its antithesis (fascism) doesn't mean fascism is liberal in nature.

by that measure communism is liberal as well, which makes the word meaningless at that point

The age of liberal revolution also gave birth to Marxism. This is the silliest argument I've ever seen in favor of "everything I don't like is fascist"

People in this thread seem to confuse Foucalt's (and Deleuze's) desubjectivation method in philosophy (a method which decentralizes the subject in analysis) with anti-individualistic practices in politics. But this is simply worng. If I remove human conscience as viewpoint in my concepts, it doesn't mean I'm going to revome humans in real world.

Explain to me how marx was not influenced by the french and even the american revolution? Do you think these 'geniuses' just come up with a theory out of nothing? Yes both marxism and nazism etc. share a common ancestor and to labor the metaphor are genetically linked.

so just because 2 political movements were influenced by 1 previous political movement doesn't mean we should call them all fascism

Inevitably it does. Humanity is just a concept and if you do away with the idea then the bodies which are subjects of the idea are not far behind.

>Explain to me how marx was not influenced by the french and even the american revolution?
So then if you agree with me, you also agree that it's silly to call everything derived from liberalism liberalism.

>If I remove human conscience as viewpoint in my concepts, it doesn't mean I'm going to revome humans in real world
Oh yeah, why and how would anyone do politics by involving a certain politikòn zôon and its point of view indeed, I couldn't possibly think of a reason why... Go sell that crap to the Clintons and Saudis.

spooky

I think we would not be incorrect to call them all liberal is my point and kind of foucault's point as well; the liberal nomenklatura assures the public that they uphold the whole food's morality but in truth the policies of globalization are engendering atrocities far beyond Goebbels' imagination.

>Inevitably it does.
In which way then?
>if you do away with the idea
Which idea?
> then the bodies which are subjects of the idea
wut

>politikon zoon
you can just say 'political animal' you pretentious niggerwaffle

But it is incredibly incorrect, there is nothing liberal about Marxism or fascism. They're all modernist certainly, but modernism=/=liberalism.

William Bonin "the freeway killer" guilty of kidnapping, raping and murdering an unknown number of children was a helicopter gunner in vietnam where he learned in his own words that human life was overvalued.

he sounds like a more boring Nick Land desu

>says politikòn zôon and not πoλίτιkoν ζῷον

pseud

This is clearly erroneous reasoning then, because he could only soundly have concluded that gook life is overvalued.

wasn't foucault a pleb in history and he basically pulled out of his ass everything to fit his own framework?

Isn't Marxism supposed to predict a future in which the state eventually disappears? That sounds liberal to me, in the classic liberal sense

Philosophical analysis and political practice are completely different things. Foucault dehumanized his studies of society but it was not a call for dehumanizing political practice.

Das Kapital was published only 60 years after the french revolution.

Yeah he is.

>implying philosophy isn't a dispositif/apparatus

Okay? I think we're all aware of that, how does that add anything to the conversation?

Whatevr if you want to ignore the relative homogeny of western political discourse for the past 300 years so be it. Enjoy the spectacle.

...

The homogeny to which Das Kapital undoubtedly also belongs?

He was kind of a nietzchean superman desu

You haven't made any points beyond "HURRRR LOOK 60 YEARS!". Fascism, communism, and liberalism are not the same ideology. I don't know how you can even say that, the fact that you have no argument speaks for itself. They value completely different things and have completely different goals, they are different ideologies. They all exist within the modernist mindset.

why would you judge politics by novelty?

Well, speaking in Foucalt terms, philosophy is knowledge and knowledge is instrument of power, but it doesn't mean that dehumanization is an applicable operation in political practice. Because 'dehumanization' is an analytic method and it cannot be transfered to a the field of political practice.
How do you even dehumanize society? What does it mean?

Yes. All of these sticky places in history of arrived as a syncretic panopticon of the western, technological hegemony colonizing every aspect of humanity from the social sphere to the inside of our brains, our genitals..total domination marx and hitler just puppets...the rest of us static.

You havent made any argument except "they are different because i said so" i dont even come on this site to argue.

Reading sentences like this it's funny trying to figure out where the continental philosophy ends and the schizophrenia begins.

Novelty is at least the possibility of revolt.

Well if you take away anything it should be that continental philosophers are all agents of totalitarianism.

revolt is just a meme

Maximum bugman morality

beauty has no purpose within the fascist system per se, I would say its aesthetics emphasize unity and uniformity in a way not seen in the aesthetics of other systems so it has a novel effect on the observer.

>philosophy is knowledge and knowledge is instrument of power
Yes, you're getting close enou-
>it doesn't mean that dehumanization is an applicable operation in political practice
Tell your Foucault to stop arguing with himself.
>How do you even dehumanize society?
It's why I wrote
>and how
here: Then again you could do the science fiction thing and replace biological organisms with machines, or do the real life thing, and treat them as if such transhumanism was already a thing of the past. All you need to do is to think and treat everyone and everything like an Anglo or merchant does, i.e. the instrumental reason the Frankfurters were busy yelling at. You could even become the second coming of Nick fucking Land if you aren't careful with your French philosophers.

> It is Fascism which has refashioned the character of the Italians, removing impurity from our souls, tempering us to all sacrifices, restoring the true aspect of strength and beauty to our Italian face
t. Mussolini

As this guy figured out, fascism is defined very loosely by Foucault, it's that which "causes us to love power", it's a thing in "our heads" that exists "in all of us". Sounds very biologcally deterministic but those are his words.

richardpayton.pbworks.com/w/page/12580685/Preface to Anti-Oedipus

Everyone's a crypto-fascist

I don't think he meant "let's dress good to restore italy"

The fuck are you talking about, it's self-evident. Liberalism values individualism, universal property rights, economic liberalization, free trade, natural rights, global cooperation, etc. It's goal is the furthering of personal and economic freedom for the individual. Fascism values collectivism, totalitarianism, corporatism, autarky, might makes right, the cult of action, ultranationalist expansionism. It's goal is to struggle for the sake of struggle because that is the nature of man. Marxism values collectivism, sometimes totalitarianism, a planned economy, and internationalism and it generally rejects all private property rights and market forces. It's goal is the establishment of communism. They are united in the modernist, Christian-derived view of humanity in progress. Liberals see man as in progress towards greater personal freedom, fascists believe in progress for progress's sake because it is the natural state of man, and communists see humanity as in progress towards stateless communism.

Fascism is a very mystical ideology and it sees beauty and strength as being part of the same pure soul that all people and all society should express
>It stands for a principle which becomes the central motive of man as a member of civilized society, sinking deep down into his personality; it dwells in the heart of the man of action and of the thinker, of the artist and of the man of science: soul of the soul