Are they the only left-wing thinkers worth reading?

Why don't you take the redpill and see the truth (that your statement is wrong)?

I'm with you on that, but almost everyone in the west sees Foucault, or even Debord for that matter as MARXIST SJW LEFTIST KEK, when really they spent their entire intellectual careers BTFO'ing left/right dichotomy and identity politics.

I just want more people to read Foucault, Debord, and while I'm at it, Giorgio Agamben, their best student.

because apparently "take the redpill" means throw away my worldview and replace it with an ideology that revolves entirely around women and occasionally race. I'm not a teenager anymore, so it's not that appealing.

realize that white women are being subverted and inherently superior men like us are being discarded

>throughout history
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES EVERYONE LOVED EVEN BACKTHEN TO TAKE IT IN THE ASS FROM REFUGEES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

>Used to feel this way
>Got older
>even educated women who I know were whores fall into mother paradigm
>beta cuck males fall into father-patriarch paradigm
>by the time men and women hit their 40s they are exactly like their parents.
>Old people hate every person equally.

>inherently superior men like us are being discarded

That's what it boils down to, doesn't it? You feel discarded, left out, so you've built a worldview around it. It's not you that has the problem, it's literally everyone else. How do you ever expect to grow as a person with that attitude? It's sad imo.

kys cuck

>Leftie calls me cuck
T O P K E K

>throughout the history of 1960-present

Why do people fight for their own servitude as if it were their liberation? This question goes beyond liberalism, stalinism or whatever /pol/ goers and Americans believe to be "the left".

We need a strong man like Trump or Hitler to guide us.

Your post is literal word salad, try getting help.

Equating Hitler to Trump does a great disservice to the first.

>throughout the history of the term "left-wing"

Unironically yes.

Derrida may be useful too.

Tire moving the goalpost.

how the fuck is anyone right-wing? terrifying and retarded

They fight for what their feelings, not for the objective truth.

No left-wing thinker is worth reading.

the real red pill is to read and analyze from either sides of the spectrum. take morsels from each and weigh the value

>Why do people fight for their own servitude as if it were their liberation?

True right-wing thought offers liberation from oppression by inferiors, along with economic freedom. In the West, white men are oppressed for the benefit of minorities and women. Only through an authoritarian Christian state can true masculine freedom be realized.

>deleuze and guattari
>left-wing

they're pretty much just liberal mouthpieces who love capitalism and hate Lacan
>muh revolutionary desire

I suppose Oedipus works for some. A phallic dominatrix would do better though.

What part of it did you not understand?

That's D&G's answer as well, except for them there's no objective truth other than the multiplicity of desire(s).

In terms of self interest that would still create constant strife though. If you can't get whites to feel superior how could yoi get women and minorities to accept their inferiority?

Go to bed Zizek, the masses weren't simply deceived and constant production of *individual* identities is not deleuzian (saying that it's pseudodeleuzian doesn't sniff your way out of it).

what did he mean by this

they're more fashy than people think. the dark deleuze idea is real.

Always read Derrida with a hyper-skeptical eye. Don't take him too seriously, or extrapolate him beyond specific literary theory and ideas about the history of philosophy. People who read him as an actual philosopher fuck up their entire world view, imo.

Was GG Aliln a Body without Organs?

I care about things other than hedonism, selfish individualism and 'diversity'. The blood of a thousand Warriors flows through my veins. I am ready to make them proud. I care for Honour, Tradition, Heritage. You probably don't know what those words mean.

those guys in your pic+Foucault+Debord+Baudrillard+Adorno

Also Marx for understanding the universalist expansion of capitalism, and his accelerationist ethos

>half the thread are /pol/tards
>the other half are continentals
kill me

So... Feelings? That's a bit girly, but whatever. Wouldn't want to see you cry or anything. After all, tradition was created at some point so trying to preserve it already loses its once revolutionary aspect therefore becoming a simulacrum.

Holy fuck the shit posting in this thread.

Here are good some good commentators on progressive thinking - a synthesis of left and right and beyond the banal division.

Not exhaustive and a mixture of alive and dead.

David Graeber
Murry Bookchin
Bruno Latour
John Berger
Susan Sontag
B.R Ambedkar
Roberto Unger
Camille Paglia
Maurizio Ferraris
Hannah Arendt
Arundati Roy
Vandana Shiva
Theodore Adonor
Max Weber
*meme alert* but not really meme -slavoj zizek
Walter Benjamin
Franz Kafka
Roland Barthes
Jurgen Habermas
Peter Theil

Oh, leave them alone, if that guy couldn't understand this simple statement he probably will never be able to understand anything at all.

all this, but while still avoiding centrism

The past led directly to the present. Traditionalism on its own is for retards.

>tfw society of the spectacle becomes a comfy read

But D&G WERE card-carrying Marxist-Lacanians.

I'm sorry but Marx and Lacan are wrong. Although D&G did ask the right questions.

No.

but red is the color of the left

They were Marxists (closer to post-Marxists though), but if you really think they were Lacanians you don't know anything about the context in which they wrote. Anti-Oedipus was an attempt to get Lacan on their side, Guattari hoped to be Lacan's successor and change psychoanalysis from within. Later they agreed with those who called them out on their compromises and stopped interacting with psychoanalysis (Freudian or Lacanian) and went their own way. They would fully agree that Lacan was wrong despite being influenced by psychoanalysis in several ways.

As for Marx being wrong, there's no debating that. Again though, it's about taking what you can and advancing thought with what works. Saying "x is wrong" is far too often an excuse to block desire in an arbitrary (necessary for desire though) framework. Maybe that's not what you're hinting at, but around here that sort of pseudofideistic "can't know nuffin so any nonsense I enjoy can be called rational and objective" thinking is common and it is what D&G were criticizing, regardless of whether it is Marxist, Liberal, Fascist or anything else.

But Debord (and Agamben) are both extremely left wing, they always position themselves as such and Debord in particular thought he was the one of the only people ever to actually understand Marx.

What is actually happening is that you're seeing who's really to blame for all the shit going on in the world right now, but you also don't wanna become "a cuck", becuase you're so blinded by the spectacle that it actually hurts to remove your glasses.

Marx wasn't trying to be infallible, he treats marxism / critique theory as this, a theory, that should be revised and updated by those who came after him.

No one, even leftists, think Marx was 100% right, but most people - including right wingers - agree a lot of his critique is spot on.

I don't think D&G distanced themselves sufficiently from Lacan/Freud, whenever you think they're about to BTFO psychoanalysis, they sneak it back in. Read Girard's critique "Delirum as System."

> Marx was wrong but he's still useful

Let's see...He was wrong about the stages of history, capitalism and feudalism did not emerge distinctively but always overlapped (dialectical materialism BTFO) He was flat-out wrong about money, credit and didn't understand banking. So there you have it, Marx can't actually prove the inevitable collapse of capitalism.

> B-But we can still use Marx in combination with mental gymnastics to solve-

Yeah, nah.

Read Debord's Commentary on the Society of Spectacle and Agamben's Homo Sacer and tell me it doesn't sound like right-wing conspiracy shit. I'm trying to imagine the type of leftist who would find those texts appealing...

Left/right dichotomy is CNN-tier. Fuck, even Zizek is constantly saying crypto-/pol/tier shit.

Reminder that only liberals talk and think in terms of right and left.

D&G explain why they don't reject psychoanalysis outright in some detail. It would be superificial given Freud and Lacan's non-Oedipal contributions, it would be dialectical or at least dualistic, it would run the risk of reintroducing Oedipus rather than reducing its importance (like cognitivists risk doing when correlating environmental factors with activated genes). Besides, their method and concepts are already different enough.

>the Marx thing
It's a good thing none of the other authors you mentioned ever had a bad theory otherwise, by the same criteria, we would have to forever delete their names from history and never talk of any of their work ever again. That's why post-Marxism isn't Classical Marxism.

In SS, Debord constantly speaks in Marxist/Capital terms as if they are givens, and his project is to describe the Spectacle as a bad thing. He also takes as a priori truth that the police are bad-Debord is constantly shitting on the police in the work. The preponderance of the evidence in the case of this one work is that Debord is not only a leftist, but even a rather doctrinaire and predictable one.

> "Freud is everywhere in a legitimate and official capacity in those aspects of his work that are explicitly called upon because they can be used against the Oedipus complex or have been judged at least detachable from it. Deleuze and Guattari summon a good Freud, who in their eyes is better than the evil Freud of the Oedipus complex. They want to divide the great man against himself. But the expulsion of Freud by Freud never takes place. The work remains impregnated with Freud, especially where he is violently repudiated. The Freud chased out the front door slips in the window, so much so that at the end of this Freudian psychomachy he is entirely or almost entirely reinstated, a Freud in particles, perhaps even molecular, a Freud that is mixed and emulsified, but nonetheless Freud." - Rene Girard

> It's a good thing none of the other authors you mentioned ever had a bad theory otherwise
> That's why post-Marxism isn't Classical Marxism.

It's still too reliant on Marx. Guys like Lazzarato are edgy but ultimately pointless.

Have you read Commentary on the Society of the Spectacle?

I haven't, and let's take this admission to its logical conclusion.

An earlier post characterized Debord as a "broad" thinker who explodes left-and-right categories in general. I rebutted this post, with the ammunition of the one Debord work that I have actually read (SS), to observe that in that one work, everything that Debord writes and thinks thorougly gives the image of not just a traditional leftist, but even a boring and predictable one.

The obvious thrust of your appeal to what I haven't read will be a self-invitation for you to clue me in on what a "broad" thinker Debord really turns out to be, if only I would go on reading. But I'm going to take an educated guess: the guy who is constantly speaking in terms of Marxist categories, who organized RL clubs whose activity was about class struggle and to try as best they can, to escape the Evil Category of capitalism, this man, is simply a leftist, and a development of his other writings will simply confirm same. This is what I expect to have confirmed, if you care to develop your argument further. Oh, sure, he might take issue with this-or-that, but isn't that always the point. The other expected-point being that Debord is not so "broad" a thinker as you would have liked him to have been.

Reminder that Marx and Engels never characterized themsleves as being on the "left."

Can't skirt the argument with this pedantry. "left" is now a meaningful category, that we now understand, and which we can apply to thinkers. What is at issue are the degrees to which Debord belongs to the political categories of "left", "right", or "other", and we are free to multiply these boxes at will.

wow do you need a safe space too lmfao
conservatism (and all faces of it) are propably one of the most pathetic things in existence.

>French intellectuals try their hardest to deny any semblamce of the validity of human reality just so they can never have to admit they were wrong about supporting Stalinism

Sorry, I don't read intellectuals whose entire work is based on having to hide from their own guilt.

Unfortunately Guattari was an ugly little abortion who deserves to be forgotten forever.

Deleuze's non-guattarized (read: gutterized) books are fantastic.

user... Deleuze had nothing to do with politics at all... You should perhaps calm down.

>In terms of self interest that would still create constant strife though. If you can't get whites to feel superior how could yoi get women and minorities to accept their inferiority?
You don't get them to accept it, you forcibly repress them because it is what's needed to preserve Liberty and Masculinity. What is needed is a true Christian dictatorship of Capital. Think Singaporean authoritarian capitalism, mixed with Saudi-inspired Christian monarchism, executions for degeneracy included, combined with Nazi-style eugenics policies to relentlessly select for intelligence, combined with a robotic military force to protect property rights and eradicate the Leftist virus.

This, truth and freedom are on the left side of the political spectrum

His work is extremely political.

Left-wing intellectuals in France spent decades heralding the Soviet Union and Stalin as the leaders of progressive mankind, calling anti-communists human beings lower than dogs, and saying that the revolution was just around the corner and would bring freedom and prosperity to us all.

When that didn't happen, they took refuge in postmodernism to pretend they were never wrong. The entire work of people like Deleuze, Guatari, Foucault, Debord, Baudrillard, Lyotard, etc, is really about trying their hardest to deny the reality that communism was an unmitigated disaster compared to Western capitalism.

In this topsy turvy marxist world, the real rebels are the kids who don't swear go to church every sunday and respect the SHIT out of cops

Just a related note but I wouldn't say that given the political undertones especially in capitalism & schizophrenia. It's not on the nose, it's abstract but it's there. He probably gets the most political in the short postscript to 'socities of control' cidadeinseguranca.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/deleuze_control.pdf

What was 1968 then? there was a sizeable non stalinist left contingent. Debord saw the USSR as only a more centralized form of spectacular domination, not a model to follow

but that's not Deleuze, that's Farttini, they are not the same!

>Muh redpill
>not an argument
>not a point
>not an idea
>not anything
Just stop posting if you are literally going to press enter after typing one meme buzzword.

>What was 1968 then?

The first colour revolution where an anti-NATO politician got deposed by useful idiots.

>Debord saw the USSR as [...] not a model to follow

An easy opinion to have in the 1960s, not so much in the 1940s.

Dude conspiracies lmao.

First of all, the soviet union was a state capitalist system, the state owned the means of production and they didn't get rid of any of the fundamental mechanisms of capitalism. That doesn't make the failed project of the SU any less terrible but it's an important distinction for less orthodox marxists. And Deleuze and Foucault (who arguably wasn't even a marxist) sure as hell weren't orthodox marxists that defended the soviet union. There were a lot of french intellectuals that were hardcore maoists though, Badiou for example. And Badiou actually attacked Deleuze because he thought Deleuze wasn't Maoist enough.

>the soviet union was a state capitalist system

Why didn't Sartre, Merleau-Ponty or Simone de Beauvoir realize that, though? Why did it take until the 1960s for French Marxist intellectuals to stop defending the Soviet Union?

Marxists suffer from brain damage.

Because they were true heroes. And in fact they were defending the Chinese Revolution, which most people say was worse.

What do you mean?

French Marxist intellectuals are humans like everybody else, you could fill entire pages of capitalist US intellectuals defending the US's atrocities. To actually answer your question, I think there was a lot of wishful thinking placed on the SU, given that the revolution had failed to materialize in europe so a lot of them were willing to look away when it came to certain things. Recognizing the SU for what it was meant throwing away a huge amount of ideology, it's not an easy step to take.

I mean that Guattari and Deleuze were two different people are not Deguattleuze or Deleuttari as anglo-american academics seem to think

True, the essay I linked is just Deleuze though and fairly political. (of course, given that it's Deleuze, it's still fairly abstract)

those guys were a completely different generation. There were surprisingly few tankies in the 60s new left. It was more libertarian or even anarchistic in tone. Maoism came later when the movement was already in decline

those authors arent exactly anti-capitalist. their thoughts can apply even to non-capitalist states in history. so youre pretty much generalizing. a lot of the right today share some of these guy's thoughts. instead of pitting them into a football game try to see how their models of thinking can birth new ideas.

>Only through an authoritarian Christian state can true masculine freedom be realized
Is this bait?

Why do people think this? Deleuze's critique of psychoanalysis was visible in his early works, as was his political leaning. The desiring machines/assemblages/flows stuff was an obvious development on the BwO and Nietzschean-Spinozist stuff anyway. In what way did Guattari "corrupt" (or whatever word you'd like to use) Deleuze?

Again, they weren't trying to rape Freud's corpse until it desintegrated so holding them to that task is unwarrented.

You're viewing the entirety of Deleuze's corpus through the prism of Anti-Oedipus

The reason is because we're all Lacanians

Obviously, it should be well known that only Islam is a masculine religion, even Hitler saw this.

But my point was that it works both ways. Besides, there's more to D&G than just Anti-Oedipus.

Can Philosophy ever recover from the French?