version
Well-known member
That, I can't disagree with.
Do we really want out?
Murphy
cat malogen
Nigel wants everyone in his Great British Pyramid®
fortuneandfreedom.com
“Britain’s Great Wealth Revival” – my crusade for your financial future | Investor's Daily
Today is the beginning of something very exciting. Something I care a lot about. And I hope you will too. Unknown to all but a…
fortuneandfreedom.com
woops
is not like other people
on a good day
woops
is not like other people
The result of Universal Basic Income isn't a utopia, it's a load of people trying to figure out how to nick someone else's Universal Basic Income. not that I think that's an argument against it
xenogoth
looking for an exit
Such was Lyotard's critique of critique, even of Marx — the reason he never finished Capital was because he couldn't bring himself to. Always elongating his argument so he didn't critique himself out of a job.
It's very easy to be cynical about putting out Mark's final lectures, attaching the same argument to it, as this thread shows, but if you take a look at what some in this thread have been throwing glib remarks at, you'll find Mark is asking all the same questions. Not "if we take acid, we can get out for a bit", but "what if that kind of radical shift in perspective, in consciousness, was permanent; do we really want what we say we want?"
The reason for putting them out is to give his project that depth, which it has otherwise been denied because of its unfinished nature. It might not have all the answers but its asking many of the same questions presented by some people here — albeit in good faith, rather than bad.
shiels
_
Oh good, you’re here. Sorry I was lied to, was told you ran it.
Enjoying this book of yours, and it obviously touches on the thread question
@thirdform is nothing to be afraid of i've come to enjoy his abuse, he's really lovely actually
I meant an outside to desire. An outside to wanting to be admired and to dominate or be dominated etc. The point of this book is to say that capitalism is very good at chanelling reproducing our desire. It has us captured, so we need to build a post capitalist desire from the inside, through it
The left attack has been a kind of total rejection, moralising and pious based on resistance, reaction, oppoosition (corbyn coudnt get out of this chatter) and in some cases fantasies of some primitive return to the forest. But these lectures are saying that the left has to get ballsy, tap into that sexual and aggressive energy, and aesthetics, chic... and be more bold and exciting and affirmative, embrace the hypocrisy and conflict
@xenogoth can explain it better
We are seeing more of this sassiness come through.. dirtbag, red scare and that's what i meant on the brooklyn mafia thread with the tension to reconcile sexual desire and glamour alongside egalitarian beliefs
The point that these things are incompatible, that rudewhy is making, is a variation of 'you have an iphone yet' and should get the response 'and what?'. his response is also libidinal, he's jealous. luke wants a book deal, craner wants a book deal, thirdform definitely wants a fucking book deal
luka
Well-known member
You scared him off lol!
shiels
_
Did I?
luka
Well-known member
This is nested. Basically it depends where you max out. If you get good at this then you can become a certain thing like a dominator class build
but if you manage to extricate yourself from those dog wolf instincts you can access the higher echelons of control
shiels
_
Too serene!! Well I'm here to learn from the best mate. Luka agrees with you actually
I thought it had to do with the 3 cubic metres of notes Marx left at his death on the Obshchina and his ethnological notebooks. Silly me, being historical.
That's not rudewhy's point. His point that the left is an empty signifier hollowed of all content. it doesn't exist outside of this academic/bourgeois socialite matrix. And he's right, probably where we see eye to eye.
He takes the opposite pathway to me though. The left is dead would be an adequate remix of James Brown is dead.
It doesn't matter if the left gets ballsy, if it has orgies in yer living room because it is not an *active* force in the majority of society. Not even passively. That is what your myopia (and it is a myopia) is missing. The book starts from the wrong premises, that there is still a project called the left that itself stands as an antagonist to oppose capitalism. It's not 1974. Anything todays purported leftists say is far to the right of Ted Heath. Reckon with that before anything else.
luka
Well-known member
Basically Shiels you can ignore politics and sign up to my programme of applied gnosis or you can keep the politics and go with third but beware, he will make you read books, really long boring books. And give you tests to make sure you've really read them. Those are your options. Or you can go with Rudewhy which means no reading, just white wine, scallops, and voting Tory. Which is probably the most rational route
The red scare, chapo trap house, brooklyn lot are not transgressive to anyone other than those who attach value to cultural kitsch. and postmodern kitsch is the ruling ideology of the victory of fascist totalitarianism. That is to say, fascists were defeated on the battlefield, but the state militarisation of all social life, economic dirigism etc continued well into today. I am not afraid of Anna K, Matt Christman or whoever these people are. They do not frighten me. Their ideology is a return to 18th century moral economy. It's the equivalent of modern trad jazz ensembles. completely bumpersticker for a certain narcissistic obsessed milieu who think revolution depends on them.
You forgot the hard acid gabber torture to really crush the fury into his skull. This is what I mean though. he's too much of an aesthetic punk. He needs to surrender to machine.