Worth dying for

N

nomadologist

Guest
hundredmillionlifetimes said:
Here we go again [the real intent of your tired ravings] ... D&G's anti-capitalism is now in question because Land is now a right-wing looney and the IDF are supposedly 'using' their ideas. Yeah, and Nietzsche was a Nazi ...

And the IDF, fortunately, are far from being beyond our control, numbnut.
Click to expand...

I've finally realized that it's not even worth responding to people who are this delusional.
 
T

trouc

trouc
cheers dHarry. I've been working through volume 2 of Braudel's "civilisation and capitalism" and I'm sure that's where part of my point 3 came from.

for hundredmillionlifetimes, if they could admire genghis khan, I'm sure they could admire the IDF, particularly since most anti-israel thought is humanist in nature. It's childish to not see the connections, they are there, and frankly, yes, fascists seem to have more use for people like Foucault or D&G than anyone on the left. Examples of this abound, whether it's Muslim fundamentalists or neocons here in the US. To ignore this is just to fantasize.

Anyway, if you think D&G set themselves against capitalism I don't think you've been reading them enough.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

Here it comes again. "D&G didn't set themselves against capitalism"

WHAT ABOUT THEIR INTERVIEW CALLED, "CAPITALISM: A VERY SPECIAL DELERIUM"?
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
vimothy said:
EDIT: Not epistomological, episteme-ic perhaps, in the Foucauldian sense - somehow characterising, representing, embodying or affecting aspects of an episteme / aeon or epistomological order...

How is "Capital" now different to C/capital in the 1960s? Is this a technical, financial difference, in your opinion, or more metaphysical? Ever read any Howard Bloom?
Click to expand...

There is nothing "Foucauldian" about that sense of the word epistemic.

Howard Bloom is a complete hack, Vim.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
dHarry said:
Anyone read Delanda on Braudel's theory that "Capitalism" as a term should be abandoned as it fails to take account of its top-down control of "free" markets (He's also a D&G fan, so the antimarket/market idea is roughly analogous to striated/smooth space, arborescent/rhizomatic etc.)?
Emphases mine.
http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/de_landa/antiMarkets.html
Click to expand...

All of this only makes Marx more right, not D&G less.

The analogy between smooth/striated (both forms of muscle tissue, rememeber--smooth muscle is in the uterus, straited in the arms, legs, etc.) and markets/antimarkets is a terrible one. The entire point of "smooth" space is that it can't be commodified or stratified the way striated space can. It is everything that is outside markets.
 
T

trouc

trouc
nomadologist said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

Here it comes again. "D&G didn't set themselves against capitalism"

WHAT ABOUT THEIR INTERVIEW CALLED, "CAPITALISM: A VERY SPECIAL DELERIUM"?
Click to expand...

If you'd been reading the thread rather than spewing Lunchables all over your monitor, I think my point would be a little clearer, which is again, that D&G are anti-capitalist & anti-corporatist, not necessarily anti-capitalism (to the extent that it can be seperated from those two). I think they have an intense admiration for capitalism as a process.

ps- you don't need to school me on the meaning of strict constructionism, a Brooklyn education doesn't set you that far apart.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
What the fuck are you talking about? We've spoken extensively about this on Dissensus, you're hardly bringing up some sort of "new" point, dear. D&G are EXPLICITLY anti-CAPITALIST. Read Mille Plateaux, preferably in French.

And which one are you? Vimothy, or Mr. Tea, under another ID?

Why are you assuming I received my education in Brooklyn? That's awfully silly of you.
 
T

trouc

trouc
I've been reading that book since you were pumping MBV in high school, so cut the crap. I don't have time to read through every single thread here, I'm making a distinction that seems relevant to THIS discussion.
 
N

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
trouc said:
If you'd been reading the thread rather than spewing Lunchables all over your monitor, I think my point would be a little clearer, which is again, that D&G are anti-capitalist & anti-corporatist, not necessarily anti-capitalism (to the extent that it can be seperated from those two).
Click to expand...
I think your point would have clearer if you'd actually said that rather than saying something completely different.

:rolleyes:
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
My Bloody Valentine? Yeah, that's it.

You really have a lot of insight into my personality. Please, tell me more.

That distinction is NOT relevant, it's sophomoric to the extreme.

Try reading source texts rather than secondary ones, dumbass.
 
T

trouc

trouc
Noel,

this is an explicit quote from my first comment upthread

3, it's off base to read D&G as against capitalism anyway. It seems more appropriate to see them as anti-capitalist and anti-corporatist

something unclear on that ?
 
T

trouc

trouc
nomadologist said:
My Bloody Valentine? Yeah, that's it.

You really have a lot of insight into my personality. Please, tell me more.

That distinction is NOT relevant, it's sophomoric to the extreme.

Try reading source texts rather than secondary ones, dumbass.
Click to expand...

nomad, I'm not gonna get in a dick swinging match with you on who's read what, but suffice it to say I've spent my fair share of time on both AE and MP. If you want to make a point, then do it, stop telling me I haven't read a book that's sitting on my fucking nightstand
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Yes. The fact that it flagrantly ignores about 90% of Mille Plateaux, not to mention What is Philosophy, Postscript on the Societies of Control, Nomadology (the excerpt), just about EVERYTHING D&G ever wrote.
 
T

trouc

trouc
nomadologist said:
Why don't you go read it then, and come back?
Click to expand...

HAHA. Wooh.

%90? Look, if you can't see that every single resistive structure or technique they lay out is derived directly from capitalism's processes then, well, yeah, that's the problem with being a strict constructionist: it means you're an idiot.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Ha, you're obviously not American like your Myspace is pretending you are. Americans put the percentage sign after numbers.

Give it up, Vim.

A Vim by any other name is just as obvious and ill-read.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
trouc said:
HAHA. Wooh.

%90? Look, if you can't see that every single resistive structure or technique they lay out is derived directly from capitalism's processes then, well, yeah, that's the problem with being a strict constructionist: it means you're an idiot.
Click to expand...

Excuse me?? Every single "resistive" "structure" or "technique" they lay out is not "derived" from capitalism. Maybe virally infected with it. But not "derived" in any sense of the word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top