ArisVelouchiotis posted:so i'm not the only one who follows jimmy buffett on twitter
a quick update
TheIneff posted:why is hoxha's hand twice as big as his face
dialectics
stegosaurus posted:LLCO's argument against the MIM line on gender went something like "just try taking this line to the masses." and I was like is this real. is that an argument that techno stalinist people with the worst case of commie tone who have elevated to a political principle the idea of alienating everyone around them, is that really the argument they're trying to make.
after LLCO was launched they actually deliberately tried to distance themselves from some of the more nutty MSH stuff by like using less images promoting the murder of women for shopping and more images of smiling brown women in fields but they didn't really change their line at all just changed the graphics and tone a bit. so they were like hey we're just one voice among others and we know we have to work with real people in the antiwar movement in america, but like it was sort of confusing because they still thought the first world was a fascist nightmare parasite land worthy of scattering to the ends of the earth. although truth be told i guess i've taken the same route lol.
TheIneff posted:why is hoxha's hand twice as big as his face
well from what i remember from grade school, it means he has cancer
littlegreenpills posted:le_nelson_mandela_face posted:littlegreenpills posted:everything bad and everything good in the world is the fault of capitalism because we live in a capitalist world i dont see whats difficult about this or how acknowledging the dialectical interaction of class oppression with other sites of oppression is somehow letting it off the hook
most human sickness not only predates capitalism and is separate from it, it was actually worse in the premodern period
ya the moon also existed before capitalism
under capitalism posted:all sex is rape
all transactions are theft
all communications are insults
all women are golddiggers
gyrofry posted:whats wrong with murdering women for shopping
that woman who thought charter schools were maoist won't come back if you guys keep this shit up!
http://thecharnelhouse.org/2014/02/02/postmodern-origins-of-intersectionality/
i think it's easily possible that the worker elite is shifting from being headquartered in one white superregion to being a layer across much of the world. this is actually partially an achievement of national liberation movements and partially part of the globalization of capital. this may hollow out europe and its offshoots as more as part of a grinding process of austerity and joblessness. i mean look at inequality in southern europe in terms of mass unemployment, privatization and service cuts. more countries could look like brazil and nigeria and south africa and such where there are huge slums contrasted with a middle class and an elite.
so i guess organizing within the first world can still be effective in terms of identifying contradictions between various poles of capital, identifying the needs of the hard core of the proletariat and poor within the first world, resisting the security state, linking up with national and aboriginal movements within our borders, etc. even if it's a long process to build more radical changes.
- continued creation of a future worker elite in countries currently without political or economic stability, through NGO work doled out to the locals
daddyholes posted:reminder that the Western press is still quoting Syrian Observatory on Human Rights every day after it was revealed that its just one Syrian expat in London with a series of false identities
that's my favorite technique for bootstrapping yourself to pseudo-legitimacy. it's elegant, beautiful. every account that upvotes my posts is actually me 
roseweird posted:i don't know what that means but it makes you sound really creepy
How, then, do we pass from animal sexuality (instinctual coupling) to properly human sexuality? By submitting animal sexuality (its “life instinct”) to death drive. Death drive is the transcendental form which makes sexuality proper out of animal instincts. In this sense, the disengaged indifferent de-libidinalized subject effectively is the pure subject of death drive: in it, only the empty frame of death drive as the formal-transcendental condition of libidinal investments survives, deprived of all its content. It is weird that Malabou, who otherwise quotes Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition in her book, ignores these passages which directly bear on her topic, providing an elegant solution to her question of why Freud was unable to find positive representations of death drive.
Overdoing it a bit, perhaps, one is tempted to say that this subject deprived of its libidinal substance is the “libidinal proletariat”. When Malabou develops her key notion of “destructive plasticity,” of the subject who continues to live after its psychic death (the erasure of the narrative texture of its symbolic identity that sustain its libidinal investments and engagements), she touches the key point: the reflexive reversal of the destruction of form into the form acquired by destruction itself. In other words, when we are dealing with a victim of Alzheimer’s, it is not merely that his awareness is severely constrained, that the scope of his Self is diminished – we are literally no longer dealing with the same Self. After the trauma, ANOTHER subject emerges, we are talking to a stranger.
This may appear to be the very opposite of what goes on in a Hegelian dialectical process, in which we are dealing with a continuous metamorphosis of the same substance-subject which develops in complexity, mediates and “sublates” its content into a higher level: is the whole point of the dialectical process not that, precisely, we never go through a zero-point, that the past content is never radically erased, that there is no radically new beginning? However, in a properly Hegelian-Freudian-Lacanian way, one should draw a radical conclusion: subject is AS SUCH the survivor of its own death, a shell which remains after it is deprived of its substance – this is why Lacan’s math- em for subject is $ – the barred subject. It is not that Lacan CAN think the rise of a new subject surviving its death/disintegration – for Lacan, subject as such is a “second subject,” formal survivor (the surviving form) of the loss of its substance, of the noumenal X called by Kant the “I or he or it (the thing) that thinks”.
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/descartes-subject/
babyhueypnewton posted:roseweird posted:
i don't know what that means but it makes you sound really creepy
How, then, do we pass from animal sexuality (instinctual coupling) to properly human sexuality? By submitting animal sexuality (its “life instinct”) to death drive. Death drive is the transcendental form which makes sexuality proper out of animal instincts. In this sense, the disengaged indifferent de-libidinalized subject effectively is the pure subject of death drive: in it, only the empty frame of death drive as the formal-transcendental condition of libidinal investments survives, deprived of all its content. It is weird that Malabou, who otherwise quotes Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition in her book, ignores these passages which directly bear on her topic, providing an elegant solution to her question of why Freud was unable to find positive representations of death drive.
Overdoing it a bit, perhaps, one is tempted to say that this subject deprived of its libidinal substance is the “libidinal proletariat”. When Malabou develops her key notion of “destructive plasticity,” of the subject who continues to live after its psychic death (the erasure of the narrative texture of its symbolic identity that sustain its libidinal investments and engagements), she touches the key point: the reflexive reversal of the destruction of form into the form acquired by destruction itself. In other words, when we are dealing with a victim of Alzheimer’s, it is not merely that his awareness is severely constrained, that the scope of his Self is diminished – we are literally no longer dealing with the same Self. After the trauma, ANOTHER subject emerges, we are talking to a stranger.
This may appear to be the very opposite of what goes on in a Hegelian dialectical process, in which we are dealing with a continuous metamorphosis of the same substance-subject which develops in complexity, mediates and “sublates” its content into a higher level: is the whole point of the dialectical process not that, precisely, we never go through a zero-point, that the past content is never radically erased, that there is no radically new beginning? However, in a properly Hegelian-Freudian-Lacanian way, one should draw a radical conclusion: subject is AS SUCH the survivor of its own death, a shell which remains after it is deprived of its substance – this is why Lacan’s math- em for subject is $ – the barred subject. It is not that Lacan CAN think the rise of a new subject surviving its death/disintegration – for Lacan, subject as such is a “second subject,” formal survivor (the surviving form) of the loss of its substance, of the noumenal X called by Kant the “I or he or it (the thing) that thinks”.
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/descartes-subject/
babyhueypnewton posted:roseweird posted:i don't know what that means but it makes you sound really creepy
How, then, do we pass from animal sexuality (instinctual coupling) to properly human sexuality? By submitting animal sexuality (its “life instinct”) to death drive. Death drive is the transcendental form which makes sexuality proper out of animal instincts. In this sense, the disengaged indifferent de-libidinalized subject effectively is the pure subject of death drive: in it, only the empty frame of death drive as the formal-transcendental condition of libidinal investments survives, deprived of all its content. It is weird that Malabou, who otherwise quotes Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition in her book, ignores these passages which directly bear on her topic, providing an elegant solution to her question of why Freud was unable to find positive representations of death drive.
Overdoing it a bit, perhaps, one is tempted to say that this subject deprived of its libidinal substance is the “libidinal proletariat”. When Malabou develops her key notion of “destructive plasticity,” of the subject who continues to live after its psychic death (the erasure of the narrative texture of its symbolic identity that sustain its libidinal investments and engagements), she touches the key point: the reflexive reversal of the destruction of form into the form acquired by destruction itself. In other words, when we are dealing with a victim of Alzheimer’s, it is not merely that his awareness is severely constrained, that the scope of his Self is diminished – we are literally no longer dealing with the same Self. After the trauma, ANOTHER subject emerges, we are talking to a stranger.
This may appear to be the very opposite of what goes on in a Hegelian dialectical process, in which we are dealing with a continuous metamorphosis of the same substance-subject which develops in complexity, mediates and “sublates” its content into a higher level: is the whole point of the dialectical process not that, precisely, we never go through a zero-point, that the past content is never radically erased, that there is no radically new beginning? However, in a properly Hegelian-Freudian-Lacanian way, one should draw a radical conclusion: subject is AS SUCH the survivor of its own death, a shell which remains after it is deprived of its substance – this is why Lacan’s math- em for subject is $ – the barred subject. It is not that Lacan CAN think the rise of a new subject surviving its death/disintegration – for Lacan, subject as such is a “second subject,” formal survivor (the surviving form) of the loss of its substance, of the noumenal X called by Kant the “I or he or it (the thing) that thinks”.
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/descartes-subject/
