US Protests & Marxist Critique of Žižek, Foucault, Arendt & the Frankfurt School, w Gabriel Rockhill
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 05. 2024
- 🔴🔴🔴
Donations of any amount help us develop our free programming 🙏🏽
Support us on Patreon, and gain access to all of our content: www.patreon.com/user?u=24730716
PayPal: criticaltheoryworkshop@protonmail.com
Venmo: @criticaltheoryworkshop
🔴🔴🔴
This discussion took place on May 2, 2024. It was co-sponsored by India & the Global Left and the Critical Theory Workshop. Here is IGL's summary:
"In this video, we have discussed the US sit-in and encampment movement in solidarity with Palestine. We have then discussed how the capitalist system produces propaganda against the Left. In this regard, Prof. Rockhill talks about the French theorists, Frankfurt School theories, the New York group of non-Marxist Left intelligentsia, and British Marxists. Finally, he offers a framework that can be an alternative to bourgeois propaganda culture."
🔴🔴🔴
For more information:
criticaltheoryworkshop.com/
/ @indiagloballeft
Comment from Gabriel Rockhill: "I did not mean to suggest that Eric Hobsbawm was simply a Trotskyist (1:09). As everyone knows, he was a longtime member of the CPGB. However, his views evolved significantly, particularly toward the end of his life. When I refer to the mistakes I think he made, I primarily had in mind a number of the public positions he took after what he referred to as the 'end of socialism' (see, for instance, the interviews available via the links below). Nevertheless, Hobsbawm was quite different than other Marxian figures in the British intelligentsia like Perry Anderson (see 1:05)."
czcams.com/video/0HQkwFSf7Wg/video.html
czcams.com/video/PFTq9pz_hFM/video.html
Wow! This guy is brilliant. Dialectical analysis at it's best.
Can't wait for the book to come out.
it's been a long time coming at least for me, to see other leftists call out frankfurt school as garbage. the frankfurt school has been extremely useful to right wing propagandists because they claim frankfurt school is marxist. sickening falsehoods abound.
What are you even talking about 😅 This person is projecting and deflecting, as a stalinist apologist himself, he's putting the blame on left libertarianism for being compatible ruling class agendas, when that's actually true of authoritarian/statist leftism. See what Prof. Chomsky has said about French critical theorists also being stalinists.
His intellectual history of traditions within Marxism is totally wrong. Listen to Chomsky for the history of world socialist movement getting divided between statist and anti statist forms. Read more of Guerin, Pannekoek and Luxembourg. Don't listen to Bolsheviks like him
Good luck
@@regaliaretailfashionmerch4314 Why would anyone care what the ideologically rigid anarchist Chomsky thinks?
@@regaliaretailfashionmerch4314😂😂
Thank you prof. Rockhill. What a great opportunity you had to observe and understand the anti-marxist intelligensia of empire. I'm glad you are one of those who continued to do real work as a philosopher and theorist to expose the opportunistic insincerity of their thought. Work that would take a lifetime to do.
The interviewer is Excelent. The interviewee is BEYOND Expectations:
Opened many doors for further research.
Thank you both.
#LONGLIVERESISTANCE
Rockhill is a ROCKSTAR! Kicking ass and taking names.
I agree
Absolutely fascinating interview, but for me as an outsider & beginner, it just raises more questions, even as it affirms things I've sensed but have been unable to articulate. For example I grew up in the 70s in the U.S., and distinctly recall as I came of age and developed an interest in radicalism, I never, not once, came across a balanced discussion of the Soviet Union or the prospects for true socialism in the U.S. Even Marx was always described merely as a fanatic, a materialist/atheist, and a rigid economic determinist proved wrong by history. Over the years I've started thinking something was missing, but to this day I remain deeply ignorant about these subjects and confused about where to begin to develop understanding. I know a little about Marx, but on historical topics related to that legendary "actually existing socialism" I don't know where to turn, since most scholarship seems to have been shaped by the priorities of western anticommunism. So now I'm left wondering: what do I make of Lenin or Stalin, for example? Encountering present-day Marxist-Leninists often just adds another layer to my perplexity, as they can be dogmatic and anti-intellectual, or quite conspiratorial regarding CIA influence.
In any case Prof. Rockhill provides many avenues for further investigation, so I hope to see more of his work in the future.
I come from a similar background. I suggest you to join a party and learn theory with the comrades.
A good place to start is Parenti's Blackshirts and Reds. He's accessible and lucid but is explicitly against the reactionary anti-Soviet "left."
Would it not be more effective and more fulfilling to read the original works of these philosophers and intellectuals rather than only joining a group? Most groups are susceptible to groupthink, and there is a big chance that very few of your comrades may have read the original works, and so would project their solipsistic utopian thoughts onto banalized understandings of second hand communications.
Conolweird. I suggest you read a book by Iain McGilchrist (UK psychiatrist, brain researcher) or listen to him one CZcams. He talks about how our left and right brain hemispheres works. In some interviews he connects left/right policies to left/right hemispheres. One focus on individualism, one on collectivism.
@ellengran6814
Thank you for mentioning Dr. Iian McGilchrist books and name.❤
excellent work. thank you sir.
A terrific interview
Good!!
This was brilliant. Questions that gave Rockhill the opportunity to expound on the different aspects of the topics at hand. Can’t wait for his book to come out.
More of Gabriel Rockhill!
This is really insightful! ❤️
What an interesting discussion?My mind learned more. Have you ever read Frantz Omar Fanon's works, "The Wretched Earth, " "Black Skin White Masks?" Dr. Lewis P. Gordon?( Sartre wasn't mentioned )
Another suggestion is Dr. Iian McGilchrist books, "The Master and His Emissary,"
The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, "The Matter With Things," 2 volumes, Our Brains and the Unmaking of the Unmaking of the Western World, and lectures of many various backgrounds and fields of higher education, sciences, philosophy, languages, religions, art and literature.
Thank you both again for a vigorous discussion.
May I also add that many of your news programs I watch also, and many others.
🙏❤️🌍🌿🕊🎵🎉🎶🎵
That's 'The Wretched *of the* Earth' (not 'The Wretched Earth').
Thanks!
Thank you--greatly appreciated!
@@criticaltheoryworkshop5299I wish you interview Norman Finkelstein and professor cornel west
Yes please meet codepink organisation and they report all us university have spend 490 to 500 billion us dollars to Israel
Just saw this. Great ideas--we'll discuss and see if they're available.
Cultural forensics is a topic rarely addressed as profoundly as this interview does. TY for your work. Professor Darrel Hamamoto, formerly teaching at UCDavis reveals much practical info re this issue in his book Servitors of Empire and in his Utube videos.
Great discussion, but might I suggest a forward-looking one with Mr Rockhill in the future? Specifically:
- AI and the coming tsunami of disinfo AND white collar job loss
- Russia and China: how will capitalism (their respective flavors) evolve in the wake of their ascendancy?
Timestamps would be good.
Hella informative!!!
Very informative!
In Brazil we have a alternative journalism channel called ICL
Very informative and interesting 🤔
Excelent!
I wonder, is it at all contradictory for Rockhill to say, on the one hand, that we mustn't regard this as a matter of US intelligence having brought into existence the intellectual currents that served its purpose, as opposed to making use of what was already developing of its own accord; while on the other hand characterizing these intellectuals strictly as 'opportunist,' as being motivated by 'exchange value' -- i.e., producing whatever their imperial paymasters wanted? The latter suggests that, without those financial incentives, these intellectuals might have gone on to produce materialist class analysis, and had positive things to say about 'actually existing socialism.' If we don't think they would have acted that way in the latter case, then wouldn't that mean that they developed their outlook for their own reasons, and thus 'opportunism' wouldn't be an accurate explanation for those views?
From what I understand, the disillusionment among west European intellectuals with the Soviet Union and Marxism was strong and deep in those years, especially after 1956. Meanwhile, they were in a context in which revolution appeared to be taking the form of national liberation struggles by colonized peoples, rather than of working-class revolt domestically -- capitalist elites in the west were being knocked back on their heels, but not in the way that Marx had predicted. In such a context, it was perhaps not surprising that their thinking -- of their own accord -- would develop in a way that was useful to the managers of US empire. But, again, that explanation would seem to work against the 'opportunist' characterization of their behavior.
I didn't manage to finish the whole video as it became clear to me that his basic tenet is rather tenuous. He seems to be suggesting that anyone found to have any connection, no matter how tangential, to the "bourgeois apparatus", is to be suspected, save those who are of little importance.
I wonder whether his heavy involvement in mainstream social media makes him any more or less suspicious.
Also I noticed a couple of times when he referred to socialism, communism and Marxism interchangeably. Sign that he himself doesn't know more about these ideas than those he seeks to critique.
wow. thats gold bro
That’s exactly what bell hooks said about Foucault and co.
Very good
Whose interpretation of the French revolution does Rockhill agree with?
He didn't say. I think it helps to consider different analyses, including Tocqueville's (which Rockhill referred to in what seemed a dismissive way). The thing is, in their own references to the French Revolution, even Marx and Engels emphasized changes in the political and legal sphere over the economic, unlike later Marxist historians (like Georges Lefebvre).
What does Gabriel mean when he said the US internationalized Fascism after WW2?
In large part, he means the US funded, trained, and gave other operational support to fascist organizations all over the world (and created them from scratch where necessary). He wrote a really good article about it in Counterpunch, called "The U.S. Did Not Defeat Fascism in WWII, It Discretely Internationalized It".
@@Dorian_sapiens Yes - even though, in the FDR and at the very start of the Truman administration, there likely were some in the U.S. bureaucracy who took at face value the talk about 'de-nazification' and fully expected that the business conglomerates behind fascism in Germany and Japan would be broken up, it wasn't long before those interests would be looked upon instead as allies in the fight against communism and the Soviet Union.
the u.s. continued colonialism. the U.S. has the EXACT SAME FOREIGN POLICY AS THE ENGLISH CROWN, and the english crown is either an ally or vassal of Rothschild bankers
European thinkers are reduced to protesting funding Israeli projects with workers' funds. It is a long way to 'forceful overthrow of imperial west'. Very respectful of Marx, no doubt.
Love Rockhill. Still don't really see a way forward.
Twain quote, if truly him "if you don't read the news you are uniformed. If you read the news you are misinformed."
Mass parties are building everywhere.
9:08
How can I find more information about this? The internet/Google is so hard to navigate in. It's seems almost impossible to find good-quality information like this. Do any of you, in the comment section, have any tips?
Here's a few I would recommend:
'Killing Hope,' by the late William Blum.
Practically any of the books and lectures (online videos) by Michael Parenti.
'The Cultural Cold War,' by Frances Stonor Saunders, is one of the standard works on that subject (it has also been published under the title, 'Who Paid the Piper?').
You might also try looking up online videos with CIA whistleblower John Stockwell.
@@ronmackinnon9374 Wow, interesting. Thanks for your extensive response! I will definitely look into everything!
Yeah, everything that can be used to filter information is used to push people toward a bourgeois narrative. For example it's impossible to search for truthful information related to the DPRK.
My experience has been that I have to proceed directly from one source to another and gradually build up my list of resources that way. Mostly this consists of names of individual scholars and journalists.
Reddit is an ultra-"leftist" cesspit but I've gotten many good links there too.
I'm being cens0red. Please contact me. You can find my contact info on the CZcams description page.
As Rockhill frequently uses the term 'spectacle,' it seems that one French intellectual of that era whom he exempts from such criticism would be Guy Debord, author of 'Society of the Spectacle.' That would be fitting, as Debord (whatever one might think of the 'Situationist International') absolutely did believe (as I understand it) in the continuing importance of Marx's analysis of capitalism and tried to update it for the world of electronic mass media.
But I'm also curious concerning an even earlier work by a French intellectual -- namely Roland Barthes' 'Mythologies', from 1957. Would Rockhill see any anti-capitalist merit in such a work, as a means of helping to expose the workings of capitalist and imperialist propaganda?
Also, on the subject of British intellectuals, I was surprised that the discussion had more to do with Marxist historians like Eric Hobsbawm and E.P. Thompson, while the cultural theorists of the so-called Birmingham school -- like Raymond Williams, Richard Hoggart, and Stuart Hall -- who would seem to be more the counterparts of the French and German critical theorists, went completely unmentioned.
At one point (just after the 43:00 mark) Gabriel describes Eric Hobsbawm as a Trotskyist. That's incorrect. Otherwise I agree with much of what he said.
What was he then? Eurocom?
outstanding historian Annie Lacroix-Riz research "L'histoire et Les historiens sous influence"
You really shouldn't trust Lacroix-Riz, one her main work re-used a far-right conspiracy theory the "synarchist conspiracy" that pretends the reason of France's military defeat against Germany in 1940 is due to an alliance between a secret esoteric society and certain technocrats. This is Vichy (the French fascist regime that help commit the holocaust) propaganda that sought to descredit the parliamentary system of the third republic and promote an authoritarian state that would purge France of it's "inner enemies" (religious minorities, foreigners, homosexuals, leftists etc...). Whenever she was critized for the way she used uncritically propagandistic sources and ignored every proof against her theory she accused her critics of being in service of the bourgeoisie. There's a balance to be found between being critical of the academia and straight up refusing scientific debate. I don't think she's intellectualy honest.
Interesting that he leaves people like Jameson and Balibar, etc.
Also not a word about Baudrillard.
Great talk, however i think the criticue of Zizek is somewhat thin and i cant realy get how Gabriel view the actual sovjet system as it was found in the eastern block and yogoslavia. Futher Ziek never hides that he thinks himself a right-marxist thinker.
22:10 funny how kke is doing exatcly the same thing today
Interesting discussion. Two points, first Prof. Rockhill has a point when he says that the Soviets promoted women's rights, rights of nationalities forming 15 republics, and supported decolonization. But the relative poverty of the ussr and focus on class and cold war didn't allow for sufficient focus on other issues. Key weakness was absence of religious freedom. Second, what does Prof. Rockhill think of dependency school gang: Gunder Frank, Samir Amin, and Emanuel Wallerstein?
Foucault was interested in a set of problems having to do with the history of systems of thought. Now if Rockhill wishes to contest some specific analysis made by Foucault why not simply do that ? For instance: Foucault's research led him to conclude that science did not arise owing to any gradual transformation of the theories of alchemy. To the contrary Foucault states that it is when the methodologies of the legal realm - its techniques for reducing evidence to the least set of mutually exclusive facts - its insight that the simplest, least complicated theory accounting for those facts is the preferred theory i.e. theoretical parsimony - were transposed from the realm of law to the realm of natural phenomenon that science emerges. Now if Rockhill wants to tell us why he thinks this is wrong, fine. But to resort to polemics rather than reason does not seem helpful. Rockhill should, it seems to me, tell us why science did in fact emerge from alchemy rather than trying to discredit Foucault by smearing him as a crypto statist.
Enjoyed this convo very much. Not sure if “tateleological” (27:40) was a stutter or new terminology. I think he meant teleological. The French anti-communist democratic socialist accounting was interesting happening likely in parallel with the intentional platforming of American artists creating abstract expressionism to undermine political content and oppose the rise Soviet Socialist Realism.
Tautological? Means circular reasoning.
@@Alloballo123 ahh ty!
Apart from the apolitical content of those artworks, another basic point of promoting such artists was simply to help win the sympathies of influential intellectuals and 'tastemakers' overseas, by showing that they were mistaken in regarding the United States as a cultural backwater of bourgeois philistines, and should instead see it as very much with the avant garde, at the front of cultural trends.
Hey Gabriel, someone pointed out to me that you referenced Arendt several times in at least one of your articles (and not in a disparaging way). It was really disconcerting! What was up with that? I can provide links if necessary, but it was with regard to Adorno leaving Benjamin to die which came from Arendt’s account. (I ask this sincerely and in good faith)
Good point. Benjamin's death is murky. He was in his forties, and not in the best physical shape. He was perhaps lucky to get as far as he did. Responsibility must remain with him and no one else.
@@jancoil4886 not an Adorno fan, just weird sourcing by GR
Adorno did let Benjamin die. Adorno was jealous and hated Benjamin. I knew Joseph Maier, Adorno 's student and although he worshipped Adorno, he admitted Adorno was not a nice man, putting it lightly.
@@jancoil4886Adorno could have helped him and didn't. If he had shown him support, things could have been different.
@@LadyRavenhaire oh yeah for sure, it’s not that I’m doubting GR’s accounting, it’s that in many circles I’ve gotten pushback on sharing CTW and GR’a articles because of two specific issues: dubious sourcing (easy example is Arendt) and close association with patsocs/nazbols (specifically Midwest Marx).
I was hoping for any clarification but I’ve been ignored on livestreams and wherever despite my goal being to more widely share GR’s work.
My issue with rockhill is that he doesn't see what is right in front of him.
Elaborate?
I am and some activists I know have been to the encampments. There are alot of gatekeepers and agents controlling students as you'd expect. This is why the students never give out flyers or even try to connect with workers. Unfortunately most of the activists who I know will not go to the encampments at all, because immediately they get asked about their views on Covid and they don't want to be attacked for their anti lockdown, anti-mandate views. Understandable. This week I'll be attending my 12th plus funeral. All were healthy. All died of aggressive cancers. All were jabbed. One friend who has gone to all of the encampments to show support is consistently attacked as a Trumpster for no other reason then the fact that he argues that covid didn't cause a recession, but that covid is just a rebranding of the flu in order to distract people from the financial collapse, which he ties in with the gen@€ide.
The students lack basic theoretical knowledge, whether in economics, understanding imperialism, or basic organizing. They are often guided by emotion which is fine, but it's not enough to create a movement. Emotions can also easily be swayed by propaganda.
Unfortunately the CIA has done a great job in polarizing our society. We no longer can have conversation at all. This is especially true of youth who refuse to engage with older adults.
I expect to be attacked for my anti-scienticism views. But if I don't say it, no one else will:
Covid was a dress rehearsal for The Pandemic Preparedness treaty. The Pandemic measures are war measures. It's so obvious! Right down to the health passports. The Nazi called their travel ID papers, health passports. Jews, gypsies, and political prisoners literally had "carriers of typhus stamped on their travel passports. WW3 is coming! But we on the Left can't have this conversation until the CIA lets us by which time it will be too late.
Lol why do you think that COVID is that important to fight against imperialism?
I have a lot of respect for Rockhill's work, but that respect has been undermined by his baseless charges that British historians E.P. Thompson and E.J. Hobsbawm were Trotskyists. While both broke with the CPGB I see no evidence to support these claims.
Hegemonic empire = freedom
Empire of spectacle! Yes! Perfect characterization. Psy-op empire
A book too
Fantastic interview. Would love to see an intellectual boxing match between Dr. Gabriel Rockhill and that whining baby Jordan Peterson. I'm sure Peterson would be crying all the way home thinking about how dirty his room is.
Liberal left destiny c n n
real left: infrared, jackson hinkle, midwestern marx
Hmmm Dissident Right say the same thing, only not as razor sharp as this guy
Far from razor sharp, those critics on the right typically take the CIA's actions at face value, seeing support for western or 'cultural' Marxism as evidence of actual CIA anti-capitalist sympathies (!), rather than as aimed in precisely the opposite direction (just as Rockhill outlines it), namely to *undermine* and *isolate* actual Marxism and material analysis and class consciousness.
Seems my reply to this comment is only visible when comments are viewed with 'Newest' selected (where you'll have to scroll down further to find this one) rather than 'Top.' And the censor likewise seems determined to keep me from re-posting to try altering it to make it visible under 'Top' view as well. Will it even allow this explanatory reply to stay visible? We shall see.
He should not use communism and state socialism interchangeably because that means that while he's critical of state capitalism in the west , he's not critical of that in Bolshevism etc. Materialist dialectics opposes state partnership with private interests in both these forms State capitalism (modern welfare state) and state socialism (Bolshevism)
I am an anarchosyndicalist. We are wary of all governmental structures. We use Ad Hoc committees which disband after the collectivist task is succeeded.
For a few years, I contemplated Trotskyism as a path, but, now, I am wary of all collectives
Amongst the projects I am working for, one is called Mutual Respect. This is another concept written in the 19th century, by the little prince, Peter Kropotkin. I think it is an adequate basis for human interactivity.
Anyway, I am not on the take. I don't get government money. And I strive for fairness and reciprocity.
Who is it whom harms most people? Governments or Individuals? Those whom seek nonproportional domination over the individual, the family and upon local populations are the creators of most Human suffering. It is not individualism/anarchism which is the problem.
Imagine a Left/Center/Right/Independent coalition which seeks ending all collectivistic tyrannies and corruptions?
Hopefully, someday...
He's quite familiar with ultra-"leftism" and how it serves the ruling class.
@@william6223 - "We [anarchosyndicalists] use Ad Hoc committees which disband after the collectivist task is succeeded." Interestingly, that is not unlike the Anti-Federalist view among some American revolutionaries and founders. Because of the East India Company, they were highly suspect of corporations. Corporations had become quasi-govenrments back then, with even many colonial governments having begun as trade corporations.
There was a common view at the time that self-governenance should only allow corporate charters to be given to temporary organizations that serve public interest, such as building a bridge or operating a hospital. Such corporate charters should only last about 20 years at most, what was considered a 'generation', so as to not enforce anything on future generations (i.e., the dead hand of ancestors).
This was a distinction between free markets and corporatism. It was thought that corporate charters should never be applied to private ventures and for-profit businesses. That is because a corporate charter is a way of givimng extra privileges and rights to organized actiivty that serves the public good. That is the original purpose of corporations before it became conflated with capitalism.
How can "state communism" even exist? That is an oxymoron, almost by definition. Compare Soviet Stalinism and Chinese Maoism to Nazi fascism, Russian oligarchy, Saudi theocracy, and American neoliberalism (the latter being either soft fascism, where big gov controls big biz, or inverted totalitarianism, where big biz owns big gov). In all six cases, a ruling elite of some variety owns, monopolizes, directs, or otherwise controls the capital (fungible wealth), land, property, industry, trade networks and policy, banks, investment funding, monetary system, overall economics, and the legal-police-military complex that maintains it all.
Aren't these all variants on state capitalism or something akin to it where the ownership caste, hereditary plutocracy, kleptocratic oligarchs, entrenched monied elite, deep state bureaucrats, corporate operatives, and/or organized lobbyists seek to manipulate and determine economic outcomes in their own favor? Isn't central to all of these a modern, industrial system based on capital as fungible wealth that is controlled by those of the same class (i.e., capitalists)? There can be no communism where a capitalist-controlling elite oppresses a disenfranchized, permanent underclass that's only valued for the exploitation of their labor, as is or was the case in six examples.
@@MarmaladeINFP "Communism" can refer either to a post-scarcity society where class oppression is impossible, or it can refer to the revolutionary scientific socialist movement led by the working class as distinguished from other nominally left movements that are not revolutionary and are dominated by the middle class (Social Democracy, Anarchism, Ultra "Left"-Communism, etc) . Paul Cockshott has a video on this exact topic, titled "Defining Terms" if you're interested.
The USSR and the PRC had/have been ruled by a dictatorship of a workers' party (the level of worker participation in which has been highly variable and debatable but they are nonetheless still "socialist" in the marxist sense for this reason).
I would argue that the modern Russian Federation fits the term "State Capitalist". The means of production are owned by a state with a bourgeois form (ie elections are bought by corporations, everything we're accustomed to).
What a great response to the question of nuances and how the collaborators of Imperialism might have brought on so called important works that the Imperial culture/propaganda industry propagates. What did those works do? Propagate Identity politics, at least in India, the whole of Marxist discourses have been rendered into cultural marxism and idpol.
He's saying that Foucault and French critical theorists stood for a ruling class compatible form of Left like anarchism or libertarian socialism. No problem with the first part but wrt the second part-- No, Foucault stood for state leftism which is MORE compatible with ruling class and bourgeois state capitalism because it's not real left like anarchism. And no, anarchism and libertarian Marxism are not more compatible with state socialism /capitalism.
Yes,
This we see currently in the West. Bureaucratic collectives cause most wars, and maintain centralized control. Aka, totalitarianism.
You're petty bourgeois anti communist. Anarchism and libertarian Marxism does not exist in real life, nor make sense in theory.
But was not Foucault the very one to characterize the university system in terms of its function in 'bureaucratizing' knowledge, as an institution whose bureaucracies resolve the problem of what does and does not constitute 'truth', of what is admissible and what is inadmissible as truth ? Foucault in fact analyzed this problem at considerable length. One is left to wonder why on earth Rockhill is taking the very analysis given us by Foucault and trying to use it now to discredit Foucault.
Because Foucault is an imperialist tool
@@mrbrex95 Question: So in his book 'Society Must Be Defended' Foucault wrote, 'While colonization, with its techniques and its political and juridical weapons, obviously transported European models to other continents, it also had a considerable boomerang effect on the mechanisms of power in the West, and on the apparatuses, institutions, and techniques of power. A whole series of colonial models was brought back to the West, and the result was that the West could practice something resembling colonization, or an internal colonialism, on itself.' How are you able to read such a Foucauldian text as this and reach the conclusion that Foucault was 'an imperialist tool' ?
Why "use" the protests to discuss various left factions?? There is hardly any insightful analysis of the protests; there really need not be, in fact, any tortured leftist analysis of legitimate resistance. These students will be able to articulate their cause better...
Ok let's start with this questions to these very articulate students. How do you propose to overthrow religio-fascist Hamas? What leftist Palestinian organizations or traditions do you positively support?
The dominant position of pro-palestinian protestors is to limit their analysis to a critique of Israel, with no positive program to assert. The politics of negation is a very weak politic.
We need to apply this analysis to Fanon...but ya'll aint ready for that conversation ;)
I'm not sure I understand your point, your comment is a bit vague. But, if you're suggesting that Fanon, like the purveyors of French Theory, is a sort of "ruling class plant" with backwards ideas falsely presented as left-wing, meant to ensnare and dissipate the revolutionary momentum of the working and oppressed classes―this is incorrect.
In Fanon's case, what's going on is recuperation. Opponents and distorters of his work have laid a claim to it and now present it in a completely declawed and anti-materialist form. And, because these distorters are part of the culture industry, they are often successful at passing off their ineffectual, liberal pseudo-Fanon as the real thing to those who haven't bothered with his work itself and what it means in context. They're doing to Fanon what the French Theory hucksters did to Marx.
But perhaps that is your point.
@@Dorian_sapiens Just like the recuperators have defanged Gramsci of his historical materialism to make his use safe for capitalism.
@@thedualtransition6070 💯
CZcams algorithms pushing this Rockhill character so you know you are being fed points to water down the elements.
I think you said nothing
I like Rockhill but criticising actually existing socialism doesn't mean you're anti-marxist. There are serious flaws that need addressing and just fawning over MLs isn't going to help things. And no it's objectively incorrect to label western-Marxism as reactionary or revisionist. Have you actually read Trotsky? The guy, like most Leninists basically treated him like the second coming of Christ. The main reason why ML's are cult adjacent is because they believe the word of Lenin to be true without any actual dialectical materialist analysis. And finally if all the "actually existing socialisms" are so different, which they are, then by definition it means that some of them are doing it wrong. Also not criticising them is literally liberal as fuck like when you don't respond to something stupid a person of colour said out of second hand guilt. You guys are doing the ML version of identity politics. Finally, did you ever stop to think that the material conditions of supposedly flawed and inferior western Marxists make it the only way to wage class struggle. That's basically the same argument MLs use for doing literally anything they want.
i don’t see how this dude is “rockstar!” where’s his critique on scamdemic?!
I've responded twice to your comment, but each time my response has been removed. The fact my comments are removed repeatedly shows, Rockhill must also be controlled opposition, because why would someone promoting Marxist Dialectics be censoring someone's comment on the Pandemic Preparedness Treaty? Very disappointing!
Please check my CZcams description for contact info. I'm being censored and can't answer you.
Pay attention to the critique on control under neofeudal capitalism