>>25510398Leftists are technically still terrified of turning to althusser just as much as rightoids. I recognized your hailing but what does that say about you? Isn't that the issue that drives both sides away from him?
>>25510405He would have gone to prison for it but his communist students threatened to riot and the government had to appease them
His thought remains useful regardless of actions
>>25510425The dull compulsions of labor mean nothing to me. I say this without any clinical dispassion, it is easy to say his wife deserved better. This compulsion isn't satisfactory? The actions one takes in compulsion to ideology are usually rationalized away, as you have just performed. The escape route is excruciating, and this can't be rationalized away. Go back to making stirner threads.
>Time for our William Tell routine!
That's not Ted Hughes
>>25510398Marxist intellectualism is a complete scam. These people are not great and deep thinkers and scholars and they have nothing of worth to say.
>>25510437His actions were useful. His thoughts are worthless.
>>25510747Your opinion has been recognized. You are valid. Father Prager and Catturd love you
>>25511181>The idea that such countries should immediately decentralize and abolish their own state and democratically empower the entire population while under attack by imperialism amounts to insisting that, in order to be considered truly socialist, they must create the objective conditions for their own defeat
>>25511281Powerful. Brave. Really makes you think.
>>25510398>Lindsay ClancyYou literally need Talibans style control over women in the west now, the fact that women are defending this woman free and their husbands are not breaking their ribs and jaws shows how cucked the west is. There has never been a more gynozog place than the west now
>>25510398>"Terminate her, with extreme prejudice."
>>25510405i'm not afraid of shilling him. foucault's work is just reheated althusser with some nietzsche and gay shit thrown in
>>25511281What do you think Rockhill's political views are? I assume that you haven't read the book, but it is specifically a critique of western Marxism because the author is a Marxist-Leninist
>>25512129You're a retard, that goes without saying. Get back to polishing wangs and worrying about circumcision.
>>25512101>>25512114Ben Wishaw lookin ahh nukka
>>25510398He did nothing wrong btw
>>25510425prisons are a gay psyop though read foucault
I really don't understand why so many people here can't sympathize with these types of people, they committed terrible crimes sure but they only act that way because of mental illness.
>>25512101Oh yeah let me let cops kill me in a shootout. Genius move.
>>25512281i dont know what they are but he seems to be a successful critic
I'm warming to althusser and "structural marxism" as I get older.>>25512129>foucault's work is just reheated althusser with some nietzsche and gay shit thrown inlol yes.
>>25510398>The male Lindsay Clancynah. French Talcott Parsons. Nobody likes to admit it, now that functionalism is so thoroughly unfashionable, but the similarities between them are hard to ignore.
>>25512101All you third worlders do is complain about us, worry about your own country
>>25515487Renée Good's death made your clitty leak that hard?
>>25512129>>25515567Since this seems to be a growing sentiment I'll try and explain why this isn't remotely accurate for the purposes you likely think it is. First I will go ahead and tell you that you both are close to 2/3 of the way there, I mainly mean this in the sense that both Althusser and Foucault engaged in structuralist thinking and both were influenced by Nietzsche. In this sense neither of you are wrong but the missing 1/3 is where neither of you can offer any rebuttal and this is mostly due to ignorance. The last 1/3 is how both of them respond to Marx. Foucault basically rejected most of the conventional methods and what little he didn't reject he mostly stuck to what could be analogously referred to as nominalism. His critiques were overwhelmingly used and enjoyed popularity. This isn't to say Althusser did not have any critiques of conventional Marxism, he did, and his critiques are still more controversial than Foucault's albeit considerably less well known. Althusser didn't have the same goal, he was updating it, and I mean he extensively updated and overhauled it, entirely the product of one thinker. If you subscribe to his updated methods then you could argue you have a workable version as close to the original orthodox methods as has been produced since Marx put pen to paper. The structuralist portions can be used anywhere by anyone, but you shouldn't mistake this for a dilution, the apparatus may not have been popular at the time but if Foucault is rapidly falling out of favor then you will likely start to see Althusser's critiques resurface.
