Gabriel Rockhill and the participants in the Critical Theory Workshop's Summer Program (July 14, 2020). The topic of the discussion is “The Myth of the ’68 Thinkers: Historical Commodity Fetishism and Imperial French Theory.”
I came to the US from a socialist country in 1988 curious to find out about all these exciting names of Derrida, Foucault, Lacan, Deleuze, Spivak... the whole shebang... did a lot of studying and writing informed by them and their discourse, eventually abandoning them and turning to true Marxist (Lukacs, Hobsbawm, Fanon, Parenti, Gramsci, Ngugi wa Thiong'o, Rodney, early Soviet) thought. I had no use for those post/structuralists/postmodernists coopted by the system. By the end of 90s, I abandoned the field of literary studies completely and moved on. I am so happy that finally!!! someone is figuring this out. This is music to my ears! Kudos!
I’m new to the Marxian critique of capitalism, so a lot of what I’ve learned is coming from whatever I can find on RU-vid! It’s almost impossible to find a socialist organization in my state. Everyone around me thinks that I’m crazy and that I should just stop talking!
@@victorialeif9266Keep studying Marx, Engels, Lenin and apply to understanding the place your in. Work with working class people who are in struggle, and support their struggle.
I really hope the info you are throwing out is going to be in a book. You have a massively important informative slew of data, definitions and relational threads that flow out of your brain. Love it all. B
As a feminist, artist and activist the methodological frame of the postmodernists was an is still useful. I wouldn't have evolved that much without it. I am also Romanian and I have a deeply felt critique of the Russian imperialism as well. People from that part of the world were caught for centuries between imperialist fights. My critique of the critique of the critique reached an essentialist moment where if I could I would dismantle all the embeded material hierarchical attidutes in both individual psychology and collective patterns. One of the most useful methodological tool I engaged with is the "politics of location" from the feminist colonial critique that helped me authotheorize the intricate position within the capitalistic structure of me as a poor s-e european white woman and deeply understand other life tragedies. I am fascinated and deeply attracted by Gabriel's intellectual critique and activism. But I see a danger in using this positioning as a discarding of all the queer, feminist and black studies contribution to the Capitalist ideology critique. We will reach nowhere without empathy for the need to hear the marginalized voices. Politics of location is a refreshing tool. It is not discarding the hegemonic critique, nor the embeded oppression that comes with holding a certain identity of exclusion in a hierarchical, violent system. I wish to see more male intellectual theorists who include more of the feminist methodologies and the amazing unapologetically thought advancements of people in this field.
Yea we need more feminists using their marginalized location within the academy and global imperialism to critique the super privileged position of white farm workers. Etc etc. The location of locaters, grad students and oppressed soon to be faculty hustlers. I like Amy goodman though, the harvard grad oppressed identity who keeps telling Norman Finkelstein who grew uo without heating that hes a privileged white male. PMC petite bourgeois idealist hustling (victimhood hustling proper) is the only material science that is taught in the academy. Cults within cults will always keep the many divided against the few, but as long as we get a few represented within the few, it is good praxis, hustle, as it were.
@@danyalghaznavi6818 I see the irony but I don't necessarily taste it :). I think the solution would be to bring together humanistic sciences in fact. I think Critical Theory and Sociology needs some Psychology infusion and vice versa. For example, my personal journey is informed by Attachment Theory as well. I think that strange or absurd discursive positioning or lack of empathy would be transgressed using Attachment Theory tools for example, without being so pessimistic about the clusters within clusters. There are roads from clusters to clusters. Contemporary Dance practice in the above d mentioned fields can add tools for connection as well.
(14:31) 'Preuves' ('Proofs') was the name of the CIA-funded journal that was edited by Raymond Aron, as part of the Congress for Cultural Freedom. Meanwhile, for francophiles in the English-speaking world, the CIA also funded the 'Paris Review,' edited by the journalist-celebrity George Plimpton.
What? That gal was so nervious I could not hardly follow a word she was saying. BLM is just the same ole game of Race-Baiters making money. THE more they get the black people excited, the more money they make.
I realize that intellectual history includes a ton of information to keep track of, so that it can be easy to treat the wider historical context in a way that oversimplifies it. And I realize that the subject of Gaullism was brought up mainly in relation to Foucault, and the contrast between his reputation as a radical and his actual political leanings. That said, though, I wouldn't want increasing our understanding of the emergence of the global theory industry to come at the expense of that of the period in which it emerged more generally. And much of the context is lost in Rockhill's offhand references to it (see 12:28-12:36, and 1:22:33-1:22:44). For starters, there's really no need for an 'according to....' (whether Marxists or anyone else) when it comes to the events that brought de Gaulle to power. It's a pretty straightforward account: On May 13, 1958, French officers in Algeria mutinied, with their troops, believing that the coalition governments of the Fourth Republic were too fractious and weak to see the war against Algerian revolutionaries to a successful conclusion. They instead placed their hopes in de Gaulle, as a military man like themselves. To end the mutinies and resolve the crisis, de Gaulle agreed to come back and serve as prime minister, but on condition that he be empowered to rule by decree for six months and, during that time, to draft a new constitution with a stronger executive, which would then be submitted to the public in a referendum. In December 1958, the public voted to approve the new constitution, establishing the Fifth Republic, and de Gaulle was elected to serve as the first president under the new system. It wasn't long, however, before it became apparent that the officers had been mistaken in expecting de Gaulle's full backing in the Algerian war, as he showed a willingness to negotiate with the Algerian nationalists, while simultaneously granting independence to several other French colonies (albeit in most cases taking the form of membership in a 'French Community,' modeled along the lines of the British Commonwealth). The officers tried to put a stop to him in 1961 by plotting to mutiny again; but this time, de Gaulle's government learned what was up so that the plotters were forced to go underground, founding what was known as the Secret Army Organization (or O.A.S. in the French acronym), which undertook plots to have him assassinated. But they had no effect in preventing France's withdrawal, and Algerian independence was recognized in 1962. There were also important ways (again, completely lost in Rockhill's comments) in which de Gaulle proved to be a thorn in the side to US empire in this period, as he sought a more independent foreign policy. While a staunch anti-communist, that didn't prevent him from recognizing that the Soviet Union had legitimate security concerns of its own. Accordingly, in 1966 -- anticipating the detente policies of the 1970s -- he made a visit to Moscow and was well received. At the same time, he took French troops out of NATO's integrated command structure (with its subordination to US officers) and ordered that NATO headquarters be moved from Paris (they were moved to Brussels in April 1967). Most significantly of all, recognizing that the willingness of France and other countries to hold on to US dollar reserves was only serving to facilitate the US's escalation of the war in Vietnam (which went against the 1954 Geneva Accords that France was party to), and US unilateralism more generally, de Gaulle began demanding payment in gold for France's dollar reserves. The trend that this helped get started internationally led to a massive loss of gold from Fort Knox, which in turn (much more than protest marches) caused splits within the US ruling class, with a faction of it deciding in favor of withdrawal from Vietnam, in order to ease the crisis of the dollar (unfortunately, Nixon and Kissinger would help lay the groundwork for a revitalized US imperialism by engineering the creation of the petro-dollar in 1973-74). Just saying, such details shouldn't be lost when considering the context in this period; and there's a good chance they could be if this discussion is confined to philosophers and intellectual historians who are focused only on their areas of expertise.
Please look at the economic base like good materialists - one key aspect of the counter revolutionary strategy of the 80s on was relocation of capital and thus the working class to China. Please discuss.
(37:29-38:00) Key summation -- the establishment of the 'global theory industry' has constituted '...an enormous conceptual coup,' which '...has served to police the left border of critique....'
I think it means that science is to be considered political. As in science itself is not entirely objective in nature and is shaped by politics. In the Marxist view this would be somewhat correct in the sense of politics deciding what type of research is conducted in a society, which types of scientific endeavors are encouraged and which ones are not, being determined by the political environment. But Foucault is probably questioning the objective findings of the research itself, not just the purpose of it which just seems ludicrous.
Can anyone make out the name of the writer (philosopher?) whom one of the questioners brings up twice -- at 1:13:32 and 1:13:52? It sounds something like 'Ockingham,' but that apparently isn't it.
@@LuisGonzalez-hs5pe Orthodox communists :) Donbas is solidly communist from what I understand, though I am sure there are many Orthodox Christians there too. And, btw. I think that the religion/communism divide will be less sharp in the future... peaceful coexistence of sorts. Just a hunch.
I actually view the alt right type stuff as the negative negative to critical negative, to proceed the integration of negative and abstract in new concrete, which will have it's negative. Perhaps Clinton to Obama is a neoliberal Concrete to new abstract sort of transition, obama creating the new dialectic. I don't know, but I like it.
I think this is a subjective leftist period, but if Hegelian spirit is true it will shift to objective. The absurdity of critical theory is only normal in dialectic, and the movement from the negative to the negative negation. What do you think?
It’s certainly relevant to critique your former teachers, but my thoughts wander to to the miserable and completely undeserved death of Rosa Luxembourg at the hands of some degenerate Nazi thugs after having been released from jail where she was placed for the crime of being an actual revolutionary and Lenin’s critique of Karl Kautsky, Karl Marx’s unfortunate hand picked successor to lead the German community (or socialist) party, whose choice not to call the workers into the streets at the opportune time I consider at least in large measure directly responsible for her untimely death. If memory serves Lenin wrote a little pamphlet about Kautsky, the title of which wasn’t hard enough on Kautsky, but Lenin didn’t live long enough to see the full extent of the enormity of the damage done, but at least at the end of the pamphlet, he called Kautsky if I recall correctly, degenerate scum. Please don’t get me wrong. Your work is a positive and needed contribution I believe, but I think it also needs a little axle grease. Thanks
overall you seem to be attacking cults of personality, not the ideas presented. so and so was involved with so an so who said to so and so and so and so and so that so and so....said to say to and so i...and so on
