K-Punk

IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
Corpsey said:
“Hitler himself is believed to have had two forms of genital abnormality: an undescended testicle and a rare condition called penile hypospadias in which the urethra opens on the under side of the penis” writes Jonathan Mayo and Emma Craigie in Hitler’s Last Day.
Click to expand...
That explains EVERYTHING
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
luka said:


craners nemisis owen hatherley weighing in here

Click to expand...

tbf Owen is sorta right here, I mean I never want to defend the guy because he likes Pulp (how execrable!) but the problem with Mark is he smoked unfiltered cigarettes (metaphorically I mean.) It's all good ripping off people but you have to do it in a genuinely disrespectful way, and he just could not. He took French ex-maoist philosophers more seriously than French philosophers took themselves.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
luka said:
i was saying to barty the other day that before i met the blogging crew id never heard anyone describe themselves as a communist. it still seems comical to me. it is comical. i think thats what John means by dodgy.
Click to expand...

Imam ahmad al-Bordigaaah predicted K-Punk accolytes in 1952 tbh. Good Italian boy, always more sci fi than the boring anglos.

1
The term “Marxism” is not used in the sense of a doctrine that was discovered and introduced by an individual named Karl Marx, but to refer to the doctrine that emerges with the modern industrial proletariat and which “accompanies” the latter throughout the entire course of a social revolution; and we continue to use the term “Marxism” despite the vast field of speculation and exploitation to which it has been subjected by a series of anti-revolutionary movements.
2
Marxism, in its sole valid definition, has three main groups of adversaries today. The first group: the bourgeoisie who proclaim the capitalist commodity type of economy to be permanent and its historical abolition and replacement by the socialist mode of production to be illusory, and consistently reject in its entirety the doctrine of economic determinism and the class struggle. The second group: the so-called Stalinist communists, who declare that they accept the Marxist doctrine of history and economics, but who advocate and defend, even in the highly developed capitalist countries, non-revolutionary demands, which are identical to, when not worse than, the politics (democracy) and economics (popular progressivism) of the traditional reformists. The third group: the self-declared advocates of the revolutionary doctrine and method who, nonetheless, attribute its current abandonment by the majority of the proletariat to defects and initial gaps in the theory that must therefore be rectified and brought up to date.
Deniers—falsifiers—modernizers. We fight against all three, and we consider the third group to be the worst of the lot.
3
The history of the Marxist left, that of radical Marxism, or more correctly, that of Marxism, consists in the successive defensive campaigns waged against every “wave” of revisionism that has attacked the various aspects of its doctrine and method, from the very commencement of its organic and monolithic formation that may be dated to the “Manifesto” of 1848. In other texts we have recorded the history of these struggles in the three historic Internationals against utopians, workerists, libertarians, reformist and gradualist social democrats, left wing syndicalists and right wing trade unionists, social patriots, and now the national or people’s communists. This struggle has affected the lives of four generations and throughout its various stages it is not to be identified with a series of names of individual persons, but with a well-defined and compact school and, in the historical sense, with a well-defined party.
4
This long, hard struggle would have lost its connection with the future resumption of the revolution if, instead of drawing the lesson of “invariance” from this struggle, it were to have accepted the banal idea that Marxism is a theory “undergoing a process of continuous historical elaboration” that changes with the changing course of events and the lessons subsequently learned. This is invariably the justification offered for all the betrayals that have accumulated since its inception, and it explains all the revolutionary defeats as well.
Click to expand...

libcom.org

The historical "invariance" of Marxism - Amadeo Bordiga

In these 26 theses presented at the Milan Meeting of the International Communist Party in 1952, Amadeo Bordiga sets forth his conception of the “invariance” of Marxism, utilizing colorful examples from the histories of religion, mythology, ideology and science as well as the class struggle...
libcom.org libcom.org
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
shiels friends are not mere deniers like rudewhy's mates, they are modernisers. the biggest sin of them all. This is why I can cut tories some slack. They are a wolf. an appropriate bullet at the right time will finish em off if necessary, but honestly I trust some of them to be revolutionaries when the time is right. But that weirdo he keeps triggering to come on here? Proper jackal that. a real sleeper agent.
 
P

poetix

we murder to dissect
I like the way this has sort of petered out (as it were) in a splurge of jokey posts about Hitler and bollocks. Build-up then release of energy, innit.

Coming back to @thirdform's "he took French ex-maoist philosophers more seriously than French philosophers took themselves", I think the k-adjacent blogosphere's infatuation with Zizek and, to a lesser degree, Badiou is one of the things I find most uncomfortable to look back on. It was a license to take ourselves terribly seriously, and it didn't do anybody's writing any good. It's the difference between being a bricoleur, a magpie who nicks a bit of Deleuze here and a bit of McLuhan there, and being a disciple. With Zizek especially there was that line about "subjective destitution", which dovetailed very nicely with Mark's existing "dismantle your entire operating system and deterritorialise the anonymous libidinal vectors canalised within" schtick, but also seemed to end up meaning "get with the program, comrade".
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
there are serious scholars in the world and serious people but those people are not us. we are magpies exactly that. barty was asking me if he should read and what the point of reading is and i was saying well for the likes of us, you just read to trigger ideas of your own, you get a contact high from the page and spiral off into associative thought. you dont need to read a book, just a page or pragrpaph or line. just to set the reaction off
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
you dont have the time or material conditions, the brainpower or the moral seriousness to read in the proper sense of the word but looking at books is defintetly worthwhile
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
That's fine. It's why even though I'm probably more serious than you I'm not a serious scholar and am a magpie in my own way. The issue is the kpunk blogosphere could never embrace that contradiction, there was always an attempt to sneer at the brutish plebs. If you notice I'm a very much everyone can get this. Badiou also owing a lot to Althusser's technoscientific interpretation of Marxism @poetix Mark invariably ended up becoming a high priest of ideology, in spite of him setting out to rebel exactly against that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top