Submitted by Ajamu Baraka on Tue, 01/03/2017 - 00:31
http://monthlyreview.org/product/big_farms_make_big_flu/
does anyone know if this is any good?
Chthonic_Goat_666 posted:can anyone recommend books about health and capitalism? i have a friend who's clearly skeptical about outcomes in the US but im trying to steer them away from 'vaccinations cause autism' type stuff. anything about the FDA, capitalist agriculture, healthcare, etc etc.
http://monthlyreview.org/product/big_farms_make_big_flu/
does anyone know if this is any good?
take a look at "Caring for Them from Birth to Death: The Practice of Community-Based Cuban Medicine" by Christina Perez. in my experience providing a positive alternative model has a bigger and better impact than negative criticism on this particular topic because people can always argue vaguely that their favorite model will fix the problem through this or that untested method.
cars posted:take a look at "Caring for Them from Birth to Death: The Practice of Community-Based Cuban Medicine" by Christina Perez. in my experience providing a positive alternative model has a bigger and better impact than negative criticism on this particular topic because people can always argue vaguely that their favorite model will fix the problem through this or that untested method.
if have pdf pls pm
nazi says its not ok to punch nazis
TG posted:https://qz.com/896463/is-it-ok-to-punch-a-nazi-philosopher-slavoj-zizek-talks-richard-spencer-nazis-and-donald-trump/nazi says its not ok to punch nazis
This isn't the first time I've heard someone refer to Zizek as a Nazi. Is there a reason people think that?
wahoopride posted:TG posted:
https://qz.com/896463/is-it-ok-to-punch-a-nazi-philosopher-slavoj-zizek-talks-richard-spencer-nazis-and-donald-trump/nazi says its not ok to punch nazis
This isn't the first time I've heard someone refer to Zizek as a Nazi. Is there a reason people think that?
His socialist theory has at times, and at ever increasing frequency, delved into nationalism that Communists reject but Nazis (read: National Socialists) adore.
Plus, his schtick of direct opposition in an attempt to draw out a synthesis means he's angled himself into a position of, well, National Socialism.
The final straws were his words on refugees, which again make sense in an oppositional sense but are unquestionably racist and shitty, and his accelerationist support of Trump.
I love the man, I really do. Or did. My tolerance for his antics have reached its limit though and I wish he'd just go back to writing big dumb books again.
edit: Also Caliban and the Witch is really good.
your_not_aleksandr posted:His socialist theory has at times, and at ever increasing frequency, delved into nationalism that Communists reject but Nazis (read: National Socialists) adore.
Plus, his schtick of direct opposition in an attempt to draw out a synthesis means he's angled himself into a position of, well, National Socialism.
The final straws were his words on refugees, which again make sense in an oppositional sense but are unquestionably racist and shitty, and his accelerationist support of Trump.
I love the man, I really do. Or did. My tolerance for his antics have reached its limit though and I wish he'd just go back to writing big dumb books again.
edit: Also Caliban and the Witch is really good.
Thanks for the explanation. This makes sense.
Edited by aerdil ()
aerdil posted:he's an opportunist chauvinist who found a profitable niche in the left-wing academic circlejerk by cribbing althusser and lacan and applying it to pop-culture. even his "serious" books if you read more than one are obviously largely copy-pasted together from earlier books (which is how he publishes like 3 to 5 books every year). he's probably a millionaire at this point. it's really no surprise his contrarianism devolves into reaction rather than principled marxist theory.
When you say it this way he doesn't seem like a very good person
toyotathon posted:i'm not really educated so names like jakob fuggar and charles V, stuff like the dutch bourgeoisie revolution, it was drinking from the historical firehose. that stuff's comprehensible, i just gotta read more. but i realized about halfway thru the price revolution chapter that i was simply not going to understand the causes and ramifications of wildly oscillating wages and prices in the 15th and 16th century, so if anybody's got a framework for grasping what was happening... i'd reason that new world/sudanese specie imports would be purely inflationary, but it didn't shake out that way (because of debasement?)
i'm going to look at this but if anyone here is at all a responsible person they'll give an informed answer before i make fools of us all with my uninformed one
My advice for reading Žižek is don't. Watch both Pervert films, they are really good. Listen to a couple of talks, they can be entertaining at least. Read and watch what he talks about. If he still seems worth the time, and keep in mind aerdil is right, then try and read him again.
Instead, read Alain Badiou. A lot of Žižek's stuff is basically Badiou's but with pop culture, so if you can't keep focused with Žižek, Badiou might be better. Read Alenka Zupančič. Read Mladen Dolar. Lacan himself isn’t difficult to read either.
All of these people are psychoanalysts. The goal of psychoanalysis isn't to provide solutions. The goal of psychoanalysis is to give you the tools to understand and in some cases reshape your perspective of your symbolic reality.
"You feel lonely and sad because you're alienated from your labor and taught to desire things. Realizing that these desires are placed upon you by advertising and ultimately capitalism will help you reconcile these issues and allow you to live in an imperfect society with a newfound peace" or "You may be racist but you are also part of a racist society so don't feel personally offended at your racism." or whatever.
It's not serious theory by any means but it isn't exactly bullshit, either. It's applicable but toothless. It's usefulness comes from being able to work towards a certain mutual intelligibility and is actually very good at easily being able to recontextualize works.
It's really dense but worth wading through.
your_not_aleksandr posted:His best work is his longer stuff and maybe a primer or something might be worth exploring but aerdil isn't wrong so donćt hold your breath!
My advice for reading Žižek is don't. Watch both Pervert films, they are really good. Listen to a couple of talks, they can be entertaining at least. Read and watch what he talks about. If he still seems worth the time, and keep in mind aerdil is right, then try and read him again.
Instead, read Alain Badiou. A lot of Žižek's stuff is basically Badiou's but with pop culture, so if you can't keep focused with Žižek, Badiou might be better. Read Alenka Zupančič. Read Mladen Dolar. Lacan himself isn’t difficult to read either.
All of these people are psychoanalysts. The goal of psychoanalysis isn't to provide solutions. The goal of psychoanalysis is to give you the tools to understand and in some cases reshape your perspective of your symbolic reality.
"You feel lonely and sad because you're alienated from your labor and taught to desire things. Realizing that these desires are placed upon you by advertising and ultimately capitalism will help you reconcile these issues and allow you to live in an imperfect society with a newfound peace" or "You may be racist but you are also part of a racist society so don't feel personally offended at your racism." or whatever.
It's not serious theory by any means but it isn't exactly bullshit, either. It's applicable but toothless. It's usefulness comes from being able to work towards a certain mutual intelligibility and is actually very good at easily being able to recontextualize works.
Thanks, yeah. I did not have any plans on reading any Zizek anytime soon. There are just so many books to read and I am slow at reading because I'm not very bright or whatever. So I kind of have to do triage and try to be smart about what books I read. Good to be able to eliminate Zizek from contention for the time being.
those were dark times
while I don't think one should necessarily throw out an entire body of work just because of some errors by its author, these things form a pattern that helps to contextualize his work.
guess I was spared the trouble
what do zizeks theories lead to? what are his politics in practice? doesn't seem like anything worthwhile.
Edited by Chthonic_Goat_666 ()