#121

toyotathon posted:

realized falling asleep last night that i missed the dang book's point, that this whole time, it hasn't been bourgeoisie rule, it's been co-class rule. shared rule between lumpen and bourgeoisie. a parasite class alliance. pretty radical stuff mr. sakai.


i did not get this vibe at all, like he spends ages arguing against marx's conception of the lumpen as "vagabonds"; the whole chapter on marx seems to be adressing this, as he sayss on page 28: "there is a widespread theoretical mistake in the movement. to reify the crude over-simplification of the thery understandable for marx and bakunins times an age ago" andd that the lumpen is not a uniform "class" but a "partial-class" or "non-class" which doesnt line up with "co-class rule" at all imo

#122
hm well lemme explain what i mean and maybe by the end, either i or we or just you can see where i'm stepping out

the book's big project was to analyze the lumpen using materialism, to put lumpen production/parasitism on strict material lines. define the class as a class. marx's, the 60s movements, + elsewhere, he argues, their conceptions of the lumpen were not on a material line. they took the legal boundary as a class boundary, or they took middle class prejudices as a class boundary.

most of the book's spent poking holes in this kind of lazy heuristic: prostitution is illegal but is not lumpen (edit-- see discussion below), workplace theft (boards from british shipyards, his train derailment -> bbq story, etc) is not lumpen, it's a wage of sorts, being as so it's just for present workers, that doesn't show up when you file your taxes. the examples from british countryside enclosure, where yesterday's gathering in the commons became today's illegal poaching, isn't lumpen, the production just crossed a legal boundary. he goes down marx's famous list and sees that ~half were in fact engaged in micro-production for a wage, knife-sharpening, whatever. people living rough under bridges, it's illegal but not lumpen. he looks at this dialectically and checks their class consciousness and loyalties, where he can, of this pseudo-lumpen, and, many threw their lots in with the productive classes, when it mattered.

so the bulk of the book is narrowing the lumpen definition, down to a true parasite class. it's not metaphysics tho, it's dialectics, and individuals can even in the span of a day operate in multiple class categories. a lot of lumpen activity can coincide with productive ventures. gonna use the example you posted, it's like how that union carpenter might have a 401k taking dividends. worker/bourgeois, lumpen/proletariat. because narrowing the lumpen down to pure parasites leaves so few people (in the classic category) that he stresses the partial-class nature

but he also expands the definition, almost as an afterthought, to include the cops and military. if cops and military are lumpen then that is a huge theoretical shift. but it's materially pretty well founded. cops don't do productive labor, not really anyway. you cannot go to a store to buy products made by cops. they do not engage in production. i mean i've been robbed a bunch and to get renter's insurance to cover like the $value/3 of whatever that was taken, you have to file a police report. first robbery, esp when it's personal shit is kind of traumatic and so i remember being on hold for hours to get the report done. just, they aren't doing productive labor. even this paper shuffling labor i needed, because insurance needed. the labor they claim, maintaining order, is totally ephemeral, in a way that say, education is not. education can be measured a little bit, but order can't. sakai has a good time with the interchangability, to the bourgeoisie, of cops with street gangs, like in the gang supplement and elements of the louis bonaparte counter-rev story. and mafia/bourgeoisie ties. this is all w/ the caveat of the above that 'pure' lumpen does not describe individuals very often, it describes a specific type of parasitic activity. if cops are lumpen (quite close to 'pure' lumpen), and lumpen gangs are interchangeable to local bourgeoisie, that's what i meant by co-class rule.

i'd wanna know if sakai thinks the settlers were lumpen, if that'd be useful. lumpen/peasant.

Edited by toyotathon ()

#123
now i understand what you mean. thanks
#124
you are welcome. happy may day to you
#125
the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the grande-bourgeoisie and grande-lumpen
#126

toyotathon posted:

most of the book's spent poking holes in this kind of lazy heuristic: prostitution is illegal but is not lumpen,


I don't agree with this, i don't see where Sakai denies the lumpen character of sex workers. They also produce nothing, and also it's only "illegal" the way drgs are illegal, like, not really illegal if you're the right person in the right place. Of course they're of a much different character but.. I think a lof of luimpen behavior can be summed as "i do whta I know is (at least partly) wrong, destructive, to me, to everyone around me, out of financial necessity." For some lumpen cultures that is more justifiable than others, depending on their internal definition 'f "necessity".

#127
on pg22 he mentions it in the same breath as locksmithing and textile dyeing, as an old guild trade... he lumps it with Lumpen Classics con men and outlaws, only in describing marx's views...

"Only one of Marx's 19th century colorful list of examples--brothel keeper--was primarily a woman's position. This is a striking imbalance. Actually, when the subject of women and the lumpen-proletariat is raised, prostitution or sex work always pops right up. Marx had put "prostitute" in his tattered crowd of "scum" bottom dwellers. Certainly, Marxists worldwide regularly have considered sex workers a conspicuous part of the "reactionary" lumpen/proletariat, as Mao and Lenin did. And many revolutionaries today still do.

To many leftists this has only been a normal kind of assumption, not worth going into in a patriarchal world. What if it isn't "normal", though? It's like a sudden surfacing of the actual structure of society, which lets us see momentarily lit up what the social strata truly are. Those that are pushed aside, judged too insignificant and marginal or even deformed to matter, can be a key to unlocking our understanding of the larger whole. We're going to shift our focus onto this."

all of ch6 and ch7 is about sex work, concludes with: "What i can see is that old male left views on the politics of sex workers have been simplistic and wildly inaccurate. There are also problems of their class positioning, in the lumpen/proletariat. Of fitting them into any male-centered class, maybe. And may people have long asked, how can prostitutes be "parasites on society", if the only person they might exploit in a Marxian sense is themselves?" basically the category doesn't fit, but he uses the descriptor anyway: "Again, we haven't understood this well enough to forge usable class analysis about it yet."

my new lumpen heuristic is flipping the old formula, from 'is it illegal' to 'can you picture a cop doing it'. shaking down a 7-11 with your armed buds, yeah that's lumpen. selling the meth in the evidence locker to a fence, ya that's lumpen too. murder-for-hire, highwaymen/state police, gang turf war, quitting to go be an afghanistan military contractor, all that shit is lumpen to me. definitely a male-centric heuristic if there ever was one but you get it i hope.

Edited by toyotathon ()

#128
i think your ideas are interesting toyotathon nbut maybe they need more work to make them more understandable and clear them up - as far as i understand u are narrowing "lumpen" down to a cetrtain specific (and clearly parasitic) section within the broader "lumpen-proletariat" as usually used, - interesting, but as like swampman say sakai isnot denying that seperation exists between all parts of the "lumpen" and the proletariat; so its what you do with the others - do they enter the proletariat in your model or are they another broad group withing the "lumpen" as a catch all withut being part of the group you are talking about as the lumpen - iirc the mao social investigation stuff seems especially clear that a division exists between the lumpen as whole and other classes. if that makes sense
#129
wouldn’t all this tie together the sexual politics in Caliban? the lumpen-ness of a sex worker is a survival mechanism whereas the lumpen character of a cop is out of a desire for economic reward through enacting dominance for the ruling class, which they could have other ways, but the violence is easy, or even pleasurable. like a mafia/mitochondria thing - male brutality subsumed as an aspect of male control. what comes to mind to illustrate what I mean is that bit from the first few pages of Nomadology, regarding Mitra/Varuna/Indra. lumpen-cops are an untamed but necessary part of capital, the explosive force referenced in that examination of fascism RedMaistre liked. god my brain is fucked. someone please string together the thousands of thoughts I’m trying to have. manipulative/psychopathic men utilize violent/insane men to dominate ‘benign’ masculinity and all else, I guess?
#130
IMO the excesses of the cop/Indra are undesirable, just necessary from the perspective of Mitra/Varuna, hopefully limited but inevitably necessary, it’s the violent impulses of the proper lumpen that drive the proletariat back into the pens, whether they’re explicitly hired by the state or not. to take an anarchist (?) perspective it’s the lumpens that make the proletariat desire a state to begin with
#131

tears posted:

i think your ideas are interesting toyotathon nbut maybe they need more work to make them more understandable and clear them up - as far as i understand u are narrowing "lumpen" down to a cetrtain specific (and clearly parasitic) section within the broader "lumpen-proletariat" as usually used, - interesting, but as like swampman say sakai isnot denying that seperation exists between all parts of the "lumpen" and the proletariat; so its what you do with the others - do they enter the proletariat in your model or are they another broad group withing the "lumpen" as a catch all withut being part of the group you are talking about as the lumpen - iirc the mao social investigation stuff seems especially clear that a division exists between the lumpen as whole and other classes. if that makes sense



i think that today i am mainly working through joseph sakai's bombshell that cops plus troops (in imperialism) are lumpen... cuz either sakai is dead wrong about this or he isn't. in which case the grande-lumpen of $300k/yr cops and mercs have been playing a major historical role, guiding and being guided by the bourgeoisie, this whole time. most dangerous class indeed. imperialism to fatten two whole parasite classes, plus a labor aristocracy. in terms of parasite classes, by analogy, nypd would be dow chemical's investors, and a stick-up kid would be some petty-boug computer repair shop owner/worker. if cops, troops, and kids in the trap all share a class then that's the wide strata. or he's not right at all and no use can come of IDing their class as lumpen. i'm basically an idiot so yah all this is half-formed.

even tho sakai explicitly warns against reasoning from any parasitism-sans-property (really-- theft), it's like, really only one of two angles to tackle categorization. that's the positive route. the other's process of elimination, narrowing down, the negative route. this seemed like the big thrust of his project, going "is this lumpen? no this is not lumpen, this is a wage, or production, or a service, in disguise". but like you said this second style of reasoning lends itself to lumpen as a catch-all category. whatever's leftover. kind of like the lumpen themselves?? if they aren't engaged in service or direct production for wages, own no property, are not under familial or school care, aren't farming or foraging or dumpster diving... in capitalism there aren't really a whole lot of other survival options

Edited by toyotathon ()

#132

toyotathon posted:

all of ch6 and ch7 is about sex work, concludes with: "What i can see is that old male left views on the politics of sex workers have been simplistic and wildly inaccurate. There are also problems of their class positioning, in the lumpen/proletariat. Of fitting them into any male-centered class, maybe. And may people have long asked, how can prostitutes be "parasites on society", if the only person they might exploit in a Marxian sense is themselves?"

Prostitutes have to play along with men's objectification of women to survive. Theres a bit of a problem with using "parasite" to describe all lumpen when their compensation and behavior are so wildly different, but - prostitutes are "parasitical" off the inflated wages of men, and esp of rich men, and in their attempt to survive, they undermine female solidarity against patriarchal oppression. The continued practice of sex work is predicated on the continued practice of gender oppression. Their social role is to enable misogynists. Am i being too harsh here?

#133
imo it seems hard to put sex work in that box, by those means, w/o including a bunch of other stuff... i've met couples where the woman needs to play along w/ her man's objectification of her... like one friend was just telling me this story where they were going to go on a beach trip and her man kept demanding she buy skimpier and skimpier bikinis. and when they got there he encouranged his friends to ogle her, they'd say things like 'dibs if you two break up', tuesday's patriarchy, not sex work. well, maybe awful couplings like that are also a form of sex work, but i would not call the woman the parasite, or blame her for enabling misogyny, for not fighting it harder. men like that prey on passivity. he wanted her to quit her job and become truly dependent. i don't think prostitutes had any hand in this perverse arrangement, first second or third order. he wants to own her, not rent her. i guess when i say 'parasitism' i mean fairly direct theft. and maybe also profits wrung from stoking addictions, gambling and meth dealing and whatever. wringing an addict dry, making them lose control over their wallet, maybe that is a form of theft, an indirect theft, but maybe that's my middle class prejudice trying to cram in square pegs. i do not consider rich johns to be helpless, forced by their dick urges to buy sex work. the transaction is as consensual as anything else in capitalism's marginalized layers.

rereading ch6 and 7, it seems like sakai's main point, even tho he calls his sister 'stone lumpen', and seems like he keeps sex work in the lumpen category, he suggests we question the categorization... do you think we're honing in on something or talking around in circles? am i responding to your point or to imagined ones?

Edited by toyotathon ()

#134
*turning a circle on its side to discover it is in fact a spiral* ah ha, dialectics
#135
i think this is one of my favorite things he ever wrote

We can use imperialism’s wars itself as our depth gauge of their historic decline.  Two generations ago the u.s. empire fought a great world war 2 against other industrial capitalist powers. A brutal, bloody, fighting toe-to-toe war of near-equals in which millions of soldiers crisscrossed oceans and borders, leaving well over 60 million dead bodies as their rotting residue. In one single European battle alone, in one week in a forgotten Luxembourg forest, 33,000 white GIs died in combat (with another 10,000 dying from exposure and disease). And it doesn’t mean a thing now.

Then one generation ago the u.s.empire threw a 500,000 man expeditionary force that was the heart of the u.s. military into a protracted, eleven-year war to stop Communist-led national liberation movements in three Southeast Asian countries. To their white surprise, they lost big time and 58,000 GIs and Marines and sailors and airmen lost their lives as well (though to be sure they each got an engraved line on that spiffy black wall in Washington  – ’cause in America there’s always a prize in every box of crackerjacks). And it doesn’t mean a thing now.

Today, in contrast, the u.s. bubble empire, with its heavy-technology storm troopers, struts and preens itself in decadent ecstasy whenever they can recapture any small, poverty-stricken Third-World capitalist neo-colony (often done in a fake war, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, with cooperating bribed warlords and generals). Hollywood invasions of Haiti, Afghanistan, Panama, tiny Philippine islands or dysfunctional oil field dictatorships mark the true level of their beat power now. But if a few hundred or a few thousand of its mercenary techno-legion GIs get whacked, then the whole society is weeping and wailing. Privileged amerikkka is too soft to slug it out anymore. We might say that the u.s. empire is less like a great military power in the old sense and more like a superbly-armed private mafia for a gated suburb. Its power is very dangerous on a tactical level – like a SWAT team blowing down your front door will really put some concern on your mind – but strategically it is more and more dysfunctional and immobilized.


i am reading it and lolling, in the "selected quotes" i am making

#136
https://amp.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/04/i-had-to-guard-an-empty-room-the-rise-of-the-pointless-job

Goons

These are people whose jobs have an aggressive element but, crucially, who exist only because other people also employ people in these roles. The most obvious example of this are national armed forces.



Edit. WHat i didn't realize is that this is an excerpt from Graeber's upcoming book that seems to be a soft socdem/ancap/libdick-safe version of some of the notes about white lumpen The "Dangerous Class" And Revolutionary Theory

Edited by swampman ()

#137

swampman posted:

https://amp.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/04/i-had-to-guard-an-empty-room-the-rise-of-the-pointless-job

Goons

These are people whose jobs have an aggressive element but, crucially, who exist only because other people also employ people in these roles. The most obvious example of this are national armed forces.



Edit. WHat i didn't realize is that this is an excerpt from Graeber's upcoming book that seems to be a soft socdem/ancap/libdick-safe version of some of the notes about white lumpen The "Dangerous Class" And Revolutionary Theory



This has actually become popular in "post-colonial" studies and ethnic studies in bourgeois academia. Bunch of safe, idealist histories of settler colonialism with buzzwords about "biopolitics" and "discourses" thrown in and trivial "critiques" of Marx. Sakai has never once been cited and the class position of academics as comprador intellectuals obviously unspeakable. I've suffered through a few now and keep telling anyone who will listen to read settlers dot org. I guess it's inevitable even settlers will be the target of cooption as the Empire continues to crumble.

#138

swampman posted:

https://amp.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/04/i-had-to-guard-an-empty-room-the-rise-of-the-pointless-job


Many duct-taper jobs are the result of a glitch in the system that no one has bothered to correct – tasks that could easily be automated, for instance,


what a great friend of the worker this graebber fellow is

#139
I was going to put a bunch of thought into wondering how does Graeber draw the line between productive and not productive jobs, and what to him would be the implications of only allowing Amerikans to have productive jobs, but instead I'm just going to note that he overloaded a shelf with books and they all fell on the floor, and then he expected the carpenter to pick up all the books off the floor for him, and then after the carpenter went back to his buddies in maintenance to tell them to give this asshole the perpetual run around on his shelf repair, Graeber assumed that there is someone in maintenance whose job is to never fix a shelf
#140
its the most bougie fucken thing lol. why do all these people in the west get paid to do useless bullshit nothing jobs, wonders me, the professor of anthropology,
#141
fuckin, if you're soundin like an accenture consultant, and you make it to the guardian...
#142
once i drunkenly bumped real hard into one of my bookshelves, i managed to catch and save the shelves from tipping all the way over but all the books still poured out into a massive pile on the floor. i was too wasted to deal with that so i just fell into bed. the next morning i shamefully had to sort them out and re-shelve. anyway its cool that graeber is either just as messy or lazy as i am at my most catatonically drunk
#143
its a pity because i think documentation of all the various ways capitalist jobs are "bullshit" would be really entertaining reading. i can think of many inefficiencies in my own job, which yeah, obviously i dont talk about because i dont wanna get fired. im not sure about graeber's lens that this stuff will be inevitably filtered through though. like this project would probably be more entertaining as just an anthology of pieces, workers writing about their own experiences.
#144

toyotathon posted:

but i would not call the woman the parasite, or blame her for enabling misogyny, for not fighting it harder. men like that prey on passivity. he wanted her to quit her job and become truly dependent. i don't think prostitutes had any hand in this perverse arrangement, first second or third order. he wants to own her, not rent her. i guess when i say 'parasitism' i mean fairly direct theft. and maybe also profits wrung from stoking addictions, gambling and meth dealing and whatever. wringing an addict dry, making them lose control over their wallet, maybe that is a form of theft, an indirect theft, but maybe that's my middle class prejudice trying to cram in square pegs. i do not consider rich johns to be helpless, forced by their dick urges to buy sex work. the transaction is as consensual as anything else in capitalism's marginalized layers.

I meant only, their labor is not socially productive. The patriarchy fog is so thick, it took me a while to understand the phrase "sex work is work", where I had at first wondered, oh, it's taxing and stressful and pays nothing but is it really work since it's not socially productive?? When the simpler point is that these women need to eat, so unless I'm offering something else for them to do, stfu. So parasite is not accurate to the way I've been using it, although it's one half of the bourgeois view of prostitutes ("the oldest profession" is the other half). But iirc women forced into prostitution by individual men make up only a small percentage of sex workers, and most "choose" it out of economic necessity. And most johns aren't self-aware misogynists looking to subjugate someone, they buy sex as one way to use up their commodified leisure time. I don't mind including sex work in with more outright evil kinds of lumpen for that reason. as a product of capitalism's need for throughput, for activity, for work to be done for the sake of creating work, and this need gives lumpen their revolutionary potential...

#145
That got me to think about whether a crime like eg. burglary or murder could ever be eradicated in capitalist society if burglars and murderers inhabit economically productive niches, but then I remembered the police can usurp the roles of various criminals and the net value to capital is probably the same
#146

babyhueypnewton posted:

swampman posted:

Edit. WHat i didn't realize is that this is an excerpt from Graeber's upcoming book that seems to be a soft socdem/ancap/libdick-safe version of some of the notes about white lumpen The "Dangerous Class" And Revolutionary Theory

This has actually become popular in "post-colonial" studies and ethnic studies in bourgeois academia. Bunch of safe, idealist histories



reminds me also of how Manufacturing Consent came out two years after Parenti's Inventing Reality, and became vastly better known

though i guess it's less objectionable, since at this point i'd settle for any media crit at all to penetrate the popular skull

#147

Constantignoble posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

swampman posted:

Edit. WHat i didn't realize is that this is an excerpt from Graeber's upcoming book that seems to be a soft socdem/ancap/libdick-safe version of some of the notes about white lumpen The "Dangerous Class" And Revolutionary Theory

This has actually become popular in "post-colonial" studies and ethnic studies in bourgeois academia. Bunch of safe, idealist histories

reminds me also of how Manufacturing Consent came out two years after Parenti's Inventing Reality, and became vastly better known

though i guess it's less objectionable, since at this point i'd settle for any media crit at all to penetrate the popular skull



what a coincidence that settlers came out in 1979 and the vomit known as a people s history of united snakes came out a year later........,.,,,,..

(disclaimer: i actually havent verified the years so uhm)

#148

Petrol posted:

its the most bougie fucken thing lol. why do all these people in the west get paid to do useless bullshit nothing jobs, wonders me, the professor of anthropology,



Hey now anthropology professor is a very important job... of reproducing the bourgeois discourse of colonialist polygenism!!! Zing motherfucker!!

#149

Constantignoble posted:

reminds me also of how Manufacturing Consent came out two years after Parenti's Inventing Reality, and became vastly better known



This is mainly because Chomsky's writing on the topic offers no positive argument about the structure of Western society that could dissuade the reader based on the reader's own biases, unless maybe if they have a strong world-historical bias in favor of the Israeli state. It's all lining up media narratives with reports from the same media that contradict those narratives.

There was probably a time when that was useful to get people in the English-speaking world to question news reports about foreign policy, it that matters at all, but now it seems quaint in that context. The foreign bureaus Chomsky criticizes mostly don't even exist anymore, and the reporting is done by someone flying in and asking a State Department-funded "activist" to confirm anonymous statements from the State Department. There's no counter-narrative to construct from odds and ends of Western news stories anymore.

#150

swampman posted:

toyotathon posted:

but i would not call the woman the parasite, or blame her for enabling misogyny, for not fighting it harder. men like that prey on passivity. he wanted her to quit her job and become truly dependent. i don't think prostitutes had any hand in this perverse arrangement, first second or third order. he wants to own her, not rent her. i guess when i say 'parasitism' i mean fairly direct theft. and maybe also profits wrung from stoking addictions, gambling and meth dealing and whatever. wringing an addict dry, making them lose control over their wallet, maybe that is a form of theft, an indirect theft, but maybe that's my middle class prejudice trying to cram in square pegs. i do not consider rich johns to be helpless, forced by their dick urges to buy sex work. the transaction is as consensual as anything else in capitalism's marginalized layers.

I meant only, their labor is not socially productive. The patriarchy fog is so thick, it took me a while to understand the phrase "sex work is work", where I had at first wondered, oh, it's taxing and stressful and pays nothing but is it really work since it's not socially productive?? When the simpler point is that these women need to eat, so unless I'm offering something else for them to do, stfu. So parasite is not accurate to the way I've been using it, although it's one half of the bourgeois view of prostitutes ("the oldest profession" is the other half). But iirc women forced into prostitution by individual men make up only a small percentage of sex workers, and most "choose" it out of economic necessity. And most johns aren't self-aware misogynists looking to subjugate someone, they buy sex as one way to use up their commodified leisure time. I don't mind including sex work in with more outright evil kinds of lumpen for that reason. as a product of capitalism's need for throughput, for activity, for work to be done for the sake of creating work, and this need gives lumpen their revolutionary potential...



ok i understand. thank you. we can turn today into tomorrow w/o sex work. maybe we were looking at it from two angles, both important, angle of useful production and social benefit, and the angle from the sex worker experience of her work, and which class she will align with. i am sorry that i come off as argumentative, i don't want to fight i want to investigate. i learned to talk politics online all wrong and the rhizzone is slowly fixing me. both angles are essential to class investigation imo.

i'm having trouble with sakai "classing" elements in the state apparatus. i do not know enough to do the analysis so i'm going to write out my questions, as far as ive gotten on this

1) if central elements of the state apparatus, cops and mercs, are "classed" as lumpen, where is the class conflict with the bourgeoisie expressed? there is only so much surplus value created to feed both non-productive classes.

2) in capitalism the state is the bourgeosie's first-line instrument of rule over the proletariat... if this is re-worked, with the repressive elements classed as well-paid lumpen, with the bourgeoisie paying off + shaping the broad lumpen for class loyalty, how does this change the ML picture?

3) when we talk traditional lumpen, the picture marx drew, in this new expansion, we're talking about petty-lumpen. the petty-lumpen has no real class loyalty except to itself, but can side with workers. like the petty-bourgeoisie. in contrast with the bought-out lumpen, (grande-lumpen?) cops and mercs, army and navy. the petty-lumpen are the vacillating class within the broader lumpen. the cops will never turn their guns around. what's the value of sakai's lumpen expansion across this range to the shared ideology of both ends. the individualism of petty-lumpen appears to be in conflict with the self-sacrifice needs of war, and blue wall of silence. how do we draw a line in class ideology, across this broadened class.

4) this is a leap, maybe off my dumb cliff: the corpuscles of fascism, de-classed elements that've fallen into lumpen, brownshirts, thugs for hire -- lumpen classic, and when they rule, its expression is fascism. it's anecdotal but i'm thinking of hitler's thrill and comparison, of nazi scientists developing the fischer-tropsch syngas-to-liquid-fuel process, with his, approximately equal in weight, theft of france's oil reserves. the theft was supposed to have made him more pleased... bourgeoisie solution and lumpen solution. fascism is anti-bourgeois but pro-capitalist, a class formulation possible when elevated lumpen become the ruling class, and still need the industry of the bourgeoisie to add value to the theft (crude into jet fuel) and supply armaments. the fascist racial terror in occupied territory, has this character, due to the class which first manages its new industrial production. the social character of the metropole is different from the colony because of the class nature of the working class, proletariat and labor aristocrat, and who rules it, and the means by which the ruling class is enriched.

Edited by toyotathon ()

#151

cars posted:

Petrol posted:

its the most bougie fucken thing lol. why do all these people in the west get paid to do useless bullshit nothing jobs, wonders me, the professor of anthropology,

Hey now anthropology professor is a very important job... of reproducing the bourgeois discourse of colonialist polygenism!!! Zing motherfucker!!


(edit: i don't mean to derail, if you want to talk more about not-sakai maybe reply to my user page or something, and/or ignore me)

this is not accurate to all anthropology anymore (as you probably know, and it is a joke, i know), but it is a viewpoint that i had for a long time, and then i went and talked to some anthropologists. at least some schools will sit you down very early on and explain that colonial anthropology and the foundation of the capitalist system are intimately entwined, and the real mission of the anthropologist is to illustrate with actual documented experience, hard facts, how life is actually lived by different cultural groups (and do so while correcting the twisted bullshit used in the past to justify exploitation and genocide and etc.) (it bleeds into a ton of other related fields obviously.)

it can be done well and for good ends. i think Graeber is doing his best. he has influenced millions of people to consider the terrors caused by capitalist structures in Debt. the story about him being a bourgeois piece of shit to a carpenter is disappointing. i suppose it's not that surprising considering he has been in academia his entire life. still shitty.

he's trying to write all the books / do all the work he described in Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (2004, 55pp), and that is at least admirable and sometimes very useful; he's trying to get past the concept of State and get at "what do people actually do". he was strongly influenced by his experience in Madagascar where he felt that essentially the State did not operate in the far reaches, and hadn't for a very long time -- and why do we assume the State has anything to do with anything, or privilege it above any other kind of more-or-less organized group?

none of which is revolutionary here on the rhizzone, but writing things from that perspective and getting millions of people to read it is pretty cool. you don't have to be an anarchist to make use of that perspective -- popularizing the idea that we can look at, evaluate, and potentially discard various constituent groups of the state -- and the mere fact that the state is groups, which is hard to see for many people -- also popularizes the idea that it can be revolutionarily changed or transformed, too.

i think he would agree with the idea that his main task is just trying to highlight that our social structures are just the people practicing them, and please everyone notice that you are the people.

i spoke privately with one person who worked with him for years, and i might be misremembering a bit, but i think they pretty much said he is not saying anything new exactly, just loudly and self-importantly, but-- importantly-- also accessibly. (they still seemed to be fond of him despite his narcissism and disorganization and imperfection.)

#152
otoh

that little article/excerpt thing in the guardian makes it sound like he has no idea how anything actually works
#153
graeber sucks imo
#154

drwhat posted:

cars posted:

Petrol posted:

its the most bougie fucken thing lol. why do all these people in the west get paid to do useless bullshit nothing jobs, wonders me, the professor of anthropology,

Hey now anthropology professor is a very important job... of reproducing the bourgeois discourse of colonialist polygenism!!! Zing motherfucker!!

it can be done well and for good ends. i think Graeber is doing his best. he has influenced millions of people to consider the terrors caused by capitalist structures in Debt. the story about him being a bourgeois piece of shit to a carpenter is disappointing. i suppose it's not that surprising considering he has been in academia his entire life.


that was my point, how dare a career academic of pretty much any stripe cast judgement on the usefulness of any other profession. glass houses mother fucker!!!!

#155

Constantignoble posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

swampman posted:

Edit. WHat i didn't realize is that this is an excerpt from Graeber's upcoming book that seems to be a soft socdem/ancap/libdick-safe version of some of the notes about white lumpen The "Dangerous Class" And Revolutionary Theory

This has actually become popular in "post-colonial" studies and ethnic studies in bourgeois academia. Bunch of safe, idealist histories

reminds me also of how Manufacturing Consent came out two years after Parenti's Inventing Reality, and became vastly better known

though i guess it's less objectionable, since at this point i'd settle for any media crit at all to penetrate the popular skull



Althusser did it better in Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses, also a way cooler title than "Manufacturing" Consent; the media doesn't trick us, the constituting of subjects within ideological apparatuses in conjunction with class interest is "consent" i.e. ideology

#156
toyotathon, http://kersplebedeb.com/posts/cops-are-gangsters/
#157
mass american lumpenism, lumpen/peasants and lumpen slave hunters livin on the plantation butter drippings, and we got echo-lumpen buying investment guns today for the day they can live off them again.

reading james yaki sayles on how malcolm inspired a generation of knuckleheads to undergo prison transformations and forsake their class... extremely anti-amerikkkan
#158
u gonna redefine the mass character of parasitism as a whole as lumpen bringing the labour aristoparasites in as well? cruise going white man lumpen
#159
just to people who live by the gun
#160
ok now i understand, that is a simple way to explain it. i am trying to understand the sort of "content of parasitism" in the old european states, i havent read anything that really got to the mass character of parasitism in the old coutries that does what say settlers is but for the old classes. The character of the bourgioise immitation culture of a class that lives off the labour of the periphery without being on stolen land is similar but so different