>all that the socialist tradition has produced in history

Socialist tradition is based on some kind of scientific basis of studying history or something.

>>9646167
They identify problems and not solutions

>>9646429
>socialism
>scientific basis
lmao

washington gold

>>9646167
>>all that the socialist tradition has produced in history is to condemn

Socialism, as both theory and political practice, is a critical practice and it's object of critique is capitalism.

What's really being said is what he's not saying. "Socialism is not a postive project of building a state or economy'. By saying this, he's discreding the constructive socialist project (whether isms of marx, bakunin, stalin, lenin, mao, chavez, che or whoever) are not truly socialism. He's trying to isolate the term socialism as only a critique of capitalism, and that these projects are actually just totalitarian political projects (discipline and punishment).

>>9646985

yeah those crazy socialists only complain and never set up labor rights, collectivized healthcare, food and health standards, or public education

>>9647024

i dont think thats the whole story. foucault, like scores of others, couldnt see a distinction between socialism/marxism and the ussr. this is therefore another of his trenchant and repeated celebrations of bourgeois society.

at the heart of every little history of his is a quiet cheer, thank goodness we had some sensible rich intellectuals to preserve all this for me

Foucault is in the moment of transition where socialism, its ideologues and its utopias are at long last able to be criticized by the very radicals that used to believe in them, himself included, and finds that there is nothing socialist praxis accomplished that is worthwhile. He writes in 1977:

>There no longer exists a single revolutionary movement and certainly not a socialist country, in quotation marks, that we can point to and say: This is how it must done! That's the model! There's the line! That's a remarkable state of things! I would say that we have returned to the year 1830, that is, we must start over again. Anyway, 1830 had the French Revolution and the whole European tradition of the Enlightenment behind it. We must begin from the beginning and ask ourselves, Starting from what is it possible to engage in a critique of our society in a situation where the thing we have implicitly or explicitly relied on for support to make this critique, namely, the important tradition of socialism, has been placed fundamentally in question - because all that this socialist tradition has produced in history is to be condemned.

Behold the mature, older, wiser Foucault that is growing out of socialism, that understands that the evil of socialism cannot be criticized appropriately within the dogmatic framework of socialist ideology and utopianism. Of all the possible -isms, socialism was the least appropriate to interpret all the catastrophes and atrocities, "socialist" (in quotation marks, as he says) countries waging war against one another, etc.

So when the ideologues come to /lit/ to tell you: "Foucault doesn't count as a marxist thinker", they are correct.

He died far too soon, yet not soon enough not contribute substantially to a project of a post-marxist left.

>>9646992
>american education

>>9647025
those are only subjectively good things. I don't care either way, just pointing this out.

>>9647181
Mature enough to criticize the project of socialism, not mature enough to criticize the revolutionary ideal, which is at the basis of Marxism, and therefore, makes Foucault a heir of that tradition, whether he liked it or not.

>>9647276
Like Mussolini? Lol

>>9646992
>implying anything in the 19th century was an actual science

Even Darwin based his shit on reason and not empiricism.

>>9647323
Adam Smith lived in the 18th century and his economics was far more scientific than Marx's shitty analyses.

I don't know how anyone could ever claim that Marx's work was scientific since it was so obviously theological in nature.

>>9647024
Is every socialism totalitarian?

Does liberal socialism really not work?

>>9647329
>liberal socialism
oxymoron, socialists are anti-freedom, because freedom creates inequality.

>>9647337
no, i dont think so
there is a difference between right and left anarchism, meaning between anarcho-capitalism and libertarian socialism.
anarcho capitalism assumes, that when the state withers people will compete against each other. and libertarian socialism assumes cooperation will be prevailing

>>9647328
>There's a hand and it's like... all invisible and shit so you can't see it but I know it's there, trust me it's science

>>9647328
>slavery is bad because it's inefficient
>muh invisible hand
>scientific
LOL

File: chydenius.jpg (76KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 850x400px

>>9647380
>>9647422
This is why people should read Anders Chydenius instead of Smith
Basically all the same stuff, but a decade earlier and without the stupid shit

>>9647337
>Socialism means equality
Wew

>>9647337
>freedom creates inequality.
If you by freedom mean "sell your labour to survive the day", then sure. Otherwise equality is the only guarantee of real freedom.

>>9647337
are you fucking retarded, nobody not retarded preaches some perfect equality. just because there isn't some utopian equality doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to bridge that gap by implementing systems which promote equal opportunity.

>>9646167
"I'm a paleoconservative and Marxists in practice are fascist."

>>9647690
*classical liberal

>>9647506
>Otherwise equality is the only guarantee of real freedom.


>trying to realize your uncontrolled random desires is freedom

>>9647710

>I get to decided the difference between "controlled" and "uncontrolled"

>>9647709
not at all, he's pretty anti-liberal in everything he writes

hes a paleoconservative

>>9647829
there is no control when come to the desire of any object nor even the object of desire, but normies refuse to see this

File: compass.jpg (319KB, 600x615px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 600x615px

>you can sell your labour-power to be exploited for a shitty wage or starve
MUH FREEDOM

>>9647254
How are they subjective?

File: privateproperty.jpg (103KB, 850x430px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 850x430px

>>9647856
More like the decentralization of capital is why people are free.

As long as capitalists are forced to be separate entities that compete with each other, freedom ensues.

>>9647907
>decentralization of capital
Do you unironically believe this exists in the developed world?

>>9647949

Perhaps not, but it is nonetheless a real possibility in the West, and only in the West. Cryptocurrencies and decentralizing the monetary system is a good first step, and western developers and adopters (with some Chinese and Japanese now tagging along) are the ones at the fore of that movement.

>>9647968
>but it is nonetheless a real possibility in the West,
Only and only if you are born to 1%, which is arbitrary.

> Cryptocurrencies and decentralizing the monetary system is a good first ste
They're already committing to displacing btc with eth.

>>9647328
>>9647380
>>9647422
None of you have read Smith.

>>9647949
>Do you unironically believe this exists in the developed world?

Well it nominally exists because the state defines private actors as distinct entities.

Now, that doesn't mean capitalists aren't trying their hardest to monopolize businesses. They are. But they should be stopped from trying to do so whenever possible.

>>9647889
Some people don't believe that the government should be in control of these things. Others think that the government should be in control of these things. It's a matter of opinion what a society thinks their government should be in control of.

>>9647972
The thing about the "1%" is that it's not a strict class system. Some people spend their money poorly and fall out of it, and others work extremely hard and get up into it. Nobody is forcing you to rent your home, not have education above a Bachelor's degree, and work a shitty job. Anyone can save money to go to school or to invest in property or companies. Hell, I make $22k a year, and have no issues saving up money (albeit slowly, over time) to invest in my future.

>>9648021
People don't even understand what really constitutes the 1% either.

I think you need to make something like 70000 dollars a year to be part of the 1% in America alone.

Now if you expand that to include the entire world, it's probably something like 35000 dollars a year to be part of the 1%.

Socialism: lifelong employment for the worship of money in the hopes of reaching a utopia even more cretinous than the Capitalist one.