he absolutely did when he wrote that his mind was gone and he literally read Das Capital with his students

how so

i know absolutely nothing about it so i can’t comment

crazy how this dude was just right about virtually everything

is that Baullidard

yeah

Khrushchev getting pissed at Che for visiting Stalin grave

He goes so hard in his book “For Marx”

not a fan of post modernist in practice they just always end up being libs with “depth”

it's really unfair to call him a post modernist, a lot of his work is critiquing post modernism, he has an entire book talking about why Foucault is wrong for example. the only reason people call him a post modernist is because he talks about semiotics. Nothing he actually writes about is in explicit agreement with post-structuralism or post-modernism. I disagree with people who call Debord a post-modernist as well

hmm that’s fair my interaction with people that are fan of him just left me disappointed, what do you think of his break with marx

imo a lot of people who are fans of that philosophy just dont actually understand what theyre reading and/or just say theyve read it to seem smart but in reality have just read the wikipedia page after seeing the name mentioned on twitter or reddit

i think there's a lot of interesting stuff to be extracted from the philosophy that came post-Situationalist movement, which definitely was what inspired Baudrillard. That's not to say I agree with literally everything, but for example "Simulacra and Simulation" is so blatantly true of a sociological observation that I don't see how anyone could disagree with it, it's barely theory and more of an observation of natural phenomena.

That said, I dunno. Baudrillard is just a weirdo. His extrapolations from Marx I don't think are any more egregious that of someone like Althusser besides the fact he doesn't constantly mention who he's referencing his concepts or ideas from. All of the situationalists were Marxists and Society of the Spectacle from Debord was supposed to be written as a compatible extension of Marxist theory. Baudrillard obviously isn't part of that movement obv (just due to historical timing) but it still informed his work.

The main disagree I see as being a point of contention is he thinks the fundamental mode which fuels capitalism is consumption (well kinda its a lot more complicated than that but at least as a summary) rather than production. While revisionist obviously, you don't really need to affirm or deny this to agree with any of his actual work. I can see how that's a point of contention and whether or not it's a worthwhile idea it's a separate debate, but in reality I don't think it's meaningful to how it informs his actual work and theory otherwise, it's more of a one off comment

The political context to this is quite murky, to the point where American (and people not familiar with the situational context) media really doesn’t know how to report on it

Lots of internal factionalism in Taiwanese politics regarding unification/independence and KMT/DDP apparently

Clyde Barrow's claim that trump enjoys support from the lumpenproletariat is incomprehensible to me

in what way

Kendrick Lamar's misconception of social change turned him into a bourgeois individualist