Or he also deserves better than to be treated as second to Deleuze since Guattari has a lot of contributions on his own terms while still being related to his projects with Deleuze.
Deleuze is right that the logic of Fascism is still widespread-- take the example of the figures of "the unrooted wandering jew" and the "those rooted by kinship and soil" that was so central to fascism, this mythic view of history where the warrior overturns decline by going back to the primordial and the domesticated abstract commercial man who only seeks comfort and progress and thus brings decline-- maybe we could say the "nomadic vs aboresecent."
Read a paper on the microfascims in Flowers for Algernon and have never been so annoyed not to know about it and that it is never explained so now I'm on a deep dive of sorts on microfascim and Felix guatarri in general
oh this is very interesting. So, as already established elsewhere (by me) (no one cares) i'm obsessed with Karen Barad currently. And I listened to this before beginning their book, a couple months ago maybe. And I'm listening to it again now, randomly (I only realized like halfway through that I'd listened to it already), and I think understand it so much better in light of Barad's onto-epistemology (to know reality you have to interact with it, and interactions *are* the fabric of reality). Barad talks of the "apparatus" as the part of a phenomenon that "effects a cut" within reality, designating a "subject" and "object" (that is, these discursive categories, to the extent that we want to keep them, do not preexist, they are entailed in the specific "material (re)configuring"). And this seems to map really well onto the "machines" of Guattari's text: like Guattari (who incredibly, I've just checked, is not cited in Barad's bibliography), Barad insists that a phenomenon is both a material situation and a discursive one: in the same movement that produces a new material relation, it also produces a discursive relation between something being done *by* an agent *to* another agent; causality doesn't preexist the interaction, it, too is produced by it (and this eventually leads them to suggest that *ethics*, too, is an intrinsic part of phenomena.) And in keeping with the quantum physics insight that is at the foundation for their paradigm, Barad points out that this "agential cut", i.e. the part of the phenomenon that could be analyzed as "discursive", is constituted by its *exclusions*: all the other ways reality could have been cut instead. (The paradigmatic example of this is the wave-particle dichotomy, where the choice of an apparatus over another means the phenomenon being studied (that the apparatus is an integral part of) will be one way and not another. It cannot possibly be both at the same time.) Barad's semantics feel a bit tortured sometimes, but that's the product of their strenuous effort not to re-inscribe any of a bunch of problematic preconceptions, the human/nonhuman binary being one of them. Anyway, this both makes me want to read Deleuze and Guattari, and also it is just very cool to find myself able to mesh and connect these ideas together. I feel like i'm finally getting red-pilled into poststructuralism for real lol
I think you can call Stalin’s russia a dictatorships of sorts, but calling it fascist is just academically lazy. It’s vague and starts to enter the liberal “authoritarian” political ideal, linking these two forms together so as to push a mass narrative. You can criticize Stalin without linking him to some vague red fascist narrative that doesn’t serve any historical precedence.
That’s correct to an extent, but I think Guattari would argue the difference only emerges at the macroscopic level, whereas his investigation is at the microscopic level, at which fascism and Stalinism function in the same way. I don’t know if I agree with him on that, but I expect that’s how he would respond
@@danbrioli5710 Germany wasn't fascist, is was national socialist, ussr wasn't fascist it was dictatorship of the proletariat, USA isn't fascist it is social Democratic. The two former are left leaning ideologies, while the latter is neutral.
Thank you for video! I recently learned about Deleuze & Guattari and it's not easy to comprehend in detail what they mean, by someone just casually interested in philosophy, but their ideas seem crucial to understand modern world, so it's satisfying to gain even rudimentary understanding. Before I heard about microfascism, I was unable to define or name these observations, but I always felt that something was not right in a way that humanity uses power on micro scale. It's just so normalized, that people don't notice it and even if you point out that something is not right about it, no one understands what you mean.
How would Guatarri define fascism in general? And how does his view relate to Wilhelm Reich's psychological approach as described in his book "Mass Psychology of Fascism"?
Great video as always! Was there a reason why Guattari called Stalinism "fascist" though? (I don't mean it's "communist" either but there are clearly differences between Stalin's Russia and Fascist states when it comes to government/corporate relations?)
You are right if you remain in a sociological-analysis/ neo-marxist dualist anaysis. Thats the distinction which Guatarri brings up in the essay. He adds a third category, political analysis. Within the political analysis, which goes beyond Freudo-Marxist approaches towards facism, the comparison between both totally makes sense. Its no longer a matter of looking at the molar (only), but rather a amplicfication and thereby better/ more complex understanding of the facism in each of us, which doesnt render the other approaches obsolete, but is, as far as I get it right know, kind of theory which fits better under certain circumstances.
Some Marxists have also called the USSR fascist actually. I recommend CLR James's works on the topic. IDK if I agree that it was fascist but definitely lots of comparisons to be made.
For context, I believe that Guattari (at least early in his adult life) was a staunch Trotskyist. In the Trotskyist framework, the USSR under Stalin became a deformed workers’ state - a state where, although the capitalist/bourgeois class has been overthrown, the workers still don’t have control of industry/internal democracy. This form of a state is state capitalist. Looking at fascism through the lens of Bataille (there’s a fantastic thread on r/criticaltheory focused on what fascism is in CT, although I can’t recall anything from it at the moment :/), it is the upsurge of heterogeneous energy (non-bourgeois/non-productive elements of society) as a revolt against capitalism that however keeps the capitalist social relations the same. I know Guattari’s work with Deleuze drew majorly from Bataille (from their concept of anti-production from his of the notion of expenditure to even the machines that mirror Bataille’s ideas put forth through the College of Sociology), although I’m not sure of the extent to which he influenced Guattari - however, under this conception of fascism, it fits quite squarely with the Trotskyist understanding of the Stalin-era USSR. The heterogeneous elements embodied by the workers and peasants cast off by the homogeneous, bourgeois parts of society rose up in revolution just to fall back into the same capitalist forms of oppression that they sought to destroy. Apologies if I am completely wrong on this.
In the simplest definition of fascism, "state control of and/or merging with corporations", the USSR certainly fit the mark. They were also authoritarian ultranationalists. There are small, technical differences between what the USSR was, and what Fascism historically was. Do those small changes really make meaningful differences to their victims? Not really. Authoritarian Ultranationalism is bad.
www.ladeleuziana.org › ...PDF Black Holes of Politics: Resonances of Microfascism - LaDeleuziana. Use that info in Google to find it and it's not in french wooooops
@@bluebutterflies9729 Oh that's unfortunate, I mean Todd May wrote a great introduction to Deleuze's ontology but I find the D&G part of his introduction not as complete but still a viable option and at a reasonable price. On the plus side, you can also find his lectures on Deleuze on this platform. The Book in question is called- Gilles Deleuze An Introduction by Todd May. If you have any other question feel free to ask :)
David Stalin was an authoritarian but it is very incorrect to call him a fascist. Marxism-Leninism has a very different goal and reasons for why they do what they do compared to actual fascism
Fascism really should be classed as a religion as opposed to an ideology. All things to all men. the king in his castle and the beggar at the gate, all sections of society are enveloped by its social cement, that is, apart from those deemed heretics and heathens. The difference is, the nation replaces god as the focal point of worship and blind faith. The nation takes on a sacred aspect. Which you might say was inevitable, with the death of god, reactionary forces would find some new social cement in order to bond the working classes to the rich. Instead of all being equal under god, we are all equal under race, nation, culture, history., language. That said, religion still plays a big part in many variants of fascism, which gives the lie to fascism's roots in 19th century counter revolution. It;s just religion is demoted to an auxiliary role given it's weakened position in the 20th century.. Once we start understanding that fascism is a cult masquerading as an ideology, the mystery of its persistent attraction is revealed, and why both capitalism and Marxism struggle to reduce its threat. Basically fascism fills the void left by god.
Listen, would it literally kill you guys to just read Giovanni Gentile and take his definition of the ideology HE made as fascism? Because this retarded sophistry progressives always seem to do when it comes to this topic is in my eyes no different than saying "if you want to learn about marxism, you have to read Hitler" Also, the difference between ideology and religion is negligable.
late but keep making guattari accessible. he deserves better than being treated as constantly "incomprehensible"
Or he also deserves better than to be treated as second to Deleuze since Guattari has a lot of contributions on his own terms while still being related to his projects with Deleuze.
Thank you so much for doing this David - it's amazing you give accessible intros to complex ideas from academic Philosophy - please never stop :)
Deleuze is right that the logic of Fascism is still widespread-- take the example of the figures of "the unrooted wandering jew" and the "those rooted by kinship and soil" that was so central to fascism, this mythic view of history where the warrior overturns decline by going back to the primordial and the domesticated abstract commercial man who only seeks comfort and progress and thus brings decline-- maybe we could say the "nomadic vs aboresecent."
You've made a real hard text (at least to me) into a very understandable summary. Thanks David.
Read a paper on the microfascims in Flowers for Algernon and have never been so annoyed not to know about it and that it is never explained so now I'm on a deep dive of sorts on microfascim and Felix guatarri in general
oh boy. hurts how topical this is
love that Guattari is being talked about doesn't get the credit the deserves! Appreciate the Gary Genosko essay really interesting 🙏
oh this is very interesting. So, as already established elsewhere (by me) (no one cares) i'm obsessed with Karen Barad currently.
And I listened to this before beginning their book, a couple months ago maybe. And I'm listening to it again now, randomly (I only realized like halfway through that I'd listened to it already), and I think understand it so much better in light of Barad's onto-epistemology (to know reality you have to interact with it, and interactions *are* the fabric of reality).
Barad talks of the "apparatus" as the part of a phenomenon that "effects a cut" within reality, designating a "subject" and "object" (that is, these discursive categories, to the extent that we want to keep them, do not preexist, they are entailed in the specific "material (re)configuring"). And this seems to map really well onto the "machines" of Guattari's text: like Guattari (who incredibly, I've just checked, is not cited in Barad's bibliography), Barad insists that a phenomenon is both a material situation and a discursive one: in the same movement that produces a new material relation, it also produces a discursive relation between something being done *by* an agent *to* another agent; causality doesn't preexist the interaction, it, too is produced by it (and this eventually leads them to suggest that *ethics*, too, is an intrinsic part of phenomena.)
And in keeping with the quantum physics insight that is at the foundation for their paradigm, Barad points out that this "agential cut", i.e. the part of the phenomenon that could be analyzed as "discursive", is constituted by its *exclusions*: all the other ways reality could have been cut instead. (The paradigmatic example of this is the wave-particle dichotomy, where the choice of an apparatus over another means the phenomenon being studied (that the apparatus is an integral part of) will be one way and not another. It cannot possibly be both at the same time.) Barad's semantics feel a bit tortured sometimes, but that's the product of their strenuous effort not to re-inscribe any of a bunch of problematic preconceptions, the human/nonhuman binary being one of them.
Anyway, this both makes me want to read Deleuze and Guattari, and also it is just very cool to find myself able to mesh and connect these ideas together. I feel like i'm finally getting red-pilled into poststructuralism for real lol
Awesome (PS: I care 😄😊) 🤩!
I think you can call Stalin’s russia a dictatorships of sorts, but calling it fascist is just academically lazy. It’s vague and starts to enter the liberal “authoritarian” political ideal, linking these two forms together so as to push a mass narrative. You can criticize Stalin without linking him to some vague red fascist narrative that doesn’t serve any historical precedence.
That’s correct to an extent, but I think Guattari would argue the difference only emerges at the macroscopic level, whereas his investigation is at the microscopic level, at which fascism and Stalinism function in the same way. I don’t know if I agree with him on that, but I expect that’s how he would respond
Worse statements then this in the essay
It is a part of the authoritarian left. A communist society. It isnt fascist and never was.
To think fascism is not identical or at least, eerily similar to communism is either ignorant or tankie indoctrination.
@@danbrioli5710 Germany wasn't fascist, is was national socialist, ussr wasn't fascist it was dictatorship of the proletariat, USA isn't fascist it is social Democratic. The two former are left leaning ideologies, while the latter is neutral.
Thank you for video! I recently learned about Deleuze & Guattari and it's not easy to comprehend in detail what they mean, by someone just casually interested in philosophy, but their ideas seem crucial to understand modern world, so it's satisfying to gain even rudimentary understanding. Before I heard about microfascism, I was unable to define or name these observations, but I always felt that something was not right in a way that humanity uses power on micro scale. It's just so normalized, that people don't notice it and even if you point out that something is not right about it, no one understands what you mean.
I would put it as 'everybody' wants 'fascism' mostly while having some other name and pretending is not the case.
He becomes more prominent as A.I. desire comes into play
so close to 10k! its been fun watching you up to here
they grow up so fast :')
They’ve reached it now !!!
Thank you for this!
Excellent and accessible - thank you!
VERY useful. Thank you.
Great video!
fascism is such a slippery word, but I can't imagine "stalinist fascism"making sense at all.
Congratulations on 10’000!!!!
Reminds me of the song Everybody Wants to Rule the World
ML’s in the comments lmao
More Guattari please! :-)
Guattari yea "the working class doesn't exist!" There is nothing universal that can unite people I guess. No more enlightenment.
How would Guatarri define fascism in general? And how does his view relate to Wilhelm Reich's psychological approach as described in his book "Mass Psychology of Fascism"?
Great video!
Also your eyebrows are nice.
Thank you so much for your channel
Can you explain what you mean when you say that fascism "appeals to the people's wants and desires"? When is that ever not the case?
Thanks!
Thank YOU!
a thousand thanks!
Look mom this Felix guy is talking about new and unheard of things like class reductionism is bad!
1:30 dudes really be calling "fascism" the very opposite of it
magnificent eyebrows
How not to Die.
Respect.
Thank you!
Great video as always!
Was there a reason why Guattari called Stalinism "fascist" though? (I don't mean it's "communist" either but there are clearly differences between Stalin's Russia and Fascist states when it comes to government/corporate relations?)
You are right if you remain in a sociological-analysis/ neo-marxist dualist anaysis. Thats the distinction which Guatarri brings up in the essay. He adds a third category, political analysis. Within the political analysis, which goes beyond Freudo-Marxist approaches towards facism, the comparison between both totally makes sense. Its no longer a matter of looking at the molar (only), but rather a amplicfication and thereby better/ more complex understanding of the facism in each of us, which doesnt render the other approaches obsolete, but is, as far as I get it right know, kind of theory which fits better under certain circumstances.
Some Marxists have also called the USSR fascist actually. I recommend CLR James's works on the topic. IDK if I agree that it was fascist but definitely lots of comparisons to be made.
@@maritmam6711 Nice
For context, I believe that Guattari (at least early in his adult life) was a staunch Trotskyist. In the Trotskyist framework, the USSR under Stalin became a deformed workers’ state - a state where, although the capitalist/bourgeois class has been overthrown, the workers still don’t have control of industry/internal democracy. This form of a state is state capitalist.
Looking at fascism through the lens of Bataille (there’s a fantastic thread on r/criticaltheory focused on what fascism is in CT, although I can’t recall anything from it at the moment :/), it is the upsurge of heterogeneous energy (non-bourgeois/non-productive elements of society) as a revolt against capitalism that however keeps the capitalist social relations the same.
I know Guattari’s work with Deleuze drew majorly from Bataille (from their concept of anti-production from his of the notion of expenditure to even the machines that mirror Bataille’s ideas put forth through the College of Sociology), although I’m not sure of the extent to which he influenced Guattari - however, under this conception of fascism, it fits quite squarely with the Trotskyist understanding of the Stalin-era USSR. The heterogeneous elements embodied by the workers and peasants cast off by the homogeneous, bourgeois parts of society rose up in revolution just to fall back into the same capitalist forms of oppression that they sought to destroy. Apologies if I am completely wrong on this.
In the simplest definition of fascism, "state control of and/or merging with corporations", the USSR certainly fit the mark.
They were also authoritarian ultranationalists.
There are small, technical differences between what the USSR was, and what Fascism historically was.
Do those small changes really make meaningful differences to their victims? Not really.
Authoritarian Ultranationalism is bad.
Do you know if i differs from Wilhelm Reich’s micro analysis of fascism?
When I grow up, I want to be rejected from art school.
Could you post a link to the article that you reference at around 7:00 by “Janosko” and trump in French?
www.ladeleuziana.org › ...PDF
Black Holes of Politics: Resonances of Microfascism - LaDeleuziana. Use that info in Google to find it and it's not in french wooooops
@@TheoryPhilosophy thank you 🙏
"Stalinist fascism" - really?
yes
@@snackspositive No.
@@snackspositive Wrong
🤔
Can you recommend a book to read to introduce yourself into anti-oedipus and a thousand plateaus??
If you can find a copy of Ronald Bogue's - Deleuze and Guatarri, very good introduction to most of D&G's work. Cheers and Good luck on your journey
@@ngdsmedia8189 thank you!!
@@ngdsmedia8189 not to be a pain but, do you -by any chance -have other recommendations? I can’t find anywhere to buy this book?
@@bluebutterflies9729 Oh that's unfortunate, I mean Todd May wrote a great introduction to Deleuze's ontology but I find the D&G part of his introduction not as complete but still a viable option and at a reasonable price. On the plus side, you can also find his lectures on Deleuze on this platform. The Book in question is called- Gilles Deleuze An Introduction by Todd May. If you have any other question feel free to ask :)
@@ngdsmedia8189 Thank you so much!!!! I’ll definitely come to you if I have questions
I don’t think I understood what the general essence of fascism is supposed to be.
I cannot abide the needless insertion of the word machine. Perhaps if i could see the utility it provides to the arguments.
salut, est-ce que quelqu'un connaît le titre du texte de guattari en français?
Salut ! Le livre en français c'est Chaosmose si je ne me trompe pas. (Chaosophy en anglais)
Napoleonic France - fascist?
you're cute. thank you for the explanation.
David Stalin was an authoritarian but it is very incorrect to call him a fascist. Marxism-Leninism has a very different goal and reasons for why they do what they do compared to actual fascism
well too bad. Guattari calls him fascist and his ilk a type of fascism. its a shame we dont have command over signifiers innit
Fascism really should be classed as a religion as opposed to an ideology.
All things to all men. the king in his castle and the beggar at the gate, all sections of society are enveloped by its social cement, that is, apart from those deemed heretics and heathens.
The difference is, the nation replaces god as the focal point of worship and blind faith. The nation takes on a sacred aspect.
Which you might say was inevitable, with the death of god, reactionary forces would find some new social cement in order to bond the working classes to the rich.
Instead of all being equal under god, we are all equal under race, nation, culture, history., language. That said, religion still plays a big part in many variants of fascism, which gives the lie to fascism's roots in 19th century counter revolution. It;s just religion is demoted to an auxiliary role given it's weakened position in the 20th century..
Once we start understanding that fascism is a cult masquerading as an ideology, the mystery of its persistent attraction is revealed, and why both capitalism and Marxism struggle to reduce its threat.
Basically fascism fills the void left by god.
Listen, would it literally kill you guys to just read Giovanni Gentile and take his definition of the ideology HE made as fascism? Because this retarded sophistry progressives always seem to do when it comes to this topic is in my eyes no different than saying "if you want to learn about marxism, you have to read Hitler"
Also, the difference between ideology and religion is negligable.
Stalin destroyed Fascism .
Nah
@@BrObstreperous read a history book
That's like saying Alexander destroyed empire.
but then they wake up one morning in concentration camp
>stalinist fascism
lmao wut
I know where the three dislikes are from.
PS I am not among them
I can't stop staring at your eyebrows and forehead
so shiny