Христо > Recent Status Updates

The essay by Marchant was lovely.

The third, on Lefebvre, was certainly much better.

The third essay is so obnoxiously sectarian I skipped most of it. When you start each paragraph with "as a feminist Marxist", I get your damn point.

I find the first essay still too militantly Communist. Not bad at all, theoretically, but the appeal to Communism still has the potential to overshadow methodology.

Starting off reeeeally bad.

Going really well so far; I am hoping to reach the conclusion that the real is the impossible, although it doesn't look like Westerhoff is prepared to reach this here in this short book.

The author will focus on the Althusser of structuralist Marxism, which is not only irrelevant in light of his later convictions, but also boring in light of the critiques. Passe.

The critique against Zizek was familiar to us from Laclau's other publications, but as always is of extreme pertinence.

"I have sometimes been confronted with the objection that conceiving of the ethical as empty leaves social normativity without a ground. My answer is that it is precisely that absence of ground and the possibility of signifying the resulting emptiness that makes life in society worth living."

It's something you need to bulldoze through, jeez

Again, what I dislike is the author doesn't labor to hide his political preferences, and that comes out as condescending at times. Otherwise, the text is engaging thus far.

Oh this might be just what I've been looking for.

Eidelsztein keeps promoting an a-responsible subject, countering subjective responsibility as something Lacan has done, which I find not to be the case. This is weird!

I didn't really care for chapter 5. I suppose it might feel less dense to a literary student, but for me, it was barely half a step from boring.

Jesus, I've had enough of Proust literary theory, thank you.

I'm so pissed this is so profoundly important yet so didactically dense you need to labor through it immensely, even with the provided aids!

Chapter 3, the supposed high point of the book, was extremely disappointing, repetitive, unsubstantiated and militant. Pity.

Already in the Intro S. is parroting the presups. of his immediate influencers: "Restructuring the symbolic coordinates .. facilitating a complete break .. from capitalism. Only then will we .. relate to the world in a novel way .. How do we revolt without being .. hysterical? .. I can’t give a direct answer .. but I do believe the clue .. [is to] go 'mad' to become 'mature'". Not so sure chief.