Pill Pod 185 - Bataille on Fascist Psychology (Patreon Exclusive)
Added 2024-10-04 15:02:50 +0000 UTCIn 1933, Bataille linked Durkheim's sociology and psychoanalysis to the rise of fascism over the border. The parallels to the present moment are hard to miss.
The article is attached (and worth the read)!
Comments
I'm a little late to the party, but I got curious about connections between Bataille's heterogeneous and the alterity present in Levinas's thought. Both seem to disturb the homogeneous life and demand something from the one who faces the Other. But, in general, I feel a slightly more benign expectation of serving the other from Levinas, while the heterogeneous in Bataille seems more of a wild card
Sabataí
2024-10-21 07:55:07 +0000 UTCThanks for this! Can you say more on the difference or relationship between Base and Superstructure, and how this impacts your notion that ‘ideas do not matter’?
Zachary Manenti
2024-10-15 13:10:13 +0000 UTCas; to keep the language potent enough by using metaphor, but not so much that the subject of metaphorical anecdote ( a nuclear reactor) becomes the primary inquiry, something which's currency/value is- first established, then mimicked. Sorry I was just looking out of my window. lol ...as;
Mrityunjay Awasthy
2024-10-13 20:22:37 +0000 UTCWhich of the homogeneous or heterogeneous masses is the more sociopathic?
Alex B
2024-10-09 13:42:13 +0000 UTCOverthrow the neurotypical
Alex B
2024-10-09 13:41:59 +0000 UTCThe capitalist subject is like Uranium in a reactor. The controls rods are treats that keep the reactivity low enough to stabilize and get useable energy from them. But contradictions like Xenon buildup, preventing fission needed to keep the system running. So the system operators remove the rods in attempt to increase reactivity but a runaway positive effect happens and then meltdown. Sorry I was watching Chernobyl
Khemith
2024-10-07 21:50:46 +0000 UTCI feel like the stuff around 1:00:00 could be looked into further ... about capitalists not really wanting fascism beyond it helping to initially wipe out labor leaders, because ultimately war and the like is disruptive to business if supply chains are disrupted, factories bombed... teased out in analyzing in present day what companies lobby/fund a conservative/Republican party that leans more and more fascistically vs the liberal/Democratic party, particularly when you see isolationalism/war hawk tendencies are pretty evenly distributed and perhaps even shifting. I would assume what you would find is that there is some sorting of companies by those that can benefit and are immune from war/upheaval and those that are not, those that seek isolationalism or resurgence of US manufacturing vs those that seek permanent homogeneous perfection of globalization. I.e oil companies are going to do great I would think in upheavel, Volkswagen and other manufacturers (chip companies) adjacent or essential to weaponry, transport are going to do great. And of course some of the companies themselves are ingrained with ideological values (to go against the comment that capitalists aren't going to go for the fascistic values, morals), morals due to the cult like worship of their ceos which increasingly dabble in strongman, anti woke, pro US technological-military strength personage (musk, thiel, the palintir guy). The end puzzle about how or why Elon and Russell brand and many other previous liberal leaners all flipped a switch was COVID. Elon got all pissy bc he had to shut down his production and saw it as government overreach and then he just went off the deep end because he had a savior complex ripe for fascing. This also broke Russell brands brain (final straw I suppose, was already quite broken).
ageOfBumFires
2024-10-06 03:30:16 +0000 UTCThe answer I got back from a Badiou reader is it’s from Parmenides
Jack
2024-10-05 15:54:14 +0000 UTCThis was great. Thanks for the pdf. Love how last few episodes have created a modular reading to follow. Now it's more fun to go back to the earlier stuff.
Mrityunjay Awasthy
2024-10-04 21:22:15 +0000 UTCIIRC Badiou is speaking of truth conditions as heterogeneous which are perceived as homogeneous after the fact (does that sound right? I'm working from memory) whereas Bataille is speaking of exchange and sociability. At first blush it does not sound like a direct reference, but if you get a chance to look into it let the people know!
Plastic Pills
2024-10-04 18:45:09 +0000 UTCDoes Badiou pick up the heterogenous and homogenous distinction or is his entirely different? I’ve been dipping into Badiou’s work and he draws that distinction between truth being heterogenous and knowledge being homogenous. Which makes sense for him because being itself is multiplicity and synonymous with situations that have the possibility of an event which can have heterogenous subjectivities I suppose.
Jack
2024-10-04 18:35:38 +0000 UTCHey! Add in some Evola and we have exactly what I asked for! Thanks Pill People!!👍🏼👍🏼
James Aydelotte
2024-10-04 15:05:04 +0000 UTC
