Ngl that Wait for It song pops

Truly in awe of my country, love to see it.

Xi annex us when? Pls

I originally replied assuming you were referring the the Aussie NRL team St George lol my bad

Up the mighty Raiders

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haKURIdY4R8

But thank u for the clarification!

Yeah we don't have a particular referent for our dear chuds i don't think? I just refer to people as chuds tbh lol. Wtf is a gammon tho?

Man I used to be a fan of Lindsay cause I love my trash media and I also love analysis, but she's ben such a goddam lib the last few days I think I'm done. She was obv always a lib but goddam

You love to see it folks

Absolute beaut.

How did you get into wood working? I really want too but its a daunting dive to take

Goddam Delueze sucks, this is pure identity-thinking. Become one with das nichtidentische

Yeah sorry it’s a lot of heady stuff to get into at once haha.

In giving ideology (what Adorno terms identity-thinking) primacy, he’s trying to articulate that the ‘event’ can’t proceed without some epistemological and ontological basis (epistemologically: I believe it is the case that change is needed / ontologically: the tensions of the world demands change, etc). This isn’t, for Adorno, anti materialist because he believes that, to even think in such a way requires some material grounding. A concept cannot precede its object; Ideology can’t proceed without some material condition informing at at some point. Re your second point, ideology proceeds an event because it is the causation for it. And It premedites how it is viewed after because the epistemological frame that informed the event shapes how it is even understood posthumously and the narratives we use to define it. And then this premeditation also informs how we act after the event.

This view assumes, as you are sceptical of , (rightly) that ideology shapes everything.

It is a view that is very compelling when you look into it, and ones I personally hold. Good reading on the ontology of ideology and how it functions is: Althusser (essential!), Foucault, Agamemnon, Debord, the entirety of the Frankfurt School, delueze, (early) zizek (before he became a pop philosopher), badiou and stiegler. These thinkers all describe or differently, but all tried to articulate how ideology frames our actions and then enframes us as subjects.

A good starting point would be the ‘culture industry’ chapter from Adorno and Hoekheimers Dialectic of Enlightenment and Mark Fishers Capitalist Realism. The former is the most essential text on describing how ideology functions in capitalist society, and how capitalist ideology and fascism are fruit from the same tree. The latter is a wonderful exposition of the history of theory on ideology. It covers nearly all these thinkers and tries to describe them in simple language whilst also defining the malaise of the contemporary techno capitalist subject and how it is premediated by ideology. Now I’ve mentioned it, I’d deffo recommend Fisher as a starting point. But additionally, you HAVE to read althussers ‘ideology and ideological state apparatuses’

Lmk if you would like further recs for the others I mentioned. I hope this was somewhat helpful in clarifying! Sorry I’m very drunk in writing this, hope I was clear lol

On the idea of "bodies of armed men" preceding a state, I definitely don't think this is controversial. I don't have any particular examples on hand, but I would see it as reasonable to take this state on any of the (many) military coups that have rising throughout history. However, if we look at such a coup as an event in the Badiouian sense, I'd contend that any such event requires a prerequisite ideological frame to proceed. Getting to ideology raises some interesting questions, because it requires us to consider what frames the event, and more generally, whether it is the state or ruling class that create each other at all, or if there is something else that proceeds these that we have to consider as the locus point.

On this idea, I would point to Adorno of all people having some solid insight. He does not believe that either 'the state', or 'the ruling class' really creates one other, but rather both are formed by ideology. This idea seems pretty novel, and doesn't seem to answer out question about which creates which, but Adorno's views on how ideology operates have important implications upon how a social totality then comes to be. This is not to say that it is not important whether the state or the ruling class comes first, but rather that to really understand either being thrust into existence, we have to dig a bit deeper. So whilst I don't mean to downplay the original question at all, I would like to offer a thought experiment on how these things come to be - and particularly come to be accepted - in the first place. Namely, how these structures are assigned meaning - and thereby a validated existence - by the social body retroactively to when they come to be.

Adorno's theory of 'identity-thinking' posits that the social reality/dogma of a particular social totality becomes the foundation of how we can think within that totality. More than that, the social comes to be the metaphysical and epistemological grounding of a society; how we are framed to think creates - or validates - the state, and the ruling class, and retroactively positions them as some preordained order. Viz., the ideological becomes the frame of a given social totality, and when this frame is created, it enshrines the totality as a kind of accepted state of affairs, as part of the 'essential nature' of that society.

However - and vitally - in a dialectical reversal, it is neither the state, nor the ruling class that creates this totality. It is the social body - the 'discourse' - itself. Because when a conceptual frame (ideology) enters the social body and becomes predominant, the world becomes measured against this: "cut to fit". That is to say, a state or ruling class coming into being (seizing power) is one thing, but what give these authority is the process whereby they become an accepted part of the totality. Often retroactively, whereby the ideological frame of a given totality comes to frame it, and the world is then understood through it.

I guess what Adorno is trying to say here with his contention that ideology works retroactively is that there does not need to be some maniacal overlords pulling the strings to create the frame of a social totality. The social totality is rather the confluence of a million little decisions made made toward some end that retroactively creates a state of affairs that ideologically frame that society. Which is to say that a state and ruling class proceed from the ideological frame of a social body, yet are retroactively framed as the kind of 'natural state of affairs' of that social body.

Any state or ruling class can come into being, but what gives them power is the process whereby they come to be this kind of a priori accepted fact in the world. This happens through the process of 'identity-thinking'. So I would contend that it is not the state nor the ruling class that create each other, but rather identity-thinking that creates them both.

This obviously isn't aways the case, there are cases of violent seizures of power against the wishes of the social body. But, it gives valuable insight into how a state and ruling class that we view as 'wrong' can come to be not only in power, but socially accepted.

Apologies, I know this doesn't wholly answer your original question, but I hope you found some value in it. I believe that in discussions of the event that assigns some new state or ruling class it is important to consider how these things are ideologically formed, and retroactively validated in the first place. This is pretty heady ontological and epistemological stuff and doesn't really offer the overt material analysis necessary particular examples of whether the state or ruling class precedes the other in a given event. But I hope it has offered some interesting considerations on how these structures come to be validated lol. I guess my overall message is that key to these discussions of a state or class seizing power is the function of ideology and how informs and validates the event.

If you have any more interest in this topic, I'd recommend looking into Adorno's Negative dialectics https://aaaaarg.fail/upload/theodor-w-adorno-negative-dialectics-translated-by-e-b-ashton-2.pdf (if you are interested in this text, I'd recommend a strong familiarity with Kant, Hegel, Marx and Heidegger.)

For fantastic introductory texts that explains the context of Adorno's thought and how it relates to these thinkers, Buck-Morss The origin of negative dialectics and Cook (ed.)'s Theodor Adorno: key concepts are great https://aaaaarg.fail/upload/susan-buckmorss-the-origin-of-negative-dialectics-theodor-w-adorno-walter-benjamin-and-the-frankfurt-institute-1.pdf https://aaaaarg.fail/upload/deborah-cook-theodor-adorno-key-concepts.pdf

And once again, apologies that I haven't wholly answered your question (I've more so offered an aside), but I hope its given you some considerations about how it can even become the case that an event proceeds whereby a state or ruling class becomes thrust into being.

It definitely lulls around the first half of the second book, and maybe again at the beginning of the third. I still think it is great overall though, and the deep dives on ecology, the intricacies of the actual work required to create a new - utopian - society etc become quite vital to the plot as it plays out. Maybe I am just a massive ecology nerd but I enjoyed those parts, haha. I would say the payoff in the 2nd half of Green Mars is worth the drudgery though. Red Mars itself though is probably one of my favourite books ever written, so if nothing else I would highly recommend that.

Liu Cixin

I'm about a third through The Three-Body Problem and have been enjoying it so far.

Oh, also re work more on the fantasy side: I've heard a lot of good things about China Miéville. Haven't had a chance to read them yet myself, but Perdido Street Station is the work I often hear recommended.

Awesome! Will do

Hey sorry for the late reply, been very busy lately!

As far as the F.S. goes, Marcuse is a good start. Its worth noting that predominantly the F.S. thinker's were very concerned with the crises of the 20th century (emergent fascism, holocaust, war, etc.) as as such their theories were very concerned with dissecting these. Hence a strong drive to conceptualise and diagnose ideology, social deception, and so on. It's probably best to know your Kant, Hegel and Heidegger going into the F.S., as they engage with these three a lot. Essentially, they are responding to German Idealism (something Heidegger was also responding to, but they critique his method and findings.) Oh, also it is essential to have read your Marx, as they are explicitly trying to further his theory: Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and Capital I would say being the most relevant works, for their discussions of alienation, reification, commodity fetishism, the commodity form and exchange value.

For readings on the F.S (and adjacents), heres a few goods starts: -Benjamin - The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction -Marcuse - One-Dimensional Man, Eros and Civilization -Horkheimer - Age of Reason, Dialectic of Enlightenment (w/ Adorno) -Adorno - Dialectic of Enlightenment (w/ Horky), The Jargon of Authenticity, Negative Dialectics, Minima Memoria, Aesthetics

Unfortunately, I don't know my Lukács, Pollock or Fromm well enough, and I am not a fan of Habermas, so don't really wan't to recommend him, hah. However, The Theory of Communicative Action is probably his biggest book if you want to check him out.

Alternatively, there is a GREAT companion textbook Sage published with a huge amount of articles my contemporary scholars on the F.S., aiming to articulate their theories in a accessible way, and in consideration of social/mistorial progress since their time. I will link it below:

https://aaaaarg.fail/upload/beverley-best-the-sage-handbook-of-frankfurt-school-critical-theory-1.pdf

I wold totally recommend this as a starting point! It has enough content to get you informed with all the members of the school, and to also consider how their theories hold up/ are challenged by contemporary developments.

I jumped in to recommend the Mars trilogy, but realise you already mentioned that lol.

Anything by LeGuin is great. The Left Hand of Darkness and The Dispossessed are fantastic starting points, the latter being my favourite of hers.

I also find a lot of value in the discussions of power, class struggle and ecology in Herbert's Dune, but that is not overly 'Marxist'. Still great though.

It's been a few years since I read it, but I always saw Asimov's Foundation series as a thought experiment on historical materialism if it was an actual - tangible - science that guided social decisions. Might be off on that though, haven't read it since I was my teens/early 20s. Still, a great series and worth reading!

Im sure someone more well versed in sci fi could offer some more diverse and interesting suggestions, there are all pretty standard suggestions. Still, all great though and I would highly recommend them.

Hello all! Sorry for the late response, I’ve been crazy busy lately editing my thesis.

I’m Encouraged by the response to this! I’m definitely down to lead this reading group, but will have to wait till decemberish when all my uni work is done. It’s really got ahead of me.

So I will post more about this then once I’m done! I will prob start just slinging out analysis/ discussion on the chapters once a fortnight/month people can feel free to join discussion on, and I’ll try help lead the discussion.

So until then all the best. And I’d anyone is feeling particularly inspired, feel free to start ch.1 “the concept of enlightenment” and dm me any questions. (I linked the PDF in a prev comment) Herein Adorno and Horkheimer begin the central argument of their thesis: the dogmatic structures of ‘reason’ that we start judging social progress by under the progress of enlightenment do little else than replace our pre ‘enlightenment’ epistemology with dogma from the social totality that validates the current state of affairs as some a priori principle. That is, If u replace pre-enlightenment ‘myth’ dogma with ‘reason’, ur just creating another dogmatic structure that shapes how one perceived the world yo. In the words of zizek: it’s pure ideology

All the best comrades, I’ll speak to you in a few weeks with my dissesction of chapter one

It is definitely not an easy read (none of Adorno is, he’s pretty unforgiving in assuming prior knowledge in what his discussing), which is why I’d love to help people through it. As a basis for going into Adorno an understandings of Marx, Kant, Hegel and Frued are good, but not essential! I hope I’ll be able to contextualise that. I’d be down for a scheduled thread here, where I could prepare questions/ quotes etc and then have people reply over time to respond or post questions. Also down for something more transient on discord. One down side of post grad is you live in a cave for years and lose touch, so I’m a bit of a Luddite and will need to learn ha. I guess we’ll gauge a few days for interest to find best platform/ regularity. Also, the Jephcott translation of the text which came out recently is def the best to work off of. Probably the easiest and clearest to read. Should be accessible here: https://aaaaarg.fail/upload/max-horkheimer-the-dialectic-of-enlightenment-philosophical-fragments-translated-by-edmund-jephcott-1.pdf

Yesterday I was feeling funny about pronouns for this reason you mentioned: I really value being wholly anonymous online. But you have convinced me. I’d hate for my personal uncomfortability with identification to alienate anyone identities in any way. Inshallah I love you all