Lena
Very sober and thorough critique of fascism and liberalism (and its inability to stand up against fascism or even its willingness to assist fascism) that is unfortunately weighted down by chapters that are almost inconprehensible to someone not well versed in the philosophy/academic works of interwar Japan. Tosaka's critique is also very abstract at times (especially his points on literaturism and philology) but he manages to ground them in reality
Long and tiring read, but worth it
Harvey highlights some important points in Capital Vol. 1, such as time, temporality and control, which he ties to Foucault, who expanded on these ideas. He also attempts to dispel some myths or misunderstandings about Marx's work, such as his stance on technology and heavy industry, in which he is often portrayed as someone heavily in favor of industry, but Harvey manages to point out Marx's (subtle, but still present) scepticism, based on which Harvey posses a question for the reader if industry is inherently capitalist and how future socialist revolutions should approach it. Despite these brilliant remarx, most of the book is “Here's what Marx said here and here” without much elaboration, which needlessly prolongs the book. A better companion to Vol. 1 is, in my opinion, Michael Heinrich's An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital, though they both have something to them, Heinrich's work is more in line with Marxology, while Harvey tries to pinpoint and critique Marx's shortcomings at times.
A very important application of Marx's materialist conception of history. Despite highlighting economic, polilitical, etc. struggles going on in France, Marx is careful to never be overtly deterministic. It also offers a (still relevant, but short) critique of the state and its tight knit relationship with capitalism, which Marx never got to elaborate upon in detail and which many ‘socialists' countries completely ignored.
“All revolutions perfected this machine instead of breaking it.”
An interesting analysis of the development of Western philosophy and a rigorous critique of its ‘materialist' proponents, which, in Bogdanov's eyes, often fell short. The beginning is very interesting and easy to read, but it falls off, especially towards the introduction of Bogdanov's own philosophy, empiriomonism, which, to be fair, wasn't fully developed yet. As history has proven, Bogdanov and his philosophy are nowadays mostly forgotten in revolutionary circles, but an important idea from this (and his other works, too) is the need for proletarian culture which is free from bourgeois influence. This concept, though overlooked, remains relevant as it highlights the ongoing struggle for cultural autonomy and the importance of developing a distinct working-class identity before its total emancipation.
Genealogie sexuality by byl více vhodný název. Foucault píše krásně a spíše než výklad čtenáři vede polemiku sám se sebou, ale kvůli tomuto místy poetickému stylu je práce těžká na uchopení při první přečtení; bez přednášek/recenzí vysvětlujících “co tím vlastně myslel” bych si toho odnesla o dost méně.
Zajímavá aplikace Foucaultova myšlení na specifický oddíl změn, které probíhaly jako součást osvícenství, odklon od staleté tradice porodních bab a jejich následné podrobení mužské moci a institucionaluzovanému vědění v podobě fakult.
“Ženy tak na dlouhou dobu svým způsobem ,,ztratily kontrolu nad vlastním tělem, o kterém navíc nevěděly o nic víc než dříve”.
Probably my favourite book that I've read so far this year, though the edition (which isn't available on goodreads) is in Czech and also contains Korsch's On Marxist Dialectic and On Materialist Dialectic. The main premise of the main text is a “call to action” for Marxists to return back to and emphasise the dialectic more, as to not fall into the trap of Marxism becoming a stagnant ideology, an “inverse thinking” as Korsch puts it. Even though the text might be more difficult to read at points, it displays the shortcomings of Marxism and Marxists that haven't properly understood Marx's dialectic in a very striking manner. It also clears up some of the fog that surrounds Marxism with it's relation to science and philosophy and tries to “put it back on the right course”, so to speak. Korsch, along with Lukács, who is also mentioned several times in the book, form an important baseline for the positive and negative critique of Marxists from a left position. These striking remarks and pitfalls of which Korsch warns of can be seen developed later in the Soviet Union, especially Marxism becoming something of a sacred text, an ideology, not a critique (of political economy) as Marx understood it.
Also “a Marxist critique of Marx” just sounds cool.
The main problem I have with this text is Lenin's seeming inability to consider the positions of his (and Bolsheviks') opponets from their point of view; he completely disregards the Dutch and German critiques and their anti-parliamentism and acts like the (very uniqe, at least in Europe) conditions which Russia found itself in can be “transplanted” onto much more developed countries like Germany. Parliamentary politics played a radically different role in Germany than they did in Russia because they arose out of different circumstances. Also, history has proven that his position on Britain “support the Labour party so that people might become more favourable towards Communists” has been proven false throughout history, which isn't Lenin's fault, but it is alarming how many people treat this text as sacred scripture in the 21st century.