• Firemyth@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Buddy- you are literally re-parsing what has been said. Using your buzzwords does not make you more correct about what you are saying. I’ve given you the exact same amount of information on the “signifiers” as you gave me. You can go find the material for yourself.

    You created your user on lemmygrad. Litrrally half your comments are from comradeship, reactionary, antileftist bs. You claiming you don’t live in an echochamber is a logical fallacy

    • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I gave you full names, the title of a lecture, and the subject of discussion.

      What’s the point in even recommending something to me if you’re not going to give me enough to find whatever it is that you want me to read. You haven’t even said what ‘Go, Ralph, singhal, etc…’ write about or indicated their relevance to the discussion. How am I supposed to know what I’m looking for?

      How far do you think I’ll get if I type ‘Go’, ‘Ralph’, or ‘Singhal’ into Google. Let me tell you, because it’s the first thing I did before asking for more details – nothing if relevance to this conversation.

      Are you reluctant to tell me more because you assume that I won’t read what you ask me to read because you’re not going to bother to watch or read what I recommend to you? And Marxists are the ones living in an echo chamber!

      I’m re-phrasing things, yes. This is necessary. We haven’t been able to move past the basic premise because you don’t understand the central claim in the three or four ways that it’s already been expressed. I’m not trying to be more correct. I’m trying to be understood. I’m open to the possiblity that I’m wrong. But for you to challenge what I’ve said you have to (and demonstrate) that you’ve understood it.

      Edit: for reference, the lecture is titled ‘race the floating signifier’, as indicated in quotation marks in my previous comment. There was a typo in the second use, outside quotation marks, which read, ‘following signifier’, which is now corrected. The lecture is here: https://youtu.be/PodKki9g2Pw

      • Firemyth@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I especially liked the part where you reference hall and then immediately try to turn the argument around about saudi visiting x country etc…- when hall is saying all along it doesn’t matter what race you are.

        Even more hilarious because the original argument is specifically saying it’s all the white fault and there needs to be an anti white movement.

        • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is among the most bizarre interactions I’ve ever had.

          Read this

          Read what?

          I’m not telling you blows a raspberry

          How will I ever get out of my echo chamber?

          • Firemyth@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah. Again. Your history speaks for itself

            Just to shut you up on this particular farce

            It’s Julian Go - Three Tensions in the Theory of Racial Capitalism

            Michael Ralph and Maya Singhal - Racial Capitalism

            • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              They first one is a good article. I have my critique, but it is good. I don’t think it contradicts what I’ve been saying, though. It concludes:

              … none of this is to suggest the literature or the racial capitalism concept should be renounced. There are tensions but these are productive tensions. This counsels that we should embrace rather than overthrow the racial capitalism concept. … [T]he problematic it opens up is far too important to ignore.

              As for the second, I can’t say much until I’ve dug up more than the abstract but I’ll say that while Robinson’s work is a good place to start, I’m arguing in the vein of a different tradition, which centers Fanon not Robinson.

              Anyway, thanks for the sources. I’m always open to reading more about the concept of racial capitalism.