Michel Foucault - The Subject and Power

[@koketsoomarmasombuka3395]

This is fantastic!!! Thank you.

[@RevolutionandIdeology]

Thank you for watching!

[@nevermind342]

Huge fan of your channel because of the specifically great material you guys choose and how well you guys dive deep into it. Perhaps Bakunin’s short 19th century essay “The capitalist system” is next? Though I know you have a video about Bakunin’s quotes I think this entire essay will peak your interests.

[@steviewonder417]

Bakunin burns

[@lai1064]

I’m reading it nowadays.

[@bethbrown8997]

Relevant @4:42 ..... power relationships are not relationships of communication, although communication does always have a way of making someone act upon something but is not always the source of power (Foucault 1982 p. 786). Would Foucault not view this lack of communication as advantageous to the analysis of power, specifically subjective individualism? Nice to see both of you!

[@RevolutionandIdeology]

Hi Beth! I think for Foucault, communication is a _conduit_ for power but is not power itself. I think the best metaphor I can use is that of electricity. A wire conducts electricity but it is not electricity. If we set out to analyze electricity we would fall significantly short by centering our analysis on all of the minutiae of the characteristics of wires/wiring. Of course, we need to understand wiring in order to arrive at a somewhat complete analysis of electricity. But, we wouldn't have a complete understanding of electricity merely by understanding wiring. If that makes sense. Here he's critiquing traditional structuralists who center their analysis on the meaning and delivery of language structures and symbols, i.e. communication. Power can manifest in communication relationships but they are not power directly. [I'm not sure how that relates to 4:42 though]

[@veyselbatmaz2123]

Very enlightening summary. But it should be noted that postmodernists wrongly interpreted the situation of capitalism through the lenses of modernism, which they were all against in one sense or another. The most famous one, Foucoult, once said that if he had read the Frankfurt School, he would not have written 90% of his works. I say in my book "Digitalism vs. Capitalism" that if he had read McLuhan, he wouldn't bother to write the remaining 10%. The real basis for their wrongness is that technology determines everything. In fact, what they refer to as social determination is nonsense. because without technological infrastructure, society could not survive. Read Harold Innis. To the question, "Where is capitalism coming and going? Going to its graveyard?" I have a hopeful answer, which is highlighted in my book: Digitalism is killing capitalism. A novel perspective, a suggestion first in the world! “Digitalism vs. Capitalism: The New Ecumenical World Order: The Dimensions of State in Digitalism” by Veysel Batmaz is available for sale on the Internet.

[@max-cs9ko]

He’s looking like Gandhi

[@johnstewart7025]

Foucault endorsed blank slate theory? If he was still around in age of DNA and mrna vaccines, he might have to give human nature more respect.