Prof. Gabriel Rockhill on Zizek-Foucault, postmodernism, socialism, & identity politics,

[@IndiaGlobalLeft]

If you watch our content and forget to hit like and subscribe, please take out a moment to do that. It helps us continue making the content we do. Solidarity! Also, if anyone is in a position to make any small donations, it does matter a lot. Feel free to drop a superchat, or reach out to us at [e-mail]

[@nickdolan3741]

How do you keep consistently finding the most interesting people on the left today? I emailed my admiration after your very first episode and it remains unflagging.

[@IndiaGlobalLeft]

Thanks Nick. Nice to be in touch. We haven't received any email from you. Would love to hear more at [e-mail]

[@peternyc]

This is a brilliant interview and a brilliant guest. The topic of the intellectual left's role, starting in the 1960's, of becoming a counter revolutionary tool of capitalism is the core issue today. America's left is a middle class bourgeois cultural/identity fashion statement. The goal of solidarity of the working class and winning power is neutralized by American and Western "left" intellectuals. Thank you for such an amazing interview and amazing channel.

[@IndiaGlobalLeft]

Thanks a lot. Hope we stay in touch. Solidarity.

[@bristlefist]

So true

[@PlusDeltaM]

How have I never heard of Professor Rockhill before?? This was brilliant, he is an exceptionally clear communicator of ideas. Much appreciated!

[@katerwaller]

This was a fantastic conversation - so rich! I learned a lot, appreciated the rootedness in history, and it really answered a lot of the questions I have been having about what causes the antagonism toward a class analysis in today's cultural leftism. We materials leftists have A LOT of work to do! Thank you for introducing me to Dr. Rockhill - I will be looking more into his writing to learn more.

[@elizabetholbert6949]

This is just fantastic! Thank you. We need these discussions.

[@IndiaGlobalLeft]

Thanks, Elizabeth. Stay in touch. Solidarity, IGL

[@tatjanamiljovska9844]

I love honest people like those two. and people who really care about this world.

[@Dorian_sapiens]

Rockhill is one of the few people who have a good criticism of what is here being called "identity politics". A key element he acknowledges is that identity-based oppression and (super-) exploitation are linked. Charisse Burden-Stelly and Erica Caines have similarly well developed criticisms, though they use the narrower term "identity reduction" to mean (as far as I can tell) precisely the same thing Rockhill is describing here. This change in terminology is an acknowledgement that, since oppression and exploitation are political and are, in many cases, identity-based, there's no problem with an identity politics that situates the struggle against identity-based oppression and exploitation in the proper context of the broader struggle against capitalism and imperialism.

[@Ftjxmmged]

Identity reductionist have been fighting class reductionist in the west because the infighting means that there is no actual Marxist anti imperialist group on the left to oppose neoliberalism. I have been really glad to find this channel

[@teynaranjas788]

Thank you for the great discussion. Around @49:50 Prof Rockhill mentions the existence of several good left critiques of NGOs and NGO-ifiction. Can anyone provide citations?

[@AbhijeetSharma-j9p]

Finished the rest of the interview. Thanks. You are a very knowledgeable interviewer.

[@ResistEvolve]

The right-wing is always talking about "Cultural Marxism", I think most of the people they are angered about are not even Marxists. I'm not sure which cultural theorists are behind the ideas the right-wing doesn't like, but the vast majority of these theorists are not Marxist at all.

[@josephk.4200]

The right is not concerned with any actual theorists or ideas on the left. The whole objective of conservative ideology is to fool the most possible working class and bourgeois voters into supporting the interests of ruling class. Therefore, ignorance of actual leftist ideas is ideal in conservative circles outside of political academia.

[@danleemiller7313]

Is it ignorance or is it purposeful distortion? It seems to me that this basically comes from the USA which has been systematically subjected for years to anti-communist propaganda. The great majority of people don't know anything about Marx. In the so-called cultural war which mainstream media and politicians are fomenting and cheering on, culturally conservative people call "progressives" cultural Marxists just as anyone to the left was called a pinko commie.

[@waitingformyman9317]

A lot of the proto-postmodernists are actually very influential on the modern right. Namely Heidegger and Nietzsche.

[@V12F1Demon]

How is that possible?​@@waitingformyman9317

[@DF-ss5ep]

Technically, it's probably correct to define Cultural Marxism as that coming from the Frankfurt School, which was not Marxist-Leninist - it was not aligned politically with communism as practiced in the USSR, and did not believe in violent revolution. They were ostensibly concerned with "anti-fascism". But in the mainstream, it is often used as a generic term to describe tactics used by communist ideologues, and regimes, that take place in the realm of culture. These usually consist in attacks to traditions, cultural norms and roles, or any kind of social mechanisms that function independently from a central authority, like the state, the party, or a community of intellectuals. Under this classification we can fit feminism, divorce laws, abortion laws, gun ownership, public schooling, and obviously militant atheism, which were very strong in Soviet Russia and under Mao. Anti-racism, too, serves the utilitarian purpose of winning over typically conservative and religious minorities. It's true that many of these causes are not inherently Marxist, nor are exclusive to Marxists, but if we take this broad generalized definition of Cultural Marxism, it's undeniable that there is a big overlap.

[@casteretpollux]

I was educated in the 70s, in historical materialism and dialectical material. Not a whiff of " Neo Marxists" or Structuralism. It was 20 years before I found out, with horror, what the next generation had been subjected to. Eventually dawned on me that this was a major CIA backed op. Read Marx, Engels, Lenin , all of it.

[@bristlefist]

Thank god there are others that see this

[@oreradovanovi5204]

To some of us who grew up on French/ Anglo theories from identity, to arts/ postmodernism... It's a shock and awakening. But now what is to read and restructure our brains ... Maybe after your shows provide some reading material, or ask speaker to do as wel... You are great interviewer, I enjoy your channel.

[@casteretpollux]

Read Marx, Engels and Lenin.

[@casteretpollux]

Read Marx, Engels and Lenin . Start with the Communist Manifesto.

[@Cyberphunkisms]

Thank you

[@AnandKumar-hs2nd]

Please bring Prof C. P. Chandrasekhar

[@IndiaGlobalLeft]

Thanks. We will reach out to him.

[@pgen62]

Great presentation! Share and share!

[@angelat948]

Very enlightening! thank you both!

[@keiljones2902]

you only have to listen to a couple of Zizek speeches to realize that he is a limited hangout/con artist

[@lana-jg4ho]

yes!!!!!

[@LadyRavenhaire]

Zizek is a collaborator. Ever notice all of these Leftists from Chomsky to Zizek make you leave demoralized and depressed? Not a coincidence. They'll tell you what's wrong but never tell you how to successfully organize.

[@notanothermichael4676]

25:40 who are the other 3 french intellectuals Prof Hill mentioned? I wanna know what theyre contributions are.

[@AsifKhan-bv3iu]

Fantastic presentation.

[@dialecticcoma]

another good interview boss man

[@IndiaGlobalLeft]

THanks Smith. Stay in touch

[@martinmarchef8303]

Great insights! We need radical change.

[@ricardoarevalo6369]

Thanks, Mr Hill is monster,in a good way.

[@malayerba71]

Excellent as always, thanks!

[@lexolexoh]

Yessssss professor Rockhill da intellectual MVP holding the theoretical fort of true progress and radicality.

[@cherylewers6322]

I loved this! Thank you!

[@IndiaGlobalLeft]

Thanks. Stay tune for upcoming video with Gabriel Rockhill.

[@Abhijeet-ls7pk]

Nice

[@rareword]

If people knew about Michel Foucault's private life, they'd think twice before adopting his worldview.

[@lana-jg4ho]

the french intellectuals were/are OBSESSED with defending legal child r*pe amiright???

[@himpim642]

michel foucalt didnt advocated for adopting his worldivieew nor claimed he is good guy to emulate.

[@antoniomachado1808]

Rockhill rocks! Pun intended. Amazing

[@KaiWatson]

The truth is with Mr. Langlois, "I took a break and in May I guess they threw a parade for me or something? I don't know." What about Godard and the Enfants? Was Francis Truffaut a, "real socialist?" Was Zola? Was Dreyfus?

[@casteretpollux]

Marx, Engels, Lenin.

[@KaiWatson]

@@casteretpollux Joyce, James, Whitman.

[@AbhijeetSharma-j9p]

Good stuff.

[@V12F1Demon]

Pls have a similar discussion with Steven Pinker, Jonathan Haidt, Chomsky, Zizek....

[@IndiaGlobalLeft]

We have a podcast with zizek and chomsky. You can check it out.

[@casteretpollux]

​@@IndiaGlobalLeftGet this guy back again please.

[@IndiaGlobalLeft]

@@casteretpollux He is back on our show recently. Please check out the video section

[@DeepTitanic]

Great channel!

[@umidnazarov5725]

Post-modern philosophy was the product of post-modern world not vice versa

[@KommentarSpaltenKrieger]

that's, I'd say, the materialist lense.

[@herratossavainen9669]

bullshit is creation of bullshit rather than other way round? my god, you are ingenious!

[@LuisAldamiz]

That's an interesting take however there's so much rubbish in post-modernism, only fringe ones like Deleuze are interesting.

[@pgohearn]

Insidious.

[@casteretpollux]

What?

[@pgohearn]

@@casteretpollux 1. Producing harm in a stealthy, often gradual, manner. 2. Intending to entrap; alluring but harmful. 3. nonstandard Treacherous.

[@ludviglidstrom6924]

I think I mostly agree with the criticism of postmodern theory here as it has been working socially in an anti-communist way, but there is still a lot of very interesting ideas within this intellectual field. I can recommend Plastic Pills here on KZbin, very good introductions to many of these thinkers.

[@lana-jg4ho]

are you recommending a youtube channel to two PhD holders in critical theory/philosophy????

[@Cyberphunkisms]

You guys barely talked about zizek

[@casteretpollux]

He's trivial.

[@TheMrPalich]

I would like to hear more concrete critique of ideas. The parts about CIA ties and Derrida being an anti-marxists are not convincing. I don't think that opposing Czechoslovakia regime means that you are an imperial asset. I can perfectly understand why some leftists wanted to do an underground education in Czechoslovakia, and I perfectly understand why some of them were arrested there and deported. And of course some imperial forces would support such organizations, why shouldn't they? Leftists critiquing other leftists, why won't you help one of them? I can't see here what Gabriel sees. I only see how imperial forces used contradictions within Left to get rid of communists in Europe. But who makes a division? It's the Left themselves. If Czechoslovakia and USSR in general were true communists States, they would allow people to freely discuss such contradictions. Instead they went down the same Power Path of paranoia, political oppression and ideological rigidity, naming every opposition force "class enemies" or "imperial assets". You can't just ignore the authoritarian aspects of left-wing politics of the last century. The critique can't be boiled down to "AntiParty AntiState". That's why it is strange to hear about identity politics by the end of Gabriel's talk, because this is the part where Gabriel and Zizek would agree on: identity politics cripples class struggle and disseminates forces. So maybe it's a good idea to stop witch hunt rhetoric of the last century (trying to find "imperial dogs" and accuse everyone of not being loyal to Marxist ideas) which lead Left to nothing but defeat.

[@robertcarpenter8077]

To the contrary, Foucault was as critical of crony capitalism as anybody. He was sympathetic to anarcho capitalism because of course anarcho capitalism is the post-political society, the stateless society where the only repository of power is the consumer exercising his choice in the market. Now the very fact that Foucault was quite sympathetic to the stateless society serves to refute Rockhills malicious contention that Foucault was some sort of crypto CIA operative as of course the whole point of the CIA is to defend the state.

[@lana-jg4ho]

"crony capitalism" ok Robert

[@robertcarpenter8077]

@@lana-jg4ho Ok :)

[@LadyRavenhaire]

Chomsky is a CIA tool and he defines himself as an anarchist so did Stanley Aronowicz.

[@casteretpollux]

Defending the state? You mean defending the capitalist state? Of course the CIA invested in this.

[@V12F1Demon]

Not a fan of cultural movements, post modernism etc but this was a great discussion 👍👍👍

[@RedStar0723]

Thank you comrade, from China, for introducing us to fellow marxist thinkers.

[@LuisAldamiz]

Very interesting conversation and I very much have to agree with all or most that has been said. However I find lacunas or probably lack of self-criticism re. the Leninist approach, notably sectarianism, dogmatism, lack of update/adaptation to the new reality of the actual late capitalist (Toyotist) proletariat and the need to update Marxism itself even. There's a reason why there haven't been no Bolshevik model revolutions since the 70s (Africa) or even the 50s (rest of the world) and Leninists do not even consider that in any serious way: they are stagnated in past models that do not work properly for lack of openness (call it "libertarianism" but maybe it's a criticism that Rosa Luxemburg was already making before she was killed, and not just her: she's just an example). Yes parties must be organized, they must be communist in the most traditional sense of the word (revolutionary realist socialist), they must be broad in order to integrate every possible revolutionary socialist but not Laclauian in the sense of integrating reformists. They must not be a constellation of many small sects but should coalesce into a single unified and yet diverse party, etc. Otherwise the only option is replicating the quasi-Blanquist or left-Platonist style of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, which has never succeeded in a developed country and even in the periphery only achieved revolutionary successes via guerrilla rather than actual revolutions in the sense of collapse of the existing regime in a sudden crisis-cum-social-uprising.

[@IndiaGlobalLeft]

Hi Luiz, thanks for the very constructive criticism. You have raised really important questions. Self-criticism of the Left, or more specifically the Communist Left who came to power, was not in my mind for this particular show. Maybe, I should have, as you indicated. It would have been interesting to see how Prof. Rockhill responds. But definitely more in upcoming shows. Stay in touch.

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@IndiaGlobalLeft - I will, your channel is interesting. Thank you and keep up the good work. It's Luis, with -s however. AFAIK Luiz does exist in Brazil but even there coexists with the more standard Luis. No offense taken anyhow, a lot of people make that mistake.

[@IndiaGlobalLeft]

@@LuisAldamiz Thanks Luis, Solidarity.

[@Rotwold]

@@LuisAldamiz I agree with Luiz Aldamis!

[@casteretpollux]

There are material reasons for that.

[@DanielDunne1]

"Actually existing socialism"? Seriously.

[@johnstewart7025]

Democratic Party, right? Federal Reserve, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military industral complex.

[@alexrediger2099]

It makes a lot of sense. Zizek seems to be saying nothing of substance, in my opinion. But I love Foucault's analysis-- however, it can lead to continuous academic work with no substance very easily. It is not directly useful for any action. But I find it useful for analyzing systems. And Foucault famously (in my understanding) avoided coming to any conclusions or even to acknowledge any truths. Their work is easy to hide behind, using jargon, in order to produce intellectual work of no use. It's almost like one took Chomsky's idea of an unending sentence through infinite recursion, and said-- that is a great idea!! I could get tenure and never run out of material!!

[@jason8434]

58:38 Great discussion, I had two points about nations and the USSR. 1) Nations are communities of faith. I would argue that a nation can be defined as a people without a state. A nation is a spiritual or metaphysical society. The nation-state adopted the nation in place of the church as its ally and social base. But nation-states are not nations, they're states. The nation is the fundamental unit on which state power is built. But the modern state is primarily a liberal political economy, not a national organ. The nation gives the state formal power through elections, but that's just the mechanism of state legitimacy. As we're seeing now in Ukraine, even national elections can be suspended in state interests. 2) Regarding the USSR specifically, I don't think we should understand it as a multinational state. The USSR was a socialist party republic. It accorded autonomy or sovereignty to the national republics, on the understanding that this was purely a formal autonomy to be represented in the party republic by their own national people. The USSR was a "mimetic inversion" of the liberal national i.e. commercial republic. The bolshevik grand strategy was to decolonize the nations and socialize them through the industrial proletariat into an international socialist party republic. Leninism is the socialist inversion of Smithian republicanism via Marxist internationalism. Or in other words, the USSR corresponded to the G7 rather than to Washington DC, Moscow was the leader of a global Leninist industrial republic of wage earners and party functionaries, corresponding to the G7's liberal political economy of money makers and global bankers.

[@casteretpollux]

I'm confused. The Stalinist state rested on gains of the revolution, but its governance clearly was not Marxism-based.

[@jason8434]

@@casteretpollux The Stalinist state was based on national-industrial communism and party-based internationalism. It was a Marxist-Leninist state dedicated to the extermination of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of national-industrial communism. Marx wasn't a theorist of governance, he was a theorist of capitalism, that's why we usually distinguish Marxism-Leninism because it was the bolsheviks, including Stalin, who theorized a communist state and revolutionary action.

[@metrobusman]

While I commend GR's critique of the theory industry, I have to respond to his erroneous statements abt anarchism asnd organization. "as though parties in and of themselves reproduce hierarchies and domination so there is a knee-jerk reaction, very uninformed, very uneducated, very unhistorical [sic] anarchist-driven rejection of people getting organized." You have got to be kidding! The host corrected him with examples of anarchist organization and GR responds by saying that he is referring to a certain kind of anti-state, anti-party of "libertarian" anarchism which is different from the IWW and a lot of other kinds of anarcvhism he could point to. It is not different. This distinction does not exist in reality, but only in the "very uninformed, very uneducated" head of GR. So we have the bizarre image of GR nodding in agreement with the host as the latter demolishes what GR just said. "Oh you are so right that I am so wrong." GR is the last one who should be accusing others of being uneducated. The IWW was explicitly anti-party and anti-state. If you believe in the state then you are not an anrchist--full stop. Anarchiusm is a shorthand, easier-to-say version of anti-hierarchism. The state, according to Karl Marx, is the means by which one class controls the others. Anarchists agree with him. States, be they feudal, Leninist, capitalist etc., exist to regulate society, particularly production. Socialism, on the other hand, real socialism, means the full and final emancipation of labor, now and everlasting. That means worker self organization and management, which precludes feudalism, Leninism etc. You can emancipate labor or you can have a state, you can't have both anymore than you can be alive and dead at the same time. The host states that Marx says the Communards thought of themselves as being anarchists but were really Marxists. That is not in the Civil War in France and I don't know what the Host is referencing. In any case, anarchists outnumbrred Marxists by thousands to one. They called themselves "Les Federes" and took the inspiration for that name from Proudhon's "The Federative Principle." The Federes issued a statement of principles in the form of a open letter to the people of France which reads like an anarchist psalm. It contains explicit support for ideas championed by Bakunin and which Marx repeatedly denounced. The anarchist nature of the Commune was the basis for Lenin's and Trotsky's fierce criticism of the Communards whom they used in part to justify their hyper-authoritarian, socialism-by-ukase-from-above approach. The host, presumably referring to the Chicago anarchists--who organized the largest workers' movement in American history (attention, GR)--states that they were acting more like Marxists than anarchists. No, they were not. They were explicitly anti-statist. It is easy to look at this movement, any anarchist movement, as containing Marxist ideas. This is only possible if one doesn't really know the history of the workers' movement. Anarchism, worker-controlled, non-statist socialism from below, and Marxism, socialism from above by rule by state and political party, are closely related as they have the same goal--stateless communism. It's only the method for getting there that differs. The Haymarket anarchists explicityly and emphatically rejected the Marxist/statist/authoritarian road in favor of the worker-self-rule, anarchist road. There isn't a statist wing and a non-statist wing of anarchism; The IWW did nnot support political parties; the Haymarket anarchists did not act like Marxists; there have been several successful anarchist organizations; the Communards believed in federalism--the free association of free producers--both industrially and territorially Anyone believing these absurdities knows little about the history of the workers' movement.

[@chazcmeekins83]

When you say "Marxism" are you referring to the ideas of Marxist Orthodoxy and the path of Marxist-Leninism that came about in the 1920s? Or is this a reference to the in-fighting within the First International that led to the expulsion of the Anarchist Tendency Activists & intellectuals? Also when you say Civil War in France is that a reference to the events of the Paris Communes as you reference the "Communards"?

[@metrobusman]

@@chazcmeekins83 Sorry but I don't understand your first question. There has long been a debate within Marxist circles if Leninism is a break with Marxism and whether Stalinism is a break with Leninism. I'll let them figure it out. There is a great book about the 1at Internationale called "The Great Schism." Iwrote a review of it linked below if you are interested. "the civil War in France" is the title of Marx' book on the commune. It's not very good, Marx at his worst really. The Commune was so anarchistic that Marx rewrote the section on the state in the Communist Manifesto along anarchist lines--without acknowledging it, of course. Marx wrote some great books. The best, imho, is Brumaire. It covers the period just before the Commune. It's his best writing, and chock full of brilliant analysis. dissidentvoice.org/2017/01/the-madness-of-karl-marx/

[@lana-jg4ho]

anarchism is not a serious ideology

[@chazcmeekins83]

​@metrobusman don't know why I wasn't notified of this comment but thanks for the Information 👍👍

[@metrobusman]

@@lana-jg4ho u r half right, it's not an ideology.