viglianogis4680-blog

[viglianogis4680-blog]

Final Blog Post

Molecular Red: As always, McKenzie Wark’s vivid vocabulary articulates crisp images. “But for now it hydrates the fresh skin of that familiar California landscape of suburbs and gulags, malls and freeways”. On page 127, Wark states, “The one thing a Marxist theory of knowledge could not be in that long dark century was “positivist,” and Mach was held loosely to be-at best-an example of such”. I wonder why this opinion of Marxist theory was made? Farther down on the page, “Mach did not think that the psychological domain of thoughts, feelings, desires, could know itself by itself, but he did think that research which traces the psychological connections could bring thought closer to knowledge of itself”. This is interesting. Is he inferring that psychology, or inherent human feelings cannot know themselves outside of the structures of thought? The things we think are our choice, or the agency we have, is actually just structure?

Kim Stanley Robinson Interview: I find it very interesting that the first question, Wark addresses all of the heterosexual sex in Robinson’s book, and it takes for him to write a story 300 years into the future to explore other genders and sexualities. Wark asks him why they were all heterosexual, and he doesn’t even answer that question. Then when addressing the future one, he talks about how he assumed that far into the future the human race would start experimenting and playing with gender. I find it really upsetting that he would view the possibility of multiple genders as some abstract human experimentation created 300 yrs in the future. Has he done any research on gender?

 2 CA Conrad poems: The poem Mars.1 is definitely interesting. By any chance is it a concrete poem? It seems to me to be shaped like it’s wind going in different directions. “Coping skills lost in the flood” lost me in the flood of words, pun intended. I’m not piecing this poem together well. I’m thinking maybe it’s referring to core/colonial states bombing peripheral areas? “Our signs read hello love us for the century of progress we gave you”, as in how colonial states justify their violence by saying they spread democracy or revitalize areas, as the bombs fall. I’m not sure what the title signifies though. Could it mean these beautiful areas are lost in the flood of bombs? If this poem is about colonialism/imperialism, then it’s immensely impactful with the vocabulary and shape of the overall poem. It’s also supposedly from the perspective of the colonizer which is interesting that the colonizer is almost calling itself out on it’s hypocrisy.

Juliana Spahr poem: This poem is phenomenal in my opinion. I love the loose story and flexible plot. Within the poem, there’s a few lines that stick out, “It is just an observation, a small observation that sometimes art can hold the oil wars and all that they mean and might yet mean within”, and, “In this time, the time of oil wars, there are many reasons that singers give for being so lost”. This really takes the story to that of about geese, to something deeper. The way the poem bounces back and forth between light-hearted information, metaphoric phrases, and hard facts is fascinating. Could the title, “Transitory, Momentary”, be referring to the transition or possible transition of using oil, and the moment were in? Or ‘moment’ as in we only have a moment with the oil considering it’s non-renewable? Both answers seem applicable to me, but I think it’s interesting to think about the transitory period we may or may not be in. Is the Transitory period us transitioning from oil to some other type of energy (solar/wind/water/etc) or is it us transitioning into doomsday?

 Radical Punk Music: I grew up listening to hip-hop, so this punk exposure is new to me. “Do They Owe Us a Living”, reminds me of thinking about how generations before mine, love saying to millenials, “The world doesn’t owe you anything”, or “you’re so entitled”. This song definitely was the exact response I was looking for. “Know Your Rights”, was pretty catchy. I also decided to read the comments which I’m glad I did because I didn’t catch this part of the song, “Murder is a crime – unless it was done, by a Policeman…or an Aristocrat”. That line shows the longevity of this song. “Police Story” is nothing short of awesomeness. The militant, aggressive attitude of the singer is commendable for talking about the police. “Anti-Fascist Cabaret” is my favorite song on this playlist. “Ich Erinnere Mich An Die Weimarer Republik”, is also really good. A line that I especially like is, (and you’d probably see this coming), “I’m a fag, I’m a jew, how do you do. That’s Mister Anarchist to you. You think your scene’s dead. Well mine got killed by some dimwits”.

[viglianogis4680-blog]

Blog Post 7

Dark Symphony: One of the first things I noticed upon reading his piece is the sections titled with Italian words describing speed/tempo. (My Italian is rusty). I think it’s interesting he’s writing about African-American slavery, while titling the sections in Italian. What exactly would be the significance behind that? I think it’s possible he could be writing about a hardcore, standoffish(to white people) topic, but then coupling it with “elegant”, and somewhat relatable language to white settlers, considering Italy’s similar history of colonization and slavery of Africans as well.

Black Dada Nihilismus: This poem is very interesting to me first of all the title strikes my interest but also the content. If you read through, there is a constant theme of violence. “Killed, killers, burned, raped, choke etc”, are all words that seriously stick out to me while reading this piece. I get a feeling of general disconnect from this, not really with the wording but with the viewpoint, I mean obviously I can’t relate I’m a white male, but it’s still interesting nonetheless. 

Three Poems by Aime Cesaire: I love learning about anti-colonialism and Aime Cesaire is one of my favorite theorists/artists on the subject. Specifically, “At the Locks of the Void” really fascinates me.  His vocabulary is enticing, and just draws such robust images in my head. One thing I noticed is the repetition of “I am no longer thirsty”. What exactly does the repetition of this phrase signify?

Profit I: This image by Jean Michel Basquiat is so challenging to me. First of all I admire the visual ‘chaos’ of the image, but there’s one odd thing I thought of after seeing this image that we did not discuss in class. The title is profit, and theres a man with a crown/halo/thing over his head, and it looks like he’s like preaching to people. When I originally saw this, I interpreted it as Profit being a homophone, for “Prophet”, and the guy being some sort of holy or divine medium or spokesperson.

 Aaron Douglas paintings: Both of these paintings remind me of corporate, capitalist advertisements, except for two distinct differences. The type of advertisements I speak of are not normally targeted for African-Americans, unless it’s some shitty liberal company trying to ‘embrace inclusiveness’, also the semi-subtle but not really portrayals of slavery in each image. In Birth of the Blues, we see people dancing and playing music, but also on the sides we see people supposedly digging graves, one person was hung (hanged?), others are mourning. It’s very eerie to me how he coupled these horrific images next to people mourning and digging graves, but I feel like that explains his intent of what supposedly ‘birthed the blues”. In Aspiration, we see people pointing to this elaborate, ivory tower looking stardom, while there are hands under them that are literally chained. Immediately after seeing this, I thought of the ‘Oprah Effect’, when people argue that racism is over because Oprah is rich or Obama became president *vomits*…. But upon further analysis, it may not be those people being invisibilized or forgotten, but more cheering them on? Maybe. Like they all see the “goal”, and want their fellow brothers and sisters to reach that goal.

 The Radient Child: Interestingly within the first paragraph, a sentence states, “I say that the reason for abandoning so much during the 70’s was that each fad became an instituation”. I’m wondering if this is a trend throughout most decades? Also further down, Jean-Michels crown comes up, interesting considering I commented on it in the “Profit I”. I’m amused at the fact that he said “Everybody does crowns”, as if he’s just trying to conform? Which I know he’s not, but it still perplexes me that, that was his response.

Music playlist: One self-critique I have of myself, is that I am absolutely terrible at understanding or interpreting instrumental music. I’m not sure if it’s just lack of experience/exposure, but I just lack the skill of piecing together music that does not have lyrics. With that being said, I am a HUGE fan of rap music, not so much particularly new music like Kendrick and Kanye, (Kdot is still amazing but I just don’t actively listen to them), I’m more of a fan of 90’s/early 2000s, like Wu-Tang Clan, Nas, Early Lupe Fiasco, TechN9ne, etc. So, as far as Kendricks music goes, it’s a form of liberation in my eyes, or to some just an initial exposure. I think the immediate backlash he receives for releasing his music, and doing performances specifically like the one on the playlist, show just how apparent white supremacy is. Kanye West on the other hand, oh god ole Kanye. I’ve actually been listening to Kanye since his debut, have been critical of his music for awhile now, and find it very interesting you included BLKKK SKKK HEAD on this playlist. First of all disclaimer: Like previously stated im white as hell so for all arguments purpose my point can be completely invalid in this critique, but just as a general opinion on black radical music, I do not see how radical this song is, or for most of his songs for that matter. My general understanding of radical is grasping at the roots of the problem, (Maybe this song is counter-hegemonic?) But even that’s a stretch in my eyes. Kanye West doesn’t seem, in my eyes atleast, to be grasping at the roots of the problem he’s talking about. He for one, has some problematic lines in the song, “stop all that coon shit”… “300 bitches, where the Trojans”, here we go again with the misogyny in rap culture even though we touched on the Stagger Lee effect on rap, I still have to point out Kanyes sexism. One part im on edge about though, “These n*ggas aint doin shit, them n*ggas aint doin shit, come on homie what happened, you n*ggas aint breathin, you gaspin, these n*ggas aint ready for action, ready-ready for action”, this might possibly be his only radical section in this song. If he’s pointing out the lack of action, or lack of noticeable violent revolutions among black people, that could be an interesting perspective. I’m not sure if that’s what he was hinting at though, and considering the rest of his music, especially his current music, I don’t see that as being the case considering at this point his music has become, in my opinion, over-produced, over-hyped, garbage that has a ridiculous fanbase. Oh good ole mainstream rap music.

[viglianogis4680-blog]

Blog Post 6

Poems by Pasolini- I am very interested in Pasolini, not only after reading his poetry but especially after Tuesday’s class. He’s very similar to me, a gay, Italian, communist, (only difference is I’m an Atheist)…. but anyway after knowing more about his background and identity, his poetry is all the more intriguing. In “Him or You”, he critiques the Israeli occupation of Palestine, followed by critiquing the Liberal Bob Kennedy for supporting the war, with these facts known exactly how critical was he of the Catholic Church. We know he was critical of the liberal side and the conservative side of the church, but at the end of the day he was still “Catholic”, so were his criticisms not substantial enough to un-identify as Catholic? Or is this just an added layer of his already controversial character? If that’s the case I find that very interesting, but still am slightly skeptical of that aspect of his work.

Revelator- If I were to read this poem 100% objectively, without reading in-between the lines, I would literally think this guy was just writing whatever was coming to his mind, and on each line break, he decided to change the subject. Now, looking at it while reading for context clues, and deeper understandings, I see things slightly (very slightly) different. From what I know, Revelator means like revealing something, or someone that exposes something to people. He hints at people need to be more conscious of what they’re directing their energy at in the lines, “One hour shopping & the vandal’s fled – him we’ll know not, never confront so recall the next day that anger directed at complexity..” I think he also hints at people not wanting to divulge into information that they might not be already attracted to, something needs to grab their attention “plot too dense to follow, unless (unless!) mind’s eye gives attention First”.  

Me and My Pharaoh- This poem itself is very hard to understand, but one line in particular really sticks out to me. “Better truth in the shade than a lie in the sun”. Is it better to hear the hard truth, or to hear a sugar-coated lie? Is that what that means? Or is it more of a sly truth compared to an outright lie? Another line that got to me was “God has no doctrine, no morality, no responsibility. To sin against God is to use that name to justify any action or prohibition, whether murder or martyrdom”. I may not be reading this right but is he dissing “God” in this, or dissing the people that worship him? Or maybe I’m just completely off, but if he is somehow pointing out hypocrisies in religion or God, I find it very interesting.

Interview with Charles Bernstein: I find it really interested that he was drawn to the most seemingly “boring”, types of literary works such as handbooks, dictionaries, and encyclopedias as inspiration for his work. I had never thought of something like this, and absolutely envy Bernstein for having the creative outlook to even come up with something like this. I have taken a few poetry classes, and sometimes write in my free time (which is like close to never nowadays) not once has a class or anyone told me to draw inspiration from a dictionary. I think this is interesting though in the sense of how it relates to capitalism, and how with competition, there’s always a need to one up someone, and be as creative as possible. Nobody would ever to stop and think they would beat the rest of the competition by drawing inspiration from a cookbook.

The Difficult Poem: This reading actually highlighted a phase I went through with this class specifically. I was reading poetry from each model, and most of the time when I would not understand something, I would ask myself some of the questions Bernstein puts out, “Why me?” or “What am I doing that’s making this poem difficult?”. And after a few weeks, I started to realize that it wasn’t me (entirely), and I could effectively attack a difficult poem without getting upset or frustrated.

Against National Poetry Month As Such- I am very intrigued by Bernstein’s critique of National Poetry month. Specifically in a class earlier Tuesday 4/11, I brought up how certain rappers (specifically Lupe Fiasco) tend to have their more popular/mainstream songs be about things the ruling elite either want to hear or don’t care about hearing (i.e. Kick, Push; Battle Scars) as opposed to songs that actually don’t become very popular, but talk about real life, political, and economic issues (i.e. Little Weapon, Words I Never Said). It’s interesting to see this similarity in rap and poetry, and how much the mainstream is highlighted, and specifically how Bernstein explains the mainstream poetry talks about the happy emotions, poetry that’s easy to understand.  

Disappearance of the Word, Appearance of the World- What I find interesting about this piece is his understanding of Capitalism and it’s influence on language. More specifically how language develops differently in areas/groups that have somewhat been historically either colonized or oppressed under Capitalism. This is also makes me think of present-day, language moving specifically with LGBTQ folk. How many people get uncomfortable or upset with people identifying as them/they, or non-gender binary; they get upset and say “you’re making all this up”, but not realizing we are simply creating the language for an already historically existing population.

[viglianogis4680-blog]

Blog post 5

Proto-fascism: It takes a lot of power in me not to vomit reading this particular section. I also do not have any particular questions, considering the vocabulary and structure of the article is easily understandable while the opinion is also horrifically clear. The Inequality of Human Races, as well as the addressed to the German Nation are both clear examples of ethnonationalism and convoluted views of human nature at it’s core. The address to the German Nation in particular, makes a point about how a group of people who share a common language are somehow, in their human nature, more connected to each other… Literally no critical thinking is necessary to understand that the development of language is a social construct (not FOXP2) but the actual process of speaking a set of words defined as a “language”…and how easily that sentence can be deconstructed and proven incorrect. With that said, I do understand that there was an agenda behind these pieces, so while it may seem twisted to me, it was (arguably still is) somehow a widely accepted and officiated belief.

 German Fascism/Hitler/Dexler/Goebbels: My previous sarcastic statement about stopping myself from vomiting has now become literal. Hitlers first letter on the Jewry was disgusting to read but nonetheless not surprising because it’s…Hitler. The pseudo-science used to justify the alienation of the Jewish population is something I have heard of before, but now actually reading it in Hitler’s own words is completely different. I wonder how people were able to believe these supposed “scientific” accusations without any legitimate scientific evidence? Or is my understanding of scientific evidence non-applicable here in this situation due to the time period? I doubt it.  Something interesting I noticed in point 3 of the Program of the German Workers party: “We demand land and territory (colonies) to feed our people and to settle our surplus population”…. Did the UN like model their deal from this point for German Jews being sent to Palestine after the Holocaust? I’m not sure but I just find it kind of ironic that Hitler said this, and then the UN who supposedly disagreed with him, then took the Jews and did what Hitler wanted for Germans just in an already established state…hypocritical much?

 Italian Fascism/Mussolini: Something that always fascinated me was how Mussolini went from being a socialist to a fascist. Something that stuck out to me in “What is Fascism” is a part where he describes “The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual”…. This is either a camera obscura, a belief of agency over structure, or possibly just a bold face lie. I think it could be all three, giving people the belief that they actually have agency, when in fact their ‘decisions’ are only created within the structure they are within, it’s a camera obscura in the sense that the state is perpetuating ideas of freedom and liberty but is literally engaging in ethnic cleansing.

 Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation: I find it interesting in the introduction where it states, “Neoliberals have insisted that the new technologies of communications and transportation make it both inevitable and desirable that the world economy be tightly integrated through expanded trade and capital flows and the acceptance of the Anglo-American model of free market capitalism”. This whole sentence is funny to me because I am aware at end of the day that liberalism does not address the underlying issues of capitalism, and tries to perceive itself as progressive in a sense but only within very minimal parameters. Even though I was aware of this, reading that sentence just really stuck out to me as liberals/neoliberals being the pushing force for 20th century colonialism, and I had just never thought of it in those terms before.

 Gramsci on Fascism: Gramsci’s pieces are very attractive to me, not only because I can clearly understand the language used, but because his ideas are so revolutionary and appropriate for the current political climate we have here in the US.  In “Neither Fascism nor Liberalism: Sovietism!” Gramsci argues that to combat fascism, we must not rely on Liberals or the Liberal party, because they were the ones who opened the doors for the fascists in the first place. It very much reminds me of Hillary and Trump. In “Democracy and Fascism”, Gramsci lays out a critical argument which I whole-heartedly stand behind. He says essentially that democracy, specifically in Italy, has created a camera obscura for the working class. He also states that fascism destroyed whatever minimal amounts of democracy they had left in Italy, which is another interesting aspect to think about relating to today.

 The Gramsci Reader: Our Marx really puts general leftist thought into perspective. Who really is a Marxist? An important question I ask myself TOO MUCH. I think this section does a good job of not deifying Marx, it in fact brings him down a bit, too a much more human level. The Conquest of the State is an important section because it outlines how crucial it is for combining and bringing together the working class. The state has conquered through divide and conquer strategies since its inception; like the section states, “The principle of combination can and must be seen as the central feature of the proletarian revolution”. This is something that needs to be clearly stated today.

 Essays by Pound: In A Few Don’t’s, Pound talks about, “some may consider open to debate”, but is he referring to his previous sentence, or the one following? Rhythm and Rhyme is surprisingly really informing to me personally. I’ve taken a poetry class, and I took it pretty seriously, so I learned a lot. But reading through this section I am also learning quiet a bit and I find it very interesting how Pound connects poets to behaving as musicians. I wonder if the first rapper was inspired by Ezra Pound (sarcasm but not really)? The Primary Pigment and the Turbine are perfect examples of pieces of art that I just cannot understand from simply just reading once. I like how all of the pieces flow into each other, and how some words are in all caps.

 Cantos: XLV is very interesting. My understanding of Italian almost helps a bit with grasping this piece, especially with the words in Latin. It keeps repeating with interest, with interest, with interest. It keeps reminding the reader, in my opinion, that no matter what happens, living under this system, when you take out money you build interest, when you make something you build interest, when you buy something you build interest. Again, there are words in all caps. XLVIII also has a very interesting part that I cannot overlook, “Bismarck blamed American civil war on the jews, particularly on the Rothschild one of whom remarked to Disraeli that nations were fools to pay rent for their credit”. Wow. “That nations were fools to pay rent for their credit”…. Could he possibly mean the UN sending the German Jews over to Palestine to live there (pay rent) to absolve themselves of the ‘payment’ they owe the Jews (their credit)?

 Marinetti Essay: I literally can’t even get 3 stanza’s into this essay without already disagreeing with something. “We futurists, on the other hand, affirm the continuous perfection and endless progress of humankind, both psychological and intellectual, as absolute principles of Futurism”… Not to sound like an Anarchist, but does he really believe in the Modernization Theory? Doesn’t the idea of human beings becoming more “advanced” and “civilized” prevent people from seeing the truth of regression? Almost like having an African-American president perpetuate an idea of post-racial America while masking the truth of the continuation of systemic racism?

 Cultural Criticism & Society: This essay is very intellectually stimulating. There’s a part I don’t understand, but I really wish I did. “The position of the cultural critic, by virtue of its difference from the prevailing disorder, enables him to go beyond it theoretically, although often he merely falls behind”. Is he saying cultural critics are able to somehow transcend theoretical ideals of the culture they’re studying, but ends up falling back on simply theories?

 The Beach Beneath the Street: The Everyday Life and Glorious Times of the Situationist: There’s an interesting comment made in Chapter 2, it says, “Bataille’s view of the city took as its starting point the sacred architecture at this center, which he made the site from which to dethrone God”. The last part about dethroning God, what exactly is implied there? In chapter 4, the top of page 47 says, “In Bill’s aesthetic, beauty both derives from function and is a function”. This is interesting to think about not simply through the lens of the cliché, “beauty is a lot more than what’s on the outside”, it makes me think more about the symbolism behind this art during the time period, and what the art actually ‘functions’ in doing.

[viglianogis4680-blog]

Blog Post 4

The Three Sources and Three Component parts of Marxism:

In the beginning of the article, before the sources are detailed, Marx’s writings are described as having answers to questions that were brought up by many intellectual minds. I think this is interesting to think about because even today, people consider Marx’s writings as answers to our current system of capitalism, even though it has evolved far beyond the point it was at when Marx was writing and alive. I find it fascinating how well it transcends time, and even though I myself believe the current system of capitalism is beyond what was originally imagined, I still feel like Marx’s writings hold true and can be used as a means to a solution.

 Regarding the sections, I am curious about what is meant in section 2 with the sentence, “Anarchy of production, crises, the furious chase after markets and the insecurity of existence of the mass of population are intensified”? The previous sentence talks about the body of workers, coming together to form this almost mass of labour, “economic organism”, has the product of their labour appropriated by the capitalist class, which I understand. But I do not see the correlation nor the transition into anarchy of production or crises. Are they referring to the “booms and busts” of Capitalism? In section 3, I find it really interesting that immediately after the fall of feudalism and the development of capitalism, there were socialist doctrines that immediately criticized the new system. I did not originally think of it being so immediate.

 Chapter 1 of Lenin’s The State and Revolution:

The first paragraph, outlining how revolutionary thinkers are scorned during their life, then after their death, are turned into ‘harmless icons’ and have their messages completely distorted; all of this immediately reminded my of MLK and Gandhi (and many others but these are the first two that came to my head). Our history books do not shy away from teaching us about MLK and Gandhi, but they leave out all the socialist and communist ideas and just leave us with the civil disobedience and peaceful ideas. It is no surprise to me that this was also done with Marx. In the first chapter, I understand the two different distortions of Marx’s writing, but do they even offer significant validity? I mean the first paragraph literally talks about elite class using historical contexts to benefit them, now is it not entirely obvious that this is happening with these distortions?

 Trotsky’s The Transitional Program:

There’s a sentence or two in “The Proletariat and its Leadership” that really stuck out to me. “In all countries the proletariat is racked by a deep disquiet. The multimillion masses again and again enter the road of revolution. But each time they are blocked by their own conservative bureaucratic machines”.  This is interesting to think about because no matter of the government is ‘democratic’ or ‘republican’, they both operate as a conservative machine when faced with a leftist revolution. I’m curious as to how in France in 1936, the leading organizations of the proletariat class managed to canalize and dam the ‘revolutionary stream’? I thought the ‘conservative bureaucratic machines’ always undermined revolutions? Or am I misinterpreting this whole section?

 Essays on proletkult by Bogdanov:

In section 8, it says “The technical methods of the old art have developed in isolation from the methods of other spheres of life”. I’m not sure what that means. Is he saying that the way old art was created separate from other aspects of an artists life? Or is it a reference to the subject matter of what the artist was specifically creating?

 Bogdanov essay on tektology (1-36; 63-79):

I find it really interesting how the beginning of the first chapter talks about how human’s have been attempting to conquer nature for centuries, by organizing collectives. I had never thought of it in that way. Bogdanov labels the third instrument as social norms, and then references one area as ‘patriarchal times’. Was Bogdanov a ‘feminist’ and referring to those times with disdain? Or was his depiction of patriarchal times just a description of the social norms that he believes prevent people from forming collectively and taking action?

Page 7 talks about evolution of animal traits and characteristics, and I found this interesting because Bogdanov is comparing physiological evolutionary traits in animals to inventions and creations humans make. I had taken an entire class on evolution in animals and had never thought of this correlation. It makes me think though, are we incapable of evolving or developing these physiological traits, or is it that it is unnecessary because of our inventions and creations?

I also found the description in 3ii. on page 68 fascinating. The process of conjunction, scientifically speaking, comes from a degree of the components of what was put into it. Bogdanov uses hydrogen and oxygen as an easy example, but then brings complex equations into the picture, which really intrigues me. Breaking down or reorganizing constructs or complexes, can result in something unrecognizable from the original components, but can have traces of each. It’s really complicated to think about but I find his analyses of this concept extraordinary.

 Bogdanovs essays and Bukharin’s memorial for Bogdanov in the Molecular Red Reader:

           An interesting part of Bogdanov’s essay, The Science of the Future, is on page 21 when he refers to war in a simple manner of each side wanting to ‘overcome’ or ‘incapacitate’ whatever their energy is directed towards. I immediately thought to myself reading this is if Bogdanov was speaking through the lens of a colonizer, or the colonized. I feel as though the conceptualization of what war is, is very different depending on the lens it’s looking through. I know he said ‘overcome’ which could reference the colonized, but that does not entirely paint the whole picture. I feel as though a lot of war for colonizers sees the other side as a means to exploit or expunge of their resources. These resources could very well be labour, or natural resources like minerals, or oils; so is the energy directing at total incapacitating the other side, or is it on the resources?

           Bukharin’s memorial for Bogdanov, almost gave me chills in a way. Seeing a man acknowledge the key differences between him and someone else, but also praise him for his theories. With that said, there was an eerie sense of deja-vu I felt from reading this piece, and it reminded me of Lenin’s the State of Revolution when he talks about revolutionary ideas being misconstrued after death. Not saying Bukharin is doing that here, but, he specifically says, “history will undoubtedly search through and find that which is most valuable in Bogdanov’s thought; it will allocate to him a worthy place among the fighters for revolution, science, and labor”. That sentence literally read to me as, “the powers that be will go sift through Bogdanov’s writings and pick and choose what they want that fits their agenda, and then highlight those as they praise his life after his death”. Is Bukharin subtlety referring to this, or is he just being complimentary? I’m not necessarily sure if that is the intention of Bukharin here, but it definitely stuck out to me as I was reading, especially since I was so touched by how nice he was being at first.

 Preface and Chapter 1 of Molecular Red:

           On page xiv of the preface, Wark defines the Anthropocene as a series of ‘metabolic rifts’, and explains how the waste products do not return to the earth to cycle and renew itself. This immediately reminded me of Bogdanov’s explanation of Human’s inventing constructs as a means of ‘evolution’, compared to animals who develop traits. It’s almost as if, our ability (or possible inability) to not need to evolve, but instead innovate off of what’s around us, is inevitably leading us to our extinction. This thought is then further reinforced when Wark mentions the effects of Climate change.

           In the section titled, The Philosophy of Living Experience, Wark describes Bogdanov as someone who isn’t writing philosophy just to create more philosophy, but he’s trying to create something new out of it. This was evident in Bogdanov’s works, but what was interesting to me was the idea that Bogdanov pushed philosophy into the direction of being about creating something else. Or was it already like that? Foucault believed knowledge was power, Marx believed mass collectivity was power, but what are they both leading towards? In my opinion, it was to create something better, a means of improving our way of living.

 A Dialectic Approach to Film Form and Methods of Montage:

           On page 47, Eisenstein describes human expression as a conflict between conditioned and unconditioned reflexes. As a psychologist I had to pick this apart. Is he describing what Freud’s referred to as the ego? The conscious versus the unconscious? If that is the case, human expression is a lot more complex than those factors. The reason for unconditioned reflexes is because certain stimuli trigger those reflexes without us consciously thinking about it, there is no conflict between the reflexes there. Maybe he’s referring to cognitive dissonance instead?

 Analysis of Odessa Steps:

           This analysis of the Odessa Steps scene from the movie Battleship Potemkin was easy to understand and really helped me look at that dramatic scene from a different perspective. First we watched it in class, just viewing it regularly, but now after watching it again and having it analyzed, more things stuck out to me. 1. The soldiers, specifically their faces, were never really focused on. I know Eisenstein wanted to portray the soldiers as having a lack of humanity, but now I see him avoiding their faces, focusing on their guns and uniforms further solidifies this idea of them being inhumane. Also, the scene with the lions, I had not noticed any significance the first time watching, but after watching the analysis, the significance of that scene actually makes sense to me.

 How “Battleship Potemkin” reshaped Hollywood:

           Reading this article really changed my opinion of the movie. I had no idea it’s impact was so wide, that it even influenced one of my favorite series, Star Wars, (even though I can not off the top of my head recall a scene from Revenge of the Sith that mimics the Odessa Steps). Although, like stated a few paragraphs down, can we still see what made the film important? Is the concrete idea, of inspiring the oppressed to rise up still prevalent? I think like Bogdanov stated about after death, messages from revolutionaries become watered-down, the same can happen here. Obviously, the need for the oppressed to rise up, is very much prevalent today but is the message from Battleship Potemkin still that, or any movie that was influenced by it for that matter?

 Chapter 2 of Molecular Red

           On page 65, one sentence states, “Platonov is the writer of the material practice of popular sense-making”. I’m not entirely sure of what that means, but does it mean he took into practice, complex ideas and made them understandable for the so-called average or popular audience?

 Antisexus:

           What I find interesting in the beginning of the article, is the discourse in human pleasure, physiology, and apparent homogeneity across other cultures. With all of these taken into consideration, did they include sexualities other than heterosexuality? Another interesting side note is the article referring to unregulated sexuality as ‘spreads misery and suffering that is not acceptable in the age of the general scientific division of labor…’. Interesting. Unregulated sexuality as in promiscuity or homosexuality? Regardless of the meaning, the language used here makes me nauseous. Then further down in the article, in the section where famous people review the Antisexus device, a guy named Hindenburg defines war as humanity’s passion. That sentence speaks volumes of socially constructed beliefs, lacking entirely in critical thought. If war was humanity’s ‘passion’, then where were the wars pre-Neolithic revolution?

 The Third Son:

           This story was, for lack of a better word, peculiar. One part that really stood out to me was on page 215, when the author states the priest would have offered his perspectives on war and revolution. Is there any significance in that? Like a religious figure offering his opinion on two very violent instances. Even if it wasn’t, I think it’s still interesting to think about.

[viglianogis4680-blog]

Alienated Labour: The general concept Marx implements in his section on the Alienation of Labour makes clear sense to me except for one aspect. The aspect of “the worker becomes poorer the richer is his production”, from page 86, still perplexes me. I understand it in the sense that, the laborer becomes more and more exploited the more commodities he/she creates, BUT does this only apply to people within certain economic/social strata’s? While I get that generally Marx is contrasting the bourgeois and the proletariat class, I feel like there is a lack of critical differentiation within the proletariat class itself. For example, there are poor white’s as well as poor black’s, both are exploited for their labor, but does one have greater social mobility than the other, more specifically, does one have a greater chance of becoming “successful” from their labor…absolutely. So did Marx not consider the different sub-classes within the working class category, or was it intentional to group the working class as a whole?  

Critique of Hegel’s Dialectic and Philosophy: I think it’s interesting that Marx labels Feuerbach’s great achievement as overcoming the old philosophy of the Hegelian Dialectic. Specifically, with #1, relating philosophy to religion, saying philosophy is simply religion rationalized, then by association would be another form of human alienation. That idea really encapsulates the radical criticism of social paradigms and structures. The belief that the societal structures that alienate us and inhibit our critical thinking, are also accompanied by the vary fields and disciplines that people use to liberate others from these structures, they somehow act in a way that liberates but also further alienates and enslaves us. Also, on page 110, when Marx begins talking about absolute knowledge and objectivity, it reminds me a lot of Michel Foucault and his beliefs on knowledge and power, and how the two are used as forms of social control through societal institutions.

Theses on Feuerbach: Marx second disagreement with Feuerbach is another similarity in my eyes between him and Foucault, and the idea of knowledge and power, which I will expand on. “Man must prove the truth”, but who is “man” referring to? Man refers to people in specific positions of power. Who has to prove the truth? The African-American teen that was unarmed walking home from school. Who doesn’t have to prove the truth? The cop that shot him dead. Only people who lack in power and “authority” have to generally prove the truth, people in high positions of power do not have to prove their logic and thinking, the current social position they are in constitutes unintellectual compliance and belief.

German Ideology: In The Premisses of the Materialist Method, Marx talks about the distinction between humans and animals. I strongly disagree with the general language used to differentiate humans and animals, and I think it lacks not only radical but basic scientific thought. Marx differentiates humans and animals by “consciousness, by religion, or anything else you like”. I’m not sure what he’s implying by “anything else you like”, but if he’s binding that with religion and insinuating animals have not created any sort of social construct, then he’s ignoring immense facts about the animal kingdom, (wolf-packs, gorilla herd hierarchies). In Private Property and Communism, the entire first paragraph is ridden with problematic views, while I am taking into account the time period this was written in, it can’t go unnoticed. Assuming the definition of “family” equals “a wife, and children” is gag-worthy. In Communism and History, on page 189, I’m unsure if Marx is stating that “productive forces, capital funds, and social forms of intercourse” are human nature, or qualities that society has deeply entrenched to the point that it is perceived as “human nature”? In Communist Revolution, the idea is presented that in this movement, it “overturns the basis of all earlier relations of production and intercourse”. This is interesting to me because I always thought of a communist revolution as something trying to reverse and heal the wounds caused by capitalism, but this entry makes me think it’s far greater than that. It’s saying a communist revolution is trying to negate everything that’s happened since the damn Neolithic Revolution, and that concept in itself is radical as hell.

Hegel for Beginners: This outline of Hegel’s dialectic is helpful, but I don’t understand one thing. Hegel states that absolute knowledge can only be attained at the end-point of the think process, but if the think-process is also marked by negation, then what would he constitute as the true end-point?

The Fragment of Machines: This piece, specifically under [693] really touches base with the concepts from the section “Alienation Labour”. My only question is, Marx conceptualized the shift from man power to machinery as a further alienation, and dehumanizing process, making the human’s work almost unnecessary; so how is it the capitalist class is able to keep the work of the man, as well as the machines? I’m thinking more in the modern sense, with more advanced technology as well. Also as a side-note, I find the analogies and personification of machinery and humans used in this section to be very provocative.

Capital: Something that came to mind while reading the section Commodities: Use-Value and Exchange-Value, is the slippery definition of what a commodity is. A question that came into my mind was, is a sex-worker a commodity? This coincidentally directly relates to the next section, The Fetishism of Commodities. This section also shares an interesting concept to me, the idea of social product. In the Sale Of Labour Power section, on page 491, a reality is brought up in the issue of labor that I did not previously acknowledge which is the laborers mortality. This mortality has to be met with a market approach of procreation, an equal substitution for thus mortality. This is one of Marx’s concepts that I think can be critically translated into modern times. It’s easy to assume that we don’t market our kids off anymore as laborers, but what is the college application process exactly? In most cases, parents paying $50-75 so their child can essentially prove their value to an institution that is going to spit them out into the labor force. So technically, we still have this process of marketing off your child for labor, there’s just an added step in the middle now, which is higher education.

The Civil War in France: On page 597, another example of Marx’s provocative language, in which he relates the state apparatus control over the society to a boa constrictor. Marx also talks about when the Revolution of 1848 happened, the French government as well as the governments of all continental Europe began further oppressing these movements and defining their monopolization on violence. I find this topic very interesting , the idea of a State’s monopoly on violence in relation to the nations ‘reactionary’ violence, (even though I would argue Franz Fanon’s idea that the violence of the people is not their violence at all but the states own violence redirected back at them), but anyway, it would be interesting to know what it would be like to live in that time during this revolution, and to see how the state would try to mask their violence by hyper-visualizing the ‘violence’ created by the revolutionaries.

Louis Zukofsky’s poem section 8: In class we were asked which parts of this piece sounded like Marx, and aside from the parts we discussed in class, there is one section on page 51 that not only sounds like Marx but just carries out so much emotion in it. The stanza that starts with “To be flooded in case of war?”. That entire stanza sticks out to me, not only because it was one of the few stanza’s I could understand without reading the secondary source, but because it reminds me of current boss-employ attitudes in the work force today. “You took off this day, not only will you not get paid for it, but you will be punished for it; in fact, not only will you be punished for it, but your kid will also have to pay for your lack of labor”.

Excerpt from George Oppen’s book: Stanza 6 caught my attention on the first run through and even again after reading the explanatory readings. Is this poking at the power of knowledge and the process of proving the truth that I was speaking of earlier? To me it seems very similar. It almost insinuates to me that we designate things as facts, thus we have decided what is reality and what isn’t. If something is discovered that contradicts our current understanding of ‘reality’, it becomes an explosion of a number of emotions. Also, stanza 11, reminds me of Marx, and his ideas of abolishing private property, “Hollow, available, you could enter any building, You could look from any window, One might wave to himself, From the top of the Empire State Building-“. In my opinion this doesn’t only represent the end of private property, but also presents a sort of optimistic future, of further social mobility, maybe even no need for social mobility at all.

[viglianogis4680-blog]

The Mask of Anarchy is an extremely provocative poem in the sense that it personifies the harsh realities that have become of capitalism into a beautifully complicated poem. Shelley transforms complicated concepts and visions into simple adjectives and nouns, (though they may be simple in aesthetic they are extremely hard to comprehend in context), such as the “horse of death”. What’s interesting about Shelley’s perspective on dual reactionary violence is appalling to me. On line 57, “Blood for blood-And wrong for wrong-“. This line is interesting to me, because without Paul Foot’s analysis of that line, I would interpret it as Shelley was against violence. A revolutionary being against violence, is almost like a politician being against lying… But, after reading Paul Foot’s analysis I got a better understanding of what Shelley meant by that line, that revenge is sometimes necessary but only for the weak. That interests me also because he’s implying that revenge is for the weak, but aren’t some aspects of a revolution the people exacting revenge on a system that has exploited them? Or maybe that’s just a small facet?

Ode to the West Wind was a slightly easier poem to understand in my opinion compared to the Mask of Anarchy. Although, after genuinely understanding both poems after reading the analyses and talking about them in class, Ode to the West Wind is more compelling to me as a reader. Ode to the West Wind really makes me feel Shelley’s perspective much more than The Mask of Anarchy. Maybe it’s because I can understand the analogies of the wind, seeds, and revolution of this poem compared to the analogies used in The Mask of Anarchy. Because I have a better understanding of one would make sense why I connect to it more, but just the overall meaning really exposes Shelley’s thought process and “debatable” existential crisis he faced when confronted with his own limits as an individual.

The three essays by Charles Fourier were difficult to understand but the anarchist library readings helped in some ways. One thing that’s interesting about the first essay is that they created this idea of a phalanstery, and in some ways sounds luxurious in a sense. My question is, or maybe my misconception is, a revolution aimed through a lens of socialism wouldn’t reject ideas of luxury or exemplary commodities? Or maybe that’s just my idea of a revolution aimed at socialism. The second essay is bizarre to me, it sounds like an introductory guide to a basic team-building class on leadership and group-work. Definitely not one of the most thought provoking essays, but I understand the significance in the time period. The third essay is my favorite by far. The first two sentences of the second paragraph give me chills, “The great men, who in France prepared men’s minds for the coming revolution, were themselves extreme revolutionists. They recognized no external authority of any kind whatever.” This is very basic language but with an intense meaning. This is stating revolutionaries need to essentially not give a shit about social constructs, paradigms, institutions, etc. They had to reach a new level of radical, critical thinking that exceeds what people today would consider “outside the box”. This really makes me think on a present day level, what would be necessary for a revolution.

The poem that starts with: “The flag belongs to the filthy landscape, and our jargon chokes the drum.” is a really inspiring poem that really gets people to fight for what they believe in and in my opinion absolutely destroys capitalism and everything it stands for. The other poem by Rimbaud titled Youth, leaves me with a few questions. First, what does the horse signify in line 6, or is it a literal horse? I understand that Rimbaud referenced things that were apprehensible, but I just can’t paint the image with this one. The poem titled Parisian Orgy is just totally rated X. I think the entire poem challenges our social paradigm of the idea that every generation becomes more sexual or open about the sexual promiscuity than the previous, and especially since Rimbaud was estimated to be under 18 when he wrote this poem. The works by Morris were definitely a lot more understandable than previous poems we’ve read. Each one lays out a general and basic setting of what’s happening. In my opinion that helps me understand things, but leaves things a lot more bland (contradictory to what I said earlier about understanding poems). My question is what exactly was the reason Morris took a more realistic, and straight-forward approach to his poetry?

Communal Luxury detailed the Paris Commune in a way that would open the eyes of any critical thinker. If the commune was able to run an autonomous community in Paris in supposedly ‘modern’ times, could it happen today? We explore this question a lot in class, and I think it needs to be visited using greater context. As society ‘progresses’ (I say progresses in quotes because progression coincides with regression and other outside qualities that don’t exactly count as moving forward) the forces, social structures, and institutions that constrict our way of thinking and behaving are also evolving and ‘progressing’. Revolutionaries, and radical leftists need to not only be knowledgeable of historic events like the commune, but to also be aware of the current systems, specifically what they have created to prevent another ‘Paris commune’ from happening. It takes a lot more than just, history backgrounds and knowledge, it takes an everyday commitment. Just like in chapter 3, when Peter Kropotkin dropped his scientific studies to become fully devoted to ‘political militancy’. I guess in a way I also answered the question we asked in class, “Do you need an everyday workers revolution? Or an intellectual revolution? Or both?” I’m saying both, and I don’t think a modern ‘Paris commune’ will be possible without both of those revolutions working simultaneously. I think the mini-series La Commune illustrates this perfectly. It brings in the sense of the commune they were acting out, while drawing parallels from their current modern day surroundings.

  m,��!nE�

[viglianogis4680-blog]

One hypocritical thought that stuck out to me in regards to the Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the quotes from Adam Smith, and Chapter 5 from John Locke’s book, was that all of these pieces encapsulate “modern” ideas of freedom and equality but ironically only account for White men. I understand this is a reoccurring theme in most Eurocentric ideologies and pieces of work from that time period and for decades after, but it’s just an aspect that I can’t help but notice and focus on. This also reminds me of the Enlightenment era, where Western Europeans were finally constructing ideas of equality regardless of class, and freedom for all men; but these same men were colonizing countries with indigenous populations because they believed they had the “God-given right” to their land.

Adam Smith brings up a troubling idea that all humans are born with innate moral compasses; essentially that it is in our human nature to know right from wrong. I have to whole-heartedly disagree with this statement. First off, I believe that almost all of our behaviors are a result of environmental conditions, nurture not nature, and societal structures. Our entire idea of what’s right and what’s wrong is 100% socially constructed. Ask yourself, ‘why is it bad to steal’, and you will either say because the law (social construct) says so, or you will continuously come up with ‘why’ statements that lead to no logical end (why is it bad to steal-because it’s not yours-well why is it not mine-because it belongs to them-why does it belong to them-because they own it-why do they own it-etc.). A baby cannot be born with a pre-existing idea of social norms, they must be taught; and if they can be born with such traits, it has not yet been scientifically proven, so for Adam Smith to believe this, is pretty implausible in my opinion.

Chapter 5 from John Locke’s book was interesting to read because it came across as semi-biblical. His writing reminds me of religious scriptures, and is almost trying to preach his quasi-equality and Eurocentric views. I think It’s also interesting that he speaks for God a lot in his writing, saying why God did what he/she/they did and how humans should approach these creations (food, land, water). Who necessarily gave him the right to speak for “God”?

The Preface to Lyrical Ballads, the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, and the French Revolution as it Appeared to Enthusiasts at Its Commencement were all pieces that I had trouble interpreting and analyzing. The Preface to Lyrical Ballads comes off as very snarky in the beginning. The author believes that his poetry is so impactful and revolutionary that when it’s released to the masses, it will spawn a new form of poetry. The French Revolution as it Appeared to Enthusiasts at its Commencement is an interesting perspective of the revolution through the eyes of a presumed revolutionary. The revolutionary speaks of joy brought about through revolting and the possible changes. They also say that they will either achieve happiness or none at all. This final statement really stuck out to me because I believe a real revolution is an extreme and complete disintegration of the current power system, and anything that isn’t fully for the complete destruction of it is just going to ruin the attempt. So when the author says they will either achieve happiness or none at all, the people will either be truly happy in the end from the successful revolution, or they will fail in their attempt and ruin their possible chance of happiness. The Rime of the Ancient Mariner is another piece that leaves me with many questions. First off, why is the man telling the story to these people in the first place? Second, why did the mariner kill the albatross? Last, if the author foresaw the possibility of the Jacobins exploiting the people, and ended up removing the analogy for it in his poem, why did he even have it in there in the first place? This is purely speculation, but why risk leaving this line sequence in the poem if it’s possible the Jacobins never had any intentions of making name’s for themselves, and what if leaving this line in also put a target on his head?

My interpretation of the Marat painting, specifically with the black area behind Marat, is significantly different than what we discussed in class. From my perspective, David left out the background of the painting to draw closer attention to Marat, his status, and items. There are theories that this painting was meant to send a political message about the status of the Jacobin government, and if that were the case, it would make more sense for David to make the deceased body and his possessions the paramount subject of the art instead of adding unnecessary details in the background. Another secondary opinion I have is that it’s quite possible that David was just emotional about the death of someone he knew, and wanted to express his feelings in a painting leaving out the background to signify the importance of the loss of his friend. My only question is whether or not David foresaw the incoming transformation of the Jacobin government as he was creating this painting, and if the note in Marat’s hand had any correlation to it or not.

“The Slave Ship” painting and the poem that accompanies it strongly stick out to me as works defining karma and the idea of “God” handling man’s mistakes. Even though I do not personally believe in “God”, I feel as though the art touches on a spiritual level of morality, and what happens when human’s stray too far from “good”. The last line of the poem by Turner, “Where is thy market now?”, even though it fully supports the theory that the painting symbolizes the blowback from the slave trade and the abolishment of it, I believe the line further supports my point as well. My interpretation: people were enslaved, and some were forced to jump out to sea to die, and now a “typhoon” comes and kills everyone anyway. So relating that interpretation to karma and morality, ‘You people (British) exploited these people (slaves), seeking economic wealth, and now the typhoon (karma/God) is here, and everything you did will be punished’. Now this interpretation would only make sense if the ship then sailed into the typhoon and everyone died, but unfortunately the painting and the poem do not address if that happens or not.