My view on Romanticism

[Philosophis Pony]

Hi, I was not sure if this was the proper section for this so I apologize in advance if this is the wrong section. My question is why is there resentment of romanticism in a large portion of Revleft, I would assume there is a good reason behind this. I am more than willing to read every post everyone has on this subject and respond to the best of my knowledge.
Before I go further I think it would be fair for me to say that I am a Romanticist; the reason I am so is because there is much stigma and confusion around the subject. Romanticism was a reaction against the aristocratic society of the Age of Enlightenment, not only this but a reaction against "norms" and an emphasize on the importance of imagination and emotion.
If we relied purely on rationalization and science it could be used easily as a tool to tell divide us into categories and used as a medium to define "norms". If you look at some of the most proficient minds in history such as Albert Einstein put at least slight regards to the importance of emotion and showed elements of romanticism behind some of his quotes.
Again I would love to hear what everyone else has to say on the subject, thank you.

[Ocean Seal]

We don't resent romanticism and even the most calculated of the materialists, I assure you, has a component of romanticism in their worldview. The reason why you'll find most of this forum against romanticism is because romanticism doesn't allow us to see the class struggle scientifically like historical materialism. Romanticism prevents us from seeing the class enemy for what they are if they don't suit the "evil corporate" stereotype. For example, Bill Gates. It's hard to be angry against him when he donates billions of dollars, but as materialists we understand that it is his class which enslaves humanity and we understand why we must be against him. Also small class relations are often glorified by the capitalist romantics, but we as socialists are against them. So romanticism isn't horrible so long as its lead by materialism.

[RedAtheist]

Before I go further I think it would be fair for me to say that I am a Romanticist; the reason I am so is because there is much stigma and confusion around the subject. Romanticism was a reaction against the aristocratic society of the Age of Enlightenment, not only this but a reaction against "norms" and an emphasize on the importance of imagination and emotion.
If we relied purely on rationalization and science it could be used easily as a tool to tell divide us into categories and used as a medium to define "norms". If you look at some of the most proficient minds in history such as Albert Einstein put at least slight regards to the importance of emotion and showed elements of romanticism behind some of his quotes.


I describe myself as a 'firm' materialist. I do not like Romanticism because it appears to place itself in opposition to science and rationality. It is one thing to say that emotion and imagination are good, it is another thing to promote such things at the expense of reason and science.

A scientific understanding of the world allows us to understand the way the world is, in order to change it. For example it is all very well and good to have negative feelings about diseases such as measles, but to form a belief about objective reality based on that feeling and say that because 'I don't like the idea of measles, therefore I'm going to believe that measles are not real' can be harmful. Scientists acknowledged that measles was a real disease and put in an effort to understand it, so that they could immunise people against it. Opposing such actions on the ground that they are 'too rational' is silly and dangerous.

Romanticism (from what I understand) promotes the idea that reason and emotion are in conflict and that emotion is preferable to reason. I do not believe that there has to be a conflict between the two. I can have negative feelings about something (e.g. the exploitation of workers) but still acknowledge that it is real and try to rationally understand how the problem can be fixed. When people use emotion as an excuse to do and believe stupid things that they know are stupid that bugs me. That does not mean I am against emotion, it means I am against deliberate stupidity.

The opposite of rationality is not emotion, but irrationality. Thus I believe I can uphold the enlightenment ideals of reason and science (which may have been misused by the bourgeoisie) while not neglecting emotion or imagination.

In fact imagination is an important part of science. Science deals with things that beyond our immediate perception , e.g. atoms. Even though we have evidence to support the idea that atoms are real, we cannot see them, so we have to use our imagination and draw abstract diagrams in order to understand them.

Futhermore no innovative, life-enhancing technology was invented without somebody imagining it. Yet I have heard too many people dismiss modern technology and romanticise the days when such technology did not exist (and people worked harder and died earlier as a result.) Sure certain gadgets might be pointless and promote consumerism (I do not see why I need an iPhone when my mobile works fine) but other technological advance are really important (e.g. cures/vaccines for deadly diseases.)

So in summary I am all for people having emotions and using their imagination, so long as they understand that there is a difference between imaginary things that give you good feelings and reality. I am all for people using reason to develop pathways by which they can make imaginary things that they have positive feelings about (e.g. socialism/communism) into realities (this is what Marx did.) What I do not support is the deliberate suppression of science and reason in order to maintain an emotionally appealing delusion or the insistance that one should not be 'too reasonable'.

And that's the end of my philosophical rant.

[Philosophis Pony]

I describe myself as a 'firm' materialist. I do not like Romanticism because it appears to place itself in opposition to science and rationality. It is one thing to say that emotion and imagination are good, it is another thing to promote such things at the expense of reason and science.

A scientific understanding of the world allows us to understand the way the world is, in order to change it. For example it is all very well and good to have negative feelings about diseases such as measles, but to form a belief about objective reality based on that feeling and say that because 'I don't like the idea of measles, therefore I'm going to believe that measles are not real' can be harmful. Scientists acknowledged that measles was a real disease and put in an effort to understand it, so that they could immunise people against it. Opposing such actions on the ground that they are 'too rational' is silly and dangerous.

Romanticism (from what I understand) promotes the idea that reason and emotion are in conflict and that emotion is preferable to reason. I do not believe that there has to be a conflict between the two. I can have negative feelings about something (e.g. the exploitation of workers) but still acknowledge that it is real and try to rationally understand how the problem can be fixed. When people use emotion as an excuse to do and believe stupid things that they know are stupid that bugs me. That does not mean I am against emotion, it means I am against deliberate stupidity.

The opposite of rationality is not emotion, but irrationality. Thus I believe I can uphold the enlightenment ideals of reason and science (which may have been misused by the bourgeoisie) while not neglecting emotion or imagination.

In fact imagination is an important part of science. Science deals with things that beyond our immediate perception , e.g. atoms. Even though we have evidence to support the idea that atoms are real, we cannot see them, so we have to use our imagination and draw abstract diagrams in order to understand them.

Futhermore no innovative, life-enhancing technology was invented without somebody imagining it. Yet I have heard too many people dismiss modern technology and romanticise the days when such technology did not exist (and people worked harder and died earlier as a result.) Sure certain gadgets might be pointless and promote consumerism (I do not see why I need an iPhone when my mobile works fine) but other technological advance are really important (e.g. cures/vaccines for deadly diseases.)

So in summary I am all for people having emotions and using their imagination, so long as they understand that there is a difference between imaginary things that give you good feelings and reality. I am all for people using reason to develop pathways by which they can make imaginary things that they have positive feelings about (e.g. socialism/communism) into realities (this is what Marx did.) What I do not support is the deliberate suppression of science and reason in order to maintain an emotionally appealing delusion or the insistance that one should not be 'too reasonable'.

And that's the end of my philosophical rant.

This, is perfect to describe what I think to a certain extent. There are some small but important differences though, you said you were a firm materialist but you believe there did not have to be a conflict between it and reason.
I believe the similarly in that I am a firm romantic but I did not believe there that for example one can use reason or logic, there is a fine line though that must be made clear when it is deliberately used to suppress a logical minority or otherwise anyone who does not meet the beliefs and thinking patterns of the scientific community of the current time. This is comparable to and is bigotry.
When people use reason to do stupid things it also bothers me, a good example of this is using reason as a basis for eugenics; a negative, dangerous, and suppressive concept.
I sympathize with your version of this also though I'd like to make something clear, the slight difference in what you and I are saying is, from my field of vision is that "emotion and imagination are fine as long as they do not suppress reason and logic." your point in being as your focus is on science as they said. Mine would be ironically similar although I would say the opposite in that "logic and reason are mine as long as they do not suppress emotion and imagination." My own point being a focus on romanticism and imagination as important aspects. What you are saying is exactly what I am trying to get across except you are using a different frame of focus from where you are standing, metaphorically of course.
If I missed anything in this post please tell me or if I misinterpreted any context or meaning.

[Rafiq]

Romanticism is fun sometimes, but it's important to isolate it from every political, ideological view you have. Just understand what it is.

[∞]

Einstein wasn't a romanticist, if you read anything he said/wrote politics-wise, he sounded like a pragmatic no-nonsense socialist, even-tough he had pacificist overtones.



In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."

[∞]

We don't resent romanticism and even the most calculated of the materialists, I assure you, has a component of romanticism in their worldview. The reason why you'll find most of this forum against romanticism is because romanticism doesn't allow us to see the class struggle scientifically like historical materialism. Romanticism prevents us from seeing the class enemy for what they are if they don't suit the "evil corporate" stereotype. For example, Bill Gates. It's hard to be angry against him when he donates billions of dollars, but as materialists we understand that it is his class which enslaves humanity and we understand why we must be against him. Also small class relations are often glorified by the capitalist romantics, but we as socialists are against them. So romanticism isn't horrible so long as its lead by materialism.

If every cappy was able to give billions to the poor, capitalism wouldn't be as "bad". Even with a well-fed millionaire proletariat we still need to own the means of production.

[RedAtheist]

I believe the similarly in that I am a firm romantic but I did not believe there that for example one can use reason or logic, there is a fine line though that must be made clear when it is deliberately used to suppress a logical minority or otherwise anyone who does not meet the beliefs and thinking patterns of the scientific community of the current time. This is comparable to and is bigotry.

I am not entirely sure what you are saying in this section, can you be a bit more clear?

The scientific method involves being open to evidence (even if it may show that current theories are wrong), so to 'suppress' those whose ideas go against science's current understanding of the world would be contrary to the principles of science. Many scientists (Einstein included) are famous because their theories were radical and went against what most scientists believed at the time. The difference between people like Einstein (who went against convention, but were still scientific and rational) and say for example, creationists or climate change deniers, is that Einstein backed up his ideas with observations and arguments, while creationists and climate change deniers typically do not (when they try to their arguments are immediately debunked by more qualified people.)

It is okay to go against the current opinions of scientists, but if you want scientists to take you seriously you should follow the scientific method (come up with a way to test your idea, carry it out, see if the results match your prediction and draw tentative conclusions based on the evidence.) If someone insists that a certain idea is correct but does not make an effort to back up their ideas using the same method that every other scientist follows, it is not bigotry for scientists to dismiss the claim until evidence is provided. If I propose a completely materialistic theory about the world, scientists will not automatically accept it because it is a materialistic theory, they will want me to back my claim up. I agree that people have a right to irrational beliefs and I would not endorse any form of government persecution against such people, but they do not have a right to be taken seriously by the scientific community. Science has its rules. It applies those rules to every claim it is presented with, some claims simply do not pass the test. I think this is fair. Discriminating between ideas that can be backed up (with evidence and argument) and those that can't is very different from discriminating against certain people.

I should clarify that I am describing science in an ideal sense, not necessarily in the sense that it exists today, as an institution within bourgeois society. If you were to argue that science is not really the way I describe it, I would consider that a criticism of the institution, which I do not unquestioningly defend. What I do defend is the method.


When people use reason to do stupid things it also bothers me, a good example of this is using reason as a basis for eugenics; a negative, dangerous, and suppressive concept.

I must ask you what you mean by reason, for I do not believe something can be 'rational' and 'stupid' at the same time. Those words stike me as opposites. If you believe that eugenics is 'stupid' and 'dangerous' than you do not think eugenics is rational. If someone tried to present a "rational" argument for eugenics you would probably be able to identify flaws in it, which would demonstrate that it is not a rational concept. It seems as though you are against what I would call misuses of the word 'reason' to justify things that are completely irrational (or as you would put it 'stupid, dangerous and suppressive'.) So let me ask you this. Do you believe that eugenics is a 'reasonable' solution to whatever eugenisists would identify as problems.

I would also like to ask you to define eugenics. I know it has been used to mean the forced sterilisation and sometimes even genocide against those perceived as inferior, but dictionary.com defines it this way.

Eugenics: the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits

'Discouraging' could mean just about anything from advising people with genetic defects not to have children to murdering or sterilising them. I see nothing wrong with a doctor letting a women know that if she has a child he/she might be born with genetic defects and advising her to consider adoption instead. If a woman is forced to undergo sterilisation, I think such a practise is a brutal assertion of government control over a women's body and does more harm than good, meaning that it is not a rational choice (assuming one cares about freedom and the well being of humans.)


I sympathize with your version of this also though I'd like to make something clear, the slight difference in what you and I are saying is, from my field of vision is that "emotion and imagination are fine as long as they do not suppress reason and logic." your point in being as your focus is on science as they said. Mine would be ironically similar although I would say the opposite in that "logic and reason are mine as long as they do not suppress emotion and imagination." My own point being a focus on romanticism and imagination as important aspects. What you are saying is exactly what I am trying to get across except you are using a different frame of focus from where you are standing, metaphorically of course. .

What I would ask for is an example of reason and logic suppressing emotion. I do not know of any science teacher or scientific author who has encouraged anyone to stop feeling a particular emotion. I said earlier that one should not draw conclusions based on emotion, but that does not mean that one cannot have emotions. I feel you are going after the wrong target.

I know of many instances when people have been advised to suppress reason (e.g. religious believers being discouraged from having doubts, which may be based on rational arguments) or subtle techniques have been used which weaken people's ability to think critically (e.g. commercial advertising, reactionary political propaganda, etc.) I do not know of any pro-reason, pro-materialism instituitions which wish to turn people into emotionless drones.

I think the key difference between our perceptions, is our view of what is being attacked. We both value the same things, but you see emotion and imagination as being under attack and I view reason as being under attack.

I think I can point to plenty of examples in the culture where being intelligent is viewed as a bad thing. Take the numerous scientists who are portrayed as 'bad guys' in fiction or take any film dealing with the discovery of supernatural phenomenon and you will be most likely find a character who is sceptical of supernatural claims being portrayed as a bully, who gets punished in the end.

The only example I can think of where emotion is viewed as a bad thing is when the male gender stereotype is being reinforced through the culture, but even then, only certain emotions are viewed as unmanly (e.g. sadness) while others are viewed as manly (e.g. anger.) Besides a male character is just as likely to be called a 'nerd' for being too smart. If you want to go after those who are anti-emotion, go after the stereotypically male bullies (or 'gender police') not the rationalists.

So in summary I think an emphasis on reason is necessary because attempts are being made to discourage rational thinking (sometimes through the use of emotion) while no similar (or at least few) attempts are being made by the advocates of reason to prevent people from feeling emotions.

[danyboy27]

Hi, I was not sure if this was the proper section for this so I apologize in advance if this is the wrong section. My question is why is there resentment of romanticism in a large portion of Revleft, I would assume there is a good reason behind this. I am more than willing to read every post everyone has on this subject and respond to the best of my knowledge.
great!



Before I go further I think it would be fair for me to say that I am a Romanticist; the reason I am so is because there is much stigma and confusion around the subject. Romanticism was a reaction against the aristocratic society of the Age of Enlightenment, not only this but a reaction against "norms" and an emphasize on the importance of imagination and emotion.
.
And capitalism was a reaction against feudalism, it is hardly an argument.



If we relied purely on rationalization and science it could be used easily as a tool to tell divide us into categories and used as a medium to define "norms". If you look at some of the most proficient minds in history such as Albert Einstein put at least slight regards to the importance of emotion and showed elements of romanticism behind some of his quotes.
Again I would love to hear what everyone else has to say on the subject, thank you.
An individual can both be rational and aware of its emotions. Being a scientist or a buisnessman does not mean you cannot fully appreciate the arts or music.

The real problem with romanticism is when its driving the way politics are shaped like in fascist italy or nazi germany for exemple. Most of the war worldwide today are sold to the people with romanticism, the good old fashioned fairy tale of good against evil, the myth of the heroes fighting for their fatherland, driving the horrible demon-faced ennemies down the cliff.

I have no problem with romanticism, but it surely have no place on constructive politics.

[∞]

Romanticism is fine for art and literature. Its just not good to use in any empirical or historical fields. The facts need to be the facts.

[KR]

I describe myself as a 'firm' materialist. I do not like Romanticism because it appears to place itself in opposition to science and rationality. It is one thing to say that emotion and imagination are good, it is another thing to promote such things at the expense of reason and science.

A scientific understanding of the world allows us to understand the way the world is, in order to change it. For example it is all very well and good to have negative feelings about diseases such as measles, but to form a belief about objective reality based on that feeling and say that because 'I don't like the idea of measles, therefore I'm going to believe that measles are not real' can be harmful. Scientists acknowledged that measles was a real disease and put in an effort to understand it, so that they could immunise people against it. Opposing such actions on the ground that they are 'too rational' is silly and dangerous.

Romanticism (from what I understand) promotes the idea that reason and emotion are in conflict and that emotion is preferable to reason. I do not believe that there has to be a conflict between the two. I can have negative feelings about something (e.g. the exploitation of workers) but still acknowledge that it is real and try to rationally understand how the problem can be fixed. When people use emotion as an excuse to do and believe stupid things that they know are stupid that bugs me. That does not mean I am against emotion, it means I am against deliberate stupidity.

The opposite of rationality is not emotion, but irrationality. Thus I believe I can uphold the enlightenment ideals of reason and science (which may have been misused by the bourgeoisie) while not neglecting emotion or imagination.

In fact imagination is an important part of science. Science deals with things that beyond our immediate perception , e.g. atoms. Even though we have evidence to support the idea that atoms are real, we cannot see them, so we have to use our imagination and draw abstract diagrams in order to understand them.

Futhermore no innovative, life-enhancing technology was invented without somebody imagining it. Yet I have heard too many people dismiss modern technology and romanticise the days when such technology did not exist (and people worked harder and died earlier as a result.) Sure certain gadgets might be pointless and promote consumerism (I do not see why I need an iPhone when my mobile works fine) but other technological advance are really important (e.g. cures/vaccines for deadly diseases.)
Are you saying that under socialism the iPhone would not have been developed under socialism? And it is far from useless, it increases peoples quality of life. I really hate those primitivists socialists who attack phones, computers, tv's or similar as consumerist.

[Philosophis Pony]

I will respond to RedAtheiest and everyone else in separate posts to make it easier to keep up with everyone.


I am not entirely sure what you are saying in this section, can you be a bit more clear?

The scientific method involves being open to evidence (even if it may show that current theories are wrong), so to 'suppress' those whose ideas go against science's current understanding of the world would be contrary to the principles of science. Many scientists (Einstein included) are famous because their theories were radical and went against what most scientists believed at the time. The difference between people like Einstein (who went against convention, but were still scientific and rational) and say for example, creationists or climate change deniers, is that Einstein backed up his ideas with observations and arguments, while creationists and climate change deniers typically do not (when they try to their arguments are immediately debunked by more qualified people.)

You seem to have misunderstood what I said partially, I made no reference to the scientific method or the use of evidence. Though before I get to that I will clear up something first, what I meant was that I believe that there is a similarity between our words, the fine line I meant would be for example if someone were to form a hypothesis against another theory proving it wrong, this is not suppressing and is "okay", something over the fine line might include as a random example, using the font of reason to try and say that if a member of any future society or current is not useful they have they have no place and it wouldn't make a difference if they were killed.
The fact that I and (assuming) you are are against the act of a society murdering and/or abandoning that person, shows that you are evidently in possession of romantic elements in that you do not wish for the person to die even though they are of no physical use. The very act of being against romanticism is completely absurd, to be against romanticism is against the acts of imagination and emotion.
I am not in any way against evidence or reason as long as it is not manipulated for ludacris conclusions.




I would also like to ask you to define eugenics. I know it has been used to mean the forced sterilisation and sometimes even genocide against those perceived as inferior, but dictionary.com defines it this way.

Eugenics: the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits

'Discouraging' could mean just about anything from advising people with genetic defects not to have children to murdering or sterilising them. I see nothing wrong with a doctor letting a women know that if she has a child he/she might be born with genetic defects and advising her to consider adoption instead. If a woman is forced to undergo sterilisation, I think such a practise is a brutal assertion of government control over a women's body and does more harm than good, meaning that it is not a rational choice (assuming one cares about freedom and the well being of humans.)

Eugenics was just an example I threw out there to try to give a demonstration, I will answer your question despite this.
From my limited resources, the definition of eugenics would be the act of the study, use, or support of the use of altering to improve or change in any way to fit the needs of anyone, this can range from mild medical uses to various uses in outright genocide.

My opinion on this would be that it is an oppressive danger and should be fought against. It is in a vile dangerous form, an assertion against an any individual's body and should not be tolerated in any form over what you have said;
"'I see nothing wrong with a doctor letting a women know that if she has a child he/she might be born with genetic defects and advising her to consider adoption instead."

However if for example the woman was prohibited from having any sexual interactions of any kind with anyone because of her inheritable genetic defects that would be an assertion over an individual's body as said before. The same scenario could be applied to any gender

I do not outright oppose reason as stated earlier I simply oppose the use of reason to oppose romanticism, I will post again in a few minutes.

[blake 3:17]

Romanticism is fine for art and literature. Its just not good to use in any empirical or historical fields. The facts need to be the facts.

That just is not true. There is wonderful Marxist and socialist historical works deeply influenced Romanticism. Walter Benjamin and E.P. Thompson were certainly Romantics -- Benjamin is very quirky, but Thompson is pretty straight ahead. His book on William Blake is a marvel and uncovers a whole history of radical egalitarian Christian culture in England.

Michael Lowy, a revolutionary Marxist, is probably the most significant theorist of Romantic anti-capitalism and makes important distinctions between rightwing and leftwing forms of Romanticism.

[RedAtheist]

Are you saying that under socialism the iPhone would not have been developed under socialism? And it is far from useless, it increases peoples quality of life. I really hate those primitivists socialists who attack phones, computers, tv's or similar as consumerist.

It should be obvious that I'm no primitivist. I don't mind phones, computers and tv's in general, I just hate it when people insist that you have to have the latest model of these things and that you are somehow inferior if you don't (this is how such items are used to promote consumerism in a capitalist society.) I don't think I should be judged for not being wealthy enough to get a new computer every time one comes out.

In a socialist society more priority should be placed on inventing technology that saves lives. If we manage to invent some fancy new gadget as well, I don't mind, so long as everybody can get one and they do not become a status symbol, but they are not needed. Not viewing something as a vital need and not being able to afford it is different from being against it.

[ckaihatsu]

---








"Nothing can cure the soul but the senses, just as nothing can cure the senses but the soul."

The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/174

[Zav]

Are you saying that under socialism the iPhone would not have been developed under socialism? And it is far from useless, it increases peoples quality of life. I really hate those primitivists socialists who attack phones, computers, tv's or similar as consumerist.
If socialism existed ten years ago, the iPhone would actually function properly, be more durable, customizable, upgradeable (as in hardware as well as software), and run a Linux distribution. It would also be less likely to be so horribly named.
The television, or rather the programs broadcast to it, is the epitome of consumerist crap. It's sole purpose is to sell, sell, sell, unlike radio, phones, or the Internet, which were designed for (useful) information transfer, though now they sell. Fortunately, the Internet has replaced them as the primary entertainment source.

[Rafiq]

If socialism existed ten years ago, the iPhone would actually function properly, be more durable, customizable, upgradeable (as in hardware as well as software), and run a Linux distribution. It would also be less likely to be so horribly named.
The television, or rather the programs broadcast to it, is the epitome of consumerist crap. It's sole purpose is to sell, sell, sell, unlike radio, phones, or the Internet, which were designed for (useful) information transfer, though now they sell. Fortunately, the Internet has replaced them as the primary entertainment source.

Nonsense. This is, at best, Utopian.

The very concept of the smartphone came into place as a result of capital's hunger. Seriously, if you think that within the first decades of socialism all existing technology, is somehow going to be rapidly advanced you're heavily mistaken. As a matter of fact, one is tempted to say that the first decades of socialism will not even have in existence the production of things like smart-phones.

You cannot be a socialist just because you think it is going to bring about cool new gadgets and make life a lot more fun and enjoyable. Socialism is a movement, a process, not an end goal. The result of this process is largely unknown, however, it is inevitable that a new system will have to come into place to compensate for the systematic failures of capitalism. I will, in risk of being flamed, come and say that councils have proven inefficient in managing whole populations and regions. They could provide themselves useful, for example, in regards to local issues, or to a certain extent what goes on in the work place. But we cannot simply say the solution to capitalism is right before us. We need to rethink everything. We know, though, as proletarians, that the destruction of all forms of the capitalist mode of production, the de throwning of the Bourgeois class, of all classes themselves, is of absolute necessity.

[ckaihatsu]

We need to rethink everything.


The new iPhone 4S-HIT.

Rethink everything.



x D

[KR]

If socialism existed ten years ago, the iPhone would actually function properly, be more durable, customizable, upgradeable (as in hardware as well as software), and run a Linux distribution. It would also be less likely to be so horribly named.
The television, or rather the programs broadcast to it, is the epitome of consumerist crap. It's sole purpose is to sell, sell, sell, unlike radio, phones, or the Internet, which were designed for (useful) information transfer, though now they sell. Fortunately, the Internet has replaced them as the primary entertainment source.
How is a tv in any way different from a radio? I dont really se how tv is more consumerist than either phones or the internet? They purpose is just to sell too, is't it?