Lifestylism

[Avanti]

(also published in my neo-anarchist group)

the social democratic party is a part of it.

the liberal party is a part of it.

the conservative party is a part of it.

the system-created and system-uphold lifestyle

the system is created by the school and the media

you want things

they have things

you have to do things for them to get things

like a dog

you have to study and engage in sports from age 6 to 18.

you have to have lots of sex, be good-looking and travel a lot between 18 and 20.

you have to go to university and learn business at age 20 to 24.

or you have to get a life partner and move together, take a loan to buy a house and a car and a dog and contribute.

through your house, your education, your partner, your dog, your car, your boat, your TV your radio your computer your life...

...they own you.

they dictate your lifestyle. there are many variations.

but the rule is.

you give up one third of your time.

and get stuff.

you get stuff which represents your status in society.

everyone wants stuff.

everyone wants status.

if you don't have stuff or status, you're a parasite, at least that's what the right tells you

the left tells you you're a poor victim

both just want to screw you over in the ass.

marxist greybacks ***** and complain over lifestylism, noses stuck into dusty old books about the labour-theory-of-value.

but ultimately, all isms are just reflections of lifestyles.

lifestyle is the way of human communities to attach values to what they do and to conform to rules.

the only way to break free from lifestylism is through lifestylism, because everything is lifestylism.

that's the only thing that matters.

build a new culture. perpetuate it through customs and myths.

pre-language predestines language.

come on.

surprise me.

the only kind of ism is lifestylism.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

http://gifninja.com/animatedgifs/304980/mind-blown.gif..........................

[Avanti]

i'm not going to thank that.

it was stupid.

[Comrade #138672]

'Socialist' Lifestylism alone can't defeat Capitalist Lifestylism.

I do agree with creating a Socialist culture to spread, but more than that is necessary to implement Socialism.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

'Socialist' Lifestylism alone can't defeat Capitalist Lifestylism.

Which is why you all must embrace communal Lifestylism.

[Avanti]

'Socialist' Lifestylism alone can't defeat Capitalist Lifestylism.

I do agree with creating a Socialist culture to spread, but more than that is necessary to implement Socialism.

no, it can't.

but without neo-anarchist lifestylism, you will not survive in the urban jungle.

because you are too dependent by the frames of reference and the values of the system.

break free from Babylon.

[Avanti]

we shouldn't create one counter-culture.

we should create thousands.

diversity is strength.

unity is weakness.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

we shouldn't create one counter-culture.

we should create thousands.

diversity is strength.

unity is weakness.

CAN YOU DIG IT???
http://gforsythe.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/digit-slow.gif

[Comrade #138672]

Which is why you all must embrace communal Lifestylism.Which isn't enough either. Also, Communalism seems a little reactionary to me.


no, it can't.

but without neo-anarchist lifestylism, you will not survive in the urban jungle.

because you are too dependent by the frames of reference and the values of the system.

break free from Babylon.Yes, I believe that to some extent you must adapt your lifestyle so that Capitalism has less power over your life. However, I've learned that when you over-do this, you will be out of touch with your fellow workers. At that point it's self-defeating, even though the intentions are good.


we shouldn't create one counter-culture.

we should create thousands.

diversity is strength.

unity is weakness.I agree with creating multiple counter-cultures, but diversity doesn't necessarily imply a lack of unity. We should have both. Just like we should be both theoretical and practical.

[Avanti]

there will be no workers in 20 years.

we need to win the lumpen-proletariat.

the caravan dwellers and the urban sprawl poors.

otherwise we'll lose.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/cyberpunk-capitalism-t176406/index.html

[Comrade #138672]

there will be no workers in 20 years.

we need to win the lumpen-proletariat.

the caravan dwellers and the urban sprawl poors.

otherwise we'll lose.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/cyberpunk-capitalism-t176406/index.htmlWhat will happen to the workers in 20 years? I think there will still be many workers then.

So you want to win the lumpen-proletariat, but ignore the rest of the proletariat? We shouldn't ignore the lumpen-proletariat, but you can't win with the lumpen-proletariat alone.

[Avanti]

in 20 years

only the lumpen-proletariat

the labour aristocracy

the petty bourgeoisie

the bourgeoisie

and Babylon

will exist

the service sector will go grey or black

read the linked thread

[Comrade #138672]

in 20 years

only the lumpen-proletariat

the labour aristocracy

the petty bourgeoisie

the bourgeoisie

and Babylon

will exist

the service sector will go grey or black

read the linked threadThe bourgeoisie can not exist without the workers. They are two sides of the same coin.

[Avanti]

they can.

the production will be automatised.

robots do not strike and do not demand any wages.

[Comrade #138672]

they can.

the production will be automatised.

robots do not strike and do not demand any wages.I'm an AI student. Trust me, it won't happen in 20 years.

1) We don't have the material resources (yet) to build that many machines to replace workers.
2) We don't have the technology yet to equal basic human intelligence. Even if this is possible, it will take a long time.
3) The workers would feel threatened and revolt.

[Avanti]

it is already happening.

foxconn has started to replace their workers with robots.

[Comrade #138672]

it is already happening.

foxconn has started to replace their workers with robots.Also, other workers must build these robots. So it creates (some) new jobs.

[hetz]

And what if it's robots that build these robots, and robots that build these robots that build robots?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I had a facebook friend that said something similar in terms of Lifestylism (only his was form a soviet standpoint)...


“It is true that once upon a time, "Soviet" had a different meaning. It was without the indication it has now. But as time grew onward, and the war against the old ways raged on, it took on a new meaning. This is the problem today. People don't understand what it means. Soviet doesn't mean specifically Russian. Soviet doesn't mean you were once a legal citizen of the USSR. It is a lifestyle. A culture. And a movement at the same time. To be a Soviet means you are a true, pure Marx Leninist who understands the dire situation and the need to form a Soviet Vanguard. That understands and credits the USSR for what it truly was. That seeks to re-establish the soviet system through workers revolution. Not many can call themselves soviet today. We have to search them out.” –Anonymous comrade on “Modern Soviets”.

It isn't a path to the revolution but can only hook certain individuals as an Identity persona (so to speak).

[Avanti]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/cyberpunk-capitalism-t176406/index.html

that can be discussed here

this thread is about how meaningless all isms are.

the only true ism is a lifestylism.

[Comrade #138672]

And what if it's robots that build these robots, and robots that build these robots that build robots?Ah, yes, but you can't build the same robots forever. Workers must design and build new robots.

[Avanti]

marxism-leninism as a life-style was far too similar to the western capitalist life-style.

the soviet union was all about showing the world how much better socialism was to reproduce capitalist lifestyles than capitalism itself.

you can see it on how much the soviet society stressed on people to be mentally healthy ("normal") as opposed to mentally unhelthy ("abnormal").

real socialism should idealise insanity.

not lock it behind padded walls.

the soviet union failed, because it just aped after the west.

[Comrade #138672]

marxism-leninism as a life-style was far too similar to the western capitalist life-style.

the soviet union was all about showing the world how much better socialism was to reproduce capitalist lifestyles than capitalism itself.

you can see it on how much the soviet society stressed on people to be mentally healthy ("normal") as opposed to mentally unhelthy ("abnormal").

real socialism should idealise insanity.

not lock it behind padded walls.

the soviet union failed, because it just aped after the west.Well, Socialism can only develop out of Capitalism, so of course they share some elements. The Soviet Union can be considered Capitalist.

Yes, 'insanity' should not be condemned or ridiculed like we do in Capitalist society, but it should not be idealised either. We should not be afraid to co-operate with people who are supposedly 'insane', but we shouldn't fetishize 'insanity' either.

[Avanti]

why not?

i see that as an integral part of technoshamanism, and i believe technoshamanism will be the new world religion that'll keep the NeoTribes together.

the key is to replicate and adapt hunter-gatherer tactics to survive in the urban sprawl of the Cyberpunk Era.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

marxism-leninism as a life-style was far too similar to the western capitalist life-style.

All human societies have similar lifestyles when you boil it down; the real differences comes in modes of production.


the soviet union was all about showing the world how much better socialism was to reproduce capitalist lifestyles than capitalism itself.

I think this depends on what era you are talking about. If you are talking "during" Stalin than I would say no, because it was more about survival, but if you said "after" Stalin than yes, as that is when social imperialism set in.


you can see it on how much the soviet society stressed on people to be mentally healthy ("normal") as opposed to mentally unhelthy ("abnormal").

I am no expert in Soviet society but I believe all societies stress their members to be "normal".


...the soviet union failed, because it just aped after the west.

No, it failed because of a wide variety of reasons including, but not limited to: overspending, revisionism, social imperialism, external threats (NATO, US), and internal revolutions.

[Avanti]

lifestyles are not superficial.

they guide the minds of people.

and the minds of people reproduce relationships which then are translated into modes of production.

capitalism and socialism are just giant role-playing games.

communism is about realizing that and form your own relationships and lifestyles as you want while you feel an eternal bliss of not ever have to conform or be judged.

[Comrade #138672]

why not?

i see that as an integral part of technoshamanism, and i believe technoshamanism will be the new world religion that'll keep the NeoTribes together.

the key is to replicate and adapt hunter-gatherer tactics to survive in the urban sprawl of the Cyberpunk Era.Because we need the sane people aswell. It depends on your definition of insanity. According to my own definition of insanity, we should prefer sane people over insane people. This doesn't mean ignoring or neglecting the insane, but without a certain level of sanity, a revolution will be impossible.

Can people really be insane? Yes. Are many workers unjustly called insane because they can not conform to Capitalist society? Yes. Should we co-operate with these people? Yes, of course. Should we co-operate with so-called 'conformists'? Yes. So should we idealise insanity? No. This is not necessary and counter-productive.

[Avanti]

life under communism will more resemble insanity than sanity. realities while be created and destroyed and merged and sub-merged, individuality will cease to exist and you will experience your mind through the sensations your body are bombarded with.

communism will be heaven on acid.

[Comrade #138672]

lifestyles are not superficial.

they guide the minds of people.

and the minds of people reproduce relationships which then are translated into modes of production.

capitalism and socialism are just giant role-playing games.

communism is about realizing that and form your own relationships and lifestyles as you want while you feel an eternal bliss of not ever have to conform or be judged.You seem to think that the mind precedes matter. It's true that the mind can influence matter, but the mind is also influenced by matter.

Socialism is not a RPG. You can't ignore the material conditions.

[Avanti]

all human relationships apart from fighting or making love to people are rpgs.

committees are rpgs.

police and rioters are rpgs.

parties are rpgs.

stores are rpgs.

corporations are rpgs.

there's no objective physical difference between a ceo and a cleaner. they both just are told to pretend they are a ceo and a cleaner and act from that.

there are never two choices.

there are billions of choices.

you must create your own way.

[Comrade #138672]

all human relationships apart from fighting or making love to people are rpgs.

committees are rpgs.

police and rioters are rpgs.

parties are rpgs.

stores are rpgs.

corporations are rpgs.

there's no objective physical difference between a ceo and a cleaner. they both just are told to pretend they are a ceo and a cleaner and act from that.

there are never two choices.

there are billions of choices.

you must create your own way.Still, these choices are bound to the material conditions. Some choices can't be made under the current material conditions. However, you can make other choices to move towards the goal. Since these choices depend on the material conditions, you should always take the material conditions in account.

[Avanti]

i am doing that

otherwise the Cyberpunk thread wouldn't exist

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think it's really worth differentiating between "lifestyle" and what Tiqqun call "forms-of-life". Part of what seems problematic to me about the ideas being put forth in this thread is that the two are being conflated, not only semantically, but theoretically. There are important distinctions to be drawn between "lifestyles" (many of which exist quite amicably within, for example, capitalism), which can constitute a variety of ways of being within a set of social relations (e.g. The "punk" and the "yuppie" are essentially produced by and produce the same commodity relationships, other than the not-all-that-interesting specificity of the commodities/spectacles in question), and "forms-of-life" which are, by definition, exclusively describe particular sets of unique relations and modes of re/production. Constituting communist forms-of-life is the fundamental purpose of an authentically emancipatory social project - communist lifestyle, on the other hand, which fails to make a real break with the capitalist totality, is the failure of that project (see also: activist ghettos, Trotskyist sects, anarchy-in-one-punkhouse, and so on).

I also have to take pretty serious issue with the suggestion that there is "no objective [. . .] difference between a ceo and a cleaner" - while their roles may be fundamentally performative, the act has serious objective consequences, that play out not only socially, but on the "real" level of bodies. Living on Kraft dinner, working with harsh chemicals, the milieu of the workplace, strong beer, and so on contrasted with organic produce prepared by professional chefs, fine wines, personal trainers, "literature", and so on have real consequences for bodies - and that's dealing in relatively abstract terms. The specificities of a particular janitor (and the intersections of their racialization, gendering, class, etc.) and a particular CEO are very real.

[Avanti]

yes.

the goal is to create new forms of life.

urban hunter-gatherer tribes.

[Comrade #138672]

yes.

the goal is to create new forms of life.

urban hunter-gatherer tribes.You may be able to create some neo-hunter-gatherer 'tribes', but you will always have a minority. It's a nice ideal, though. You should expand on these thoughts and correct them whenever necessary. Who knows, you might come with something interesting for many workers. Your boldness might be an advantage, but don't forget to take criticism seriously.

[Avanti]

You may be able to create some neo-hunter-gatherer 'tribes', but you will always have a minority. It's a nice ideal, though. You should expand on these thoughts and correct them whenever necessary. Who knows, you might come with something interesting for many workers. Your boldness might be an advantage, but don't forget to take criticism seriously.

criticism is great.

yes, we'll be a minority.

thousands of minorities.

[Comrade #138672]

criticism is great.

yes, we'll be a minority.

thousands of minorities.But you oppose unity, because you say it's a weakness. So how is this going to work out? It seems to me that they will not be able to overthrow the ruling class, even though these minorities might numerically have the majority.

[Avanti]

But you oppose unity, because you say it's a weakness. So how is this going to work out? It seems to me that they will not be able to overthrow the ruling class, even though these minorities might numerically have the majority.

they will not overthrow the elite.

they will swarm the elite.

overstretching the capabilities of the elite.

instead of assembling all people in one square.

all NeoTribes will attack the resource gathering points of the elite.

many needle sticks.

surround not the cities, but the gated communities, the powerplants, the sun power stations, the military bases, the watchposts.

the elite will be besieged.

the NeoTribes will not think about revolution, but about the adventure of survival.

revolution is so static and boring.

and always leads to a struggle about the control of society.

i say splinter society in one billion crystals.

let anarchy rule.

[Comrade #138672]

they will not overthrow the elite.

they will swarm the elite.

overstretching the capabilities of the elite.

instead of assembling all people in one square.

all NeoTribes will attack the resource gathering points of the elite.

many needle sticks.

surround not the cities, but the gated communities, the powerplants, the sun power stations, the military bases, the watchposts.

the elite will be besieged.

the NeoTribes will not think about revolution, but about the adventure of survival.

revolution is so static and boring.

and always leads to a struggle about the control of society.

i say splinter society in one billion crystals.

let anarchy rule.This seems like petty-bourgeois romanticism. Revolution is not an adventure. It's a necessity.

And no, without unity, the ruling class will crush every movement.

[Avanti]

This seems like petty-bourgeois romanticism. Revolution is not an adventure. It's a necessity.

And no, without unity, the ruling class will crush every movement.

there won't be a political movement to crush.

the NeoTribes won't formulate any theories.

won't push any demands.

won't have any great leaders

won't have hierarchies

our only demand is that we want to live, love and exist

and that necessitates a struggle against Babylon

against the machine

theories don't need to be more complicated than that

the dumber the better

[Comrade #138672]

there won't be a political movement to crush.

the NeoTribes won't formulate any theories.

won't push any demands.

won't have any great leaders

won't have hierarchies

our only demand is that we want to live, love and exist

and that necessitates a struggle against Babylon

against the machine

theories don't need to be more complicated than that

the dumber the betterWhether or not you call them movements, they still are movements. Whatever you call them, they can still be crushed. Unity is absolutely necessary and this doesn't have to contradict diversity. Without the support of the majority of the workers, the bourgeoisie will mercilessly crush you and your movements.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Whether or not you call them movements, they still are movements. Whatever you call them, they can still be crushed. Unity is absolutely necessary and this doesn't have to contradict diversity. Without the support of the majority of the workers, the bourgeoisie will mercilessly crush you and your movements.

I don't get why "babylon" wouldn't just gas the cities and start anew.

[Comrade #138672]

I don't get why "babylon" wouldn't just gas the cities and start anew.How is this related to what I said? Aren't you just a troll?

Sorry if I'm mistaken.

[Avanti]

I don't get why "babylon" wouldn't just gas the cities and start anew.

they can do that if we threaten them too much.

but they haven't yet in places which been messed over since the 1980s.

in brazil, they prefer death squads. slower, cheaper.

yet we multiply like flies, we the wretched of the Earth.

[Avanti]

Whether or not you call them movements, they still are movements. Whatever you call them, they can still be crushed. Unity is absolutely necessary and this doesn't have to contradict diversity. Without the support of the majority of the workers, the bourgeoisie will mercilessly crush you and your movements.

unity will make it easier for them to crush us.

diversity will make every single movement weaker.

but for every candle they blow out.

a dozen new will be born.

and they'll never find all of them.

[Comrade #138672]

unity will make it easier for them to crush us.

diversity will make every single movement weaker.

but for every candle they blow out.

a dozen new will be born.

and they'll never find all of them.Why would unity make it easier for them to crush us, when we know that they love to apply the divide-and-conquer tactic. It seems that a lack of unity makes it easier for them to crush us, not unity itself.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

How is this related to what I said? Aren't you just a troll?

Sorry if I'm mistaken.

This scenario has nothing to do with you. I'm just pointing out a plot hole
(ex: Why didn't the villains just use the fucking tanks instead of getting into a fistfight in TDKR)

[Avanti]

Why would unity make it easier for them to crush us, when we know that they love to apply the divide-and-conquer tactic. It seems that a lack of unity makes it easier for them to crush us, not unity itself.

when they divide unified groups.

they themselves create the other groups to divide us.

they do that through academic intellectuals with theories.

when there are millions of small NeoTribes, they can't be divided.

because the people within each Tribe need one another for survival.

those Tribes which are weak can be destroyed by Babylon (or assimilated into stronger Tribes).

but Babylon can only keep limited attention, and won't even know of the existence of all Tribes.

and division allows the Tribes to adapt.

to different conditions and periods of time.

survival is the key.

[Comrade #138672]

when they divide unified groups.

they themselves create the other groups to divide us.Alright.


they do that through academic intellectuals with theories.Not just them, but many other groups aswell.


when there are millions of small NeoTribes, they can't be divided.Because they are already divided?


because the people within each Tribe need one another for survival.So they will attempt to kill the leader.


those Tribes which are weak can be destroyed by Babylon (or assimilated into stronger Tribes).

but Babylon can only keep limited attention, and won't even know of the existence of all Tribes.But still, they won't be able to do much, because they aren't united.


and division allows the Tribes to adapt.

to different conditions and periods of time.This doesn't exclude unity.


survival is the key.This is always true, so this doesn't make a difference.

[Avanti]

NeoTribes can unite in temporary alliances.

they can have factories together, as well as community gardens.

but no NeoTribe should be larger than 200 people.

[Comrade #138672]

NeoTribes can unite in temporary alliances.

they can have factories together, as well as community gardens.

but no NeoTribe should be larger than 200 people.To beat Capitalism, you need much more than 'temporary alliances'. Especially when the groups are not larger than 200 people...

[Avanti]

millions of groups.

world-wide.

in decaying city-scapes.

as capitalism morphs into Cyberpunk.

[Comrade #138672]

millions of groups.

world-wide.

in decaying city-scapes.

as capitalism morphs into Cyberpunk.It doesn't matter how many groups there are. If they are poorly united, then they are all crushed one by one.

[Avanti]

no.

because they cannot be seen in any register.

some of them will be crushed, yes.

but most of them will avoid detection of the Babylon's Pyramid Eye.

[Comrade #138672]

no.

because they cannot be seen in any register.

some of them will be crushed, yes.

but most of them will avoid detection of the Babylon's Pyramid Eye.No register is needed to crush them. Besides, it's not likely that this many groups will be created.

[Avanti]

No register is needed to crush them. Besides, it's not likely that this many groups will be created.

we'll have to.

when the state crumbles and the welfare systems are scrapped, we need to organise.

otherwise, we'll die.

[Comrade #138672]

we'll have to.

when the state crumbles and the welfare systems are scrapped, we need to organise.

otherwise, we'll die.No, because most workers have interests that override your interests, they will prefer a bigger movement acting in their interests.

Organization is absolutely necessary, but your tactic is way too limited.

[Avanti]

most people will prefer a bigger movement restoring capitalism to the 1990s, 1960s, or 1950s.

but that won't happen.

history can never be restored.

people will demand what cannot be realized.

[cynicles]

I don't get why "babylon" wouldn't just gas the cities and start anew.
Screw Babylon and the Gods it bows to! Onward to Persepolis!

[Avanti]

Screw Babylon and the Gods it bows to! Onward to Persepolis!

good slogan!

we'll build persepolis!

the glorious communist neo-achaemenid confederacy composed of an eutopian transhuman anarcho-technoprimitivist paradise.

where all humans live in abundance and dance around naked in fields in eternal joy.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

good slogan!

we'll build persepolis!

the glorious communist neo-achaemenid confederacy composed of an eutopian transhuman anarcho-technoprimitivist paradise.

where all humans live in abundance and dance around naked in fields in eternal joy.

Until the aliens attack

[Avanti]

Until the aliens attack

we'll repel them.

with lucid dreaming.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

we'll repel them.

with lucid dreaming.

No you won't. You'd die.

[Avanti]

the avanti never dies.

he lives within all of us.

even the aliens.

and the moose.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

the avanti never dies.

he lives within all of us.

even the aliens.

and the moose.

But he wouldn't live within all the dead earthlings who were too stoned to resist.

[Avanti]

the aliens are amongst us

they cannot love

they are trapped inside Babylon

we all are aliens before one another

we must let go of our fears

laugh and hug and make love to one another

let go of all thoughts of tomorrow

and focus on this night

we are all one, interconnected by love

everybody are aliens to one another

but in reality

none of us is an allien

the Earth belongs to all

and the Universe is love

only Babylon keeps us from becoming humans

by drones and education

it's time to find the wild energy

[cynicles]

we'll repel them.

with lucid dreaming.
And our Neo-Alexandrian Love *******!

[Jimmie Higgins]

we shouldn't create one counter-culture.

we should create thousands.

diversity is strength.

unity is weakness.

If unity is weakness, why have all oppressors and rulers relied on "divide and conquor"?

Only unity will allow real diversity to exist. Diversity in capitalism without class unity, is just inequality or social alientation/atomization.

Only liberating the material sphere will allow organic cultures to form and merge and divide and mutate. Until then every culture, even counter-cultures are tied by thousands of little threads to the logic and relations of our masters and rulers. The fact that they are called "counter" rather than just "cultrue" reveals how they are just a shaddow of bourgoise-culture. Let's have liberated cultures.

[Avanti]

If unity is weakness, why have all oppressors and rulers relied on "divide and conquor"?

Only unity will allow real diversity to exist. Diversity in capitalism without class unity, is just inequality or social alientation/atomization.

Only liberating the material sphere will allow organic cultures to form and merge and divide and mutate. Until then every culture, even counter-cultures are tied by thousands of little threads to the logic and relations of our masters and rulers. The fact that they are called "counter" rather than just "cultrue" reveals how they are just a shaddow of bourgoise-culture. Let's have liberated cultures.

unity is a weakness when our opponents have drones.

we cannot have centralised command.

look at terminator 4.

we need to have thousands if not millions of cells.

composed of barefoot flower children, the lost children of Babylon, sporting feathers and piercings.

zero theory, 100% sensations.

hunter-gatherers in the urban jungle.

our first goal under Cyberpunk should be survival.

the first step of winning the struggle is to survive.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

"AVENGE! AVENGE! THE ANARCHY MOOSE!"
- Revolutionary Anarchist Mosh Bike Overthrow

But, actually, I find this "neotribes" thing slightly suspect, since it sidesteps (and not all that deftly, sorry) the necessity of discussing the basis for the constitution of said tribes (or any emancipatory force). It would be nice if the capitalist totality could nicely dissolve as free communities constitute themselves outside and against the logic of the commodity . . . but, actually, I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen.

IN OTHER WORDS, STOP TRYING TO SHIRK ON BUILDING THE PARTY, SHIRKER.

[Avanti]

in my thread "Cyberpunk Capitalism"

you find it in the non-political forum

i discuss why capitalism will shirk

and leave urban space for anarchic communities to develop

because they don't need us any more

every NeoTribe decides its own internal rules

but they won't be transmitted through theory

but through culture, myths and symbols

which are superior than theory

since they attach to the pre-lingual irrational aspects of the human mind

rationality + irrationality = surreationality

we don't need no programme

our actions are our programme

and our agenda is survival

in the urban jungle

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/23950866.jpg

Seriously though where is this actually going to take us?
If there isn't anything useful that can come out of this thread... why does it exist?

EDIT: I'm attacking how it's evolved, not how it started.