Log in

View Full Version : What to do for fun in a perfect world?



The Garbage Disposal Unit
28th June 2005, 13:42
If this is "the end of history" and no "grand" project or ideal can be realized, if all rebelion against ones circumstances is necessarily futile (all the solidarity implied by rebelion a dead idea), and we must necessarily live in bad faith, WHY THE FUCK SHOULDN'T I START SHOOTING? Or, simply put, "When there's no future, how can their be sin?" - in the ultimately atomized world, in which all frameworks for relating to one another have collapsed, is there any reason at all why every "American Psycho" shouldn't live out his fantasy? If we now live in a static world, with no gods, and no tomorrow, why the fuck shouldn't I buy an SUV just to run over yr children?

Go.

Ian
28th June 2005, 13:45
go for it

Professor Moneybags
28th June 2005, 14:57
Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 28 2005, 12:42 PM
If this is "the end of history" and no "grand" project or ideal can be realized, if all rebelion against ones circumstances is necessarily futile (all the solidarity implied by rebelion a dead idea), and we must necessarily live in bad faith, WHY THE FUCK SHOULDN'T I START SHOOTING?
Because someone else might start shooting back.

Alternatively, you could just take refuge in post-modernism with the rest of the disenchanted communists.

Bannockburn
28th June 2005, 15:18
If this is "the end of history" and no "grand" project or ideal

I think you need to stop right there. Both Hegel and Marx used the historical dialectic to use as a method of their philosophies. The both also agreed that you can never know (especially for Hegel) the end of history. Since history for Hegel is a systematic process of opposing forces that encompasses all, individuals are not factors (men are but means) that play within this dialectical process. Thus, any claim be somebody that there is an end to history is false. This is the case say of Fukayama a couple of years ago.

Moreover, we can never know the contradiction force of the original thesis until it is over, or near over – already passed or almost passed in history. Hegel’s philosophy in this case is always a looking backwards. For example, it is argued that liberal-capitalist democracy and Soviet communism was two opposing forces (thesis-antithesis). Nobody knew that a new emerging synthesis was on the brink till the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union fell. – however as we know it, the Soviet Union was already proceeding in the past.

However, as opposing forces and that this dialectic is follow through, till absolute spirit – nobody really knows what the new opposing force will be to combat the mergence of the neo-liberal synthesis. It could be almost anything. It could be the Green/environmental force opposing neo-liberalism. That is one example. Another could be the end of oil (even that is more of a material condition rather than ideological, but still fits in the Hegel-Marx dialectic). Thus, as you buy your SUV, - fueling the opposing force that could crush the current world order.

The Garbage Disposal Unit
29th June 2005, 14:17
You miss the point Bannokburn - I'm not attempting to argue that this is the end of history at all. I'm a Marxist and know better - I'm simply suggesting that the implications of the capitalist "end of history" are more distrubing than most of the idea's proponents tend to think. What I'm trying to put forward is that the if this is the "end of history" it is the victory of barbarism over socialism - and there's no longer any reason why any decent individual shouldn't toss away every philosophy and start killing babies for food (if they think they can get away with it . . . or don't give a fuck about the consequences).

That said - I think yr grasp of the relationships that will topple capitalism, and what is/isn't a dialectical relationship are a little shakey. The Soviet Union's state capitalism v. the monopoly capitalism of the United states was by no means the principle contridiction of the twentieth century (though it could have been dialectical, it evidently was not - the Soviet Union did not awake some grand change within the belly of the beast, wasn't the incubator on the capitalist "egg") - nor is green/environmentalist force v. neoliberalism the deciding force of this decade. The primary contridiction in global capitalist order was and reamins the contridiction between producers and leeches - proletarians and bourgeoisie. Certainly, it is more complex than this simple portrayal implies (uneven development, imperialism, hegemony, and so on have naturally shaped this contridiction in different ways, and there are of course related but lesser contridictions), but this remains central to understanding how we're going to smash existing order.

Damn, I am inclined to babling. And errors. And . . .

ÑóẊîöʼn
29th June 2005, 16:37
Alternatively, you could just take refuge in post-modernism with the rest of the disenchanted communists.

For your information, I despise post-modernism and it's anti-Enlightenment position.

emma gg
6th July 2005, 22:57
I think that we should all have lots of sex. that would be fun. and drink beer. somebody's got to know how. i'll call them, and we can get drunk and fuck. come on over.
really, though, the most important thing is to stay positive. because if you let them bum you out, they've really won. don't forget to breathe, too. v. important.
:D

Clarksist
6th July 2005, 23:13
The refrain from senseless violence also comes from the remorse on the inside, and the police.

Publius
6th July 2005, 23:30
If this is "the end of history" and no "grand" project or ideal can be realized, if all rebelion against ones circumstances is necessarily futile (all the solidarity implied by rebelion a dead idea), and we must necessarily live in bad faith, WHY THE FUCK SHOULDN'T I START SHOOTING? Or, simply put, "When there's no future, how can their be sin?" - in the ultimately atomized world, in which all frameworks for relating to one another have collapsed, is there any reason at all why every "American Psycho" shouldn't live out his fantasy? If we now live in a static world, with no gods, and no tomorrow, why the fuck shouldn't I buy an SUV just to run over yr children?

Go

I could say the same thing if I were living in a communist hellhole.

Oh wait, I couldn't, I wouldn't be allowed.

KC
7th July 2005, 06:09
Oh wait, I couldn't, I wouldn't be allowed.

Why not? There's freedom of speech in a Communist society

Publius
7th July 2005, 13:10
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 05:09 AM




Why not? There's freedom of speech in a Communist society

There is?

How?

Do I get my own printing presses, or do I have to share them?

You're going to share a printing press with someone who would rather you die?

In practice, there would be no dissenting opinion; it would make no sense to share with people who would love to precipitate your downfall.

Raisa
8th July 2005, 10:41
Just work hard, do the right thing, and pray to the lord and you can have all the printing presses you want! :blink:

OleMarxco
8th July 2005, 19:52
Yes, except only&#39;rat there&#39;s no lord to pray to, In Communism, poor you...no printing press for you muahahhahahahahh <evilclown-cacklelaugh&#33;> ;)
(work hard equals IN OUR LABOUR CAMPS, BEAATCCH. isisortehgulags&#33;)
(do the right thing is single-minded-obey-blind-bloody-loyality-*****-required&#33;)
Not really.

Naw, jus&#39; kiddin&#39;. There&#39;s no real "printin&#39;"-press in a Communistic society, &#39;rat way YOU&#39;re thinkin&#39; atleast. Not one that everyone "shares", and can be -brought- everywhere the one who "lends" it then, wants it, no? NO&#33; It&#39;s just right there, for everyone to PRINT&#39;stuff&#33; Out and out. Whatever the fuck is, to everyone, BY everyone. Open-source, no restrictions, freedom for teh speech, baby. REK-OG-NIZE&#33; :P

The Sloth
9th July 2005, 17:16
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 12:10 PM
Do I get my own printing presses, or do I have to share them?

You&#39;re going to share a printing press with someone who would rather you die?

In practice, there would be no dissenting opinion; it would make no sense to share with people who would love to precipitate your downfall.
your questions are rhetorical. you can figure out the answers yourself.

in any modern society -- capitalist or not -- there will be dissidents, for whatever reason. these reasons might be stupid (e.g., such as those of neo-nazis), but they will be reasons nonetheless, and will give rise to the counter-culture.

every society practices social controls. in america, the media is privatized into the hands of a select few, and thus, most people take in an elitist version of events.

in a communist society, since most people are communists, and most people are adhering to the status quo, the media would be in the hands of people with similar ideas. the most drastic difference would be in what&#39;s espoused, not necessarily in how it&#39;s espoused. you could, of course, run your own media if you&#39;d like -- but, the question is, would you be able to reach a lot of people with it if you are considered to be part of the counter-culture?

the fact that there is a lot of fascist material such as magazines and websites indicates that there are adherents to the movement. same goes for socialism, communism, and anarchism.

same goes for capitalism, except, of course, the capitalist system is currenlty the status quo. it is the over-culture. the capitalists don&#39;t need small websites such as reagan-lives, they don&#39;t need black-and-white magazines; they have the means for much grander projects. they have think-tanks, fox, cnn, the economist, and heads-of-state to support them. i could speak out against the system, but with difficulty.

to go back to your position -- you can, of course, speak out as well if communism is the status quo. but how far will you get, and who will you reach?

Capital Punishment
9th July 2005, 21:05
Originally posted by Brooklyn&#045;[email protected] 9 2005, 04:16 PM
to go back to your position -- you can, of course, speak out as well if communism is the status quo. but how far will you get, and who will you reach?
Unfortunately for you Reds, communism won&#39;t exist as a status quo anytime soon, if ever (at least fully - there is no "true" communist society right now). I realized this when i experimented with communism. Most people aren&#39;t willing to go and just share everything or give up possesions. I always thought the whole revolutionary spirit of communism was cool, but it can&#39;t ever work in a real society, and attempts have put nations in shambles.

The Sloth
11th July 2005, 00:06
Originally posted by Capital [email protected] 9 2005, 08:05 PM
Unfortunately for you Reds, communism won&#39;t exist as a status quo anytime soon, if ever (at least fully - there is no "true" communist society right now). I realized this when i experimented with communism. Most people aren&#39;t willing to go and just share everything or give up possesions. I always thought the whole revolutionary spirit of communism was cool, but it can&#39;t ever work in a real society, and attempts have put nations in shambles.
ok.

if you&#39;d like to discuss the &#39;threat&#39; of communism and such, or willingness to give up possessions, or whatever else, make a thread about it. i&#39;ll gladly offer my opinion.

in the meantime, i&#39;d like to discuss the communist printing press, if you don&#39;t mind.

Capital Punishment
11th July 2005, 00:29
Originally posted by Brooklyn&#045;[email protected] 10 2005, 11:06 PM
if you&#39;d like to discuss the &#39;threat&#39; of communism and such, or willingness to give up possessions, or whatever else, make a thread about it. i&#39;ll gladly offer my opinion.
I already have one. I&#39;d love to hear your opinion.

And "communist printing press?" oh please. What happens if a large number of people in a communist society speak out against the cause? Do you silence them?