Post-Left Anarchy

[MKS]

What are your opinions on Post-Left Anarchy? I think I identify most with post-leftism.

Your thoughts?

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 01:22 AM
What are your opinions on Post-Left Anarchy? I think I identify most with post-leftism.

Your thoughts?
I don't know what it is. Elaborate and I'll tell you what I think!

Why are you restricted, anyways?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Post-Left Anarchy is a myth. Anarchy is a myth. It cannot be attained because it is based on the assumption that no group will come forward which will attempt to oppress a majority after any leftist revolution.

It doesn't take much to do it. A few tough men who want to provide for them and theirs, and the equipment to make it happen. At first, about 10 men will work over a few families, then they'll get a rep, and others will join them.

Men (maybe women, too, but definately men) need to bring home the bacon, and bringing home bacon better than the next guy is part of our wiring. (That "human nature thing" we cappies keep using to argue that any Marxist Revolution will fail.)

Yeah, the anarchy will last about a month, until some baddies build a tank and come and take whatever you got.

If there is "anarchy", my advise to you is to hide your daughters.


A. Hamilton

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 6 2006, 03:03 AM
Post-Left Anarchy is a myth. Anarchy is a myth. It cannot be attained because it is based on the assumption that no group will come forward which will attempt to oppress a majority after any leftist revolution.



I don't think you know what post-leftism is.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I don't think you know what post-leftism is.

Perhaps. I merely took the wild guess that the "post" part meant after, and the "leftism" part meant a left revolution.

The alternative would be that it is a football play called a "post route", where the half back goes out about ten yards out in the flat, and has the ball passed to him on the left side of the field.

A.H.

[MKS]

I don't know what it is. Elaborate and I'll tell you what I think!

Go here and youll get the basic theory. In a nutshell it is an attempt to examine, critique and distance the libertarian movement from the "mainstream" anarchist/communist ideologies or theories. Basically an attempt at originality.

Post Left Anarchy (http://www.anarchymag.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10&Itemid=25)


Why are you restricted, anyways?

Because I offended the powers that be. So much for freedom of expression or speech. And they wonder why I am anti-authoritarian.

Maybe we cant change. We are doomed?

[JazzRemington]

Post-Left Anarchy is an attempt to create a unified anarchist theory and further itself from the Left. This often includes a rejection of ideology and "-isms," hence it being called "anarchy," instead of "anarchism." Post-Left Anarchists tend to reject all commonly accepted ideas and concepts, including morality, ethics, etc. They view this as a consequence of being attached to the Left for so long.

In general, Post-Leftists agrue that single-issue causes aren't worth fighting for and instead one should concentrate his or her efforts into dismantleing the State and capitalism.

Contrary to popular belief, Post-Left Anarchy is not a new theory, rather it is a critique of the Left and Anarchisms long attachment to the Left.

Popular currents in Post-Left Anarchist thought is the idea that one should focus on teh individual and not on groups or abstractions (the working class, etc.), promotion of self-liberation (aka dropping out), and are generally attracted to postmodernism; however, these are not views shared by everyone.

[Rollo]

Because I offended the powers that be. So much for freedom of expression or speech. And they wonder why I am anti-authoritarian.

Homophobia and sexism is the real reason.


Maybe we cant change. We are doomed?

I guess you'll just have to learn not to hate women and homosexuals.

[MKS]

Homophobia and sexism is the real reason.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I made a comment about using Marxists for target practice and "they" restricted me. I am not and never will be either a homophobe or a sexist.

[Rollo]

Oh wrong person similiar avatars. But I can see why you were restricted. Why do you hate marxists?

[MKS]

Oh wrong person similiar avatars. But I can see why you were restricted. Why do you hate marxists?

I dont hate Marxists as people, but i dont like the suthoritarian nature or Marxism. They are statist and I am not.

[Rollo]

Then why do you think they should be shot?

[MKS]

Then why do you think they should be shot?

I was using hyperbole to make a point. thats all.

[Rollo]

Understandable.

[kaaos_af]

And agreeable.

[getoutofhere]

Originally posted by MKS
I was using hyperbole to make a point. thats all.

and what was your point at all?

[SPK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 10:59 PM
Post Left Anarchy (http://www.anarchymag.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10&Itemid=25)
This description in your link seems a tad vague. Could you be more specific? I've seen assholes like the unabomber associated with postleftism.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by getoutofhere+Oct 6 2006, 03:28 PM--> (getoutofhere @ Oct 6 2006, 03:28 PM)
MKS
I was using hyperbole to make a point. thats all.

and what was your point at all? [/b]
He claims that anarchy is the only way and anybody who thinks otherwise is wrong and should be shot.

[An archist]

that sounds like anarcho-fascism

[MKS]

He claims that anarchy is the only way and anybody who thinks otherwise is wrong and should be shot.

I never said anything remotely like that. If you know the definition of hyperbole you would understand I was using an extreme example (usually unthinkable) in order to explain my position. Which at the time if I remember the context of the debate was; someone said something about shooting the bourgeois(sp) and replacing them with a Marxist-Communist type system, and I said [paraphrase] "Before we shoot the bourgeois we should line up the Marxist and use them for target practice". What I was trying to communicate that I don’t want either a bourgeois capitalist power structure or a Marxist one, to me both oppress liberty and equality. I would never shoot anybody, I don’t think, but I was using a literary device to draw attention to my argument, obviously many people took it as a literal definition of my intent.


This description in your link seems a tad vague. Could you be more specific? I've seen assholes like the unabomber associated with postleftism.

To me post-leftis the attempt to construct a new way of implementing socio-economic change. Post-Leftist dont really embrace an "ism" so much as they embrace a greater examination of society, and through that examination perhaps a better path to liberation. It is hard to define the post-left because it is not one conrete dogma, rather a dismissal of all past Leftist dogma (i.e. Marx, Luxembourg, Leninism etc)

[Rollo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 11:29 PM

He claims that anarchy is the only way and anybody who thinks otherwise is wrong and should be shot.

I never said anything remotely like that. If you know the definition of hyperbole you would understand I was using an extreme example (usually unthinkable) in order to explain my position. Which at the time if I remember the context of the debate was; someone said something about shooting the bourgeois(sp) and replacing them with a Marxist-Communist type system, and I said [paraphrase] "Before we shoot the bourgeois we should line up the Marxist and use them for target practice". What I was trying to communicate that I don’t want either a bourgeois capitalist power structure or a Marxist one, to me both oppress liberty and equality. I would never shoot anybody, I don’t think, but I was using a literary device to draw attention to my argument, obviously many people took it as a literal definition of my intent.


This description in your link seems a tad vague. Could you be more specific? I've seen assholes like the unabomber associated with postleftism.

To me post-leftis the attempt to construct a new way of implementing socio-economic change. Post-Leftist dont really embrace an "ism" so much as they embrace a greater examination of society, and through that examination perhaps a better path to liberation. It is hard to define the post-left because it is not one conrete dogma, rather a dismissal of all past Leftist dogma (i.e. Marx, Luxembourg, Leninism etc)
And they said " Not only is he stupid. He's ugly too!"

See how stories don't work when you just tell someone the end or punch line? If I would have known the full story my post would have been a lot different.

[MKS]

If I would have known the full story my post would have been a lot different.

Exactl. You commented on something you knew little about, and failed to learn more before you formed an opinion and expressed that opinion. It happens a lot here on RL, Im used to it by now. No worries

[RebelDog]

MKS, I'm a staunch marxist but I can see how your restriction may have been too harsh. You shouldn't be languishing in 'opposing ideologies'. Have you tried to get unrestricted?

[YSR]

Well, I'm fairly certain we restrict post-leftists here.

They're not working class revolutionaries and we are. Sure, a bunch of us anarchists include non-proletarians in our ideas of revolutions (artists, peasants, lumpen) that don't fit in the traditional Marxist paradigm.

But we still fight for the poor as opposed to the rich. Post-leftists believe that the state oppresses everyone, so we should fight the heirarchy for that reason. CrimethInc, for all of their great literature, are great examples of this. In their "Fighting for Our Lives," they talk about how the rich are alienated by their wealth. To which every worker ever cries "bullshit!"

I repeat myself: The rich are the enemy. Anarchy is the only way.

[chimx]

post-leftism has a degree of appeal to me, and if they would stop using the phrase "anarchy" over "anarchism" i think it would be far more appealing. :-P

their criticism of the lefts romanticization of workers i find particularly helpful, that power can transcend class boundaries and should be examined as much as worker exploitation. while i think their complete rejection of the left is extreme, it would be nice for anarchists to start standing on their own two feet instead of playing lapdog to other ideologies. working with the left should be an issue of compromise in praxis, not ideology.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:59 AM

I don't know what it is. Elaborate and I'll tell you what I think!

Go here and youll get the basic theory. In a nutshell it is an attempt to examine, critique and distance the libertarian movement from the "mainstream" anarchist/communist ideologies or theories. Basically an attempt at originality.

Post Left Anarchy (http://www.anarchymag.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10&Itemid=25)


Why are you restricted, anyways?

Because I offended the powers that be. So much for freedom of expression or speech. And they wonder why I am anti-authoritarian.

Maybe we cant change. We are doomed?
I was asking what comments you might have made to piss them off.

On Post - Leftism, I think it has its uses in reforming the dysfunctional ideologies behind many of the current movements, but my fear is that it could elad to splits, and we certainly need solidarity. Then again, solidarity behind a corrupted cause is pretty bas as well.

I would say I like Post-Leftism, but that I also think many who call themselves anarchists, communists, and libertarians are essentially post-leftists.

EDIT btw, I love your signature. I've seen chomsky's quote before, but not einstein's (though I knew he was a marxist-type communist by reading his essay "Why Socialism?").

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:22 AM
What are your opinions on Post-Left Anarchy? I think I identify most with post-leftism.

Your thoughts?
Post-left anarchy is a middle class trend and is nothing more than radicalised liberalism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 04:59 AM
Go here and youll get the basic theory. In a nutshell it is an attempt to examine, critique and distance the libertarian movement from the "mainstream" anarchist/communist ideologies or theories. Basically an attempt at originality.
Originality is not a refutation of class politics.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 04:39 PM
while i think their complete rejection of the left is extreme, it would be nice for anarchists to start standing on their own two feet instead of playing lapdog to other ideologies. working with the left should be an issue of compromise in praxis, not ideology.
This is just a rhetorical soundbite!

Being a lapdog is a ridiculous "critcism" as it doesn't actually address the issues of class struggle in the context of destroying capitalism.

I accept that authoritarian left organisations romanticise the working class in the most bizarre ways, but the reality is, class struggle the only real way that capitalism is going to be destroyed and post-left anarchy has not even attempted to refute that.

If class struggle is no longer relevant or, as most of these people suggest, the working class no longer exists these people need to prove it through debate.

[which doctor]

FoB on post-leftism: many of their ideas have a certain degree of appeal to me, especially their analysis. Most of their ideas for revolution are half-baked though. Post-leftism is best taken not seriously. Take what you want from them, dismiss what you don't.

YSR,


Well, I'm fairly certain we restrict post-leftists here.

Post-leftism is a very broad term, it includes everyone from primitivists to some insurrectionary anarchists to post-situationists. We do not restrict all of them.


They're not working class revolutionaries and we are.
How do you know they aren't working class revolutionaries? Just because they may have rejected the whole class scheme and dropped out of their class, doesn't make them our enemies.


But we still fight for the poor as opposed to the rich.
Umm...post-leftists fight for the poor as well, they fight for all oppressed people.


Post-leftists believe that the state oppresses everyone, so we should fight the heirarchy for that reason.
It does.


CrimethInc, for all of their great literature, are great examples of this. In their "Fighting for Our Lives," they talk about how the rich are alienated by their wealth. To which every worker ever cries "bullshit!"
Some people are alienated by their wealth, others are alienated by their labor. One of the better quotes on this topic is - "To be rich today is merely to own the largest number of meaningless objects - to possess the greatest amounts of poverty." The working class are the most revolutionary class however due to the extent and visibility of their exploitation.


I repeat myself: The rich are the enemy. Anarchy is the only way.
The ideas of the bourgeois are the enemy, not individual persons.

SPK,


I've seen assholes like the unabomber associated with postleftism.
The ideas, not the actions, of the Unabomber are understood and even embraced by some post-leftists. Many in the post-left trend dismiss the Unabomber though, especially his actions.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 04:42 PM
Some people are alienated by their wealth, others are alienated by their labor. One of the better quotes on this topic is - "To be rich today is merely to own the largest number of meaningless objects - to possess the greatest amounts of poverty." The working class are the most revolutionary class however due to the extent and visibility of their exploitation.
That's impossible. Only the working class can be exploited.

Wait.. unless we take our heads out of our asses.

Whose quote was that, btw?

[chimx]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2006, 03:55 PM
I accept that authoritarian left organisations romanticise the working class in the most bizarre ways, but the reality is, class struggle the only real way that capitalism is going to be destroyed and post-left anarchy has not even attempted to refute that.
my personal opinion is that i am interested in dismantling power structures beyond that of capitalism and worker domination. thus my disinterest with excessive focus on class struggle.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by chimx+Oct 6 2006, 06:43 PM--> (chimx @ Oct 6 2006, 06:43 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2006, 03:55 PM
I accept that authoritarian left organisations romanticise the working class in the most bizarre ways, but the reality is, class struggle the only real way that capitalism is going to be destroyed and post-left anarchy has not even attempted to refute that.
my personal opinion is that i am interested in dismantling power structures beyond that of capitalism and worker domination.[/b]
These power structures are intrinsically linked to capitalism and they can only be dismantled when capitalism no longer exists.


thus my disinterest with excessive focus on class struggle.

The only force in society capable of destroying capitalism is the working class.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 05:42 PM
many of their ideas have a certain degree of appeal to me, especially their analysis.
What analysis?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2006, 06:24 PM


The only force in society capable of destroying capitalism is the working class.
Kind of like how Winston thought the proles were the only group capable of destroying the Party.

How'd that work out?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 6 2006, 07:57 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 6 2006, 07:57 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2006, 06:24 PM


The only force in society capable of destroying capitalism is the working class.
Kind of like how Winston thought the proles were the only group capable of destroying the Party.

How'd that work out? [/b]
Don't start with me prick, you won't be able to handle it!

[which doctor]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Oct 6 2006, 01:31 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Oct 6 2006, 01:31 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 05:42 PM
many of their ideas have a certain degree of appeal to me, especially their analysis.
What analysis? [/b]
Their analysis on mass consumer culture. I do disagree with their "means for a revolution" though.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Dean+Oct 6 2006, 11:46 AM--> (Dean @ Oct 6 2006, 11:46 AM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 04:42 PM
Some people are alienated by their wealth, others are alienated by their labor. One of the better quotes on this topic is - "To be rich today is merely to own the largest number of meaningless objects - to possess the greatest amounts of poverty." The working class are the most revolutionary class however due to the extent and visibility of their exploitation.
That's impossible. Only the working class can be exploited.

Wait.. unless we take our heads out of our asses.

Whose quote was that, btw? [/b]
The quote has been attributed to Donald Trump, although I highly doubt that he said it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by FoB+Oct 6 2006, 08:06 PM--> (FoB @ Oct 6 2006, 08:06 PM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2006, 01:31 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 05:42 PM
many of their ideas have a certain degree of appeal to me, especially their analysis.
What analysis?
Their analysis on mass consumer culture. I do disagree with their "means for a revolution" though. [/b]
I'm not entirely convinced that the Situationist analysis of society is necessarily post left?

As I recall, the Situationist International were heavily involved in helping organise the Factory commitee's during the Paris uprising and Guy Debord never rejected class as a means of transforming society.

[chimx]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Oct 6 2006, 06:24 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Oct 6 2006, 06:24 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 06:43 PM

The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2006, 03:55 PM
I accept that authoritarian left organisations romanticise the working class in the most bizarre ways, but the reality is, class struggle the only real way that capitalism is going to be destroyed and post-left anarchy has not even attempted to refute that.
my personal opinion is that i am interested in dismantling power structures beyond that of capitalism and worker domination.
These power structures are intrinsically linked to capitalism and they can only be dismantled when capitalism no longer exists.


thus my disinterest with excessive focus on class struggle.

The only force in society capable of destroying capitalism is the working class. [/b]
i think you are applying 19th century analysis to contemporary problems. this is the kind of historical anachronism that post-leftism is trying to rid itself of.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Oct 6 2006, 02:10 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Oct 6 2006, 02:10 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2006, 01:31 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 05:42 PM
many of their ideas have a certain degree of appeal to me, especially their analysis.
What analysis?
Their analysis on mass consumer culture. I do disagree with their "means for a revolution" though.
I'm not entirely convinced that the Situationist analysis of society is necessarily post left?

As I recall, the Situationist International were heavily involved in helping organise the Factory commitee's during the Paris uprising and Guy Debord never rejected class as a means of transforming society. [/b]
Not that I agree with the Situationists being post-left, but I think it comes from their critiques of the Left and its' previous attempts at revolution.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:18 PM
i think you are applying 19th century analysis to contemporary problems. this is the kind of historical anachronism that post-leftism is trying to rid itself of.
This is my point. You make these claims but there is no basis for what you are saying. Are you saying that these power structures are no longer apart of capitalism or that they never have been?

The only "post-left" analysis that I could potentially get on board with is the notion that the working class has shrunk, but other than that this "19th century analysis" still applies to modern society.

Regardless of any analysis on society, the working class i.e. those exploited by capitalism and those who work directly within capitalism have the power to bring it down.

If you don't accept that argument, then why?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:27 PM
Not that I agree with the Situationists being post-left, but I think it comes from their critiques of the Left and its' previous attempts at revolution.
I can accept that.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by JazzRemington+Oct 6 2006, 02:27 PM--> (JazzRemington @ Oct 6 2006, 02:27 PM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2006, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2006, 01:31 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 05:42 PM
many of their ideas have a certain degree of appeal to me, especially their analysis.
What analysis?
Their analysis on mass consumer culture. I do disagree with their "means for a revolution" though.
I'm not entirely convinced that the Situationist analysis of society is necessarily post left?

As I recall, the Situationist International were heavily involved in helping organise the Factory commitee's during the Paris uprising and Guy Debord never rejected class as a means of transforming society.
Not that I agree with the Situationists being post-left, but I think it comes from their critiques of the Left and its' previous attempts at revolution. [/b]
I've heard Crimethinc and the post-left been called american situationists for the 90's. before. I disagree with that. Most situationists and post-leftists disagree with that notion as well. They do share some similarities, but there are far too many differences to actually link the two.

[MKS]

I just recently stumbled upon the Post-Left, and I must admit that some of their principles are interesting. To me it sounds thats its not trying to establish a new "ism" but only provoke new thoughts and ideas about revolution, anti-statism, and libertarian struggle. Which to me can be a very good thing since it seems that the movement is stuck in antiquated maxims and dogmas.

Some one asked if I ever have tried to get unrestricted. I ahev and I have failed. Ive been sent to the "gulag" I guess, oh well. I could push the issue and mention the blantant hypocrisy of a "communist" forum suppressing free expression and punishing someones expressed viewpoint, or just that a group of people like to exert any authority over others but at the same time call for a leaderless society, but I dont want to get banned.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Oct 6 2006, 02:10 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Oct 6 2006, 02:10 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2006, 01:31 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 05:42 PM
many of their ideas have a certain degree of appeal to me, especially their analysis.
What analysis?
Their analysis on mass consumer culture. I do disagree with their "means for a revolution" though.
I'm not entirely convinced that the Situationist analysis of society is necessarily post left?

As I recall, the Situationist International were heavily involved in helping organise the Factory commitee's during the Paris uprising and Guy Debord never rejected class as a means of transforming society. [/b]
I never said that the situationist analysis of society was post-leftist...

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Oct 6 2006, 03:46 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Oct 6 2006, 03:46 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 02:22 AM
What are your opinions on Post-Left Anarchy? I think I identify most with post-leftism.

Your thoughts?
Post-left anarchy is a middle class trend and is nothing more than radicalised liberalism. [/b]
Exactly. When I read Crimethinc's "Fighting for our Lives", I thought that anarchism was about two muslim women kissing each other, holding hands, and a bunch of stories about people doing stuff like looking at the stars.

Seriously, the lifestylism that anarchism has become is saddening. What could have been a working class movement was co-opted by a bunch of idiots who wanted to be "radical".

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 09:04 PM
Some one asked if I ever have tried to get unrestricted. I ahev and I have failed. Ive been sent to the "gulag" I guess, oh well. I could push the issue and mention the blantant hypocrisy of a "communist" forum suppressing free expression and punishing someones expressed viewpoint, or just that a group of people like to exert any authority over others but at the same time call for a leaderless society, but I dont want to get banned.
What's best about it is the reason given: this board is private property.

If you could bottle up the irony, you could power New York City for a month.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Post Left Anarchy is based on emotions and lifestylist politics. It has no basis within the class war therefore it is completely irrelevant to working class people and those who wish to realistically destroy class society.

[MKS]

What's best about it is the reason given: this board is private property.

If you could bottle up the irony, you could power New York City for a month

You call it irony, I call it hypocrisy. And they (communists) wonder why a revolution would never work.

[Publius]

I think I'll just let the continual process of societal evolution take us where we'll inevietably go.

That way I'll be right no matter what happens.

[Tungsten]

Now that's just being lazy.

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 6 2006, 06:57 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 6 2006, 06:57 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2006, 06:24 PM


The only force in society capable of destroying capitalism is the working class.
Kind of like how Winston thought the proles were the only group capable of destroying the Party.

How'd that work out? [/b]
Will you shut up about that overrated novel?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by mauvaise foi+Oct 10 2006, 06:03 PM--> (mauvaise foi @ Oct 10 2006, 06:03 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 06:57 PM

The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2006, 06:24 PM


The only force in society capable of destroying capitalism is the working class.
Kind of like how Winston thought the proles were the only group capable of destroying the Party.

How'd that work out?
Will you shut up about that overrated novel? [/b]
You must not like the answer.

:D

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 10 2006, 09:26 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 10 2006, 09:26 PM)
Originally posted by mauvaise [email protected] 10 2006, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 06:57 PM

The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2006, 06:24 PM


The only force in society capable of destroying capitalism is the working class.
Kind of like how Winston thought the proles were the only group capable of destroying the Party.

How'd that work out?
Will you shut up about that overrated novel?
You must not like the answer.

:D [/b]
Either that or not like people criticising an actual movement with a work of FICTION.

You're as annoying as those ****s who bring up 'Brave New World' in discussions on Transhumanism.

[t_wolves_fan]

Either that or not like people criticising an actual movement with a work of FICTION.

Art imitates life.


You're as annoying as those ****s

Classy.


who bring up 'Brave New World' in discussions on Transhumanism.

:lol:

Oh lord, what's transhumanism?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 01:55 PM

Either that or not like people criticising an actual movement with a work of FICTION.

Art imitates life.
To an extent, but I think people would find it more believable if you cited history books as opposed to alagorical fiction.




You're as annoying as those ****s

Classy. Depends whos class we're talking aboute, eh squire?



who bring up 'Brave New World' in discussions on Transhumanism.

:lol:

Oh lord, what's transhumanism?

You really are as thick as shit aren't you? A good place to start (http://ne-plus-ultra.org/huxley.htm), as it was where the term was first coined - but there's plenty of other material for you to get stuck into mate.

[t_wolves_fan]

To an extent, but I think people would find it more believable if you cited history books as opposed to alagorical fiction.

Ok then.

Proles taking over...in history...ummm....we have Russia in 1917, and you're welcome to claim its 72 years of "success" as your own.

China...maybe. But it's economy is gradually becoming privtized as well.

France, you can have that.


You really are as thick as shit aren't you?

Because I haven't heard of some bizzaro theory that looks to be poor man's scientology?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 09:22 PM

To an extent, but I think people would find it more believable if you cited history books as opposed to alagorical fiction.

Ok then.

Proles taking over...in history...ummm....we have Russia in 1917, and you're welcome to claim its 72 years of "success" as your own.

China...maybe. But it's economy is gradually becoming privtized as well.

France, you can have that.
Russia was a success between 1917 and 1928.

China, I don't really know a lot about.

France? I assume you mean the Paris Commune? Or are you "slurring" the French in some strange right-wing cretin way?




You really are as thick as shit aren't you?

Because I haven't heard of some bizzaro theory that looks to be poor man's scientology? :lol: Go on explain the parralells you found with scientology. THis should be a laugh.

[t_wolves_fan]

Russia was a success between 1917 and 1928.

That pretty much ends the discussion right there but tell me, why was it a failure after 1928? That's pretty much when the dictatorship of the proletariat really went into effect isn't it?


:lol: Go on explain the parralells you found with scientology. THis should be a laugh.

Absurdity level.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 04:55 PM

Russia was a success between 1917 and 1928.

That pretty much ends the discussion right there but tell me, why was it a failure after 1928? That's pretty much when the dictatorship of the proletariat really went into effect isn't it?
What the fuck kind of planet are you living on? THat's when the dictatorship of Stalin really took effect. Economically at that time it was definatley a success, but socially a fialure.




:lol: Go on explain the parralells you found with scientology. THis should be a laugh.

Absurdity level. :rolleyes: Well backed up too.Seriously, you could have just said 'I got nothing' you'd have got the same point across.