Fight Club Owns [Archive]

Sabocat

27th December 2003, 12:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 08:19 PM
the movie is not about marxism, chuck palahniuk didnt write a book about marxism nor is it about anarchism, the main reason for the "fight clubs" are for support groups or male bonding. thats what i got from the movie. great movie one of my favorite but i wouldnt call it a masterpiece grab the DVD special edition if you can find it . it has 4 commentary tracks.
You didn't think project Mayhem was all about Anarchy? The point was to bring down the credit card companies and credit reporting agencies bringing everyone back to zero.

Look at some of the actions of project Mayhem. Blowing up corporate art, taking out a corporate coffee shop.....etc.

My take on the fighting clubs, was relative to the speech in the bar to Ed Nortons character at the beginning. That it wasn't so much about male bonding as to bringing man back to a more primal existance.

Remember after the car crash, when Tyler is talking to Ed Norton lying in bed? His vision of the future? With people cooking venison on the interstate highways?

Great movie. My favorite scene is still the airplane scene...." A water landing at 600 mph? The people as calm as Hindu cows...The illusion of safety" :lol: :lol:

Invader Zim

27th December 2003, 16:12

An excelent film, if you like films with twists then watch the Usual Suspects or LA Confidential.

DeadMan

27th December 2003, 17:23

I loved Fight Club. It really makes me think. Sometimes I make real life connections with that movie. Also made me analyse situations in a variety of ways. I can relay with Edward Nortons character 'Jack' when he is in the insomnia and he sees himself as Tyler (Brad Pitt).

DeadMan.

Comrade Ceausescu

29th December 2003, 00:16

Is this movie abit marxist.

Certainhly not.They are fascists.They have "war" writen all over the walls.

Deniz Gezmis

29th December 2003, 01:06

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 29 2003, 01:16 AM

Is this movie abit marxist.

Certainhly not.They are fascists.They have "war" writen all over the walls.
Please show a source to back up your arguement that they are Fascists.

Comrade Ceausescu

30th December 2003, 06:40

Please show a source to back up your arguement that they are Fascists.

Watch the movie.Look at the way they worship tyler durden.Even on the amazon.com synopsis of the movie they say that fight club"spirals out of control into a fascist revolution".Tyler makes everyone dress in black,the color of the Mussolini fascists.He says "bring two blackshirts".The fascist rebels in Italy were called "blackshirts".

suffianr

30th December 2003, 10:13

I thought it was about male bonding.

truthaddict11

30th December 2003, 11:30

thats what i thought even Meatloaf's character (guy with big tits) said he found a new group. it seemed to make a drastic change however when Tyler Durden started Project Mayhem everyone wanted to be apart of it they didnt want to lose that male bonding it was like the support groups at the begining of the film it was an addiction

canikickit

30th December 2003, 17:26

Male bonding a go-go!
Lots of homosexual undetones and shit like that (Tyler says another woman's not the answer they need). All this repressed bullshit about hating their fathers too.

I enjoyed it the first time, and the second time was even better, but the third time I just saw too many flaws...I find it difficult to enjoy films these days without seeing flaws at every turn.

I didn't like this shit about being "God's unwanted children".
It reminded me of certain people...

People want to be "God's unwanted children" because they feel rejected by God (or the establishment) and by becoming God's unwanted children they're replacing that rejection with it's antithesis.

They want to be wanted by the group which is the unwanted children of God.
They latch onto their rejection and turn it into something to cling too.

Comrade Ceausescu

30th December 2003, 18:08

Cani,good points here.I have seen it twice,and honestly I enjoyed it better the first time around.The second time I saw it I picked up on more,and the more extra stuff I picked up on the less I enjoyed the movie.One example was the God's unwanted children thing

Adamore

30th December 2003, 18:53

this movie was a plan of action (networking then selection) think about it

ComradeRobertRiley

30th December 2003, 21:23

There is definately an anachist side to it but you have to filter out "war" things etc

If you watch/listen carefully there is actually a great "plan" in which leftists should......."take note" :ph34r:

atlanticche

30th December 2003, 22:11

im jacks cologne if i get cancer i kill jack

a brilliant film

truthaddict11

30th December 2003, 22:18

how could cologne kill? dont you mean colon??

ComradeRobertRiley

30th December 2003, 22:34

yeah the oddur is unbearably!

im jacks colon, I get cancer, I kill jack

Regicidal Insomniac

31st December 2003, 05:50

I don't believe Project Mayhem was essentially fascist. First of all just look at their intense hatred of corperate power, something fascists adore, and and listen Tyler's vision of their world, it's totally anarcho-primitivist... plus the point about the "blackshirts" is pretty irrelevant since the colour of anarchism is black.

If you ask me, the entire movie was about nihilist/anarchotribalists who rebelled against authority but became slaves to something else... In the end Tyler was wrong. I think that's a message that was lost in the movie. Even if Tyler was a fascist the goals of the movement were anarchic ones...

YKTMX

31st December 2003, 16:42

I've seen the film, didn't think a great deal of it. A bit too clever for it's own good. The Game and Seven are better Fincher movies.

ComradeRobertRiley

3rd January 2004, 13:42

Originally posted by Regicidal [email protected] 31 2003, 08:50 AM
I don't believe Project Mayhem was essentially fascist. First of all just look at their intense hatred of corperate power, something fascists adore, and and listen Tyler's vision of their world, it's totally anarcho-primitivist... plus the point about the "blackshirts" is pretty irrelevant since the colour of anarchism is black.

If you ask me, the entire movie was about nihilist/anarchotribalists who rebelled against authority but became slaves to something else... In the end Tyler was wrong. I think that's a message that was lost in the movie. Even if Tyler was a fascist the goals of the movement were anarchic ones...
Thats what im sayin, just filter out the non anarchist-communist stuff and there is some great info in there, that could be done in real life, sure you gotta add some of your own stuff and take some stuff away from the film but, its got potential.

parecon3

28th January 2005, 23:50

So, I have seen fight club and read the book, and the other day a guy says that the ideology that Tyler teaches (or Durdenism as you might call it) is similar to Communist Ideology. I of course did my research and found that the two ideologies are not very similar at all; what the ideology of Tyler Durden is most similar to is known as Nihilism.
Nihilism: "The Doctrine that nothing, or nothing of a specified and very general class, exists, or is knowable, or is valuable...1 nothing exists,2 Even if something did exist it could not be known;3 Even if it were known this knowledge could not be communicated." and
"The belief that destruction of existing political and social institutions is necessary for future improvement." (quoted from dictionary of philosphy and dictionary.com)

There is some similarities, however: The system that Tyler makes values the group rather than the individual (this is shown in the book more than in the movie) also the way in which people work in communes.

I would recommend this book and the movie to anyone.

Pedro Alonso Lopez

28th January 2005, 23:53

Nihilism is definitely the doctrine taught in the film, a worthy doctrine at that,

YKTMX

29th January 2005, 19:39

Nihlilism it is and bollocks that is.

Pedro Alonso Lopez

29th January 2005, 19:59

Hear, hear.

Monty Cantsin

30th January 2005, 01:39

“There is some similarities, however: The system that Tyler makes values the group rather than the individual (this is shown in the book more than in the movie) also the way in which people work in communes.”

I would say that Marxian theory is a form of individualism that recognises the inter-connection of individuals into social structures. So it’s not we value large groups over individuals.

also the whole “crap of the world” rant really pisses me off…scum.

FatFreeMilk

30th January 2005, 04:21

Wow, Nihilism sounds like a whole bunch of bollocks to me. Or at least it makes no sense. and I just said bollocks :)

SpeCtrE

30th January 2005, 14:59

I'm posting here although I am scared of disagreeing with bride of chucky. Nihilism ain't bollocks..

And I just said Bollocks too :)

Soviet sally

28th February 2005, 16:28

In fight club, they build up a little soceity about half way through, from the house. Tylers motivation and lessons are to me, that of socialsm. Is this really obvious or not the case atall?

codyvo

28th February 2005, 21:19

Yeah if you pay much attention to the dialogue you realize Tyler is really neat. I hate the video game it sucks and I hate it when people only like the movie for its fight scenes.
Also he eliminates the debt of a lot of people by blowin up the banks in the end, that was cool.

guerillablack

28th February 2005, 22:07

I think there is a thread talking abut this much deeper.

The Grapes of Wrath

28th February 2005, 22:09

I personally feel that the film dives into a sort of nightmarish form of anarchism. Where it is a sort of "survival of the fittest." In one scene he states "... I can see tiny figures drying venison in the carpool lane of some abandoned superhighway. You will wear clothes that last you the rest of your life ..." I don't see any socialism in that at all, I see man in its most primative state.

Also, his little "party" seems to be nothing more than his will. They have no names, they have no identity but that of Tyler Durden. It sounds much more like fascism to me. I see parallels between: "What is National Socialism (Nazism)?" "It is nothing more than the Fuhrer's will." And: "Who are we?" "We are Project Mayhem, we are Tyler Durden's will."

Remember how the narrarator (Ed Norton) has a voice-over that says: "Eventually, we all became what Tyler wanted us to become." Tyler's will imposed on others.

Tyler wants the destruction of everything in order to bring about nothing. A reversion back to primative days. Is he a bad guy? I suppose it is open to interpretation, especially considering he does not exist in anything more than the mind.

While it may sound socialistic, or even Anarchic in its interpretation, but really, he seems to be more against the luxuries of modern life than to improve mankind. He states in the kitchen: "Crime, pollution, poverty? these things do not concern me, what concerns me are celebrity magazines, TVs with 500 channels, Viagra ..."

His goal is to take an assortment of disenfranchised, alienated, lost collection of men and transform them through his rhetoric, through his will, into his grand vision of society ... which, in essence, is the lack there of.

TGOW

Tupac-Amaru

23rd March 2005, 18:31

Originally posted by The Grapes of [email protected] 28 2005, 10:09 PM
His goal is to take an assortment of disenfranchised, alienated, lost collection of men and transform them through his rhetoric, through his will, into his grand vision of society ... which, in essence, is the lack there of.

Yea, i agree, but i dont think Tyler - or whoever - is at all Fascist...

He's definitaly anti-capitalist...i mean imagine it!!! What do you think would happen of all the major banks in the world were to blow up - dissapear even. Anyone who has studied economics will know: it would be like a gigantic run on the bank: the capitalist system would be DESTROYED! Without the banking system the modern economy would not exist. I only wish that shit could acctualy happen...

Domingo

23rd March 2005, 19:37

Originally posted by Tupac-[email protected] 23 2005, 06:31 PM

He's definitaly anti-capitalist
Definantly, man. By the way, I like your name Tupac. Very strong group they are.
Brings me back to '97.

bayano

23rd March 2005, 19:38

Originally posted by The Grapes of [email protected] 28 2005, 10:09 PM
I don't see any socialism in that at all, I see man in its most primative state.

Also, his little "party" seems to be nothing more than his will. They have no names, they have no identity but that of Tyler Durden. It sounds much more like fascism to me. Tyler's will imposed on others.
yeah, i agree. they are anything but socialist/communist/redanarchist. it isnt fascist bcuz its anti-corporate/anti-capitalist. but there is a vague push toward primitivism, and there is an inherent misogyny to the whole macho framework. i think it is a reactionary flick which is interpreted by many sides as their own but which has an overall negative impact on the popular consciousness.

Tupac-Amaru

28th March 2005, 19:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 07:37 PM
I like your name Tupac. Very strong group they are.
Brings me back to '97.
Cheers mate!!

But my name is more in honor of the Incan revolutionary who attempted to defeat the Spanish in the 1700's, than the modern movement ( they took their name from him).

Matthew The Great

28th March 2005, 20:27

A bit off topic but...

If you enjoy Palahniuk you should read Invisible Monsters by Chuck Palahniuk, too. It is a fast read And pretty interesting.

Prol

28th March 2005, 21:04

Blowing up the credit card companies was a great idea though.

Zespris

2nd April 2005, 23:57

I thought it was more nihilist, than anarchist/communist, because it advocated destruction of everything, to build society up again. Blowing up everything was the way round it, however it is not nihilist in the sense, the spotlight is not in the individual, but on the group, Proyect Mayhem. This goes against most doctrines of nihilism which primary advocate the realization of the individual, rather than of the group.

Read the book too, if you see the film, it isn't worth it, it is exactly the same, and basically does not add anything, imo.

"A nihilist is a person who does not bow down to any authority, who does not accept any principle on faith, however much that principle may be revered."

Fathers and Sons - Ivan Turgenev

Btw, I love the scene where he hugs Bob and Bob cries "We're still men" :D

comrade_mufasa

3rd April 2005, 01:12

They didnt blow up the credit card buildings to be anti-capitalist they just wanted to blow something up but have that would have even more impact then just blowing up any old building.

RedLenin

3rd April 2005, 01:27

I really enjoyed the movie. It had great lessons. Like how fear is what holds mankind back from reaching its true potential. I really liked the scene where he burned his hand. That was powerful. The movie also has one of my favorite quotes. "It is only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything".

OleMarxco

3rd April 2005, 10:22

A very strong movie, I learned alot; I'm not going to beocme like "Jack" the Narrator, but I don't think I'll snap as Tyler. Oh, and as Tyler also says in the movie; "One step closer to economical equilibrum!" - I'm not sure whether or not the movie condems or gloryfies Tyler's actions, but I'm damn sure they're DEFINATELY anti-Capitalistic and it's not AT ALL a coincidence he blows up a credit-card company so the accounts are reset and debt erased. Good he does it at night so no-one dies; Action is good but killing is not, whatever a Stalinist might say. I wouldn't stop anyone in doing this, a very noble action indeed I think. But y'all should be more concerned about the REAL downtrodden people...the black continent, Africa.

codyvo

29th April 2005, 01:12

Originally posted by Matthew The [email protected] 28 2005, 08:27 PM
A bit off topic but...

If you enjoy Palahniuk you should read Invisible Monsters by Chuck Palahniuk, too. It is a fast read And pretty interesting.
The Van was good too.

The Z-Man

19th June 2005, 05:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 11:50 PM

"The belief that destruction of existing political and social institutions is necessary for future improvement."
That is so true. This is the most anti-capitlaistic movie I have ever seen and I reccomend it to everyone. It has somereally great fundamental ideas.

encephalon

19th June 2005, 05:30

I think everyone's taking a rather simplistic view on the movie. It seems to me that, although Durden's group may not be communistic, palahniuk uses a lot of marxian concepts to build the plot and character interaction.

For one, the very existence of fight club is due to durden's alienation; to soothe this alienation, in fact, he attends meetings (regardless of what they're about) that revolve around communion. Leaving his job--the largest source of his alienation--completes a rejection that started with durden's sudden rejection of the fetishism of commodities. The movie then interweaves all of this in with american culture's standard of masculinity.. which might be where the nihilism comes in.

I would say that marxist theory definitely developes the plot. The nihilism that the characters embrace is probably due to alienation. They embrace a community that revolves around destruction and violence because they reject that which society has told them they should embrace while isolating/alienating them in a world of commodities, which from birth they're told is the constructive world.

It isn't quite anti-capitalist, though, and I sense that this is one reason why Paluhniuk had them turn to something more akin to nihilism than socialism. The characters have indeed rejected the fetishism of commodities that plagued their lives beforehand; yet at the same time they completely dehumanize themselves, which is really just an extreme form of commodity fetishism: people have become objects as much as all other objects. So in that sense, they've only half rejected capitalism. Then, of course, their mission isn't to get rid of capitalism, but to start it all over. They aren't trying to get rid of capital and wage-labor. They're getting rid of debt to start anew.

And of course, there's the misogyny, which I'm not keen on at all. But it does play a functional role in the plot, and the fact that Durden is most human when thinking/caring about what's-her-face (that's not meant to be sexist; i just don't remember her name at the moment), and she plays the role of antithesis to durden's nihilism.. in fact, the only opposition to it that has any effect on him.

In sum, you shouldn't hold it up as inspirational, because it is, frankly, against most communist, socialist and anarchist principles. But It is a good movie, nonetheless, and shows the interplay between alienation, the self and culture quite well.

Clarksist

19th June 2005, 06:30

Well, the destruction and "starting back up" of capitalism isn't quite accurate.

Fight Club is working to make everyone on the same level. In that way its very communistic.

Nihilism plays a factor, but so much of their positions aren't known. Who knows, maybe once the bourgeois no longer had their money... the proletariat (the members of the Fight Club) will start a communistic society?

encephalon

19th June 2005, 10:19

Well, the destruction and "starting back up" of capitalism isn't quite accurate.

Fight Club is working to make everyone on the same level. In that way its very communistic.

There is nothing stating they want to abolish capitalism. They want to abolish debt and start everyone over within the capitalist system.

Nihilism plays a factor, but so much of their positions aren't known. Who knows, maybe once the bourgeois no longer had their money... the proletariat (the members of the Fight Club) will start a communistic society?

They don't have to directly state their positions to make it apparent. For one, they are definitely misogynists. Second, the devaluation of human life is antithetical to communist principles. If humans are at all worthless in any sense, communism would be a rather arbitrary goal.

Are they communal? Yes. Communist? No.

Are they anti-corporate? Yes. Anti-capitalism? No.

Are they against the fetishism of commodities? No. Why? Because instead of valuing commodities as human (as is done in capitalist society), they devalue humans to the extreme as commodities (as is done in capitalism as well; but instead of the ruling class doing it to the lower class, it is the fight club doing it to itself).

It is a story about Durden's internal conflict more than one about a social movement, in any case. While he is durden, he values human life; when he is not, he is a complete nihilist, in thought and action. It is a story about self-destruction, overall, and that extends from the personal conflict to that of socio-political conflict. Shakespeare used the same device in most (if not all) of his tragedies.

Commandante_Ant

23rd August 2005, 12:34

I was just wondering what everyone here thinks of the amazing Fight Club. For me, the film has got a load of political issues at its core. It rejects all the material goods, they live in a house thats crumbling around them and they are out to cause anarchy on society. For me, this is a film about revolution.

Anyone agree?

Amusing Scrotum

23rd August 2005, 14:28

I think the writer must of had some anarchist tendencies. Though if it had been made by some small impoverished film company, it would possibly be better, from a moral standpoint.

Insomniac

23rd August 2005, 16:21

In a nutshell, the ideology behind Fight Club is more primitivist or a variant of individualist anarchism than anarcho communism or communism.

Remember the scence after Jack (Ed Norton) meets Tyler (Brad Pitt) after Jack's flat blew up and they are in the bar. In there Tyler talks of his opposition to 500 different cable channels and lifestyle magazines. Whilst anti materialist, communism does NOT aim for society to go back to a pre-industrial era without modern ways of living.

Communism aims for the EQUAL spread of material goods to all people whereas in Fight Club, they aim to take away all material goods from all people.

For Jack/Tyler, the modern world is to be opposed rather than a specific system of the modern world like capitalism.

But I loved the film a lot. Ed Norton is a great actor, not to mention that I find him cute! ;)

Helena Bonham Carter is also great in the film, plays the Marla charachter very well. IMO Ed Norton and Carter are the best in the film, Pitt is nice as eye candy but his acting was a bit behind the other two. Saying that, It was one of the films where Pitt is at his best.

I also love the ending sequence, direct action/urban guerrilla warfare without killing the innocent.

Sir Aunty Christ

23rd August 2005, 17:04

Yeah great film. Nice digs at IKEA too.

Donnie

23rd August 2005, 20:23

I thought it had a more nihilist issue if you ask me, either that or maybe primitivist. I can't really remember the film I watched it when I was like 15 and so I'm just going by what I can remember.

Ownthink

23rd August 2005, 20:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 03:41 PM
I thought it had a more nihilist issue if you ask me, either that or maybe primitivist. I can't really remember the film I watched it when I was like 15 and so I'm just going by what I can remember.
I got the same interpretation. It's much more nihlist at its core than it is ever Communism, Anarchism, or Anarcho-Communism.

novemba

23rd August 2005, 21:20

I was more intrigued with the way that the group formed and evolved. I wonder if we could take something from that and apply it to making revolution.

symtoms_of_humanity

23rd August 2005, 23:02

I loved that movie, its funny, violent, and has a good message, I loved the message of how the goods people own won't set you free, even tho I do agree it seemed more primitavist

Hegemonicretribution

24th August 2005, 00:05

Organic Revolution

24th August 2005, 04:31

reading over this, it makes me think that communists think that people should sit on there ass watching tv and buying pointless shit. if that makes me a primitivist then so be it.

OleMarxco

24th August 2005, 12:00

Sure it does, but why hang oneself up in petty detail's? ;)
I don't deny it's a fact that, seein' at'rit as I do, when Tyler
has 'rat poem'bout wrist-thick kudzu-wines wrappin' the Sear's
Tower and stalkin' elk's in an abandoned car-pool doesn't exactly
hide the "back-to-nature" under-tone it it whole, but the core element's
of their struggle could easily be copied to a revolutionary struggle -
only less leader-fixated - and perhaps not as self-violent. Although
it couldn't hurt to burn your hand once in a while, just for kick's,
just make sure yo'got the vinegar-bottle in close in case! :wub:

MiniOswald

24th August 2005, 14:31

Originally posted by Sir Aunty [email protected] 23 2005, 04:22 PM
Yeah great film. Nice digs at IKEA too.
ah yes the furni mentions.

Deliver me from swedish furniture.

Judging by the furniture my parents keep buying ill be shouting that soon.

Master Che

20th September 2005, 22:34

Has anyone else seen this movie? It felt sorta Anti Capitalist. I'd recommend everyone to see it.

Jimmie Higgins

20th September 2005, 22:47

I don't know if I'd call it "pro-communism" exactly. But I thought it was an interesting movie which, at least, tapped into some of the anger out there; I think that's why it appealed to many people. But the movie was more nhilistic than it was marxist and this gave it some reactionary shades.

Anarchist Freedom

21st September 2005, 00:13

Nihlist or primitivist but definately not marxist. Funny thing I just watched fight club yesterday.

Master Che

21st September 2005, 00:19

Whats Nihlist?

Niemand

21st September 2005, 00:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 11:50 PM
Whats Nihlist?
Nihilists don't believe in morals and do what they want, I think that's it anyway.

Ownthink

21st September 2005, 00:46

Originally posted by I Hate The FCC+Sep 20 2005, 07:58 PM--> (I Hate The FCC @ Sep 20 2005, 07:58 PM)
[email protected] 20 2005, 11:50 PM
Whats Nihlist?
Nihilists don't believe in morals and do what they want, I think that's it anyway. [/b]
Nihilism is stupid. Many people make it out to be something it isn't.

My opinion on that, at least.

Xvall

21st September 2005, 01:56

The book was writen by a Nihilist. I wouldn't say that Nihilism is stupid, thought it depends on how you interpret it. I don't particually care for "political nihilism" (whatever the fuck that consists of) as nihilism and politics don't particularly intertwine well. I am, however, considered by most people to be a nihilist as far as philosophical and theological reasons are conscerned.

STABD

21st September 2005, 02:22

When I was younger we started a fight club and tried to base a revolution on that movie.....Well sort of.

bombeverything

21st September 2005, 02:24

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 20 2005, 11:44 PM
Nihlist or primitivist but definately not marxist. Funny thing I just watched fight club yesterday.

Haha so did I. I have seen it before but it was there so I put it on. I found it distressing but I liked it. I don't really see the point of nihilism but I guess that is the point.

GoaRedStar

21st September 2005, 02:36

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history. In the 20th century, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Mid-century, for example, the existentialists helped popularize tenets of nihilism in their attempts to blunt its destructive potential. By the end of the century, existential despair as a response to nihilism gave way to an attitude of indifference, often associated with antifoundationalism.

Here the website where this was copy from http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm

Ownthink

21st September 2005, 02:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 10:07 PM
Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history. In the 20th century, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Mid-century, for example, the existentialists helped popularize tenets of nihilism in their attempts to blunt its destructive potential. By the end of the century, existential despair as a response to nihilism gave way to an attitude of indifference, often associated with antifoundationalism.

Here the website where this was copy from http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm
Exactly the reasons why I believe it is a dumb "I could care less" (but I really do care.. I have to") type of thing.

Xvall

21st September 2005, 07:08

Allow me to elaborate on this a little bit.

First, and foremost, it is a better idea (if you wish to get an understanding of Nihilism) to seek a Nihilist (though they can differ in thoughts and actions from each other - there really isn't any sort of "generic nihilist"). Dictionaries and Encyclopedias are oftentimes very brief, and in many instances do a poor job explaining the subject at hand. [Some "dictionaries" and "encyclopedias" will say that communism is where "everyone gets payed the same" or that socialism is where "the government controls everything".]

Some aspects of the definition provided are accurate. I'll go into that.

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.

This is actually pretty accurate. Some people will define Nihilism as the "belief in nothing", which is misleading. Nihilism is more along the lines of "Faith in nothing". Faith, to Nihilists, is unreliable and bound to lead to disappointment; "faith" meaning firm belief in something which can not ultimately be proved. (Nothing can, when it ultimately boils down to it.) This isn't to say that Nihilists do not believe in gravity because it can't be "fully proven", but rather that there is to be an emphasis on reason over faith and that everything is subject to change and based on perception.

It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence.

Also accurate, though I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "condemning existance". It can be said, however, that Nihilists do not have faith in existance.

A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.

This is where it gets stupid. Statements like this are pretty similar to "A real anarchist would just want completely lawlessness and for everyone to fend for themselves". If anything, someone who was truly enthralled in the notion of pointlessness and non-existance would just lay around and do absolutely nothing until they die of starvation or thirst. No notion of "destructive Nihilists" is odd to begin with; after all - if a Nihilist feels that everything is ultimately meaningless and unreliable, why would they bother to destroy it?

The field of Nihilists is pretty big. It is possible that a Nihilist is a hedonist just trying to please their senses. It could be someone who breaks rules and violates ethics to get what they want, or even just some introspective philosopher. (Buddhists and Buddhism actually follow a philosophical principle similar to Nihilism - Nirvana is believed to be, for lack of a better word, a state of "nothingness", and the "First Noble Truth" of Buddhism is that all of existance is comprised of suffering)

Exactly the reasons why I believe it is a dumb "I could care less" (but I really do care.. I have to") type of thing.

It's not necessarily "not caring". Indeed, the basic foundations of Nihilism may lead one to think: "Why Bother?", but the same can be said of trains of thought such as Atheism. The majority of the board is comprised of atheists, but It's fairly obvious that people here do care about things. Why? It's not as though there is a "heaven" to go to if we do good things and help people. Since we don't fear any sort of hell, why bother doing anything nice when we can just manipulate people and get what we want without being penalized in the "afterlife"? Most Nihilists, as you may notice if you go around looking for them, usually have quite an opinion about the state of things and actively try to alter them, so in general, Nihilists aren't just "apathetic opportunists" that do whatever they want.

There is also a noticable difference between "social/philisophical nihilists" and "political nihilists". The former tends to generally be introspective artistic-types, whereas the latter may attempt to "legislate nihilism", if such a thing can be said.

Ian

21st September 2005, 09:57

some wank was trying to start fight club sydney, what a dumbshit.

People who don't get the movie always try emulate it

rioters bloc

21st September 2005, 10:00

i thought it was a great movie but wasnt too impressed with all the hype around it.

perhaps a mod should move this to 'literature and films'?

Ander

21st September 2005, 14:58

I'd say its not an anti-capitalist movie but it does have some anti-capitalist messages in it..

The giving up of all material possessions and the revolution and all that...yeah.

YKTMX

21st September 2005, 15:49

It's about male identity in an increasingly feminised world, and an attack on consumer culture in post-modern capitalism.

It's not "one thing" or the other. Many have seen nihilistic elements in it (wanton violence, amorality). Others have seen overtly anti-capitalist, egalitarian urges in it (the final act of creating "economic equality"). Some critics even attacked it for being a "fascist rhapsody", as it avers that an assertion of male physichality and "strength" should be the response to a world in which alienation and isolation pervade.

In any case, it's fucking great.

I love when the Pixies "Where is my Mind?" comes in just as the bombs explode.

Thomas

21st September 2005, 16:02

Originally posted by Ownthink+Sep 21 2005, 01:17 AM--> (Ownthink @ Sep 21 2005, 01:17 AM)
Originally posted by I Hate The [email protected] 20 2005, 07:58 PM

[email protected] 20 2005, 11:50 PM
Whats Nihlist?
Nihilists don't believe in morals and do what they want, I think that's it anyway.
Nihilism is stupid. Many people make it out to be something it isn't.

My opinion on that, at least. [/b]
The same could be said for Communism.

Although Nihilism is more or less baseless and wanton destruction in my opinion.

YKTMX

21st September 2005, 16:11

Wanton, that's my word!

Master Che

21st September 2005, 20:11

Nihilism is awesome. Guess i'm a Nihilist-Communist then.

YKTMX

21st September 2005, 20:33

That's ridiculous, no such thing can possibly exist.

bcbm

21st September 2005, 21:46

Nihilism originally arose as simply the belief that all of the old institutions must be destroyed before the new world could be created, so in that sense I think a Nihilist-communist would be a reasonable philosophy. I think many revolutionaries have that sort of nihilistic tendency.

As for Fight Club, it has good points but also bad. The movie is far more sexist and fascist than the book, I think. Women could be fight club members in the book and the whole Tyler as leader thing didn't seem as pronounced. In Project Mayhem the more fascist and macho elements of Fight Club were lessened, with everyone acting as a leader more than any individual. All in all, I think the movie is anti-consumerist more than anti-capitalist, and in many ways is suggesting revolution isn't the path to follow.

YKTMX

21st September 2005, 21:55

No, I'm not having this.

Wikipedia describes Nihilism as this:

Nihilism as a philosophical position is the view that the world, and especially human existence, is without meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.

Whatever way you twist it, that differs completely and utterly from a Marxist philosophial perspective. Indeed, it is the total opposite of it. Marxism holds a rational, materialist position, but Nihilism posits irrationality and amorality.

It is impossible to hold a serious, materialist conception of the world and be a nihilist.

I think people are confusing teenage angst with a philisophical position. Most people who claim to be "nihilists" are just upset at their daddies.

bcbm

21st September 2005, 22:04

Learn your history.

Although nihilism is often associated with a generally depressing and fatalistic attitude about life, that doesn't accurately describe the perspective of political nihilists. Although it is true that their opinion about prevailing social and political structures was very negative, they were were nevertheless quite optimistic about the possibilities for the future. Indeed, they were very future-oriented, believing that taking apart both past and current values was necessary for the creation of a positive future.

This optimistic perspective may best be found in a statement by the Russian anarchist Bakunin, who wrote as early as 1842 that "the negation of what exists ... for the benefit of the future which does not exist" is the primary theme of nihilist politics. Perhaps the most succinct expression of the nihilistic program of what needs to be done in society was summed up in a statement by the leading Russian Nihilist Dmitri Pisarev:

"Here is the ultimatum of our camp. What can be smashed must be smashed; whatever will stand the blow is sound, what flies into smithereens is rubbish; at any rate, hit out right and left, no harm will or can come of it."

For obvious reasons this sort of nihilism shares a great deal in common with the political philosophy most commonly known today as anarchism. Indeed, some argue that the Latin nihil can be accurate translated into the Greek anarche, although the Greek midenismos would seem more appropriate. Regardless of how one views the technical translation question, it remains true that this political nihilism and modern anarchism are close relatives, if not essentially the same thing.

Both seek the elimination of false systems of morality, authority, and government, all of which only serve to limit human freedom and perpetuate repression in the name of things like tradition or religion. The solutions proposed by nihilists, like those proposed by anarchists, might be violent or they might not — and in both cases it has been the most violent solutions and groups which tend to be most closely identified with the label, thus leading to unnecessary misunderstandings about the position and prejudice on the part of the general public.

As nihilism spread beyond Russia, it generally lost is revolutionary and anarchist overtones, becoming much more apolitical than it even was within Russia. This may be largely due to the fact that the political and social situation in Europe and the Americas wasn't nearly so bad as that in Russia at the time.

http://atheism.about.com/od/nihilismnihili...a/political.htm (http://atheism.about.com/od/nihilismnihilists/a/political.htm)

YKTMX

21st September 2005, 22:22

Oh right, so it has vague links to 19th century Russian Anarchism? That totally refutes everything I said.

I'm sorry, how could I be so wrong.

:)

bcbm

21st September 2005, 22:53

Let's try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilist_movement

It didn't have "vague links to Russian anarchism." Nihilism was a political movement in Russia which directly reacted to the harshness of Russian absolutism. You're missing the point, Nihilism doesn't only refer to apolitical depressing "nothingism," it can also refer to a political movement who's ideas have had a direct impact on modern anarchism and many revolutionary ideas. There can be Nihilists in that sense as well as the other.

Xvall

22nd September 2005, 02:37

That's ridiculous, no such thing can possibly exist.

Sure it can. Anyone can mix philosophical or political ideals, regardless of whether it is a "good" idea or not.

Wikipedia describes Nihilism as this:

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin) also says that Lenin organized mass executions, implemented Concentration Camps, and allowed the large scale rape of "bourgeoisie women"; according to Wikipedia North Korea is also a "Communist Government".

Whatever way you twist it, that differs completely and utterly from a Marxist philosophial perspective. Indeed, it is the total opposite of it. Marxism holds a rational, materialist position, but Nihilism posits irrationality and amorality.

In what ways does it differ? As far as I can tell, most Nihilists embrace the notion of materialism in favor of any religious or spiritual ideal (though at the same time not having faith in anything). Amorality? I didn't think any of us were acceptiong the notion of "morality" to begin with.

I think people are confusing teenage angst with a philisophical position.

The topic we are discussing has always been philosphical nihilism. I heard no mention of teenagers or personal complaints anywhere.

It is impossible to hold a serious, materialist conception of the world and be a nihilist.

I won't deny that. It's pretty hard, if you're a nihilist, to have faith in the notion of materialism.

Most people who claim to be "nihilists" are just upset at their daddies.

:rolleyes:

YKTMX

22nd September 2005, 19:56

Anyone can mix philosophical or political ideals, regardless of whether it is a "good" idea or not.

I suppose you're right, anyone can put two words together. Whether it means anything is another matter.

Wikipedia also says that Lenin organized mass executions

I'd imagine he did.

implemented Concentration Camps

Prisons? Yes.

As you can see, the neutrality of the Lenin page is disputed, which means they have realised it's bollocks.

according to Wikipedia North Korea is also a "Communist Government".

It is.

Amorality? I didn't think any of us were acceptiong the notion of "morality" to begin with.

Of course we accept standards of human behaviour and decency, of course.

I heard no mention of teenagers or personal complaints anywhere.

Well, when I read people describe themselves as "Nihilist-Communists" after watching Fight Club, I tend to be sceptical.

It's pretty hard, if you're a nihilist, to have faith in the notion of materialism

Then what are you talking about? That's what I've been arguing, yet you've saw fit to blather a lot of nonsense.

Xvall

22nd September 2005, 23:04

As you can see, the neutrality of the Lenin page is disputed, which means they have realised it's bollocks.

A lot of pages are "disputed", which means that the people involved in the creation and editing of the page (which can comprise of anyone who can access Wikipedia) have at some point come agross disagreements. It could apply to any of the Wikipedia definitions, and my ultimate point was that Wikipedia is a poor source of in-depth information. Just as reading the page on Marxism won't automatically mean that you have a good understanding of Marxist Economics and Philosophies, reading the page on Nihilism doesn't necessarily mean that you actually have a full comprehension of Nihilistic ideology.

It is.

Socialist, I could understand - but I really don't think that North Korea is a stateless, classless, moneyless society.

Of course we accept standards of human behaviour and decency, of course.

I agree with that. I prefer to call them "ethics" instead of "morality", though, as the latter generally implies religion.

Well, when I read people describe themselves as "Nihilist-Communists" after watching Fight Club, I tend to be sceptical.

I will also agree with this. USRB should probably read into it a lot more before he actually calls himself a Nihilist.

Then what are you talking about? That's what I've been arguing, yet you've saw fit to blather a lot of nonsense.

I just wanted to state that although Nihilists ultimately don't have faith (extreme belief to the point of certainty) in anything, it don't mean that they reject materialism.

Warren Peace

23rd September 2005, 00:47

Woah, did everyone just watch Fight Club? So did I. It's like we share thought waves or something.

Fight club kicks ass and Tyler Durden is my main hero that isn't real. It's obviously anti-consumerist/anti-capitalist. Project Mayhem is a cool example of an urban guerilla group like Andreas Baader and the RAF.

A lot of my friends are in a fight club (we call it Shade) that was started by a guy named Tyler (coincidence) and inspired by the movie to start a revolution. Fight Club has that effect on revolutionary-minded people, it inspires them to get off their asses and take action against capitalism.

Also I haven't read the book, but I think the author said he was not Nihilist, just anti-consumerist.

CrimethInc has some Nihilistic ideas, check this out. (http://www.crimethinc.com/library/english/nogods.html)

bcbm

23rd September 2005, 01:43

People who start fight clubs and "project mayhems" are morons. Beating the shit out of each other is not revolutionary. Becoming "bad ass revolutionaries" because you saw it in a multimillion dollar movie is not revolutionary or at all challenging to the status quo. Don't be a tool.

YKTMX

23rd September 2005, 17:24

Socialist, I could understand - but I really don't think that North Korea is a stateless, classless, moneyless society.

NK isn't socialist or communist. It does however have an orthodoyx Stalinist bureaucratic ruling class, or, for the sake of brevity, a Communist government.

I prefer to call them "ethics" instead of "morality", though, as the latter generally implies religion.

Fine, "ethics" then.

I just wanted to state that although Nihilists ultimately don't have faith (extreme belief to the point of certainty) in anything, it don't mean that they reject materialism.

Look, I'm not saying you can't be "Nihilistic" and be anti-capitalist or revolutionary, but the term "Marxist" denotes very particular things and ideas. I'm not being dogmatic but, for instance, it would be intellectually invalid to assert that there was no purpose to history, which includes our present capitalist stage, and also be a historical materialist. Those two things are incompatible.

bcbm

23rd September 2005, 22:22

it would be intellectually invalid to assert that there was nopurpose to history

I don't think all nihilists would hold that position.

OleMarxco

24th September 2005, 17:14

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 23 2005, 01:14 AM
People who start fight clubs and "project mayhems" are morons. Beating the shit out of each other is not revolutionary. Becoming "bad ass revolutionaries" because you saw it in a multimillion dollar movie is not revolutionary or at all challenging to the status quo. Don't be a tool.

I don't think you really understand it. The whole idea of a "Project Mayhem" and "Fight Club" was created -LONG- before it ever came to the multi-million cinema-market, and you seem to forget that. I do -NOT- believe'rat... When, Palachniuak sat his goddamn ass down to write this shit, he thought, "Wow, now I'm goin' to earn lot's of shitty ass money and fool people"...like as if it's really thats' a sell-able idea! ;)

Look, HONESTLY..... :lol:
Did you ever think someone breaking limits and writing about something totally insane as this, DO IT TO ATTRACT PEOPLES CASH!? Wow...yeah...uhum...makes sense..dolt... Like as if it's totally making sense to me now....

A market-ploy..ahahahah...pretty smart, huh? Nevermind the pop-culture formula of feel-good stories withouth bizarre elements like Schizophrenia, which kind of makes the whole story look stupid and the bombs where dud's in the actual story.

So now I'm tool, huh? Humour me :)
But I'm the one took it, he's only implentin' it and it seems to be able to work.
Perhaps beating ourselves is not "revolutionary" (but fun?), but the
-some- of the anti-Corporate tactics in the movie isn't totally
unrealistic either, and an inspiration to make own. Not perhaps in that facist-fashion, but... Why doubt people's power to break up from their mind-killing jobs and fight their oppression? I guess that's what you fail to adress. Status quo, schmatus moe. Whatever works against the currenct social-setup!

bcbm

25th September 2005, 19:48

I'm sorry, you're right, taking ideas from a fictional book and acting upon them verbatim is certainly not being a tool.

Latifa

25th September 2005, 23:51

Since when did beating the shit out of comrades achieve anything?

foreverfaded

21st March 2006, 14:16

In the book Fight Club, Chuck Palahniuk wrote about a character by the name of "Tyler Durden". It is said that Tyler represents a fascist dictator. I personally think he represents Mussolini. What does my fellow revleft members think?

dusk

21st March 2006, 14:27

I don't know really.

He is a bit of a megalomaniac a bit of a narcist too.
He can be a lot of historical leaders.

Comrade Marcel

22nd March 2006, 10:13

this is one of my favourite movies. The book isn't much better than watching the movie though.

In some ways Fight Club kind of represents a petty-bourgeois revolution of some sort.

In other ways, it is a bit fascistic and certainly mysogynist.

However, it was never really ment to represent anything very political.

I believe Palahniuk said that it's something like just a bunch of druken frat boys that went to far.

Some of you comrades try to read way to much into these things.

encephalon

22nd March 2006, 11:03

t is said that Tyler represents a fascist dictator

Wait.. who said that???

Overall, they were pretty nihilistic, and didn't fit into any political disposition. They weren't much different than a bunch of frat boys that went too far, I'd imagine.

Hegemonicretribution

22nd March 2006, 20:33

To me it seemed that they were arguing for an advanced state of patriarchy. The financial targets were about as lefty as it got, but then again most of it was build around hazing, and hierarchy; the frat boys comment is fairly apt.

I suppose that that violence for the sake of violence would vaguely link Tyler Durden to Vlad the Impaler perhaps? Then again there isn't much in common there either.

Niall

23rd March 2006, 10:54

i dont care, it was a great film, and as for the book, i found it much different from the film

foreverfaded

23rd March 2006, 13:29

Wait.. who said that???

Chuck Palahniuk

Global_Justice

24th March 2006, 18:26

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 22 2006, 10:22 AM
this is one of my favourite movies. The book isn't much better than watching the movie though.

In some ways Fight Club kind of represents a petty-bourgeois revolution of some sort.

In other ways, it is a bit fascistic and certainly mysogynist.

However, it was never really ment to represent anything very political.

I believe Palahniuk said that it's something like just a bunch of druken frat boys that went to far.

Some of you comrades try to read way to much into these things.
i always thought it was quite left-wing. certainly anti-establishment.

Djehuti

24th March 2006, 18:41

I think its almost nihilist-primitivist.

SmithSmith

24th March 2006, 18:52

Great film excluding the misogynistic and hierarchy tone.

Epoche

24th March 2006, 19:02

I think its almost nihilist-primitivist.

I pretty much agree with this analysis. I also think that the character represented a sort of schizophrenia resulting from a sense of loss of masculinity that many middle class men feel they are subjected to. Remember the plot of the movie: he was an insurance salesman/desk-jockey who's emptiness finally dawned on him. His life was bland and full of routine. Suddenly he snaps.

Tyler's agenda I wouldn't necessarily call "nihilistic," but I would say he was attempting a kind of devolution by re-naturalizing civilization. For example, blowing up the credit-card corporations to erase the debt records. A kind of romantic recreation of the hunter-gatherer period of man's evolution. I guess you could call this primitivism.

I loved the movie, but I haven't read the book.

Comrade Marcel

27th March 2006, 12:43

Originally posted by Global_Justice+Mar 24 2006, 06:35 PM--> (Global_Justice @ Mar 24 2006, 06:35 PM)
Comrade [email protected] 22 2006, 10:22 AM
this is one of my favourite movies. The book isn't much better than watching the movie though.

In some ways Fight Club kind of represents a petty-bourgeois revolution of some sort.

In other ways, it is a bit fascistic and certainly mysogynist.

However, it was never really ment to represent anything very political.

I believe Palahniuk said that it's something like just a bunch of druken frat boys that went to far.

Some of you comrades try to read way to much into these things.
i always thought it was quite left-wing. certainly anti-establishment. [/b]
Fascism always holds itself as anti-establishment, until it is the establishment...

I remember the character Tyler says things like "The last thing we need is women in our lives" and "Our generation didn't have a really great war to be sent off to".

There are some other things I would have to wathc the movie or read the book to point out...

I'm not saying don't watch and appreaciate the movie/book, and well I wouldn't say it's fascist, there are certainly reactionary and fascistic ideas. But certainly it can't be held up as an example of what our movement should represent.

On the other hand, some of the organizing techniques are good ideas. Fascists have been good organizers and we should replicate some of those tatics for our needs.

For one thing, leftists really do need to learn how to fight. Can you imagine if some of these Trots were suddenly in a revolution or something?

"Wait, stop comrades! I dropped my stack of worker's vangaurd!"

"I can't see, all this dust and shooting has ruined my glasses!"

"I can't fight or shoot or throw a PUNCH! I know you are a Stalinist/Anarchist/not a Trot but can you teach me?!?"

Commie Rat

1st April 2006, 10:37

i loved the whole Carpie Diem theme throught the whole movie.

The Grey Blur

1st April 2006, 11:15

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+Mar 27 2006, 12:52 PM--> (Comrade Marcel @ Mar 27 2006, 12:52 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 06:35 PM

Comrade [email protected] 22 2006, 10:22 AM
this is one of my favourite movies. The book isn't much better than watching the movie though.

In some ways Fight Club kind of represents a petty-bourgeois revolution of some sort.

In other ways, it is a bit fascistic and certainly mysogynist.

However, it was never really ment to represent anything very political.

I believe Palahniuk said that it's something like just a bunch of druken frat boys that went to far.

Some of you comrades try to read way to much into these things.
i always thought it was quite left-wing. certainly anti-establishment.
Fascism always holds itself as anti-establishment, until it is the establishment...

I remember the character Tyler says things like "The last thing we need is women in our lives" and "Our generation didn't have a really great war to be sent off to".

There are some other things I would have to wathc the movie or read the book to point out...

I'm not saying don't watch and appreaciate the movie/book, and well I wouldn't say it's fascist, there are certainly reactionary and fascistic ideas. But certainly it can't be held up as an example of what our movement should represent.

On the other hand, some of the organizing techniques are good ideas. Fascists have been good organizers and we should replicate some of those tatics for our needs.

For one thing, leftists really do need to learn how to fight. Can you imagine if some of these Trots were suddenly in a revolution or something?

"Wait, stop comrades! I dropped my stack of worker's vangaurd!"

"I can't see, all this dust and shooting has ruined my glasses!"

"I can't fight or shoot or throw a PUNCH! I know you are a Stalinist/Anarchist/not a Trot but can you teach me?!?" [/b]
Hmm...remember who led the Red Army to victory...?

I think the scene would be more like this...

Trotskyist: Squad A take these Government buildings here, here and here and then we-

Stalinist (interrupting): We do not need this organization, why did our great leader Stalin not destroy the Tsar single-handedly!? I will lead you all to victory comrades!!!

*runs out with a ragged bunch of followers only to be gunned down mercilessly*

Trotskyist (turns back to board): Now, as I was saying...

Comrade Marcel

1st April 2006, 16:08

Actually RATM, if I remember correctly, when Trotsky was "leading" the red army, it was the central committee he was taking orders from. Stalin was on that central committe.

Comrade Marcel

1st April 2006, 16:11

It's also interesting to ask, that if Trotskyists are such great strategists why they aren't leading even one mildly successful revolution right now. In fact, there's only one place in the world were they even have a significant following (Sri Lanka).

On the other hand, the evil and hated Stalinists and Maoists seem to be leading the way forward in places like Nepal, the Phillipines, Peru, India, Colombia, etc. etc. Damn those Stalinists and their ability to actually get things done successfully!

The Grey Blur

1st April 2006, 21:48

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 1 2006, 04:20 PM
It's also interesting to ask, that if Trotskyists are such great strategists why they aren't leading even one mildly successful revolution right now. In fact, there's only one place in the world were they even have a significant following (Sri Lanka).

On the other hand, the evil and hated Stalinists and Maoists seem to be leading the way forward in places like Nepal, the Phillipines, Peru, India, Colombia, etc. etc. Damn those Stalinists and their ability to actually get things done successfully!
I don't remember mentioning Maoists...and I don't care about Stalinazis...

Jesus Christ!

2nd April 2006, 21:35

i didn't find it to be facist at all. especially when he makes the speech " we wash your car we clean your tables blah blh" referring to the working man and then tyler says " do not fuck with us" I think that is a pretty clear leftist message.

Nicky Scarfo

3rd April 2006, 01:02

For one thing, leftists really do need to learn how to fight. Can you imagine if some of these Trots were suddenly in a revolution or something?

"Wait, stop comrades! I dropped my stack of worker's vangaurd!"

"I can't see, all this dust and shooting has ruined my glasses!"

"I can't fight or shoot or throw a PUNCH! I know you are a Stalinist/Anarchist/not a Trot but can you teach me?!?"

:lol:

Funny, but I still think it's a bad stereotype. For one thing, you name out the Sparts, and this may be true of some of them, but I've also met some pretty hardcore motherfuckers in that org who can and will fuck shit up. They were duking it out with fascist thugs before it became fashionable amongst anarchists.

For another, this stereotype may be particularly applicable to some student-based neo-Trot orgs (like the ISO), but could easily be applied to many other revolutionary leftist groups in the First World (Stalnists and Anarchists included). I've met my share of pussy, adventurist, spoiled-brat leftists across the political spectrum. Like 'em or not, the lyrics in "Suburban Rebels" by The Business, apply to many First World "revolutionaries", especially since the 1970s.

Luckily, we still got some bonafide Reds out and about in the American and European unions.

bed_of_nails

3rd April 2006, 06:43

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 1 2006, 09:20 AM
It's also interesting to ask, that if Trotskyists are such great strategists why they aren't leading even one mildly successful revolution right now. In fact, there's only one place in the world were they even have a significant following (Sri Lanka).

On the other hand, the evil and hated Stalinists and Maoists seem to be leading the way forward in places like Nepal, the Phillipines, Peru, India, Colombia, etc. etc. Damn those Stalinists and their ability to actually get things done successfully!
Its funny... I remember a quote about the Stalinist footsoldiers that was something like "If they begin retreating, shoot them."

RedRevolution

3rd April 2006, 07:30

Stalinists are fascists (neo-feudalists) we should stop lending them our support because they only besmirch our name.

Commie Rat

6th April 2006, 10:33

Its funny... I remember a quote about the Stalinist footsoldiers that was something like "If they begin retreating, shoot them."

Completly ignorant of WW2 and Russian history if you dont know of Order 227

The Grey Blur

6th April 2006, 15:35

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 6 2006, 09:42 AM

Its funny... I remember a quote about the Stalinist footsoldiers that was something like "If they begin retreating, shoot them."

Completly ignorant of WW2 and Russian history
You say that like it's a bad thing

CCCPneubauten

6th April 2006, 17:31

Tyler Durden is by FAR a primitivist. No doubt about it, does anyone remember his speech to The Narrator when he is asleep?

The whole one about 'In the world I see it you're climbing the kudzu vines that wrap the Sears tower' or something like that.

Some one should post the original quote.

StigmataLectron

8th April 2006, 01:31

I <3 Durden. His philosiphy always shined through his political stance to me, and Nihilism has always been strangely encouraging to my goals.

Oh, and here's the quote, directly from the book:

"Imagine," Tyler said, "stalking elk past department store windows and stinking racks of beautiful rotting dresses and tuxedos on hangers; you'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life, and you'll climb the wristthick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. Jack and the beanstalk, you'll climb up through the dripping forest canopy and the air will be so clean you'll see tiny figures pounding corn and laying strips of venison to dry in the empty carpool lane of an abandoned superhighway stretching eight-lanes-wide and August-hot for thousands of miles."
This was the rule of Project Mayhem, Tyler said, the complete and rightaway destruction of civilization.

Thorez

8th April 2006, 17:38

Contrary to the slanders propgated by bourgeois liberals who feel offended by the fiery opposition to disgusting bourgeois feminism, consumerism, materialism, and corporatism espoused by the plot, Tyler Durden does not represent a fascist dictator. Rather, he vaguely represents a revolutionary socialist though not specfically a Marxist-Leninist manifested by the following line when the members of Project Mayhem extort the police commissioner at a restroom: "The people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals. We haul your trash. We connect your calls. We drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not fuck with us."

The above clearly represents that Project Mayhem is an organisation composed of the proletariat who seek to destroy the current fascist culture of consumerism, religion, feminism, poverty, and economic inequality. Do not misinterpet the movement as being composed of petit-bourgeois yuppies and intellectuals. Project Mayhem is a traditionally mass proletarian movement. Tyler Durden is a vanguard of the revolution.

Project Mayhem advocates a collectivised society in which the masses as a whole cooperate in order to preserve the worker-peasant state: "Cooking, working, and sleeping in teams." This evokes the glorious collectivization campaign in USSR.

Project Mayhem seeks to establish social justice and eliminate the bourgeoisie as a class manifested by the plan of destroying the buildings of several major credit card companies: "Out of these windows we will view the collapse of financial history. One step closer to economic equilibrium."

Project Mayhem violently opposes the superficial, reactionary culture of consumerism and entertainment manifested in various instances:

"Tyler sold his soap to department stores at $20 a bar. God knows how much they charged. It was beautiful. We were selling rich women their own fat asses back to them." This represents the shallow, unprincipled, vile practices of consumerism. The prices for products are routinely gauged and often of dubioius quality. This exposes the profiteering nature of capitalism.

"I can't afford to throw money away on a doctor", Marla Singer on the telephone with the narrator. This represents the parasitical tendencies of capitalism and how te less fortunate are deprived of basic necessities of life. Price gauging in capitalism including medical care is rife.

"Stay with the pain. Don't shove to the center", This represents how elusive people are capitalist culture. Instead of tackling problems, they escape them. Today's petit-bourgeoisie enthusiastically indulges in reactionary Buddhist customs that the progressive Chinese Communists have thankfully undermined in the PR of China. Religion is an opium of the masses that tries to distract people from dealing with the various problems of capitalist society.

"Advertising has its taste in cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit that we don't need."

"Someone informs you that this company installs front seat mounting brackets that never pas collision tests, brake linings that fail after a thousand miles, and fuel injectors that explode and burn people alive", This manifests how dishonourably corporations behaves for the sake of garnering profits.

"8 months ago, Bob's testicles were removed. Then hormone therapy. He developed *****-tits because his testosterone was too high and his body upped with estrogen." This satirises those abominably superficial fitness infomercials that consist of castrated males ridden with steroids. This exposes how in capitalist society external features are gratuitously emphasised.

"Bob had been a champion body builder. You know the chest-extension program you see on late-night TV? That was his idea"

"When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything: the IBM Stellarsphere, Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks." This clearly displays resentment towards corporate fascism.

"Like so many others I had become a slave to the IKEA nesting instinct. If I saw something clever like a coffee table in the shape of a yin-yang, I had to have it. I'd flip through catalogs and wonder: what kind of dining set defines me as a person?". This satirises society's obsession with tasteless, superfluous material junk.

"Now we're going to open the green door, the heart chakra. Imagine your pain as a white ball of healing light. It moves over your body, healing you. Keep this going, remember to breathe and step forward through the backdoor of the room.". Again with reactionary Buddhism.

"Life insurance pays off triple if you die on a business trip." A manifestation of the blood-sucking tendencies of insurance companies.

"When you buy furniture, you tell yourself, that's it. That's the last sofa I'm gonna need."

"Why do guys like you and i know what a duvet is? Is this essential to our survival in the hunter-gatherer sense of the word?"

"We are by-products of a lifestyle obsession. Murder, crime, poverty. These things don't concern me. What concerns me are celebrity magazines, television with 500 channels, some guy's name on my underwear."

"The things you own end up owning you."

"I don't know my dad... he left when I was, like, 6 years old, married this other woman and had some other kids. He did this like every six years." This shows how the enormously damaged family structure in capitalism and how the influence of bourgeois feminism infects are children. Their development gets sabotaged because of the absence of father figures.

"We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need." This recommends for men to focus on revolutionary change rather than hooking up with some brainless, gold-digging, demagogic skank for the sake of sexual pleasure.

"I felt sorry for guys packed into gyms, trying to look like how Calvin Klein or Tommy Hilfiger said they should." This takes pity towards those males who have become victimised by bourgeois feminist doctrines. They model themselves to look like action figures e.g shaved body hair, orange-coloured tans, etc.

Bannockburn

9th April 2006, 13:39

Most of these posts are bullshit concerning the movie at least. I've read the book a few times, but I'm more familiar with the film. I don't really understand how Tyler is a nihilist. Could somebody explain that to me. I could get into a long debate concerning nihilism, but I can't be bothered right now. So, in sum, lets just take a common open source that's available for the public.

According to Wikipedia:

Nihilism as a philosophical position which argues that the world, and especially human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value
If anything, Tyler practices weak nihilism to destroy contemporary values, but certainly he has goals in mind. Look at the above post:

"Imagine," Tyler said, "stalking elk past department store windows and stinking racks of beautiful rotting dresses and tuxedos on hangers; you'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life, and you'll climb the wristthick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. Jack and the beanstalk, you'll climb up through the dripping forest canopy and the air will be so clean you'll see tiny figures pounding corn and laying strips of venison to dry in the empty carpool lane of an abandoned superhighway stretching eight-lanes-wide and August-hot for thousands of miles."
This was the rule of Project Mayhem, Tyler said, the complete and rightaway destruction of civilization.

and in the movie Tyler says... “In the world I see”. Obviously he has a political philosophy, and he is not a strong nihilist by any stretch of the imagination. Anybody who thinks so is clearly wrong and is confused in thought.

Primitivism? No, obviously not. To begin with – what does that mean? What makes you think we are not primitive? But, outside of that – why would destroying modern civilization and having forests, vines wrapped around buildings results in primitivism? Environmentalist could easily say the same thing – perhaps he's simply a deep ecologist.

Anybody who knows philosophy can see the central themes: Nietzsche's revaluation of values: Free spirit, fettered spirit, authentic identity. Buddhist ideals of non-attachment to the material. Personally it has some Marx's themes with alienation.

For example, lets take a quote by Nietzsche, and a Tyler quote.

Tyler: “The things you own, end up owning you."
Nietzsche: Be yourself! What you are at present doing, opining, and desiring, that is not really you”.

Look at the whole scene at the bar. Its Nietzsche-pop cultured.

Let's see, the fighting is hermeneutical. Its not actual fighting, but picture-thinking for the audience too dumb to realize what's going on. Fighting implies destruction, in order to create, one must destroy the old. Jack had to “destroy” himself to become Typer. Its classic Nietzsche: in Zarathustra “in order to create, one must destroy”.

Its not anarchist, its not fascism. Chuck can say it is – but that's under the assumption he knows what fascism is

CCCPneubauten

9th April 2006, 16:10

SO from the above two posts we can see his philosophy is a mixture of primitivism, and Marxism-Leninism. Weird combo....does anyone else agree, or did others think something else?

Bannockburn

9th April 2006, 22:36

Well I already explained why its not primitivism. I could give more examples.

CCCPneubauten

10th April 2006, 03:35

The fact that Tyler wants to return to a Native American like society isn't primitivism?

In his world there isn't technology there isn't even machines.

You didn't prove it, you just kinda said 'Well...it isn't primitivism'

foreverfaded

11th April 2006, 13:41

Primitivism? No, obviously not. To begin with – what does that mean?

you never gave the definition of primitivism. And yes, please give more examples. I agree with CCCPneubauten when he said,
You didn't prove it, you just kinda said 'Well...it isn't primitivism' Please give more examples and explain what you think primitivism is.

I could get into a long debate concerning nihilism, but I can't be bothered right now. If you cant get into a long debate about it, dont post in the first place until you have the time.

Comrade Marcel

11th April 2006, 22:50

Thorez, fascists act like anti-capitalists as well, and blaim the current status quo on the poverty of it's nations people.

There is no real class analysis in Fight Club, cops are allowed to join, and a office worker is treated just as "proletarian" as a waiter.

There is absolutely no analysis of imperialism, and in fact Tyler sounds pro-imperialist when he talks about his generation not having a great war to fight in.

It's also completely patriarchal, as in project mayham is basically a sausage party, except of course for Marla Singer, who he treats as his fuck toy. I could give you a few other examples of how it's patriarchal, but I don't think i need to.

I'm not saying it's not worth reading (and possibly it could even be considered proletarian literature), but it's certainly not Marxist-Leninist, and I certainly wouldn't hold it up as an example of any good revolutionary politics.

As for some of the tactics of organizing, minus the sausage party factor; they could be useful.

The actual tactics of bringing change, however, have already been tested by groups like the Weathermen and FLQ, and won't last long in an imperialist country without mass suppport.

Bannockburn

14th April 2006, 13:37

The fact that Tyler wants to return to a Native American like society isn't primitivism?

How was Native American culture or society primitive? That's pathetic and you are showing your roots of Ethnocentrism and Euroocentrism. Same argument was held by Locke with the “savages” or North America, and the “primitives” or Africa. Nice thinking because we have technology we are somehow “modern” or “less primitive” - and all actuality we're just more efficient killers.

Anyway, where does he show his primitivism? With the reduction of technology? Or perhaps a better use of technology than a “television with 500 channels, and some guy on my underwear”. Besides – remember, Tyler uses technology all the time – for example...soap. “the yard stick of civilization”. Tyler wants a civilization obviously, but how you relate “stalking elk” with primitivism is just absurd and there is no cause-effect relation. Its called hunting, and millions do it everyday.

Please give more examples and explain what you think primitivism is.

Well of course I didn't prove it. I simply said it isn't primitivism simply because its not. Its like me having to prove why 2=2=4, is not 3. Well because its not. The definitions don't follow. Besides, I didn't give a definition simply because I was under the assumption that Wikipedia was going to be our open ended definition source. So go there and look it up. You will not find any description of Tyler. Abandonment of technology? Even a stick use for a tool is technology. Primitivism doesn't work because its contradiction in terms.

If you cant get into a long debate about it, dont post in the first place until you have the time.

I really hate pseudo-intellectual responses. This is so obvious, I shouldn't have to take the time. I don't know, its probably just me, but I expect people to know this stuff, and it should be given. Its like telling an ant how to build an ant hill, or why water is wet.

Comrade Marcel

14th April 2006, 22:23

How was Native American culture or society primitive?

Sorry, but this is basic Historical Materialism (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/marxism/Cl1.html). It's not that the Native people's lived more "primitively" or that it should be held as some how lesser, but let's admit that capitalism is still a more advanced mode of production and that turning back the clock is a really stupid idea. Marx said we need the advanced industrial complex developed under capitalism to provide for the needs of people under socialism/communism. The only thing that changes is the ownership of the means of production.

Maybe you can explain to us Tyler Durden's "long term economic plan", because you must have caught on to something that the rest of us missed! :P

EnragÃ©

14th April 2006, 23:53

i found him to be somewhere in between primmies and nihilists

pretty cool :)

CCCPneubauten

15th April 2006, 03:56

The Native American were primitive communists....that's basic Marx. I wasn't calling them 'savage' that's putting words in my mouth.

When Tyler talks about the soap he wasn't saying he wanted civilization, just giving his view of welll...soap.

He outlines his views when 'Jack' was sleeping, the whole Elk and Sears Tower bit, if THAT isn't just as primitivist as it gets...well...wow.

Fistful of Steel

15th April 2006, 20:05

Tyler Durden is a weird amalgam of anarchist, primitivist, and fascist ideology. It's hard pegging him down because of this but there are certain things he said that clearly echo Mussolini. Especially his glorification of violence, his unquestioning and demanding fanaticism of Project Mayhem, and his emphasis on masculinity.

(P.S. The whole primitivism thing doesn't really fly with me. I read somewhere that a typical hunter gatherer society implemented today on Earth would be able to support like 100 million. What about the other 6 billion...?)

foreverfaded

17th April 2006, 17:17

Its like me having to prove why 2=2=4, is not 3. Well because its not.

its not "3" because if you put two things together with two things, there are now four things. saying "well, becuase its not" is showing that you can really not give good explanations for things. Rather you use fancy words that make it sound like you know what your talking about. Maybe its just me, but i think saying somethings not something becuase its not is extremely stupid and shows, actually, how much you truly know. when i said,
If you cant get into a long debate about it, dont post in the first place until you have the time. all i was saying was, dont post something and use the excuse i dont have the time to explain it when you could have simply of made reference to a topic about primitivism and you would have saved yourself a lot of time.

Bannockburn

18th April 2006, 20:46

Sorry, but this is basic Historical Materialism. It's not that the Native people's lived more "primitively" or that it should be held as some how lesser, but let's admit that capitalism is still a more advanced mode of production and that turning back the clock is a really stupid idea.

What's your point? If I read your correctly, Your agreeing with me. I'm not saying Native American society or its economics was primitive, in fact, if you read up, I never said anything about Native American society as such. Moreover, what is this “advanced?” such terminology is utter rhetoric. As you said, under the mode of production there is a change in the social strata, but how is it advanced, in the hierarchical meaning of the term...”progress” (which is not really progress at all) doesn't include being advanced. I fail to see your poin.

The Native American were primitive communists....that's basic Marx. I wasn't calling them 'savage' that's putting words in my mouth.

Granted you never did say that. I never said you did either actually. Read me again. Even if it is basic Marx, how does it make it correct? Moreover, again we have contradicting statements. One is saying it is primitive, the other saying they didn't live like primitives. The fact is, that words such as primitive has no meaning or reference at all, and is simply an illusion based on the error of a socity that tries to self evaluate itself.

When Tyler talks about the soap he wasn't saying he wanted civilization, just giving his view of welll...soap.

Well if that's true, explain the statement “soap...the yardstick of civilization”?

its not "3" because if you put two things together with two things, there are now four things.

Well actually not. The basics to any philosophy of math is that math does not point to things in the world, but are completely a-priori. There are no identical things in the world even to get “4” things. Math is based on identity and definition, and this is why math is an exact science. Likewise, again, with primitivism isn't primitivism because the definitions doesn't follow. Thus, this is why I can say, “well because its not” simply because the definitions and identity doesn't follow the conclusions.

Finally – what fancy words? The last thing I am doing is using “fancy words”.

all i was saying was, dont post something and use the excuse i dont have the time to explain it when you could have simply of made reference to a topic about primitivism and you would have saved yourself a lot of time.

What excuses? It happens to be true. If anything its a justification more than an excuse. But anyway, your right, I could have saved time – well which I did, I was under the assumption wikipedia would have been a starting point. Its a good open ended reference section for open ended discussions on public forums.

Dyst

18th April 2006, 21:11

Notice that this is very off topic, but here goes.

There are no identical things in the world even to get “4” things.

Quite a bold statement.

If this is true we would have to seriously alter our way of thinking!!! We should stop saying 30 dollars and instead say, one dollar with some dirt on it, another dollar with not that much dirt on it, a dollar with a little scratch on it, etc. until we get 30. :lol:

I am of course kidding.

What I am curious of is if the "smallest piece of matter possible" (if that exists) is exactly equal to another of the "smallest piece of matter possible". You know what I mean? It would be logical to assume that they do, if it exists at all (if it doesn't, then the universe is infinite in its dimensions).

And let us remember that it there exists a "smallest piece of matter possible" then everything consists of it, thus, you can combine all the smallest pieces of matter in the world together and create one seriously large number of "smallest pieces of matter possible", there you go; you have the universe, without time.

foreverfaded

21st April 2006, 14:06

good point
thanks for clearing that up

Comrade Marcel

21st April 2006, 15:51

Keiza, you are going to make some people's heads explode! ;)

Bannockburn

23rd April 2006, 02:32

Quite a bold statement.

How? Anybody familiar with philosophy would take this as a common statement made by such philosophers as Hume and Nietzsche.

If this is true we would have to seriously alter our way of thinking!!! We should stop saying 30 dollars and instead say, one dollar with some dirt on it, another dollar with not that much dirt on it, a dollar with a little scratch on it, etc. until we get 30

Why kid? We've been breed this way, constituted to think this way? Do you honestly find it so hard to wrap your head around that one day we just might think like that?

What I am curious of is if the "smallest piece of matter possible" (if that exists) is exactly equal to another of the "smallest piece of matter possible". You know what I mean? It would be logical to assume that they do, if it exists at all (if it doesn't, then the universe is infinite in its dimensions).

Yeah, I know what you mean. Even if there were the smallest pieces of matter possible, doesn't presuppose they are identical. Physics presupposes this, and this is why you get conflicting theories.

And let us remember that it there exists a "smallest piece of matter possible" then everything consists of it, thus, you can combine all the smallest pieces of matter in the world together and create one seriously large number of "smallest pieces of matter possible", there you go; you have the universe, without time.

That is an old way of thinking. Older than say German idealism in the tradition of Kant. If you have noticed moder society is much quicker than it was in the past. Speed is relative to one's time, to one's subjectivity correlated with societal structure, and technology. We live faster, time is faster than it was 100 years ago. Look around. Notice that minutes, seconds and hours are obsolete. We run on on a continuous basis because of circulation of the global economy. With all use-value collapsed into exchange value, capital doesn't take the time off between 9 to 5 monday through friday anymore. It global, timeless.

cheisgreat

8th July 2007, 19:49

After watching this movie for the first time last night, I am now questioning and evaluating things much more.

Firstly the power of the mind is amazing, you can believe anything and who knows what is or isn't 'really' there. 'Where is my mind' by the pixies very fitting for the ending credits.

Secondly, the thing about the credit card companies was an interesting thought. Could someone not blow up credit card company's buildings so that everyone's debt would be zero -essentially? I know this is obviously extremely difficult and some would say 'impossible.' But, could a well organised or even a terrorist group attempt this successfully? Or perhaps has it already been attempted? Also what would the repercussions of this be for the government and the public?

Lastly, what are anyone's thoughts of the film? I feel it was over-hyped but there were good scenes and interesting points made. I guess the attitude of Jack's group was effective i.e. fucking the powerful over. But in the end the group were elitist and became something Jack never imagined.

Tatarin

9th July 2007, 04:41

Could someone not blow up credit card company's buildings so that everyone's debt would be zero -essentially?

It surely is an interesting point, but I don't think it would revolutionize society. People must be aware of an idea - in the movie's case - "Durdenism" or whatever idea the Fight Club followed. In other words (in the real world) - what would motivate the great majority into establishing socialist/communist societies?

But, could a well organised or even a terrorist group attempt this successfully?

I'd say it would be extremely impossible since they (or you) have the Patriot Act. Secondly, Fight Club numbered in the thousands, was popular wherever it started, and people willing to follow. Such a group can (and probably will) be formed, by one ideology or another, but as it looks now, no...

Or perhaps has it already been attempted?

I don't think it has been tried in that scale. The US had the WTC bombings, and the Oklahoma bombings, but those were small groups, in buildings with people - all of which helped patriotism and nationalism... :(

Also what would the repercussions of this be for the government and the public?

The banning of all ideologies remotely associated with the one the bomber/s used. The public must be ready for revolution, otherwise whatever state is left will organize them to defend it.

But in the end the group were elitist and became something Jack never imagined.

Well, the ideology is hard to understand. One would have to look after the events of the movie to know what they were doing. Were their goal to establish a Fight Club one-party state, or are they anarchists (who followed Durden through the revolution, but lived their own lives after it)? Are there strict rules as to what you can do and not do after the revolution? Did it benefit people or ruined them?

funkmasterswede

9th July 2007, 04:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:49 pm
After watching this movie for the first time last night, I am now questioning and evaluating things much more.

Firstly the power of the mind is amazing, you can believe anything and who knows what is or isn't 'really' there. 'Where is my mind' by the pixies very fitting for the ending credits.

Secondly, the thing about the credit card companies was an interesting thought. Could someone not blow up credit card company's buildings so that everyone's debt would be zero -essentially? I know this is obviously extremely difficult and some would say 'impossible.' But, could a well organised or even a terrorist group attempt this successfully? Or perhaps has it already been attempted? Also what would the repercussions of this be for the government and the public?

Lastly, what are anyone's thoughts of the film? I feel it was over-hyped but there were good scenes and interesting points made. I guess the attitude of Jack's group was effective i.e. fucking the powerful over. But in the end the group were elitist and became something Jack never imagined.
My thoughts on this film are those of a fanboy; so you have been forewarned. The anti-consumerism displayed in this film is one of the main reasons why I associate myself with the position that I do, and the left in general. Certainly, first and foremost the problem of capitalism is it's exploitive nature and the gross inequality of wealth that it creates, but another danger that it has is the fetishization of commodities. Consumption is no longer done out of need, but as some sort of way of asserting one'e existence. Personally I see this behaviour among the populous and I am completely disgusted by it.

It has inspired some people I know to have a plan for an anti-consumption event of a kind I will not expose. I think the issue of the false consciousness that Gramsci spoke of is expressed in this film. In that western societies have a tendency to breed a mindset that views consumption for its own sake as something that is natural. People act on this societally bred behaviour, even though it allows for almost no fulfillment in any real way. Anticonsumerist ideas need to be expressed in order to shake people out of the sea of irrelevance they are currently trapped in. It as if most people will be satisfied to give up their freedom and well being in exchange for security and technology.

Durdenism to me is essentially Anarchoprimitivism. Tyler expresses a lot of distrust with current technology and the "white collar" life style. He also alludes to a utopian hunter gatherer society that could bring more fulfillment.

LuÃs Henrique

10th July 2007, 16:50

It is an overtly reactionary, semi-fascist film. I am surprised that people can take it as anything else. Sheer glorification of pointless violence - even violence against common people.

Reminds me of Franco Freda's rantings about how bombing people would "liberate" them.

Luís Henrique

Leo

10th July 2007, 17:08

I'm not sure if Fight Club was a semi-fascist film, I would rather define it as nihilist, rather than fascist.

Vanguard1917

10th July 2007, 17:19

The film is quite entertaining. The message of the film is bullshit Western middle class 'anti-consumerist' nihilism: it appeals to the kind of people who like to moan about there being too many malls and ipods.

AmbitiousHedonism

10th July 2007, 18:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 04:19 pm
it appeals to the kind of people who like to moan about there being too many malls and ipods.

there are too many malls and ipods!

Joje

10th July 2007, 23:22

Well, as someone who also read the book (which is much better but makes you feel really bad) I can say that, looking at the psychologic aspects, it's a wonderful book that really gets to you. The film drops a lot of this and focus on the philosophical areas (as well as the general plot) which are of course interresting and awesome in some aspects, aspecially in analyzing consumerism, but totally crazy in it's, or rather the main character's, conclusions about what needs to be done.

Even though it shows some beautiful examples of insurrectional actions (symbolic vandalism, disrupting day-to-day-society and the like) the main purpose of this is mainly egotistic. Tyler Durden's main objective is to fulfill himself. The book puts forth arguments about liberation and such but what Durden really does is to psychologically break down and brainwash his followers in the same way as a cult leader does.

As some stated Durden could be interpreted as a nihilist but I would actually describe him as an egoist if not even a psychopath (which of course isn't a moral philosophy though). Others have, perhaps rightly, drawn the conclusion that Durden is an "anarcho"-primitivist (where anti-hierarcism comes into political primitivism I don't know, thus the "") and acts in the belief that civilization in itself is to blame for his suffering and so seeks to destroy it. This point would also make nihilism an unlikly ethical standard for Durden.

What troubles me is that the book (and film) so often is interpreted as anarchist and that anarchists in general are like Tyler Durden.

Btw, sorry if my sentences or uses of grammar and words seem a bit strange, english is my second language and it's in the middle of the night here in Sweden.

Janus

10th July 2007, 23:45

Lastly, what are anyone's thoughts of the film?
Fight club (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63625&hl=+fight++club)
Fight club (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40681&hl=+fight++club)
fight club (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=39418&hl=+fight++club)
fight club (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32863&hl=+fight++club)
fight club (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33884&hl=+fight++club)

Mujer Libre

11th July 2007, 07:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 04:19 pm
The film is quite entertaining. The message of the film is bullshit Western middle class 'anti-consumerist' nihilism: it appeals to the kind of people who like to moan about there being too many malls and ipods.
I agree up to the colon... The main ideological message of the film is that consumerism (not capitalism) is bad not because of the stuff it produces, but because it 'feminises' men and forces them to lose touch with their inner masculinity, which can be reclaimed by removing themselves from feminine influences and engaging in violent acts. In that sense the film has more to do with "Iron John" than with liberal anti-consumerist type messages.

"We're a generation of men raised by women..."

PRC-UTE

11th July 2007, 20:22

did no one else find it funny that the poster boy of anti-consumerism is Brad Pitt? :lol:

PRC-UTE

11th July 2007, 21:04

funkmasterswede

12th July 2007, 01:46

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+July 11, 2007 08:04 pm--> (PRC-UTE @ July 11, 2007 08:04 pm)
Luís [email protected] 10, 2007 03:50 pm
It is an overtly reactionary, semi-fascist film. I am surprised that people can take it as anything else. Sheer glorification of pointless violence - even violence against common people.

Reminds me of Franco Freda's rantings about how bombing people would "liberate" them.

Luís Henrique
Doesn't the protagonist then turn against these ideas at the end of the film? I thought in a way it was mocking / satirising a yuppie mid life crisis. [/b]
Yes, he did. And thank you for allowing me to segue into my critique of the view of this film as being egoist, "masculinist" as well as being a proponent of primitivism of some sort. The fact that the Tyler persona is ultimately destroyed because of Marla is a way of showing the fact that fulfillment could not occur through these violent primitivist ends. Ultimately, Jack needs Marla, the representation of the feminine, in order to b fulfilled.

I find it quite odd that members of this board alluded that the message of this film was that capitalism "feminizes men". The problem that is presented is simply one of association with material commodities and seeking completion through them. Certainly, Tyler was a sexist he associates these effects to be those that are naturally feminine. However, one need only look at the end of this film, to see the fact that Tyler is not viewed as the solution. As an alternative persona he is more of an antithesis to Jack than anything. What the actual solution to the issue of completion and fulfillment through consumption is left open.

And comrades, I have two friends who have become very interested in revolutionary left literature because of the message of this film. Both of them now proclaim themselves to be similar in world view to members of this board.

black magick hustla

12th July 2007, 18:13

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 10, 2007 03:50 pm
It is an overtly reactionary, semi-fascist film. I am surprised that people can take it as anything else. Sheer glorification of pointless violence - even violence against common people.

Reminds me of Franco Freda's rantings about how bombing people would "liberate" them.

Luís Henrique
It doesn¿t glorifies violence against common people. It only "accepts" the consensual violence between the fight club members. Remember that when Durden planted the bombs, he argued that noone was in the buildings at that time. When he threatened a guy to fulfill a dream (become a veterinarian) he used a gun without bullets.

It is fascistic in the sense that Durden becomes the absolute leader, I guess.

More than anticonsumerism, I think that the main point of the book is trascendence. In the nietzchean sense, people are slaves to different things, god, institutions, law, commodities, and in order to trascend them, you have to destroy them etc.

I think it is a great movie, I wouldnt call it marxist however.

Sickle of Justice

15th July 2007, 20:03

isn't it sorta, like, extreme eco/primitivist anarchism? thats what i saw, but presented in an extremely dark way, sort of anarcho primitivism gone nazi? that's feels weird coming out of my virtual mouth, but the way Project Mayhem behaves and looks is very faschistic. the conformism, shaved heads, only including men (and also, it would seem, white men). The revolutionary thoughts seem t be more bitter and nihilistic than visionary, invisioning not primarily the birth of a better world, but the destruction of a flawed one.

The politics of the movie were interesting, and it's a great film, but i think it's more about psychology than politics.

Avtomat_Icaro

27th July 2007, 13:38

It is fascistic in the sense that Durden becomes the absolute leader, I guess.

I dont know if that would even be the case since the movement eventually becomes independent from Durden and is even willing to castrate him to set an example. In the movie Tyler Durden also mentions that "this thing" (Fight Club/Project Mayhem) doesnt belong to them. (being Durden and the protagonist)

An important aspect of Fight Club is the fact that these men want to make impact on the world, the are the "middle children of God". We live our lives hoping that one day we will be rock stars, actors, whatever...but we are slowly realising that this isnt going to happen, would you rather be hated or ignored/forgotten? Durden believes redemption can only come after they are caught/punished by God or whatever, if they do nothing they are forgotten and ignored. If your father was modelled after God and he abandoned you, what does that tell you about God?

I dont know...perhaps Durden was right that this Great War of his was a spiritual war.

MaverickChaos

16th May 2008, 21:18

Anyone a fan of the movie/novel? I personally love the film, haven't got round to reading the book though.

I know it has received mixed reviews - mainly accusing it of supporting the ideals of hegemonic masculinity and reducing social anarchist theories into somewhat of a casual piece of entertainment but I love it all the same.

What are your views on it?

Os Cangaceiros

16th May 2008, 21:50

Tylor Durden is a primitivist.

:cursing:

Plagueround

17th May 2008, 00:12

Tylor Durden is a primitivist.

Yeah, but I don't think the author or the movie's producers were necessarily trying to say Tyler's philosophies were the correct way to go about things. Really, with all it's psychological mindfuck and pseudo-philosophical tones, Fight Club to me is just a tragic and twisted love story.

Os Cangaceiros

17th May 2008, 00:43

I liked the film, myself. It was entertaining.

black magick hustla

17th May 2008, 00:48

Actually, Tyler Durden was the antagonist of the movie/film, hence why the protagonist rejects him at the end.

I am really ambivalent about critizing literature and film for racism/sexism. I derive pleasure from art from purely aesthetics, and the aesthetic of perfection is boring to me.

Dros

17th May 2008, 00:48

I love that movie.

Redmau5

17th May 2008, 02:01

Both the film and the book are great. I think Ed Norton is a great actor.

PRC-UTE

17th May 2008, 02:25

Both the film and the book are great. I think Ed Norton is a great actor.

How does the book differ from the film? I've heard there were changes made.

The New Manifesto

17th May 2008, 02:33

How does the book differ from the film? I've heard there were changes made.
hardly. Dosn't really change one bit.

I really enjoyed it.

mykittyhasaboner

17th May 2008, 03:23

its one of my favorite films, and i want to read the book to. my favorite part was when all the members of project mayhem destroyed the satellite dishes, mac computers, and when tyler and the narrarator were bashing up cars, and the limo hit the road spikes, then they ran off. :laugh:

gla22

17th May 2008, 03:24

Loved the film haven't got around to reading the book yet. Tyler Durden was the protagonist in my eyes. I loved watching those buildings fall.

Redmau5

17th May 2008, 21:26

hardly. Dosn't really change one bit.

I really enjoyed it.

Well the Narrator does get detained in an asylum at the end of the book, unlike the film.

How does the book differ from the film? I've heard there were changes made.

Well, for example, in the film we see the Narrator disable Tyler's bomb by pulling one of the wires out, thus preventing the building they're from being blown up. In the book, Tyler's bomb doesn't work because he didn't make the explosives correctly.

However most of the changes between the book and movie are minor. There's no real change in plot, but I would still recommend reading the book if you haven't.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

18th May 2008, 05:05

Great plot by an excellent, albeit disturbing author.

ManyAntsDefeatSpiders

18th May 2008, 06:16

Yes, very good movie. Brad Pitt is very sexy. :wub:

NoArch

18th May 2008, 06:52

The book is by far better than the movie.

The whole ideology behind the story is primitivist nihilism. I agree entirely with the anti-consumerist, anti-nanny-state message, though I wouldn't advocate streetfighting as a tool for spiritual liberation.

There is definitely a cultural and spiritual nature to humans, we are not just robots. It is important that a society embrace the spiritual needs of the population, it is a lack of identity that leads to the destructiveness of Fight Club.

ManyAntsDefeatSpiders

18th May 2008, 06:58

NoArch

18th May 2008, 07:04

I wouldn't call it 'spiritual needs' but I agree on its premise that capitalism is somewhat alienating; we spend our lives working just to keep alive, and there seems some sort of inane futility in it.
By spiritual I mean "something to feel a part of," Fight Club fulfilled this in the movie. We are social animals and like to be a part of a group with a unique identity.

MaverickChaos

18th May 2008, 21:34

By spiritual I mean "something to feel a part of," Fight Club fulfilled this in the movie. We are social animals and like to be a part of a group with a unique identity.

That's where I got the social Anarchism idea from. I agree with the Nihilism being a problem, portraying the only remaining sense of autonomy lies in beating the shit out of your fellow man (and yourself) but I still love the basic principles of the film.

And even though Jack rejects Durden at the end, I think he still generally agrees with the anti-capitalist movement, as does the film in general.

Drace

17th July 2008, 17:22

Read it, Watch it.

I seen it twice. The philosophical idea of it is super awesome.
I never read the book though. You would probably get more out of the awesomeness reading it though.

Bright Banana Beard

17th July 2008, 17:39

Even though I saw the movies and indeed it was awesome, I do not understand what philosophy they practicing.

Drace

17th July 2008, 17:51

Well it all came mostly from Tyler who was a neo luddite, nihilist, and hated the sonsumer culture.

The violence of the fight clubs serves as a metaphor for feeling, rather than to promote or glorify physical combat. The fights are tangible representations of resisting the impulse to be cocooned in society. Norton explained that the fighting between the men strips away the "fear of pain" and "the reliance on material signifiers of their self-worth", leaving them to really experience something valuable. When the fights transform into revolutionary violence, the film only half-accepts this dialectic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic) by Tyler Durden, with the narrator pulling back and rejecting Durden's ideas.Thus Fight Club purposely shapes an ambiguous message, the interpretation of which is left to the film audiences. As Fincher elaborated, "I love this idea that you can have fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism) without offering any direction or solution. Isn't the point of fascism to say, 'This is the way we should be going'? But this movie couldn't be further from offering any kind of solution."

The mechanic says, “If you’re male and you’re Christian and living in America, your father is your model for God. And if you never know your father, if your father bails out or dies or is never at home, what do you believe about God?
...
How Tyler saw it was that getting God’s attention for being bad was better than getting no attention at all. Maybe because God’s hate is better than His indifference.
If you could be either God’s worst enemy or nothing, which would you choose?
We are God’s middle children, according to Tyler Durden, with no special place in history and no special attention.
Unless we get God’s attention, we have no hope of damnation or redemption.
Which is worse, hell or nothing?
Only if we’re caught and punished can we be saved.
“Burn the Louvre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louvre),” the mechanic says, “and wipe your ass with the Mona Lisa. This way at least, God would know our names.”

Joe Hill's Ghost

17th July 2008, 17:58

I wrote a relatively short piece on fight club in the same vein Drace. Basically I talked about how the fighting wasn't about physical violence but an attempt to be existentially authentic. By that I mean the characters used fighting and project mayhem as an attempt to take back control of their lives and feelings, away from the hegemonic culture that told them to play nice, and avoid class war, and keep buying.

MarxSchmarx

17th July 2008, 19:02

By that I mean the characters used fighting and project mayhem as an attempt to take back control of their lives and feelings, away from the hegemonic culture that told them to play nice, and avoid class war, and keep buying.

I found it really telling how the only way Pitt's character accomplished this was through an elaborate plan of self-deception.

rocker935

17th July 2008, 19:45

If you ask me, you have to read the book to truly understand the philosophy.

Drace

17th July 2008, 19:52

Yea thats true rocker its kinda crippled in the movie.

Joe Hill's Ghost

17th July 2008, 20:43

I found it really telling how the only way Pitt's character accomplished this was through an elaborate plan of self-deception. Yes, as if his authentic self split into two.

mykittyhasaboner

18th July 2008, 00:27

your all just a bunch of single serving mother fuckers....

tehpevis

18th July 2008, 00:47

BADASS MOVIE!
the Revolution came about from Tyler's anger, and it was more Anarchist than anything. as far as I know, except for Bob being shot, it was more-or-less Bloodless even tho they blew up QUITE a few buildings

Drace

18th July 2008, 01:39

I think the part where Bob got shot was actually anti-socialist.
When they start saying "His name is Robert Paulson, His name is Robert Paulson..." I think its saying that we are all not the same.

haha teh we both have anti-capitalist quotes from the simpsons :P

Mujer Libre

18th July 2008, 02:56

I've merged the NINE threads on this incredibly overrated (and masculinist) film. This doesn't include the threads on Chuck Palahnuik... So very tired of talking about it, but whatever.

Drace

18th July 2008, 07:37

Wholly 9 Thread =O

Had no idea lol.

gla22

18th July 2008, 16:28

I don't think it was really primitivist. Whilst most of us want political change and technology, there are things we would rather be rid of. I think that 500 cable channels should go, unless they asre decent unlike what is being adressed, along with crazy frog and certain other sad signs of our times. Ridding the world of them would be progress.

It is definitely primitivist. Quotes as proof.

We wanted to blast the world free of history.... picture yourself planting radishes and seed potatoes on the fifteenth green of a forgotten golf course. You'll hunt elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center, and dig clams next to the skeleton of the Space Needle leaning at a forty-five degree angle. We'll paint the skyscrapers with huge totem faces and goblin tikis, and every evening what's left of mankind will retreat to empty zoos and lock itself in cages as protection against the bears and big cats and wolves that pace and watch us from outside the cage bars at night.

"Imagine," Tyler said, "stalking elk past department store windows and stinking racks of beautiful rotting dresses and tuxedos on hangers; you'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life, and you'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. Jack and the beanstalk, you'll climb up through the dripping forest canopy and the air will be so clean you'll see tiny figures pounding corn and laying strips of venison to dry in the empty car pool lane of an abandoned superhighway stretching eight-lanes-wide and August-hot for a thousand miles."

Reeks of anarcho-primitivism. i wouldn't consider all of he philosophy nihilism either because they are trying to do something. There is some humanistic philosophy Tyler bases his entire society off of.