you make the world of rock do that...
EXEUNT.
perhaps this is the pathology that began lf, but I was hoping we could leave it behind one of these days.
babyhueypnewton posted:no surprise deadken and getfiscal like la chinoise. the only thing Godard movies are about are Godard's own pathology. insecurity about one's own beliefs, fear of commitment and knowledge. not because of patience or thoroughness but cowardice, afraid that believing in anything isolates one from the herd and therefore the herd will judge you.
perhaps this is the pathology that began lf, but I was hoping we could leave it behind one of these days.
lol wut
deadken posted:la chinoise is a cinematic struggle session lol, why are you generalising its critique to marxism itself, that's dumb
yeah it's a struggle session between a parody of maoism which is stupid, naive, privileged, violent and ignorant and the cold hard reality of life. just because godard was the ignorant maoist portraying himself rather than the cold hard truth of capitalism like most propaganda doesn't make it any better.
people think that it came out in 1967 is so prescient of may 68 but its the opposite. it shows how out of touch godard was with the reality of the struggle. i guess if you're not a marxist it's an interesting glimpse into another world from a safe, ironic distance but why would anyone who knows anything like it? my first impulse when hearing the "reformed" non-violent revolutionary was to pick apart his arguments, not muse about the brash stupidity of the maoist straw(wo)man.
babyhueypnewton posted:no surprise deadken and getfiscal like la chinoise. the only thing Godard movies are about are Godard's own pathology. insecurity about one's own beliefs, fear of commitment and knowledge. not because of patience or thoroughness but cowardice, afraid that believing in anything isolates one from the herd and therefore the herd will judge you.
perhaps this is the pathology that began lf, but I was hoping we could leave it behind one of these days.
it's no surprise you don't like la chinoise because most of what you do the whole time is figure out why other people aren't good enough to be revolutionaries, so that you can blame their faults for the continuing failure of the Left.
getfiscal posted:i think i interpret everything wrong because la chinoise is a deeply pro-maoist movie to me. because the backdrop is stultifying french society which produces this anomalous need to revolt. and everything goes terribly wrong and seems naive and silly but there's still, at the end of the day, a sort of purity of action to it. when i first saw la chinoise i didn't go "heh maoist is dumb" it was more like "man i should go to india"
no, thats the correct way to see it. when the tricks of reason make social justice and philanthropy and revolution seem foolish, its reason that is being foolish. imo
i don't think it's anti-Maoist & certainly not anti-Marxist, i thought the core of it was more that -- communication isn't happening, clear transmission of the ideals at the heart of the movement isn't happening. the scenes in the classroom where people are framed through each of the windows, panning left to right, everyone is in their own reference frame, no one is really understanding each other except to repeat some basic empty phrases. for example Yvonne (the working girl from the country) never has anything explained to her, she's just enjoying the view out of the windows when she is chanting "revisioniste" with everyone else, just because it's what everyone else is doing, not because she has any attachment to what's going on, no one pays attention to her... each of them are in their own little worlds and no actual struggling is going on.
so I feel like it's mostly saying -- if you are going to be marxist -- debate, argue, communicate, come to conclusions, develop theory. instead of doing that the kids in the cell ARE the aesthetic front. and they spend all that time saying oh i don't think we could ever possibly have time to consider the aesthetic. but they have become won over by it and are led by it. so. struggle on two fronts if you are going to struggle at all. oui?
swampman posted:babyhueypnewton posted:no surprise deadken and getfiscal like la chinoise. the only thing Godard movies are about are Godard's own pathology. insecurity about one's own beliefs, fear of commitment and knowledge. not because of patience or thoroughness but cowardice, afraid that believing in anything isolates one from the herd and therefore the herd will judge you.
perhaps this is the pathology that began lf, but I was hoping we could leave it behind one of these days.
it's no surprise you don't like la chinoise because most of what you do the whole time is figure out why other people aren't good enough to be revolutionaries, so that you can blame their faults for the continuing failure of the Left.
yeah but you're a trot
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_08.htm
"The task of literature and art has always been to expose." This assertion, like the previous one, arises from ignorance of the science of history. Literature and art, as we have shown, have never been devoted solely to exposure. For revolutionary writers and artists the targets for exposure can never be the masses, but only the aggressors, exploiters and oppressors and the evil influence they have on the people. The masses too have shortcomings, which should be overcome by criticism and self-criticism within the people's own ranks, and such criticism and self-criticism is also one of the most important tasks of literature and art. But this should not be regarded as any sort of "exposure of the people". As for the people, the question is basically one of education and of raising their level. Only counter-revolutionary writers and artists describe the people as "born fools" and the revolutionary masses as "tyrannical mobs".
I've got a lot of stuff to read!!!
I could recommend the project management book to almost any adult; it has definite applicability to any one interested in a planned economy, for example
An excellent and honest overview January 27, 2006
By M. A. Krul
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
Lewin has outdone himself in this overview of the history of the USSR. Some potential readers might perhaps be somewhat dismayed by the fact that this book was published with radical leftist publisher Verso, but have no fears: this is no apologia for totalitarianism.
On the contrary, Lewin gives a balanced and very thorough overview of each of the periods of Soviet history, beginning with its Leninist inception and ending with Gorbachov. Most of the book deals with his description of the Stalinist period, and this is also the book's main strength. On the one hand Lewin effortlessly dispels the myths around the gigantic numbers of deaths that have been 'credited' to Stalin by less informed writers such as Conquest and Montefiore; using both statistical records of Chrushchov's period (hardly a fan of Stalin) and the most up-to-date Russian research by Khlevniuk and others, he shows that in fact the death toll of Stalin will have been in the millions rather than tens of millions.
Nevertheless, that is evil enough, and Lewin has no qualms in showing the horrid, oppressive and stifling side of communism. Not only Stalin gets this deserved treatment, but Brezhnev and similar people equally. Lewin also takes the time to look at the development of various socio-economic factors in Soviet history, such as the too often overlooked effects of rapid urbanization in the 1970s.
The only downside of the book will be to some that it pays relatively little attention to World War II, preferring instead to concentrate on the political and social history of the Soviet Union.
Nevertheless, the best in its kind, and far to be preferred over more mainstream works.
lol. just fair warning to combat liberalism at all times, even among lf posters. except me.
Hitler - The Ultimate Zionist False Flag Operation
gyrofry posted:wrong
how was the inauguration ball liberal boy
?
Ironicwarcriminal posted:i don't acknowledging tragic deaths is necessarily liberalism huey
why are they tragic?
babyhueypnewton posted:swampman posted:babyhueypnewton posted:no surprise deadken and getfiscal like la chinoise. the only thing Godard movies are about are Godard's own pathology. insecurity about one's own beliefs, fear of commitment and knowledge. not because of patience or thoroughness but cowardice, afraid that believing in anything isolates one from the herd and therefore the herd will judge you.
perhaps this is the pathology that began lf, but I was hoping we could leave it behind one of these days.
it's no surprise you don't like la chinoise because most of what you do the whole time is figure out why other people aren't good enough to be revolutionaries, so that you can blame their faults for the continuing failure of the Left.
yeah but you're a trot
Im still not totally sure what a trot is.
babyhueypnewton posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
i don't acknowledging tragic deaths is necessarily liberalism huey
why are they tragic?
The suffering and death of anybody is tragic to the people who love or care about them
Ironicwarcriminal posted:i don't acknowledging tragic deaths is necessarily liberalism huey
Ironicwarcriminal posted:The suffering and death of anybody is tragic to the people who love or care about them
a death being tragic to people who love or care about a dead person does not make the death tragic. get outta here w/this weaksauce crap!!!
babyhueypnewton posted:Just an obvious warning about McCain's reading list. A lot of it is good stuff but it's worth remembering his own ideology and how that affects what he recommends. His review of The Soviet Century on amazon:
An excellent and honest overview January 27, 2006
By M. A. Krul
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
Lewin has outdone himself in this overview of the history of the USSR. Some potential readers might perhaps be somewhat dismayed by the fact that this book was published with radical leftist publisher Verso, but have no fears: this is no apologia for totalitarianism.
On the contrary, Lewin gives a balanced and very thorough overview of each of the periods of Soviet history, beginning with its Leninist inception and ending with Gorbachov. Most of the book deals with his description of the Stalinist period, and this is also the book's main strength. On the one hand Lewin effortlessly dispels the myths around the gigantic numbers of deaths that have been 'credited' to Stalin by less informed writers such as Conquest and Montefiore; using both statistical records of Chrushchov's period (hardly a fan of Stalin) and the most up-to-date Russian research by Khlevniuk and others, he shows that in fact the death toll of Stalin will have been in the millions rather than tens of millions.
Nevertheless, that is evil enough, and Lewin has no qualms in showing the horrid, oppressive and stifling side of communism. Not only Stalin gets this deserved treatment, but Brezhnev and similar people equally. Lewin also takes the time to look at the development of various socio-economic factors in Soviet history, such as the too often overlooked effects of rapid urbanization in the 1970s.
The only downside of the book will be to some that it pays relatively little attention to World War II, preferring instead to concentrate on the political and social history of the Soviet Union.
Nevertheless, the best in its kind, and far to be preferred over more mainstream works.
lol. just fair warning to combat liberalism at all times, even among lf posters. except me.
im sure your own views are identical to those you held 7 years ago
ilmdge posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:i don't acknowledging tragic deaths is necessarily liberalism huey
grover furr is owning mccaine all over again in this thread even though neither of them are here.
deadken posted:i just rewatched la chinoise. good film. cool line: 'we are not the ones using obscure language. it's our society, which is hermetic and closed up in the poorest of languages possible.' its saturday night lol
i just watched This. and Film Socialisme. mind= blown.wmv
Edited by jeffery ()
babyhueypnewton posted:Just an obvious warning about McCain's reading list. A lot of it is good stuff but it's worth remembering his own ideology and how that affects what he recommends. His review of The Soviet Century on amazon:
An excellent and honest overview January 27, 2006
By M. A. Krul
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
Lewin has outdone himself in this overview of the history of the USSR. Some potential readers might perhaps be somewhat dismayed by the fact that this book was published with radical leftist publisher Verso, but have no fears: this is no apologia for totalitarianism.
On the contrary, Lewin gives a balanced and very thorough overview of each of the periods of Soviet history, beginning with its Leninist inception and ending with Gorbachov. Most of the book deals with his description of the Stalinist period, and this is also the book's main strength. On the one hand Lewin effortlessly dispels the myths around the gigantic numbers of deaths that have been 'credited' to Stalin by less informed writers such as Conquest and Montefiore; using both statistical records of Chrushchov's period (hardly a fan of Stalin) and the most up-to-date Russian research by Khlevniuk and others, he shows that in fact the death toll of Stalin will have been in the millions rather than tens of millions.
Nevertheless, that is evil enough, and Lewin has no qualms in showing the horrid, oppressive and stifling side of communism. Not only Stalin gets this deserved treatment, but Brezhnev and similar people equally. Lewin also takes the time to look at the development of various socio-economic factors in Soviet history, such as the too often overlooked effects of rapid urbanization in the 1970s.
The only downside of the book will be to some that it pays relatively little attention to World War II, preferring instead to concentrate on the political and social history of the Soviet Union.
Nevertheless, the best in its kind, and far to be preferred over more mainstream works.
lol. just fair warning to combat liberalism at all times, even among lf posters. except me.
did you read the book?
swirlsofhistory posted:im sure your own views are identical to those you held 7 years ago
fair enough 
AmericanNazbro posted:did you read the book?
nope, i'll read is the red flag flying? before that but it's hard to get a physical copy and i dont like pdfs
palafox posted:THIS BOOK FUCKING OWNS
the back cover, where a blurb and summary would normally go, just has a quote (i think preteen horror novels in the nineties sometimes did this too?) of atta going "I, too, am an immigrant success story"
http://semiotexte.com/?page_id=995
ATTA
Jarett Kobek
Ours is a century of fear. Governments and mass media bombard us with words and images: desert radicals, “rogue states,” jihadists, WMDs, existential enemies of freedom. We labor beneath myths that neither address nor describe the present situation, monstrous deceptions produced by a sound bite society. There is no reckoning of actuality, no understanding of the individual lives that inaugurated this echo chamber.
In the summer of 1999, Mohamed Atta defended a master’s thesis that critiqued the introduction of Western-style skyscrapers in the Middle East and called for the return of the “Islamic-Oriental city.” Using this as a departure point, Jarett Kobek’s novel ATTA offers a fictionalized psychedelic biography of Mohamed Atta that circles around a simple question: what if 9/11 was as much a matter of architectural criticism as religious terrorism? Following the development of a socially awkward boy into one of history’s great villains, Kobek demonstrates the need for a new understanding of global terrorism. Joined in this volume by a second work, “The Whitman of Tikrit”–a radical reimagining of Saddam Hussein’s last day before capture–ATTA is a brutal, relentless, and ultimately fearless corrective to ten years of propaganda and pandering.
I bought this book and read it and it is horseshit and i just thought someone should know.
here's a quote from zizek
"I am a Leninist. Lenin wasn't afraid to dirty his hands. If you can get power, grab it. Do whatever is possible. This is why I support Obama. I think the battle he is fighting now over healthcare is extremely important, because it concerns the very core of the ruling ideology. The core of the campaign against Obama is freedom of choice. And the lesson, if he wins, is that freedom of choice is certainly something beautiful, but that it only works against a background of regulations, ethical presuppositions, economic conditions and so on. My position isn't that we should sit down and wait for some big revolution to come. We have to engage wherever we can. If Obama wins his battle over healthcare, if some kind of blow can be struck against the ideology of freedom of choice, it will have been a victory worth fighting for."
The first memory may be real, is possibly false. My father, a lawyer, wants to join social clubs and advance in society. He brings our family on a business trip to Cairo, to see el-Gizah. 1 2 3, the Sphinx. Hot sun warms my face, sets behind the Great Pyramid. There comes a rare feeling. The goodness of people overwhelms me, the individual common person joins with other common persons to build a timeless thing. I believe in people. I am a small boy, no more thean 5 years old, but I believe in people.
babyhueypnewton posted:nope, i'll read is the red flag flying? before that but it's hard to get a physical copy and i dont like pdfs
the soviet century isnt particularly well-written and i have to admit, reading about internal political machinations of just about any country is usually really boring because there ends up being a whole lot of "telling" and not a lot of "showing"
"stalin marginalized such-and-such and allied with so-and-so and in so doing enacting this and that policy over the objections of who's-his-name" without getting into the mechanics of much of any of it. how did stalin marginalize whats-her-face. how do we know she was marginalized, is there a metric which demonstrates this? how did the alliance form and why and when and in what ways did it manifest itself?
these sorts of books normally skip those actually interesting details and tidbits for the vast majority of instances, with only an example here or there sprinkled about rarely. for me it makes them read like leviticus bible garbage where moab begat caleb who begat josiah wherefore ye shall not partake of two foods descended from the mustard tree on the same week and the punishment for this shall be &c. &c. &zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Not sure why anyone would read him instead of just reading Lacan. But I don't care very much about Zizek, and I've seen B&W and Crow make very interesting posts referencing him, so I don't want to step on any toes. He just never impressed me.