Class position of trees
May 13 2006 11:31
Admin - split from here
It scares me when people talk about trees having spirits. I get nightmares about the last march of the Ents.
May 13 2006 11:36
#2
Tress are so fucking bourgeois
May 13 2006 11:44
#3
rkn wrote:
Tress are so fucking bourgeois
Trees are far from bourgeois. Think of how many organisms live off their labour. Each tree serves thousands, possibly millions of animals and microbes.
May 13 2006 11:47
#4
aye but aren't trees just leeches, their roots like tentacles, of course they renew the soil too, but not before extracting surplus labour and using it to grow further and further. The soil and the tree are stuck in a dialetic.
And tree's mean we can't get a fucking decent picture on our terrestial ariel. 
which brings me neatly to West Ham beating the scouse scum today.
May 13 2006 11:49
#5
revol68 wrote:
aye but aren't trees just leeches, their roots like tentacles, of course they renew the soil too, but not before extracting surplus labour and using it to grow further and further.
Yeah but the trees' growth serves the ecosystem and envrionment as well.
May 13 2006 11:51
#6
Refused wrote:
revol68 wrote:
aye but aren't trees just leeches, their roots like tentacles, of course they renew the soil too, but not before extracting surplus labour and using it to grow further and further.Yeah but the trees' growth serves the ecosystem and envrionment as well.
apologist.
the tree's need the soil, the soil doesn't need the tree's, let a million flowers grow.
May 13 2006 11:53
#7
Of course the soil needs trees you muppet, otherwise the amazon rainforest being cut down wouldn't be a problem (well, apart from all that diversity rubbish anyway).
May 13 2006 12:00
#8
it can grow other things, bushes, flowers, and crops, it can even negate itself into a desert.
Infact the soil has not broken from the dialetic of Treeism until it negates itself into desert.
Soil against soil!
May 13 2006 12:01
#9
Saii wrote:
Of course the soil needs trees you muppet, otherwise the amazon rainforest being cut down wouldn't be a problem (well, apart from all that diversity rubbish anyway).
revol is crudely referring to the struggle of the flower against the massive might of the trees in the competition for light and nutrients. No, revol, the trees are not the class enemy just because they get paid mo...I mean...er... 
May 13 2006 12:02
#10
revol68 wrote:
Infact the soil has not broken from the dialetic of Treeism until it negates itself into desert.
What or whom does an artificially created dusbtowl benefit, you silly hipster custard-lover?
May 13 2006 12:04
#11
Refused wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Infact the soil has not broken from the dialetic of Treeism until it negates itself into desert.What or whom does an artificially created dusbtowl benefit, you silly hipster custard-lover?
the soil does not exist for the benefits of others, it must be free to negate all roles of service.
May 13 2006 12:09
#12
revol68 wrote:
Refused wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Infact the soil has not broken from the dialetic of Treeism until it negates itself into desert.What or whom does an artificially created dusbtowl benefit, you silly hipster custard-lover?
the soil does not exist for the benefits of others
Of course it does you silly fucker. 
Quote:
it must be free to negate all roles of service.
What other roles? have you ever heard of soil driving a taxi?
May 13 2006 12:45
#13
revol68 wrote:
the tree's need the soil, the soil doesn't need the tree's, let a million flowers grow.
To favour flowers over trees is lifestylism - akin to shopping from petty bourgeois corner shops rather than at supermarkets
May 13 2006 12:53
#14
perhaps, which is why in it's most radical act the soil negates itself into a desert.
May 13 2006 12:57
#15
revol68 wrote:
which is why in it's most radical act the soil negates itself into a desert.
Usually it's the other way around. And the soil cannot "negate itself" as long as there are biological processes maintaining it, and they don't have to be trees.
May 13 2006 12:59
#16
refused, you do realise i'm just talking shite for the craic?
fucking stupid literalist med students!
May 13 2006 13:00
#17
Do you see how easy it is to annoy you?
May 13 2006 13:01
#18
This is why you'll make a perfect fucking doctor!
May 13 2006 13:04
#19
I've never heard of a Fucking Doctor before. Sounds like a niche I could carve out for myself, dig myself a hole, like. 
But surely, you're referring to a sex counseller?
May 13 2006 13:06
#20
Refused wrote:
I've never heard of a Fucking Doctor before. Sounds like a niche I could carve out for myself, dig myself a hole, like.But surely, you're referring to a sex counseller?
*groan*
May 13 2006 13:10
#21
John. wrote:
Refused wrote:
I've never heard of a Fucking Doctor before. Sounds like a niche I could carve out for myself, dig myself a hole, like.But surely, you're referring to a sex counseller?
*groan*
Shut up, will you? We can break him.
May 13 2006 13:12
#22
I know it was me as well.. but try and keep it OT - cos the original poster put it in this forum for a reason
But surely the important question is whether or not the trees are working class? How would their relationship to the means of food production affect the class consciousness of their spirits?