Primitivism and Left Communism

I was trying to point out how similar your argument techniques were with Stalinists. You did not have to pull out a definition from wiki. It's something like "you ultra-leftists..." or "you anarchists..." or "you trotskyists..." or "you hippies..." etc. You get the idea, right?

lol!

Adorno is a philosopher, Lenin is not exactly a philosopher. What does that have to do with anything?

Nice try! Maybe it'll actually work next time.

Hi

Not easy. You're both comic geniuses.

Love

LR

Leo - we already have a revol - we don't need another one without even the redeeming qualities.

Nice try, but I don't even swear or flame. Please, if you want to discuss, discuss. Otherwise, don't bother. Your petty insults are not interesting, your arguments might be but I haven't seen them yet.

While not technically flaming, you have responded, unprovoked, to me (and lem) with sarcasm, rudely and dismissive. You commented largely with smartarse oneliners - I responded largely with polite paragraphs - I don't see your attitude as showing a great willingness to discuss. So I don't really want to discuss with someone whose motivation seems to be a competitive ego. Maybe when you're in a better mood or your testosterone levels have levelled out.

Hi

I was surprised to find that such excitable competitive behaviour is a consequence of too low a level of testosterone, not too high, as I understand many assume.

Love

LR

So how're they levelling today, Lazy?

Not more than you guys did.

If I recall correctly, the long paragraph was about that Stalinism thing, where I was criticizing the sectarian and generalizing manner and you went on giving me a definition of ultra-leftism. Seriously, what did you expect me to say? Giving a link to a left communist about "ultra-leftism" in wikpedia is much more smartarse than any oneliner.

It seems civilized discussion doesn't also fit into criteria, as the ICC members on every forum are the politest people. Sectarianism in this quote is not good lad.

Besides, responding to "sarcasm" with personal insults shows that maybe you are the one has a competitive ego.

This is getting really silly now - if you have anything further constructive to say then you can PM me - but we are getting into tit for tat pettyness now, which is a bit of a waste of space IMO.
But maybe you're not aware that in the past I've said quite alot in response to the ICC, such as on the 'meaningful reforms/decadence thread', 'a man is running down the street stabbing himself' thread etc... People can be arrogant while remaining polite, which is what I think beltov was doing in his simplistic dismissal of anarchism (not that I'm any great defender of alot of it) - which is what started all this. I tend to ignore them as a result of my experiences of them, both on and off here.
Anyway, no hard feelings.

double post

Whao, Leo, I didn't mean to upset you. Obscure does not mean you are impotent, sect doesn't mean sectarian, you are "left communists" aren't you. I mean, a friendly proletarian observer outside the milieu may describe you in thuis sort of way.

So I am saying, that if Lenin was a better "Marxist" than Adorno (as in proponent of Marxism, cf above) that Adorno has the better theory (i.e. was the better philosopher). Maybe I'm too detached

Alright then I really don't like the term "obscure sect" but oh well.

No, ah... the thing is, I don't mean philosophy (dialectics) when I am talking about Marx's theories or his method; I am talking about "historical materialism" and "economical determinism". And quote honestly I am not really good at philosophy, so not much remains for me to understand from Adorno's work. What I know about Adorno is that, for example, he denounced May 68. I have a feeling that, despite his faults, Lenin would have never done that.

Okay, no hard feelings.

Hi

Pretty good, thanks for asking comrade.

Has this thread included a discussion of the correlation between Primitivism and, say, Monsieur Dupoint's ideas on how the specific products we consume are only possible due to capitalist oppression, and hence communism necessarily meaning a low-tech level of industrial production?

Love

LR

firstly the wgole point of Marx's (anti)philosophy is to pull it out of it's metaphysical arse and root it in the real relations of men (sic) ie historical materialism. Secondly, Marx's theory can't be reduced to a crude "economical determinisn", though if you seperate his early "dialectical" work into philosophy it certainly can give that impression.

As for May68 and Adorno and Lenin, well Adorno was a burnt out old twat but unlike Lenin he couldn't have them shot down like partridges.

"obscure sect" is fair enough, but "leftist" is just plain insulting...

Well, yeah, that's part of I said basically.

What's crude about "economical determinism"?

Well, yeah, as I said I am honestly more interested in the sociological/ economical/ historical aspects of the Marxist method.

He would if he could have though.