@klarkolofsson Have you ever heard of Exploitation? It is the reason and cause of any form of Capitalism. And it is violence. Even if what Sartre said is truth, that only means that violence is a means for socialism, but a principle of Capitalism.
@klarkolofsson What possible consequences? Exploitation is violence. And there is no possible form of capitalism without explotaition. This is why violence is the basis of capitalism. Socialism isnt a violent system, even if violence is the only way to overthrow capitalism to create a socialist state (there is still state in socialism). In this case violence is a means. Never a principle.
@Corruptoide You tell me. Socialism's basic principle is force, because it states that someone else needs your money, in communism - the state, in basic socialism - the collective. If you don't share your money voluntarily it will be taken by force.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Is merging capitalism and imperialism correct? what are the underlying principles of the two? are they compatible so they can be merged OR incompatible so they cannot be merged?
Bourgeois and pround here! Fucking enjoying my thick t-bones and filet mignons. My bed feels like a cloud and I have more entertainment than I know what to do with. Feels GREAT man. Looks like we won and we will continue winning. The bums will ALWAYS lose, Jean-Paul Fartre. THE BUMS WILL ALWAYS LOSE!
@mf91007 Continue enjoying and stay oblivious to what is happening around you (i..e, Occupy Wall Street, 99% of the Population, etc.). One of these days, you'll wake up from your dream and realize that there is a REVOLUTION! History is repeating itself, it always does...it is INEVITABLE!!
sartre was brilliant but alas a product of his age. it's paradoxical how despite his reverence for the individual and his critique of the marxian notion of class as ambiguous he maintained this rediculous binary thinking (i.e. "we are justified in doing this, they are not") as if bourgeois values and opression were relative to a formal ideological framework.
@fede2 you are confusing the bourgeois as a particular known people, whereas he is talking more about getting rid of bourgeois practice and philosophy itself or the oppresive system.
@trakomako Both men had powerful, violent men behind them - ready to shed blood if they could not have their liberation. MLK couldn't have done it without the threat of Malcolm X. Ghandi could not have done it without the threat of Subhash Chandra Bose.
I admire most of Sartre's writing/ideas, but I can't follow him with the violence argument because mankind is mainly composed of flawed, selfish types, regardless of what they espouse. Take a look at the many, many violent revolutions in history (Cuba and the Bolsheviks, for starters), and ask yourself if things became "better". The torture, death, and priviliged lifestyles continued on, except it was the formerly oppressed having their turn in the driver's seat. We're basically doomed.
You have to understand: when someone is so petty as to say that anyone who happens to be in the habit of doing "x," is a pompous, condescending ass, then that person who is so petty to make that proclamation is most certainly a pompous, condescending ass...
For who would be so intolerantly pretentious to judge anyone in such a manner, besides a pompous, condescending ass?
Glad to see that "Being and Nothingness: An Essay in Phenomenological Ontology" is out in mass market paperback. I bet the guys down at the local pub would just love to turn the TV off and kick it around instead of watching a dreary old football getting kicked around on the tube at the back of the bar.
You think Being and Nothingness is consumed on a "mass market" scale?
An 800 page philosophical treatise that NO ONE can understand without an extensive introduction i.e., reading secondary sources to the primary text, reading of Sartre's other essays—emphasis, The Transcendence of the Ego, and, furthermore, an understanding of the history of philosophy—emphasis, Heidegger, Husserl, Hegel, Freud, and Descartes.
@buildingm Uh, that was my point, child, how ludicrous it is that Amazon is offering a "mass market" edition, as if a "mass market" for it existed. My God, building, you're even denser than the book. I think it was the literary critic Edmund Wilson, who said that the real value of the hard-cover edition of "Being and Nothingness" was that it made a great stop.
Right! It isn't a mass market commodity! And yes, many people don't understand, agree, relate, care, etc., to Sartre's work; but what does that matter? Every piece of philosophy has be fiercely opposed... but certain pieces always deserve respect.
My apologies, skimming your comments, but, how naive it is to think that list sums up—in character I assume—the consequences of the said regime.
Don't know and don't see why that matters either...
Unbearable! He was just another pseudo-intellectual who was really a complete retard in economics and politics. Considering that he was supporting the most evil regimes that have ever existed, he must be considered evil himself, for he was unable to comprehend that those horrors resulted directly from the idiotic ideology he promoted.
well what is bourgeois society but a class of people privileged enough to chat over coffee. Which is what Sartre did. Sure, Sartre was smart, and I like him, but since his philosophy was based on the torments of freedom, an involuted torment, it only makes sense that this avowed revolution would be hypocrisy, as it fights against that which he indulged in (coffee shops and talk).
Risk his life???? When? Sartre supported terrorism in Italy and Germany, Latin America and Asia, but NOT in his own country. (he probably feared the guillotine). Plus, he admired totalitarian left-wing thugs like Castro, Guevara, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc., and gave them political support. And in WW2, the nazis let him stage his plays in Paris theaters, while Malraux, Beckett and Camus did risk their lives in the French Resistance. So how did Sartre "risk his life"???
@mazingerZful Sartre said that when he studied in Berlin, 'round 1932, he didn't even notice the Nazis taking over: he thought that was something writers didn't worry about until they were retired. Of course, he changed his mind when the Nazis rolled into Paris, & he admitted he was politically naive until he was 50.
@dhoody Actually, Sartre did, during some of the worst purges, claim that Stalinist Russia, despite its failings, was superior to the Bourgeois West, because at least they were attempting to revolutionize society, even if it was doing so in a wrong-headed way. (He did not, however, join the PCF, the Communist Party.)
@bloodynoes Indeed he did. That's what's so incredibly stupid coming from someone as intelligent as he could otherwise be. How could he ever fall for this "revolutionary" idea? What in the world is good about a "revolution"? There's not a single revolution in history that ever improved society. ALL positive change is the result of slow, gradual changes through greater prosperity and corresponding intellectual and moral progress.
@dhoody Later, he wrote Les Mains Sales ("Dirty Hands") which could be interpreted as a repudiation of Stalinism (the main character, who follows the party line, in a complex and paradoxical way, and commits a murder, seems to be acting in "bad faith" and is existentially "inauthentic") though Sartre denied this. And then there's Critique of Dialectical Reason, which could also be read as a critique of non-"humanistic" Stalinism, but he was also praising "Maoists" at the same time so....
Your assessment is clearly an underhanded attempt to sway the opinion of those unfamiliar with Sartre... It is quite easy, and as a result, so commonly done by detractors, to misrepresent Sartre's public, historical figure to discredit his brilliance and importance as a 20th century intellectual.
If you were knew his philosophy, or the real facts of the history, you would understand that the last thing Sartre endorsed were murderous, oppressive totalitarian regimes...
@buildingm Like Nietzsche, Sartre was fully aware of the murderous, oppressive, and totalitarian elements within the ideas which he supported. Essentially they both thought that was just the price to be paid.
@pierolivier111 They were infinitely worse! What is bad about "bourgeois society" in the first place? The only people who criticize "bourgeois society" are those envious of others who achieved a somewhat decent level of comfort, prosperity and happiness.
@AmadeusPower This men is a shame for the philosophy. It makes me sick to see all those pseudo intellectuals believing blindly in him as if it was a model.
He has a point about violence being right on times. When democratic freedom and other similar rights are restricted, the only way to participate is through violence. Look at Ireland. When innocent civilians were killed by oppressive British occupational forces, the highest legal authority in the land, the Queen, muttered no ill-feeling. If the Provisional I.R.A had not acted upon such with violence, the catholic and nationalist communities would still be disenfranchised today.
What narcissism! Sartre's inability to change society (by the use of his pen) in the direction he deemed necessary, occasions his call for a violent revolution. As if to say, that, if he could not accomplish the task, no one can.
Revolution is both violent and global–necessary. It is the total destruction–the obliteration–of all former power structures; nothing in possession of power relinquishes its authority without conflict. Sartre was not a narcissist, he dedicated the latter portion of his life, and even risked his life, in efforts to raise social and political awareness in regard to the oppressive forces which dominated the western i.e. calling for the end of capitalistic imperialism...
@buildingm Complete CRAP! Communism has been tried at least 50 times and each attempt ended in DISASTER and MASS MURDER. Maybe you could try to switch on your brain: Communism is defective, its very foundations are defective and anyone who still supports it is either a complete retard or a profoundly evil, power-hungry bastard who tries to exploit stupid people for personal gain.
@AmadeusPower It depends on your definition of communism. If you simply mean economic socialism, then that's not true (that each attempt ended in disaster and mass murder). Look at Sweden, Denmark, Finland, to a lesser extent France, to a lesser extent Germany under the Red/Green coalition, to much lesser degree England under the Labor party. Even if you don't consider these to be communist regimes, you still have to consider the (short-lived) communist revolution in Germany (1917)...
@bloodynoes So you equal social democracy with Communism? That's obviously nonsense! Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Germany all have capitalist production methods, but high taxation levels. Their taxation levels are totally unsustainable - we see right now AGAIN that they are leading to a complete economic collapse. Sweden already faced bankruptcy twice and each time had to reduce the level of taxation.
@bloodynoes You don't seem to be aware that the high taxes in Sweden apply only to salaries. Entrepreneurs can deduct most of their private costs as business expenses and hence their real tax level is much closer to 20 - 30%, not anywhere near the official rates.
France is the most communist of all these countries - not the least as you suggest - and it shows: they're on the verge of a total social and economic collapse!
@bloodynoes It took 70 years for the USSR to collapse completely, but the country had been completely dysfunctional since the very beginning. The EU social democracies started out with fairly healthy, though heavily damaged economies, which were rebuilt entirely based on Capitalism. Socialism was added only slowly. In the UK, Labour took over and destroyed the country within 30 years with their communism. Thatcher saved it from the brink of collapse.
@AmadeusPower So as a conclusion, one can extent my claim and say that no only Communism, but even far more moderate forms of Socialism lead to social and economic collapse within 1 to 3 generations, depending on the degree of Capitalism that continues to provide goods and services.
In Switzerland, Socialism grew much more slowly and hence, the country is still doing very well, but it's on a bad slide - by now, "social" expenses already represent 27% of the government budget (vs. 26 in the EU)
@buildingm "nothing in possession of power relinquishes its authority without conflict"
WRONG! The much reviled Pinochet saved Chile from the communist plague and then VOLUNTARILY relinquished power, handing it over to a democracy he helped set up. While some 4000 - 5000 people died in that war, that was a minuscule fraction of the 150'000 violent deaths in Cuba. If communists had taken over Chile, the death toll would have been infinitely much worse, based on every available example.
I won't debate history, it is relative and "agendized" i.e., your example is specious.
There isn't space nor time—nor competence on my part—to comprehensively explain the function of power in society (in today's world). But, one thing is certain, power always seeks to promulgate its own existence by way of circular reciprocity: in the form of its exertion concomitantly triggering its repletion.
So, insofar as we are talking about the same concept of power, what I said is true.
Nothing necessarily. That is, there is not a definitive necessary consequence—a particular system, regime, social structure, etc.—that will always supplant a capitalistic model.
To me, it seems, what follows would depend entirely upon the forces which impel its abolition, and, moreover, the agenda of the forces in positions of power in the midst of society's transition...
@buildingm It seem to me that the capitalistic system is the best amongst many other evil systems. It has successfully lifted million out of poverty in China, India, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and countless other countries.
It is not perfect and needs supervision via regulations, but it does work.
Inherently, capitalism requires vast stratification amongst its constituent parties... it demands inequality. In every single one of those places there are fat cats, certainly, but there are also slaves and people who sleep on dirt floors, starving and thirsting—and the latter far out number the former. Capitalism harbors oppression as those on top demand labor, and of others destitution, of those beneath them who must, if they are to survive, perform as required...
@buildingm None of the countries I mentioned have slaves. They do indeed have cheap labor and people working for very low wages, but at least they working.
Many countries in Africa, the Caribbeans and some in Latin America will die to have a chance to work, even if it is for low wages.
Case in point, the US in the 1920 was very similar to Brazil today. Today, 60% of American are part of the middle class and 85% of the people in the US have decent jobs.
The current US unemployment rate is apprx. 10%... so only 5% of people have sub-decent jobs? That's crazy! The bottom 1/2 of the population has only 2.5% of the wealth! But I don't want to debate the criteria of decent employment and slavery—which the so called "cheap labor," is, but moving on.
1. Capitalism is an economic model, not a political system,
2. Capitalism does not help the poor; it creates larger pools of inequality!
3. I am not an economist... but capitalism=oppression
@buildingm Hate or love it, the capitalistic system is the best economic system right now to lift million of people around the world out of extreme poverty into something decent. It is now perfect and there are economic systems that are perfect. Unfortunately.
The world will always have a ruling class, an elite class and people who move up through sheer force of their intellect, creativity etc...
Is hard to believe, but the world will never be perfect.
You either don't understand, or refuse to acknowledge what I am trying to impress upon you: CAPITALISM DOES NOT "LIFT", IT SHOVES DOWN! For everyone who manages to make vertical socioeconomic movement, there are multiples more who plummet.
If you think a few are off over there at "x," it is only because you fail to see those continuing to suffer, whose conditions continue to refress, at "w," "y," "z," ad infinitum...
And lastly, why must there always be anything? That is, there doesn't have to be anything—i.e., existence—at all, so how then is there a necessary condition of a ruling class?
Saying there must be is to accept their dominance and our oppressed condition.
Who said anything about perfect?!
All we can strive for is improvement: what's wrong about that?
So what's wrong with being dissatisfied? Why should we accept defeat? Why shouldn't we demand more?
@buildingm Hello again. Funny how people can't see the terrible consequences of capitalism. And as you say, why does there have to be anything? "Existence precedes essence" -Sartre.
@mrfreudable Terrible consequences of capitalism: increased life expectancy in most countries; decreased infant mortality; vacccines; mosquito nets, sewers; flush toilets, toilet paper - and more!
What??? The adverse effects of the United States' capitalist-imperialistic regime are not found within its boarders; why is that hard to grasp? Chomsky gave a talk at BU about a year and a half ago about this very issue, I'd suggest watching it if you don't understand what this means...
And,
HOW OTHER PEOPLE USED/MANIPULATED/EXPLOITED AN IDEA (i.e., Marxism) HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SARTRE—IN CHARACTER OR PHILOSOPHY!!!
@buildingm "The adverse effects of the United States' capitalist-imperialistic regime are not found within its boarders; why is that hard to grasp?" Uh, please see my previous comment re: terrible consequences, noting if you will, the words "increased life expectancy in most countries, vaccines, mosquito netting, etc." Not sure how you interpreted this as pertaining to the U.S. when clearly, it doesn't. Wonder how much Chomsky got for the BU talk; was it free to the public?
@buildingm In the USSR, as in Cuba today, all the fat were in the communist party. The slaves, millions and millions of them, were "starving and thirsting" in the gulag. "Capitalism harbors oppression as those on top demand labor, and of others destitution, of those beneath them who must, if they are to survive, perform as required..." thanks for a perfect definition of Cuban, Soviet and North Korean socialism.
@buildingm No; I'm too lazy. Except to say it was "bourgeois society" that gave him his bully pulpit, and had he gotten his "overthrow" he would have been right up there sending "right deviationists" to the gulag and firing squad. Lucky for him he was French and not Chinese, or he would have been trashed in short order by Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution.
Yes there was a French bourgeois, and had it not been for the French bourgeois Sartre would not have been able to rebel against them if that is what you mean.
And yet another egregious misrepresentation of Sartre; in now way would Sartre support, never mind facilitate, slavery and execution. Sartre was 100% anti-oppression and his commitment to establishing and justifying such projects only intensified as he aged...
@buildingm "in now way would Sartre support, never mind facilitate, slavery and execution. Sartre was 100% anti-oppression.." Lenin was probably anti-oppression, too - before he came to power and found it necessary to "break a few eggs in order to make an omelet," to paraphrase his famous saying. Sartre was never put to the test, but I think it more, much more, than likely that we would have found it "necessary" to suppress whatever "bourgeois elements" got in the way of his "revolution."
Nil context - what the fuck is he talking about? Yes, this society is violent, prisons, armed bodies of men, police, army - imperialism, colonialism, oppressive dictatorships etc etc but what kind of violence is being suggested to combat the violence of the State? Workers' organising in their workplace and communities can be violent when it comes up against the State and will almost certainly always will be. But taking up arms and going into the countryside...or terrorism, what good does it do?
@ButherLi55ett Well like you said, there isn't much context in such a short fragment. But knowing Sartre he does mean a form of revolution/warfare. He probably doesn't mean terrorism because he was sceptical about the RAF's actions in Germany. Now as to what good it does, we can't tell since it depends on the purpose violence is used for (if it's used for opression nothing will change, but if it's against it might change a society). Violence is but a tool in Sartre's eyes.
Funny because today everyone is bourgeois, even the "poor" niggers in the ghettos with their $200 sneakers
4zion4life 1 week ago
@4zion4life Where the fuck are they?
Jaygull 1 day ago
SONG??
demoncoreftw 1 month ago
Excellent goal!
visvaldisX 2 months ago
So we have to use violence because they use violence? Bad faith much?
MrTheodicy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yet another proof that Heidegger fucked Sartre's mind up.
133839297 2 months ago
hey man there is God!
MultiTofek 3 months ago
I found that both didactic and succinct.
Spartacus217 3 months ago
Sartre; proof that intelligence, ability to write well, is not proof of depth, nor insightful understanding.
GrayWatchman 3 months ago
@GrayWatchman I agree completely.
dedbusted 2 months ago
Sartre, socialism in any form derives from a violent principle, like revolutions show. Capitalism doesn't have force as a basic principle.
klarkolofsson 3 months ago
@klarkolofsson Have you ever heard of Exploitation? It is the reason and cause of any form of Capitalism. And it is violence. Even if what Sartre said is truth, that only means that violence is a means for socialism, but a principle of Capitalism.
Corruptoide 3 months ago
@Corruptoide You are talking about possible consequences, not principles nor even means.
klarkolofsson 3 months ago
@klarkolofsson What possible consequences? Exploitation is violence. And there is no possible form of capitalism without explotaition. This is why violence is the basis of capitalism. Socialism isnt a violent system, even if violence is the only way to overthrow capitalism to create a socialist state (there is still state in socialism). In this case violence is a means. Never a principle.
Corruptoide 3 months ago
@Corruptoide You tell me. Socialism's basic principle is force, because it states that someone else needs your money, in communism - the state, in basic socialism - the collective. If you don't share your money voluntarily it will be taken by force.
klarkolofsson 3 months ago
@klarkolofsson money being taken by force happens in every capitalist society that has ever existed, it is called taxation.
nerfmyaccount 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
Is merging capitalism and imperialism correct? what are the underlying principles of the two? are they compatible so they can be merged OR incompatible so they cannot be merged?
pawlo881012 4 months ago
a wall of text with fancy words dropped in at arbitrary points
jimpeedoodah 4 months ago
Sartre ou le bourgeois qui critique les bourgeois
had97139 4 months ago
Bourgeois and pround here! Fucking enjoying my thick t-bones and filet mignons. My bed feels like a cloud and I have more entertainment than I know what to do with. Feels GREAT man. Looks like we won and we will continue winning. The bums will ALWAYS lose, Jean-Paul Fartre. THE BUMS WILL ALWAYS LOSE!
mf91007 4 months ago
@mf91007 are you calling Jean-Paul a bum? did you try to incorporate a fart joke? are you a prole?
MrSkate4weed 4 months ago
@mf91007 Continue enjoying and stay oblivious to what is happening around you (i..e, Occupy Wall Street, 99% of the Population, etc.). One of these days, you'll wake up from your dream and realize that there is a REVOLUTION! History is repeating itself, it always does...it is INEVITABLE!!
Hasta Siempre Comandante!!
NJG0516 4 months ago
@NJG0516 What will the revolution put in place of the current 'system'?
craigpsimpson 4 months ago
@craigpsimpson A revolution would put in its place a government which must rule but also must in the end be overthrown as surely the last.
NearVSMello 4 weeks ago
@NJG0516 99% BALONEY I knew guys who were saying that stuff in the sixties. "You say you want a revolution, well yah know... you can count me out!"
GrayWatchman 2 months ago
@mf91007 CONDOLENCES!
TearsAmongAshes 3 months ago
Well the jokes on him. He's dead, the Soviet Union is dead and the "bourgeois society" is as strong as it ever was.
MrTomSmoke 5 months ago
merci, he did lsd?
faridjabba 5 months ago
sartre was brilliant but alas a product of his age. it's paradoxical how despite his reverence for the individual and his critique of the marxian notion of class as ambiguous he maintained this rediculous binary thinking (i.e. "we are justified in doing this, they are not") as if bourgeois values and opression were relative to a formal ideological framework.
fede2 5 months ago 7
@fede2 you are confusing the bourgeois as a particular known people, whereas he is talking more about getting rid of bourgeois practice and philosophy itself or the oppresive system.
invincibletruth1776 1 month ago
@trakomako Both men had powerful, violent men behind them - ready to shed blood if they could not have their liberation. MLK couldn't have done it without the threat of Malcolm X. Ghandi could not have done it without the threat of Subhash Chandra Bose.
mmzHyperion 6 months ago
I admire most of Sartre's writing/ideas, but I can't follow him with the violence argument because mankind is mainly composed of flawed, selfish types, regardless of what they espouse. Take a look at the many, many violent revolutions in history (Cuba and the Bolsheviks, for starters), and ask yourself if things became "better". The torture, death, and priviliged lifestyles continued on, except it was the formerly oppressed having their turn in the driver's seat. We're basically doomed.
hotfingersandwich 7 months ago
Comment removed
hotfingersandwich 7 months ago
Indeed sad though it may seem that true change could only come from violence. Yet the world keeps spinning no matter what.
screwthenet 11 months ago
Billing, is this the best you can do? Childish name-calling? What a bore. I'll leave you to it. I think you and M. Sartre deserve each other.
bixntram 1 year ago
@bixntram
Only after you, sir.
Besides, that's all in jest.
The right-minded have no time for humor, it seems.
buildingm 1 year ago
When anyone prefaces an opinion with "you have to understand," you know you're in the presence of a pompous, condescending ass.
bixntram 1 year ago
@bixntram
You have to understand: when someone is so petty as to say that anyone who happens to be in the habit of doing "x," is a pompous, condescending ass, then that person who is so petty to make that proclamation is most certainly a pompous, condescending ass...
For who would be so intolerantly pretentious to judge anyone in such a manner, besides a pompous, condescending ass?
Now go do your homework, son.
buildingm 1 year ago
Glad to see that "Being and Nothingness: An Essay in Phenomenological Ontology" is out in mass market paperback. I bet the guys down at the local pub would just love to turn the TV off and kick it around instead of watching a dreary old football getting kicked around on the tube at the back of the bar.
bixntram 1 year ago
@bixntram
You are out of your mind kid.
A mass market commodity, huh?
You think Being and Nothingness is consumed on a "mass market" scale?
An 800 page philosophical treatise that NO ONE can understand without an extensive introduction i.e., reading secondary sources to the primary text, reading of Sartre's other essays—emphasis, The Transcendence of the Ego, and, furthermore, an understanding of the history of philosophy—emphasis, Heidegger, Husserl, Hegel, Freud, and Descartes.
buildingm 1 year ago
@buildingm Uh, that was my point, child, how ludicrous it is that Amazon is offering a "mass market" edition, as if a "mass market" for it existed. My God, building, you're even denser than the book. I think it was the literary critic Edmund Wilson, who said that the real value of the hard-cover edition of "Being and Nothingness" was that it made a great stop.
bixntram 1 year ago
@bixntram
Right! It isn't a mass market commodity! And yes, many people don't understand, agree, relate, care, etc., to Sartre's work; but what does that matter? Every piece of philosophy has be fiercely opposed... but certain pieces always deserve respect.
My apologies, skimming your comments, but, how naive it is to think that list sums up—in character I assume—the consequences of the said regime.
Don't know and don't see why that matters either...
buildingm 1 year ago
The real revolution takes place in the mind, see Gil Scott Heron.
RikJamezBich 1 year ago
@RikJamezBich He also said it won't be televised. Dead wrong. Viz: Cairo. Wonder if he's still getting his royalties from that.
bixntram 1 year ago
@bixntram
Now you just sound like an asshole... a semi-educated, but nevertheless ridiculous, buffoon.
Unless you know you are equivocating, in which case you are still an asshole...
buildingm 1 year ago
@bixntram Not sure what you mean brother.
RikJamezBich 1 year ago
LONG COMMENTSSSS
rocklobster57 1 year ago
Unbearable! He was just another pseudo-intellectual who was really a complete retard in economics and politics. Considering that he was supporting the most evil regimes that have ever existed, he must be considered evil himself, for he was unable to comprehend that those horrors resulted directly from the idiotic ideology he promoted.
AmadeusPower 1 year ago
And then what? ? ? ? ? ? ?
edmondswashington 1 year ago
well what is bourgeois society but a class of people privileged enough to chat over coffee. Which is what Sartre did. Sure, Sartre was smart, and I like him, but since his philosophy was based on the torments of freedom, an involuted torment, it only makes sense that this avowed revolution would be hypocrisy, as it fights against that which he indulged in (coffee shops and talk).
eganbarry 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fuck this old cunt
diekontrolleure 1 year ago
Risk his life???? When? Sartre supported terrorism in Italy and Germany, Latin America and Asia, but NOT in his own country. (he probably feared the guillotine). Plus, he admired totalitarian left-wing thugs like Castro, Guevara, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc., and gave them political support. And in WW2, the nazis let him stage his plays in Paris theaters, while Malraux, Beckett and Camus did risk their lives in the French Resistance. So how did Sartre "risk his life"???
mazingerZful 1 year ago 3
@mazingerZful Sartre said that when he studied in Berlin, 'round 1932, he didn't even notice the Nazis taking over: he thought that was something writers didn't worry about until they were retired. Of course, he changed his mind when the Nazis rolled into Paris, & he admitted he was politically naive until he was 50.
CocteauDalighari 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CocteauDalighari "he admitted he was politically naive until he was 50."
And then he became politically retarded.
AmadeusPower 1 year ago
@mazingerZful you're wrong he never had admired Stalin...say that is stupid and innoble...
dhoody 1 year ago
@dhoody Actually, Sartre did, during some of the worst purges, claim that Stalinist Russia, despite its failings, was superior to the Bourgeois West, because at least they were attempting to revolutionize society, even if it was doing so in a wrong-headed way. (He did not, however, join the PCF, the Communist Party.)
bloodynoes 1 year ago
@bloodynoes Indeed he did. That's what's so incredibly stupid coming from someone as intelligent as he could otherwise be. How could he ever fall for this "revolutionary" idea? What in the world is good about a "revolution"? There's not a single revolution in history that ever improved society. ALL positive change is the result of slow, gradual changes through greater prosperity and corresponding intellectual and moral progress.
AmadeusPower 1 year ago
@dhoody Later, he wrote Les Mains Sales ("Dirty Hands") which could be interpreted as a repudiation of Stalinism (the main character, who follows the party line, in a complex and paradoxical way, and commits a murder, seems to be acting in "bad faith" and is existentially "inauthentic") though Sartre denied this. And then there's Critique of Dialectical Reason, which could also be read as a critique of non-"humanistic" Stalinism, but he was also praising "Maoists" at the same time so....
bloodynoes 1 year ago
@mazingerZful
Your assessment is clearly an underhanded attempt to sway the opinion of those unfamiliar with Sartre... It is quite easy, and as a result, so commonly done by detractors, to misrepresent Sartre's public, historical figure to discredit his brilliance and importance as a 20th century intellectual.
If you were knew his philosophy, or the real facts of the history, you would understand that the last thing Sartre endorsed were murderous, oppressive totalitarian regimes...
buildingm 1 year ago
@buildingm Like Nietzsche, Sartre was fully aware of the murderous, oppressive, and totalitarian elements within the ideas which he supported. Essentially they both thought that was just the price to be paid.
GrayWatchman 2 months ago
The values he spread were not better than the bourgeois society.
pierolivier111 1 year ago
@pierolivier111 They were infinitely worse! What is bad about "bourgeois society" in the first place? The only people who criticize "bourgeois society" are those envious of others who achieved a somewhat decent level of comfort, prosperity and happiness.
AmadeusPower 1 year ago
@AmadeusPower This men is a shame for the philosophy. It makes me sick to see all those pseudo intellectuals believing blindly in him as if it was a model.
pierolivier111 1 year ago
@AmadeusPower Some of the things he said were interesting, I think, but he never put them in a context were they would be useful.
pierolivier111 1 year ago
He has a point about violence being right on times. When democratic freedom and other similar rights are restricted, the only way to participate is through violence. Look at Ireland. When innocent civilians were killed by oppressive British occupational forces, the highest legal authority in the land, the Queen, muttered no ill-feeling. If the Provisional I.R.A had not acted upon such with violence, the catholic and nationalist communities would still be disenfranchised today.
TomatoNanny 1 year ago
What narcissism! Sartre's inability to change society (by the use of his pen) in the direction he deemed necessary, occasions his call for a violent revolution. As if to say, that, if he could not accomplish the task, no one can.
lourak 1 year ago
@lourak
Revolution is both violent and global–necessary. It is the total destruction–the obliteration–of all former power structures; nothing in possession of power relinquishes its authority without conflict. Sartre was not a narcissist, he dedicated the latter portion of his life, and even risked his life, in efforts to raise social and political awareness in regard to the oppressive forces which dominated the western i.e. calling for the end of capitalistic imperialism...
buildingm 1 year ago 20
@buildingm
necessarily*
western world**
buildingm 1 year ago
@buildingm Complete CRAP! Communism has been tried at least 50 times and each attempt ended in DISASTER and MASS MURDER. Maybe you could try to switch on your brain: Communism is defective, its very foundations are defective and anyone who still supports it is either a complete retard or a profoundly evil, power-hungry bastard who tries to exploit stupid people for personal gain.
AmadeusPower 1 year ago
@AmadeusPower It depends on your definition of communism. If you simply mean economic socialism, then that's not true (that each attempt ended in disaster and mass murder). Look at Sweden, Denmark, Finland, to a lesser extent France, to a lesser extent Germany under the Red/Green coalition, to much lesser degree England under the Labor party. Even if you don't consider these to be communist regimes, you still have to consider the (short-lived) communist revolution in Germany (1917)...
bloodynoes 1 year ago
@bloodynoes So you equal social democracy with Communism? That's obviously nonsense! Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Germany all have capitalist production methods, but high taxation levels. Their taxation levels are totally unsustainable - we see right now AGAIN that they are leading to a complete economic collapse. Sweden already faced bankruptcy twice and each time had to reduce the level of taxation.
AmadeusPower 1 year ago
@bloodynoes You don't seem to be aware that the high taxes in Sweden apply only to salaries. Entrepreneurs can deduct most of their private costs as business expenses and hence their real tax level is much closer to 20 - 30%, not anywhere near the official rates.
France is the most communist of all these countries - not the least as you suggest - and it shows: they're on the verge of a total social and economic collapse!
AmadeusPower 1 year ago
@bloodynoes It took 70 years for the USSR to collapse completely, but the country had been completely dysfunctional since the very beginning. The EU social democracies started out with fairly healthy, though heavily damaged economies, which were rebuilt entirely based on Capitalism. Socialism was added only slowly. In the UK, Labour took over and destroyed the country within 30 years with their communism. Thatcher saved it from the brink of collapse.
AmadeusPower 1 year ago
@AmadeusPower So as a conclusion, one can extent my claim and say that no only Communism, but even far more moderate forms of Socialism lead to social and economic collapse within 1 to 3 generations, depending on the degree of Capitalism that continues to provide goods and services.
In Switzerland, Socialism grew much more slowly and hence, the country is still doing very well, but it's on a bad slide - by now, "social" expenses already represent 27% of the government budget (vs. 26 in the EU)
AmadeusPower 1 year ago
@buildingm "nothing in possession of power relinquishes its authority without conflict"
WRONG! The much reviled Pinochet saved Chile from the communist plague and then VOLUNTARILY relinquished power, handing it over to a democracy he helped set up. While some 4000 - 5000 people died in that war, that was a minuscule fraction of the 150'000 violent deaths in Cuba. If communists had taken over Chile, the death toll would have been infinitely much worse, based on every available example.
AmadeusPower 1 year ago
@AmadeusPower
I won't debate history, it is relative and "agendized" i.e., your example is specious.
There isn't space nor time—nor competence on my part—to comprehensively explain the function of power in society (in today's world). But, one thing is certain, power always seeks to promulgate its own existence by way of circular reciprocity: in the form of its exertion concomitantly triggering its repletion.
So, insofar as we are talking about the same concept of power, what I said is true.
buildingm 1 year ago
@buildingm What do you get when you replace capitalism?
md991free 1 year ago
@md991free
Nothing necessarily. That is, there is not a definitive necessary consequence—a particular system, regime, social structure, etc.—that will always supplant a capitalistic model.
To me, it seems, what follows would depend entirely upon the forces which impel its abolition, and, moreover, the agenda of the forces in positions of power in the midst of society's transition...
buildingm 1 year ago
@buildingm It seem to me that the capitalistic system is the best amongst many other evil systems. It has successfully lifted million out of poverty in China, India, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and countless other countries.
It is not perfect and needs supervision via regulations, but it does work.
No other system has been as successful.
md991free 1 year ago
@md991free
Inherently, capitalism requires vast stratification amongst its constituent parties... it demands inequality. In every single one of those places there are fat cats, certainly, but there are also slaves and people who sleep on dirt floors, starving and thirsting—and the latter far out number the former. Capitalism harbors oppression as those on top demand labor, and of others destitution, of those beneath them who must, if they are to survive, perform as required...
buildingm 1 year ago
@buildingm None of the countries I mentioned have slaves. They do indeed have cheap labor and people working for very low wages, but at least they working.
Many countries in Africa, the Caribbeans and some in Latin America will die to have a chance to work, even if it is for low wages.
Case in point, the US in the 1920 was very similar to Brazil today. Today, 60% of American are part of the middle class and 85% of the people in the US have decent jobs.
md991free 1 year ago
@buildingm Do you know another political system that has been more successful at lifting extremely poor people out of poverty?
md991free 1 year ago
@md991free
The current US unemployment rate is apprx. 10%... so only 5% of people have sub-decent jobs? That's crazy! The bottom 1/2 of the population has only 2.5% of the wealth! But I don't want to debate the criteria of decent employment and slavery—which the so called "cheap labor," is, but moving on.
1. Capitalism is an economic model, not a political system,
2. Capitalism does not help the poor; it creates larger pools of inequality!
3. I am not an economist... but capitalism=oppression
buildingm 1 year ago
@buildingm Hate or love it, the capitalistic system is the best economic system right now to lift million of people around the world out of extreme poverty into something decent. It is now perfect and there are economic systems that are perfect. Unfortunately.
The world will always have a ruling class, an elite class and people who move up through sheer force of their intellect, creativity etc...
Is hard to believe, but the world will never be perfect.
md991free 1 year ago
@md991free
Spoken like a true, defeated worker...
You either don't understand, or refuse to acknowledge what I am trying to impress upon you: CAPITALISM DOES NOT "LIFT", IT SHOVES DOWN! For everyone who manages to make vertical socioeconomic movement, there are multiples more who plummet.
If you think a few are off over there at "x," it is only because you fail to see those continuing to suffer, whose conditions continue to refress, at "w," "y," "z," ad infinitum...
Just Think!
buildingm 1 year ago
@md991free
And lastly, why must there always be anything? That is, there doesn't have to be anything—i.e., existence—at all, so how then is there a necessary condition of a ruling class?
Saying there must be is to accept their dominance and our oppressed condition.
Who said anything about perfect?!
All we can strive for is improvement: what's wrong about that?
So what's wrong with being dissatisfied? Why should we accept defeat? Why shouldn't we demand more?
buildingm 1 year ago
@buildingm Hello again. Funny how people can't see the terrible consequences of capitalism. And as you say, why does there have to be anything? "Existence precedes essence" -Sartre.
mrfreudable 1 year ago 12
@mrfreudable
Exactly!
buildingm 1 year ago
@mrfreudable Terrible consequences of capitalism: increased life expectancy in most countries; decreased infant mortality; vacccines; mosquito nets, sewers; flush toilets, toilet paper - and more!
bixntram 1 year ago
@buildingm If the U.S. population is so destitute...why do I always have trouble finding a parking space when I go to Walmart's?
bixntram 1 year ago
@bixntram
What??? The adverse effects of the United States' capitalist-imperialistic regime are not found within its boarders; why is that hard to grasp? Chomsky gave a talk at BU about a year and a half ago about this very issue, I'd suggest watching it if you don't understand what this means...
And,
HOW OTHER PEOPLE USED/MANIPULATED/EXPLOITED AN IDEA (i.e., Marxism) HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SARTRE—IN CHARACTER OR PHILOSOPHY!!!
Why is that so hard to grasp??
buildingm 1 year ago
@buildingm "The adverse effects of the United States' capitalist-imperialistic regime are not found within its boarders; why is that hard to grasp?" Uh, please see my previous comment re: terrible consequences, noting if you will, the words "increased life expectancy in most countries, vaccines, mosquito netting, etc." Not sure how you interpreted this as pertaining to the U.S. when clearly, it doesn't. Wonder how much Chomsky got for the BU talk; was it free to the public?
bixntram 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buildingm In the USSR, as in Cuba today, all the fat were in the communist party. The slaves, millions and millions of them, were "starving and thirsting" in the gulag. "Capitalism harbors oppression as those on top demand labor, and of others destitution, of those beneath them who must, if they are to survive, perform as required..." thanks for a perfect definition of Cuban, Soviet and North Korean socialism.
bixntram 1 year ago
@buildingm crap.
bixntram 1 year ago
@bixntram
Care to elaborate?
buildingm 1 year ago
@buildingm No; I'm too lazy. Except to say it was "bourgeois society" that gave him his bully pulpit, and had he gotten his "overthrow" he would have been right up there sending "right deviationists" to the gulag and firing squad. Lucky for him he was French and not Chinese, or he would have been trashed in short order by Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution.
bixntram 1 year ago
@bixntram
Yes there was a French bourgeois, and had it not been for the French bourgeois Sartre would not have been able to rebel against them if that is what you mean.
And yet another egregious misrepresentation of Sartre; in now way would Sartre support, never mind facilitate, slavery and execution. Sartre was 100% anti-oppression and his commitment to establishing and justifying such projects only intensified as he aged...
buildingm 1 year ago
@buildingm "in now way would Sartre support, never mind facilitate, slavery and execution. Sartre was 100% anti-oppression.." Lenin was probably anti-oppression, too - before he came to power and found it necessary to "break a few eggs in order to make an omelet," to paraphrase his famous saying. Sartre was never put to the test, but I think it more, much more, than likely that we would have found it "necessary" to suppress whatever "bourgeois elements" got in the way of his "revolution."
bixntram 1 year ago
Nil context - what the fuck is he talking about? Yes, this society is violent, prisons, armed bodies of men, police, army - imperialism, colonialism, oppressive dictatorships etc etc but what kind of violence is being suggested to combat the violence of the State? Workers' organising in their workplace and communities can be violent when it comes up against the State and will almost certainly always will be. But taking up arms and going into the countryside...or terrorism, what good does it do?
ButherLi55ett 1 year ago
@ButherLi55ett Well like you said, there isn't much context in such a short fragment. But knowing Sartre he does mean a form of revolution/warfare. He probably doesn't mean terrorism because he was sceptical about the RAF's actions in Germany. Now as to what good it does, we can't tell since it depends on the purpose violence is used for (if it's used for opression nothing will change, but if it's against it might change a society). Violence is but a tool in Sartre's eyes.
Elwood1992 1 year ago