we live in a world (Twitter) where, upon reading something we are surprised by, we, without faces to read, find ourselves stalking profiles. Then we can relieve ourselves: "oh, they're insane", "oh, they're stupid", "oh, they're a fascist".
My entire affair with Marxism has been centered on the acceptance of two things: Marx was right about labor and capitalism; Marx was incredibly unfamiliar with prophecy, poetry, and revolution. Read his stuff on Shakespeare and you're immediately disillusioned!
I want to add or clarify that him being "right" about "labor" is a very particular thing to say because I am not talking about how, exactly or completely, I use the word.
Many people, including myself, need to study how the US has dominated the world economically and militarily for many decades. That domination is called capitalist imperialism. In short, capitalism cannot be reformed.
And by complicated I really do mean simple...
"So, when you are deprived of health - that is to say dead - seize the quick, seize health, which is life."
4th Book, Rabelais
And, to be generous, I do believe Mr. Christian is right that there exists a contradiction in the US left's rejection of certain historical names whilst obviously still holding on to the sacred woods such names feasted from.
It is funny, too, that Mr. Christian has to imply that those who support and demand, by PRIOR AGREEMENT, democracy, REGARDLESS of whether they, through it, could find and require its DISSOLUTION, must be ignorant or "chauvinistic" about the thing they support!
We differ precisely because he selects which historical names deserve praise! I advise anyone who sets one of two men he doesn't know as praiseworthy or as worth aversion to recognize what we both know better: to do something else. Praise alone is judgment!
Yet again, it's clear, for some reason in a way foreign to Shakespeare or Milton, that quoting Jefferson would for these CHAUVINISTS immediately excuse their attention. And be it last my duty to demand attention where it does not by choice follow!
I actually think this is why leftists can't "meaningfully oppose imperialism." you don't want to have *a conversation* with those you'd like to persuade. Why? Because persuasion is irrelevant! Because you, through intellect, in a room, alone, have found reason against democracy!
It is funny, too, that Mr. Christian has to imply that those who support and demand, by PRIOR AGREEMENT, democracy, REGARDLESS of whether they, through it, could find and require its DISSOLUTION, must be ignorant or "chauvinistic" about the thing they support!
I have and always will classify this strain of Grown Knowledge as both beautifully youthful, almost distinctly American, which beckons me to leave undisturbed these "monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
Obsession, or identity, and stupidity, or failure; how frustration, the abrasion our obsession acquires, by swearing something so surely to be ourself or not ourself, hides us from flooding victory!
I also know when my greatest lovers most become my greatest enemies we to rooms of great conversation are near! All I ask is for you to follow me in... Or for you to lead me there...
I know well my lovers here are more my enemies when to the things we love most our laws and attitude clash. How can you of words full find a face sober to the reports? Were my face less than awe, its words I allegiance reject.
I know well my lovers here are more my enemies when to the things we love most our laws and attitude clash. How can you of words full find a face sober to the reports? Were my face less than awe, its words I allegiance reject.
Good poetry requires a medium worth listening to. Each great poet is born and breezed into their form, and with it find nothing familiar, and it is most definitely not their medium, which itself is the easy yoke
I, a murderous mutineer who you might to Amend marry, make difficult the desire to exclude and distinguish this from that or I from you, by from your words yourself distancing, to give order for action from here.
but I do think there's some fairness to it paralleling Marx's lordly quality of the economic, and why only through a critic's eyes could you separate our satisfied attitude toward the life around us from the part of it, just as close, that REQUIRES our movement and action.
“Mute compulsion” does not explain why we sustain capitalism; it just describes the *fact* that we do. To take ourselves to be compelled by economic law is to fall prey to the very fetishism of capital as economic law that Marx diagnoses.
but I do think there's some fairness to it paralleling Marx's lordly quality of the economic, and why only through a critic's eyes could you separate our satisfied attitude toward the life around us from the part of it, just as close, that REQUIRES our movement and action.
if pornography is bad, it is probably bc it degrades one's power of imagination, not because it encourages one to imagine bad things. in essence, it is bad bc it is television.