fiquata

"Dear @Fiquata, before condemning me—which, by the way, is legitimate—I recommend that you read some texts about the years of lead, and if you want, I can point you to the right titles. Then we can discuss it again. I’m not sure how the political violence of that time relates to today's even more gratuitous homophobia. As for communism, read Marx's manifesto and compare it with the various interpretations made in the last century, or at the very least, read 'The Century of Communisms' published by Net, and we can discuss it again. If I’m a poor thing, too bad. Fortunately, very few people tell me that, if not in extremely rare isolated cases. For further discussions, I’m at your disposal. Thanks anyway for your preference." This is your post, where is the question? What should I respond to? Don’t tell me you won’t answer, at most I’ll offend you.

Watched it last night by chance. I had the usual prejudices because Timberlake (or however it's spelled), Sharon Stone, and Bruce Willis don’t exactly make a star-studded cast; in fact, quite the opposite. However, I watched it and was pleasantly surprised. It doesn't have many keys to interpretation, and this is because it's almost a documentary, yet it works. In some ways, with certain themes and outcomes, it reminded me of Van Sant, a mix of the Van Sant from Elephant and Paranoid Park, of course with the necessary proportions and considering that this aims to entertain a wider audience. It's a falsely superficial film, but it actually delves into the characters and consequently the story, all without false romanticism. I agree with everything you say in the review. Well done.

Let's start with the fact that not everyone can speak about everything, and I know Marx (not to brag, as there's nothing to brag about, unfortunately) inside out. Marx is, as Sorel said, "a call for caution." Marx preached patience, forecasting the new system only after the "final crisis" of the capitalist system, which was supposed to collapse in on itself because it was based on balances that are actually imbalances. He did not advocate for any revolution before this moment (which we are still waiting for, illustrating the supposed scientific nature of Marxism), so much so that orthodox Marxists did not appreciate the Russian Revolution; on the contrary, they opposed it because it happened "not in England" and in a country where "the bourgeoisie was yet to be created." This is why I was asking the reviewer about post-Marxist quarrels and whether they were aware of them, since they explain many things for those who would like to understand communism... assuming, of course, that there is something to understand. Take it easy, in short, you talk about Marx and you don’t even know what he meant by "final crisis," and then you come to question me in an inquisitorial manner. What is it?

Here we go. From fascist massacre to Red Brigades stuff. The Italian state thanks you for the sublime performance.

"Irrational because it struck blindly... I know it's horrible to say, but at least these homophobic assholes have a target, namely the gays." And I think you are right, and it's terrible.

"a single jerk" Who tells you it's a single jerk? Who tells you it isn't those from the right-wing social centers who organize for moments of relaxation? "beating up a gay is the same as the irrational terrorism of those years?" 1) I don't understand "irrational" in relation to terrorism, since terrorism cannot be rational; otherwise, what kind of terrorism would it be? 2) I prefer two people fighting (and everything that follows) for political reasons (or presumed ones) rather than a gay person beaten up just for being gay. I prefer political motivations; at least there’s a veiled ontology of good underneath (or so it seems). What is going on in the mind of someone who beats up a gay person? 3) I'm not pro-terrorism, if that's what bothers you. I'm pro-activism, of any kind. Essentially, I don't mind opinions different from mine; I rarely consider them to the point of being bothered. It annoys me (not too much, just to say) that someone writes, "People who claimed and fought for communism but didn't understand a damn thing about it," from what position? Who are they? Do they know the post-Marxist debates (because if they did, they wouldn't be so sure)? Do they know these "terrorists" one by one to say they understood nothing? And then they throw in all the clichés that the "civilized" world has established for this topic. And no. Anyway, I'm not interested in entering into polemics. The world is already finished; everyone is rowing in the same direction, and I couldn't care less about being Don Quixote.

Listen to me, I’m telling you sincerely: you’re a poor thing. You’ve practically managed to gather all the clichés that certain left-wing (crap) parties, let’s say the PD, use to condemn certain things. The final list is really the pinnacle of rhetoric, goodism, and empty populism. “People who demanded and fought for communism but didn’t understand a damn thing about communism.” And who knows what there is to understand, given that communism is activism and STOP. If it were up to Marx, we’d all be waiting for the final crisis, sitting around the fire. “You could be KILLED or BEATEN TO A PULP if you committed certain crimes, like daring to wear an eskimo, a kefiah, some boots, being suspected of belonging to the reds or the blacks, hanging out in that bar or living in that neighborhood.” Instead, today it’s better; they only beat you up if they think you’re gay, so watch out not to sashay too much when you walk. Anyway, remember: you’re a poor thing.

Although I prefer Max Stirner to Bakunin about three billion times... if a fifteen-year-old, but not only them, any fool would be fine as an example, reads Stirner, they take away practically nothing because they lack all the tools to understand, and furthermore, they interpret it as being much better to screw over their neighbor before their neighbor thinks of doing it first. More or less, Stirner would end up with the same fate as the ubermensch turned into a super-man, and that’s not a good thing.

I saw the writer's work this morning. Tomorrow I'll try to find something of theirs since I already attempted it with the review of Odra, and it didn't go well. I'll give it another shot, alright. Thank you.

I see you've loosened your belt and are living it up. Well done :) Lukin, with that hairy-eyed look, you've earned my de-love. I'm going to give a spritz and my regards to the kicking lady.