"Cuba, theme park of communism, may as well be joined to Disney World."

What he mean?

Other urls found in this thread:


It's a stupid imitation of communism, much as Disney is a stupid imitation of America.

how is it an imitation

Yeah, what exactly is the problem with Cuba?
I'm assuming he wasn't talking about the gay gulags.

What he means by it?

I dunno. The 7th Doctor had a lot of funny lines.

He sounds like a total retard, stop posting him. Sage

Cuba was going revisionist since the 1980s. By the 90s it was well on its way to the Yugoslav model.

He radicalcentralbolgang

Well that's why people go there visiting, no? Same with North Korea.

He's just trying to sound smart. Out of all the French intellectuals of that period Baudrillard was the most full of shit. He was a sophist of the highest order, and Simulation and Simulacra is mostly a collection of pithy one-liners. His entire "intellectual" career was predicated on taking all the ideas from Debord's Society of the Spectacle and repackaging them in a new apolitical context.


What's your contribution you fucking zero? Baudrillard is the best. Debord #2.

He's talking about how values become murderous when they actualize themselves. Everyone here should agree except you're all naive communists. True communism embraces the entropy of the world, the fact that everything is turned into its opposite. No communists have hitherto embraced the dialectic, still keeping the phantom of value by which to judge and punish their fellows.

Communism is an amoral position but no communists have practiced it as such.

Fuck off CIA

Yup sounds just like the economist. His next sentence is that neoliberalism is just as bad, retard.


He's actually right.


I thought that was Deleuze and Guttari

He means never try to change anything because it always ends in 100 gorillion deaths because reasons.


Go suck off the US somewhere else, genocide apologist. Your ignorance will earn you praise somewhere else.

If theres a genocide apologist here it's not me fam.

Baudrillard has some interesting insights regarding concepts such as "hyperreality", but I think that denying that the objective no longer exists is inherently absurd, and if you're taking the position of a sophist then why even bother to make an argument?

Communist regimes killed lots of people, but

A) They didn't kill nearly that many.

B) Many of those killed weren't simply innocent victims, many were Nazi collaborators for example

C) Capitalism kills millions every year


Structuralism and post-structuralism (and indeed any non-Marxist philosophy) is just bourgeois decadence. Prove me wrong.

Is he right?

The sophists introduced the idea that truth is relative or doesnt exist, as well as agnosticism/atheism. Socrates is a faggot for assuming things like justice exist and then demanding people be able to define them which is impossible. Plato and Aristotle posit the abolute as the ultimate ground but its the height of contradiction (Plato- how do the forms cause things? Aris- how does god thinking about himself create the world?). Appealing to objective reality is weak thought. Baudrillard by my reading isnt saying things are no longer objective but that they could appear that way for a while but thats slipping now. Objectivity cant exist because it implies a unity of subject and object at which point there is nothing to say. Subjectivity cant exist either because it requires muh privileged knowledge by a person of themselves which doesnt exist.

Appealing to objective reality is just begging the question. Things are how they are. How do you know? Because "its obvious." If I claim god exists but cant prove it, you claim he doesnt and cant prove that either.

This relates to Marxism because on page 1 of capital he says the economy PRESENTS ITSELF as the accumulation of commodities, and that use value can satisfy hunger or "fancy," doesnt matter. in reality its all fancy. You cant appeal to objective reality because you cant define it- you must provide a perfect physics for this.

The reason this is a big deal of course is that we want to save scientific socialism and the inevitability of communism. I think this follows more the untenability of capitalism than the strength of communism which remains undefined. I am still learning about Marxism and philosophy of science, fascinating to me that Lenin hates hume when his critique of induction and causality are pretty indisputable