>mao zedong is based and we should follow him<\/span>
:false:<\/span>WRONG <\/span><\/span><\/strong>:jarty:<\/span>
<"With Freudianism, the artificiality of "literal" interpretation remained within the limits of psychopathology; with Surrealism it remained within the confines of literature; but with the Proletarian Left's pseudo-Maoists it is as if we were witnessing mass Freudian-Surrealism." ... "In May, the last barriers of Stalinism and bourgeois morality cracked. They are still in place but no one still believes in them. No matter how the simulacra of militant traditionalism try to come back like a bunch of old whores, it doesn't work anymore!"<\/span>
<\/span><\/span><\/span>- Felix Guattari <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>:true:<\/span>
Guattari, Félix. "Transversality." Psychoanalysis and Transversality: Texts and Interviews 1955–1971, translated by Ames Hodges, Semiotext(e), 2006, pp. 113-21.<\/span><\/em>
>ok but they are postmodernists though<\/span>
:false:<\/span>WRONG <\/span><\/span><\/strong>:jarty:<\/span>
<"The disgrace of being a Greek. The 'postmodern' is no more than the name for this disgrace... A period of slackness. We are told that we have lost the great narratives. But this is not the point. The point is that we no longer have the need for them, or for the concepts they carried."<\/span>
Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. What Is Philosophy? Translated by Hugh Tomlinson and Graham Burchell, Columbia UP, 1994, pp. 149-51.<\/span><\/em>
- Deleuze and Guattari <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>:true:<\/span>
>ok but deleuze didnt actually say this by himself though<\/span>
:false:<\/span>WRONG <\/span><\/span><\/strong>:jarty:<\/span>
<"I don't believe in the 'post-modern' anymore than I believe in the 'end of philosophy'<\/span>
- Gilles Deleuze <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>:true:<\/span>
Deleuze, Gilles. Negotiations, 1972-1990. Translated by Martin Joughin, Columbia University Press, 1995, p. 122<\/span><\/em>
>FUCK YOU at least mao isnt a fascist chud, desunigga<\/span><\/strong>
:false:<\/span>WRONG <\/span><\/span><\/strong>:jarty:<\/span>
<"Stalinism and fascism are generally placed in opposition, since they seemingly answer to radically different definitions, while the different forms of fascism have been placed under the same rubric. And yet, the differences are , perhaps, much greater between the fascisms than between certain aspects of Stalinism and certain aspects of Naziism. It is in no way contradictory to want to preserve these differences, and, at the same time, wish to disengage the continuity of a totalitarian machine which pursues its course through all structures: fascist, Stalinist, democratic bourgeois, etc. Without going all the way back to the Late Empire of Diocletian and Constantine, its filiation can be traced from the repression against the Communards of 1871 , right up to its present forms. In this way, different totalitarian systems produced different formulas for a collective, seizing of desire, depending on the transformation of productive forces and the relationships of production. We must endeavor to disengage its machinic composition, much as we would a chemical composition, but a social chemistry of desire which runs not only through History, but also through the whole social space. The historical transversality of the machines of desire on which totalitarian systems depend is, in fact, inseparable from their social transversality."<\/span>
- Felix Guattari <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>:true:<\/span>
Guattari, Félix. "Everybody Wants to be a Fascist" Chaosophy, edited by Sylvère Lotringer, Semiotext(e), 1995, pp. 92-93.<\/span><\/span><\/em>

Trend

Variant

Uncategorized

Comments(5)