/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13351280]

Was he right?

[Anonymous No.13351290]

His prognosis? Yes.
His proposed solution? No.

[Anonymous No.13351294]

>>13351290
What is the proper solution?

[Anonymous No.13351304]

>>13351294
Read his manifesto, it's only 34 pages long

[Anonymous No.13351312]

>>13351290
Holy fuck.

[Anonymous No.13351346]

No. You can't just ignore development. Look at what happened with Mao and he was even worse than that.

[Anonymous No.13351370]

>>13351346
Development that isn't sustainable should be ignored. Ted was right. Energy collapse soon.

[Anonymous No.13351373]

>>13351280
Generally speaking yes, though some of his minor examples are a bit unusual or questionable. Some of his methods and ideas about the specific path of revolution are wrong imo. For instance, he seems to refuse gradual change and wants swift revolution (iirc, read the manifesto a while ago); the idea that a swift global luddite revolution will destroy all technology and traces/information regarding technology is ludicrous, though I otherwise think a lot of people would agree with his views.

Of course murdering people is obviously questionable but I think his later victims, who seemed more carefully chosen, would really be the types people could get behind. Random professors and minor business owners less so. That being said I think he was secretly doing it out of anger, especially in the earlier cases, less out of strict political/philosophical motivation.

[Anonymous No.13351387]

>>13351304
pretty sure it's longer than that

[Anonymous No.13351402]

>>13351294
The Foundation for Exploration

[Anonymous No.13351421]

nah didn't go high enough the guys that received anything were fucking nobodies

[Anonymous No.13351452]

>>13351421
The later victims were a bit better, like a logging lobbyists and an ad man. The computer store owner was a bad choice though.