/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14240965]

Retroactively refuted the 21st century. Any other authors that did this?

[Anonymous No.14240985]

>>14240965
>Chen Xiangwei
based. idk who the white faggots are

[Anonymous No.14241009]

>>14240985
Ted Kaczynski and Jacques Ellul, you should really read them anon desu

[Anonymous No.14241354]

I can't get any info on "Chen Xiangwei". I'm already familiar with Ellul and Kacysnky, who's the other guy?

[Anonymous No.14241367]

>>14241354
CITIES could be here" he thought, "I've never been in this nation before. There could be CITIES anywhere." The revolutionary wind good against his bare chest. "I HATE CITIES" he thought as engine clicking reverberated his entire motorcycle, making it pulsate even as the fumes circulated through his powerful thick brains and washed away his (merited) fear of urban areas at any time of any day. "With a brain, you can go anywhere you want" he said to himself, out loud.

[Anonymous No.14241386]

>>14241367
Based

[Anonymous No.14241408]

>>14241009
this. the two most important thinkers of the last few centuries.

[Anonymous No.14241411]

>>14240985
kek

[Anonymous No.14241446]

>>14241367
Pol Pot was based, and Cambodian genocide may actually be Viet atrocity propaganda.

[Anonymous No.14241452]

>>14241446
I hope you aren't wearing glasses urbanite

[Anonymous No.14241456]

>>14241452
>tfw lasik
am I safe

[Anonymous No.14241459]

>>14241446
What exactly do you think he was right about?

[Anonymous No.14241461]

>>14241456
well, you were until you mentioned it.

[Anonymous No.14241477]

>>14240965
Pol Pot would be rather dangerous for /lit/ but thankfully we don't read

[Anonymous No.14241489]

>>14241477
fags like john green would get btfo. what's the problem? do you wear glasses?

[Anonymous No.14241541]

>>14241452
That's a stupid meme. There's a photo of Pol Pot wearing glasses, they didn't literally kill you for wearing glasses lmao.

[Anonymous No.14241592]

>>14241459
He was right about cities being a corrupting influence on society. the reason soviet communism failed was because it failed to expunge the urban element, which is inherently capitalistic.

By moving everyone in society into agricultural communes, you reach true Communism because everyone is truly equal. One of the first things Pol Pot did when he took power was ban money. You cannot have capitalism without capitol. Even i nthe Soviet system money existed, and this allowed for hoarding and individualism even within their Communist system.

Pol Pot is proven correct even from an anthropological perspective. Read "Tribe" by Sebastian Junger. He demonstrates that people are happiest when they live in tight social groups of mutual responsibility. Mental health improves and PTSD in veterans actually decreased during WWII in London despite the fact death could come at any moment. Reason was people were united in common cause. Same with soldiers. They miss the brotherhood of war because it's the only time in their lives where they aren't atomized individuals and they put the group well being in front of their own.

Junger also discusses how in tribal societies, individual hoarding is extremely discouraged, and typically results in hoarders getting killed by the other males in the tribe because the hoarder's behavior is seen as asocial and psychopathic. Compare this to capitalism, where selfishness is actively discouraged, and you can see the origins of many social ills.

The genius of Pol Pot is that he combined nationalism with agricultural socialism. It was a pure society, free of the negative impacts of anomie and pathological selfishness. It is extremely unfortunate that the Vietnamese invasion destroyed this society before it had a chance to really blossom.

The West goes along with Vietnamese atrocity propaganda because it a) allows them to demonize what is effectively the revolutionary antithesis of capitalism and the underpinnings of western society, and b) it makes US war crimes in SEA look justified by making the Khmer Rouge to be war criminals.

[Anonymous No.14241596]

>>14241541
t. Big (communist) Glass

[Anonymous No.14241597]

>>14241592
>Compare this to capitalism, where selfishness is actively discouraged, and you can see the origins of many social ills.

*meant selfishness is actively ENCOURAGED in a capitalist system.

[Anonymous No.14241612]

>>14241592
holy based, how do I take the pol pot pill?

[Anonymous No.14241622]

>>14241612
There used to be a small group of us on 8 chan on the /fascism (and third position) board, but we got scattered to the four winds. I want to make a Pol Pot general thread here.

For starters, just watch some autobiographies on his life, your local library may have some stuff on him, but literally everything you find will be biased against him in some way.

[Anonymous No.14242037]

>>14241592
So how many people did the Khmer regime kill?

[Anonymous No.14242190]

>>14241622
It's hard to understand Pol Pot that way when all there is to read about him is the various atrocities and ethnic cleansing.Was he anti-intellectual?

[Anonymous No.14242213]

>>14241592
>By moving everyone in society into agricultural communes,
what about the million other jobs apart from farming that people have to do

[Anonymous No.14242245]

>>14242213
Judging by the death toll estimates, either those jobs were just not done or not everyone was farming efficiently.

[Anonymous No.14242333]

>>14240965
Preemtively*, mr Seguro.

[Anonymous No.14243618]

>>14242213
Hard to say. I know they had mechanics and stuff, I don't know how they planned to sustain a modern degree of technology. They probably still had technical schools, but they were communes.

[Anonymous No.14243641]

>>14242190
I'm not sure. He himself was from a peasant background, but could be considered an intellectual because he studied in Paris (on scholarship). The regime would need intelligent people to sustain itself. I think he was more against metropolitanism, by which I mean using intellectualism to create class barriers, or isolating intellectuals from the masses.

[Anonymous No.14244759]

>>14240965

The adverb that you meant to use is "preemptively", OP.

[Anonymous No.14245336]

>>14241408
Eh, they've come to reasonable conclusions; but their rhetoric is pseud-tier. Just read Heidegger for all your anti-technicity needs.

[Anonymous No.14245361]

>>14242037
None, but they did set many trapped spirits free.

[Anonymous No.14245386]

>>14241592
https://youtu.be/-KTsXHXMkJA
>but unironically

[Anonymous No.14245402]

>>14240965
>'Retroactively'
Really, anon? Go finish your homework.

[Anonymous No.14245410]

>>14241592
>We had to destroy the village in order to save the village.
>If you become the bug you will not have to eat the bugs.

[Anonymous No.14245418]

>>14245402
>Retroactively finishes his homework.

[Anonymous No.14245430]

>>14241592
>It is extremely unfortunate that the Vietnamese invasion destroyed this society before it had a chance to really blossom.
The people were dipping dead at such a high pace the blossoming meant the viets wouldn't even had to fight anything had they waited two more years.
Imagine being invaded by my ho chi min and it's unironically an improvement.

[Anonymous No.14246907]

>>14245336
>rhetoric is pseud-tier
that's a joke.

kaczynski is lucid, direct. heidegger is obfuscated, obscure.

[Anonymous No.14247000]

>>14245410
Lol. That kid is so full of shit

[Anonymous No.14247120]

>>14247000
How so?

[Anonymous No.14247167]

>>14246907
Heidegger is perhaps the most clear and direct philosopher out there. I hate this anglo myth that he's obscure. It's just really hard to translate german to english.

[Anonymous No.14247282]

>>14245336
Is Heidegger anti-tech though?

[Anonymous No.14247320]

>>14247282
Yes; he emphasized the enframing quality of technicity. How technology surrounds and ulitmately consumes the human, in the aspect of being »human». That's basically kaczynskijs entire philosophy if we were to try to un-bastardize it.

[Anonymous No.14247440]

>>14247320
how is teds philosophy bastardized? He kept his terrorism separate.

[Anonymous No.14247688]

>>14247440
I just meant that one could consider Ted's philosophy to be a bastardization of Heidegger's.

[Anonymous No.14247701]

>>14241446
hello cia

[Anonymous No.14247856]

>>14241592
this is the most fucking ridiculous take I have seen on this board

[Anonymous No.14247870]

>>14247856
This is how your brain copes when presented with an idea of something so contrary to your perceived truth. Give it 5 years and you'll say "at last I truly see" when someone brings up Pol Pot, unless you're urbanite scum. God bless.

[Anonymous No.14247892]

>>14247688
Globohomo swears Heidegger was inspired by Aristotle, but I'd say this "enframing" relates more to Platonic philosophy, the sort of thinking which predates discussions of technological determinism and memes, each in their own referring back to conceptual objects having autonomous ontology outside their relation to us.

I'm not going to place much stock in any of these millennia-old commentaries. Nor am I inclined to insist Heiddeger's done all the work Ellul tried to do such that we've no need for the latter.

I'm tired of this bullshit besides.

[Anonymous No.14247912]

>>14241592
very based senpai
been unironically thinking about Pol Pot for a while now, seeing other people reaching similar conclusions (and being a lot further along the way) gives it a lot of legitimacy in my eyes
Are there any specific books or documentaries you can recommend on him?

[Anonymous No.14248012]

>>14240965
>black and white pictures of dead people
>RETROactively refuted the 21st century
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST SAY RETROACTIVELY WHEN YOU ACTUALLY MEAN PREEMPTIVELY

[Anonymous No.14248096]

>>14241446
Hello Mr. Chomsky, how are you today?

[Anonymous No.14248105]

>>14248096
Literally the opposite of what he said. He supported them early on, but quickly recanted and publicly denounced them once Cambodian genocide became canon.

[Anonymous No.14248119]

>>14247856
I posted that, and your reaction has filled me with genuine satisfaction. Time to wake the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.14248126]

>>14245430
More like the us dropping more bombs on Cambodia than they did in all of ww2 combined with a civil war and spill over from Vietnam caused all those excess deaths.

Although, if the us hadn't bombed Cambodia, Khmer Rouge would probably have struggled to have ever come to power.

[Anonymous No.14248160]

>>14248119
Is Laos based or no

[Anonymous No.14248164]

>>14247912
Start with "Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare" . It's obviously biased against him, but still provides lots of background reading and insights.

Also go on youtube and search for pol pot biographies: https://youtu.be/Bk_ezm5gVnc

[Anonymous No.14248171]

>>14248160
No idea lol, need to read up on it. I think Pol Pot was the most extreme out of all the cold war era south east Asians.

[Anonymous No.14248233]

>>14248171
I read an article from some sectlet communist group and the impression it gave was that Laos was basically Vietnam lite but with waay less urban development because there's still loads of uncleared mines/ordinance fucking everywhere from the war. So kinda I guess. I've never read anything about Pol Pot.

[Anonymous No.14248414]

>>14241367
Kek.

[Anonymous No.14248554]

>>14241592
>>14241592
If this is true, why were the kolkhozs and sovkhozs such failures? Cities are corrupting, sure, but they are a corollary to rationalization and bureaucratization. "True" communism will never address this because it relies on a metaphysics of rational processes (i.e. progress).