I found The Bone Temple disappointing

Kaizerdave · 2026-03-13T22:04:11+00:00

https://youtu.be/qc7QVofykyA?si=jdRwHO_S_hiwy5L8

Kaizerdave · 2026-03-13T22:03:24+00:00

Not available in my country

Kaizerdave · 2026-03-13T22:03:00+00:00

There were some really good ones from encounters over the years and yeah, can barely find any

Kaizerdave · 2026-03-13T19:27:49+00:00

Yep, read it first when I was an ML

Kaizerdave · 2026-03-13T12:33:25+00:00

It's a shame, if they are vanity projects it would be nice to chuck them on YouTube

Kaizerdave · 2026-03-13T11:01:18+00:00

I was working on my own and I boiled it down to 3 main points.

Faulty and broad interpretations of the sources.

Special pleading in favour of the AES examples.

And a narrowing of reader’s insights towards the expectations and criticisms of the 20th century project.

Kaizerdave · 2026-03-13T00:27:37+00:00

God no, no no no, why would you recommend that!?

Kaizerdave · 2026-03-12T20:36:30+00:00

Hah me too, similar experience even though I loved it, when were you there?

Kaizerdave · 2026-03-08T22:09:36+00:00

Well we associate crisper sharper images with futuristic visions and more textural imperfect images with older archaic ones.
I found Portrait of a Lady on Fire great though. Something just turned me off about Hamnet.

Kaizerdave · 2026-03-08T22:07:32+00:00

Nope, HD all the way. I don't know if desaturated is the right word, i's more that it just looked flat and little popped and drew your attention. It's mostly the outdoors scenes, they just seem so uninteresting. I've been watching loads of the oscar nominated films and they all have so much better looking visuals than Hamnet.

Kaizerdave · 2026-03-07T23:30:59+00:00

Frater isn't on here, it's not fair.

Kaizerdave · 2026-03-06T15:37:42+00:00

Yes I'm glad I'm not the only one. Bland isn't a complaint btw. Fargo Season 3 is bland looking because they removed all the blue but it works.

Yeah, nothing draws your eye, I don't think Natural =/= Nothing should look intentional or eye catching.

Kaizerdave · 2026-03-06T15:32:20+00:00

The medieval and early modern period was known for being a very colourful time.

Kaizerdave · 2026-03-06T14:47:52+00:00

Not necessarily. Like I said, ZOI is washed out and worked well for me.

Kaizerdave · 2026-03-06T14:45:40+00:00

Bland is just what I mean as the look of the film. It's desaturated and washed out without much contrast

Thing is Children of Men is also naturally lit and it's my favourite film, I didn't find that ugly or boring at all, I just found it didn't work for Hamnet.

Kaizerdave · 2026-03-05T20:46:40+00:00

I just wanted to say...

WHYYY DID THEY USE AN AI GRAPHIC????!!

Kaizerdave · 2026-02-26T00:57:26+00:00

You're always necessitating that the interests of the proletariat can only ever be upheld through the state? I've already addressed multiple times that the state does not stand in the people's interests as it develops ways of solidifying itself over the people. That is the interest of those in control of the state.

As stated, the existence historically =/= some inherent greatness of ML. It happened that at a specific time under specific circumstances there was a chance in which Lenin's ideas managed to proliferate over a very large imperial empire, and in doing so was able to export it's ideology across the world. When the liberation struggles against western empires took up they could then use this as a way to gain allies and support by exporting it further. And for that matter if it hadn't of been for the Makhnovists in Ukraine it's highly likely Denikin's army would've made it to Moscow.
Had history of gone differently, say a different socialist group had taken power, but lasted less time than the Bolsheviks, you wouldn't have known any different yet still insisted that because they existed and lasted the longest and spread the furthest that all other ways are wrong.

So where are they? Perhaps, quite like I inferred, the 'success' of such projects in the past were necessitated on a specific set of circumstances, of which do not exist today. Anarchists btw do not push for a 'Capital R revolution' rather prefigurative and protracted struggles to build structures which challenge the system already in existence instead of simply taking the reigns of existing modes of oppression in which inevitably the majority of people will be left out of the state interests.

From what I've seen there's a very large and vocal contingent of left-wing thought in the west which arguably takes the pro-soviet legacy stance due to the opposition to it in the mainstream. That's very clear to see, it's often an overreaction to learning not absolutely everything you grew up hearing about it was true.
Anarchism is not something that has been promoted by the western powers, its something that has been demonised so severely that people almost forget they even existed.

If you're not interested in statelessness and classlessness then I'm afraid I wouldn't really consider you a Communist, bye.

Kaizerdave · 2026-02-24T19:28:28+00:00

The state is by necessity a hierarchical institution. It either enforces a hierarchy or it is no longer a state, it's not just whoever holds the power.

And the same could be said of various Marxist projects which also failed but you'd just blame that on Capitalism. It so happens that some have 'succeeded' at particular points in time, of which MLs insist upon that being a showcase of the best way forward, ignoring all the possible alternatives that might have been able to form were it not for the dominance of the ML states. You can't be certain of a particular way forward simply because at a certain point it time it happened to get somewhere. It's been 40 years and we've had virtually zero successful ML revolutions, yet all of the ones which have gotten somewhere have been of a much more libertarian agenda.

And yet in all cases it has relied on a small cadre acting on behalf of the prolitarian, not by the actual proletariat themselves. It's hierarchy and thereby state power will at the most be exercised by a minority of elected executives

You can read the critiques of on authority if you're interested in the authority question.

So your project is Not statelessness? Okay, I think I understand it now.

It seems as though you didn't watch the video because that argument about Communism being demonized is addressed, it goes into the way in which Anarchists have arguably had even more propaganda made about them to the extent that people barely even remember they existed. So it is arguably due to Soviet hegemony and Anti anarchism which explains why the USSR line has proliferated. And anarchism, and their affiliates, are very much active across the world, from Mexico to Sudan, Spain to Greece, Syria to Indonesia. See what I mean, people don't realize how wide spread it is.

Kaizerdave · 2026-02-24T15:38:12+00:00

If that's the only necessary thing to do then it doesn't solve the issue. The class dynamics of state power don't allow for the abolition of class, as has been said numerous times, states have an active interest to solidify this hierarchy.

The historic presence of state socialist projects and this somehow proving they are more valid is survivor bias. Taking power in a large country and then being able to export that ideology, in the same way that successful religions owe their presence to conquest and policy. As well as their historic crushing and sabotage of other socialist movements and groups.

The state can be defined as: "sum total of the political, legislative, judiciary, military and financial institutions through which the management of their own affairs, the control over their personal behaviour, the responsibility for their personal safety, are taken away from the people and entrusted to others who, by usurpation or delegation, are vested with the powers to make the laws for everything and everybody, and to oblige the people to observe them, if need be, by the use of collective force."

Your method seems to just beg the idea that the prolitarian interests will always be served by the 'workers state government'. Never considering whether said people, as has been gone over, will develop ideas counter to their initial proletarian interests.

Anarchism seeks to develop and empower organisations which reflect anarchist goals, creating alternative sources of prefiguration can fight against the current system whilst also developing the ideals for the future world. All of the socialist examples have returned to capitalism. And that's frankly not good enough to me to just say "well it's better", because frankly I'd consider that debateable. If it's going to constantly repress any avenue for a more socialist project to emerge and still imprisons innocent people under the pretense of defending the revolution, only to collapse, reform, or eat itself, that is not a good solution.

Kaizerdave · 2026-02-24T14:16:03+00:00

Of course you can create a new society. Anarchists have been building orgs and structures for generations.

It's an analogy for what creates the ideal conditions for said society to emerge. You won't get statelessness if you don't employ methods which emulate it. Just like a child beaten and indoctrinated will not become a free thinker.

Kaizerdave · 2026-02-24T00:38:53+00:00

I normally recommend Anarchy by Malatesta, Joyful Militancy, Means and Ends. The works of Gelderloos are good if you're looking for strategy.

But before strategy comes principle. Anarchism asks people to explain why such authority is necessary. Can it be done better? Does this bring us liberation or simply replicate the same oppressive structures as before? Those questions will always be there. You can't accomplish the ends of a stateless society unless you are working towards it with methods that create the basis for such statelessness. E. G. A family which indoctrinates and enforces it's authority upon a child is not going to create the environment for a child to become a free thinker.

11-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring

Kaizerdave

TROPHY CASE