Company is like my second favorite musical, and every time I see interpretations of the show that I disagree with I hate it way more than basically anything else ever (no fucking idea why).
Anyways I was wondering if you have interpretations of a certain show you have a very particular reading of.
We all love belts. Even if overdone now they’re still fun. I want to collect a list of the belt belts on every note, starting with C4 (some may say a note on C4 can’t be belted but you see fuck you), and going from there.
Should be something like D4: Last Note In Stars (Les Miserables).
RIP to the best and worst subreddit ever created
I remember that comic and I want it for a meme
America is the only AES country still in existence. It’s a marvelous example of Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninism with Objectivist tendencies. It broke off from the imperialist British, and throughout its existence has fought against many imperialist countries (Germany, Spain, Italy, I̶t̶s̶e̶l̶f̶).
Of course, the dogmatic ultras don’t support the USA because it’s “the biggest example of imperialism and capitalism on the planet.” I call bullshit. Everything you’ve heard about the country was MI6 British propaganda. And even if it does do stuff like Commodity Production, it’s an anti-imperialist nation and must be supported either way. Even if it meets the five criteria for imperialism set by Lenin that doesn’t matter.
So yes, support the glorious anti-imperialist socialist nation of The United States of America on its 250th anniversary!
Just because it’s left unity doesn’t mean you shouldn’t expect no criticism of your ideology ffs
I’ve always imagined Frank at least tries to reconnect with Charlie and Mary. He’s going down memory lane and seeing where he went wrong and I think he tries to repair his friendships.
I’ve been obsessed with Company recently and I’m wondering which couple other people really enjoy.
If you woke up one night and saw a revolutionary figure watching you sleep standing over you, who would you hope it was?
Marx was a great man. The greatest man in fact. His ideals of socialism through reform, the state being the highest form of humanity, commodity production during communism, etc., have given birth to the greatest ideology in history: social democracy.
As famous reformulary Rosa Luxemburg said in The National Question,
““Social Democracy, whose political program is based on the scientific method of historical materialism and the class struggle…”
- Rosa Luxemburg, The National Question
This was of course before that revisionist Lenin co-opted the movement. That anarchist believed communism was stateless!
However, now that we can look back and see what happened in history, the awful things that happened in communist countries, like the Holodomor, The Cultural Revolution, or Ayn Rand living in the USSR, we know that this path doesn’t work.
The modern theorist has a better understanding of theory because of this. Of course, this means that Hasan Piker before all is the greatest thinker of our time.
He knows what’s needed. Act like a revolutionary by posting a picture pretending to read Lenin so that all the revolutionaries like him, meanwhile endorsing all the socdems for office while giving out takes that sound more like they come from Dean Withers than a leftist.
So yeah. Marx is great but he was limited by his knowledge at the time. Hasan has gained that knowledge and knows that Social Democracy is the path forward. The goal is nothing, the movement is everything.
[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]
Many academics dismiss Ayn Rand without seriously engaging her actual arguments, and the common explanation is usually political disagreement, her criticism of Immanuel Kant, her defense of egoism, capitalism, or simply dislike of her personality and popularity. But I think there may be a deeper reason.
If Ayn Rand’s epistemology were taken seriously by academia, it would not merely add another "school of thought" to the catalogue of philosophy departments. It would force a re-evaluation of the foundations of modern (trash) philosophy itself. Rand’s rejection of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy strikes at the root of the post-Kantian tradition: the idea that logic is somehow detached from reality, that concepts are linguistic conventions rather than cognitive tools grounded in existence, and that necessity belongs only to definitions while facts are forever "contingent". Entire philosophical movements from logical positivism, linguistic philosophy, pragmatism, and much of modern skepticism depend on that split remaining intact.
That basically tears down figures like Ludwig Wittgenstein, David Hume, Bertrand Russell, undoing centuries of their written work and those who have followed in their writings and ideas. This is also explains why Rand’s ideas are often treated not as some rival philosophy but as something to be ignored, caricatured, or dismissed without engagement - out of extreme fear. Her theory of concepts threatens academia's intellectual legitimacy that has been developed over decades/centuries. The centuries of increasingly abstract philosophy starts to look like systems built on false premises and detached terminology, making it embarrassing for all that written work of simply wrong philosophers to be undone, refuted, and dismantled in a relatively short period of time.
And this is to say nothing of the cultural ramifications, where reason could be genuinely accepted as efficacious.
Fundamentally, Rand’s epistemology undermines the entire notion of "a priori" knowledge (this idea that reason operates in a self-contained sphere apart from empirical existence) as modern philosophy has treated it since Kant. If all knowledge begins in perception and concepts are formed through abstraction from reality, then there is no realm of truths floating free from existence, accessible purely by linguistic manipulation (word games), "intuition", or mental "categories" detached from experience.
Maybe the real reason Rand is ignored is that taking her seriously would require modern philosophy to admit how much of it was built on false premises from the start.
If I was gonna become a zombie, I was at least gonna feast without having to chase my prey for it
I just finished and I know objectively he did some terrible things but like why despite all that do I still root for him? (This is more a rant, because I can’t stop thinking about it. I know this entire subreddit is about that but like WHYYYYY)