Which of those was right?
>>1276900
Foucault doesn't belong in this mosaic. He was a neo-liberal.
>>1276900
Gandhi was right. I'm not actually sure who the others are anyway.
>>1276911
Still can be right/wrong/whatever
>>1276900
>>1276900
So the top two are Jeremy Irons and Gaben, right?
>>1276929
He was wrong even though some of his ideas on power can be interesting. Guy Debord was the closest to the truth. Orwell and Huxley had fantastic intuitions.
>>1276900
>>1276953
That little man is pure evil.
>>1276900
Huxley predicted Western styled control through please,Orwell predicted totalitarian-like "big brother" regimes in the East.
Foucault looks gay,and therefore his philosophy is untrue.
>>1276949
guy debord, baudrillard and deleuze will be fucking prophets 100 years from now
100% not memeing, Debord's thoughts on "the spectacle" are literally occurring before our very eyes. His political process wasn't that great, but he was a genius-tier theorist.
>>1277180
The thing is we have those totalitarian big brother regimes here in the west.
It's just the vast majority of people aren't worth spying on for anything other than targetted advertising. As was basically the case in 1984 as well.
>>1277180
>looks
lad...
Huxley desu
btw Orwell wasn't "predicting" anything, he wrote satire of what was already around him
>>1276931
Seeing as I've just finished reading BNW I can assuredly say this image is utter crock shit.
Huxley.
At least he was 'more right' than Orwell
brave new world was a kind of shitty book in my opinion it doesn't really know what it wants to say
>>1278755
No, they will be laughed as communists who tried to save their revolutionary project through scorched earth intellectual tactics.
>Hilaire Belloc
>Friedrich Hayek
>James Burnham
>Bertrand de Jouvenel
>Joseph Schumpeter
>Eric Hoffer
>Daniel Bell
All those had better insights, but because they were not communists, they are not fashionable.
>>1279279
do you ever think that maybe the reason they aren't fashionable is that they're disgusting authoritarian slug people?
>>1279289
Leddit
>>1279293
reddit loves free markets and being a smug prick
>>1279289
No, the reason they aren't fashionable is because their theories can't be used to increase the power of intellectuals.
>>1276900
Well, I suppose I should be ashamed to not know but anonymous boards are there to do what ashames us.
Who the fuck are the first two, beyond the name, and what did they write?
>>1279340
okay pol pot
>>1279343
Pol Pot was an intellectual.
>>1279347
maybe compared to you I guess
>>1278755
Baudrillard wasn't a prophet, what he was saying in the 90s was 100% topical and accurate even back then.
>>1279089
I just finished reading BNW and read that Postman article as a part of the same unit. What is wrong about the image?
>>1279347
>>1279349
>>1276900
None of them.
>>1279349
You called some of the most anti-authoritarian thinkers authoritarian slug people. Why are you even here?
>>1280140
nothing says anti-authoritarian like military coups and the catholic church
>>1276931
The idea either was "right" entirely is nonsense.
Taking the descriptions here, we've got both. Our world is a perfect dystopia: Best of all, the populace don't realize it. Those who do realize it quickly realize they have no political power.
itt: spooks
>>1276953
AAAAAA
>>1279279
>>Bertrand de Jouvenel
He really was an interesting guy, underrated as hell.
He was leftist-ish for a while btw.
>>1281007
I read On Power a while ago, pretty good. Bombastic, Nietzsche-tier style.
All of them to an extent
