REDS

Guest

has anyone seen it?

i loved it

although i wish they had focused more on the actual history rather than the annoying love story...

Subject: Re: REDS Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:37 am

what?

Subject: Re: REDS Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:30 pm

commie bullshit

Subject: Re: REDS Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:16 am

What is the rating? I'm not allowed to see R and only some pg-13.

Subject: Re: REDS Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:31 am

Pannekoek wrote:: What is the rating? I'm not allowed to see R and only some pg-13.

i lol'd

Anyway, I agree with MarxistFreeman's comment.

Guest

Pannekoek wrote:: What is the rating? I'm not allowed to see R and only some pg-13.

this is part of our youth oppression

lol

fucking reactionary family values

i'm pretty sure it is R they sey fuck 5 times

Subject: Re: REDS Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:47 am

Quote :: i lol'd

It;s funny but actually it's true.

Subject: Re: REDS Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:59 am

Pannekoek wrote:

Quote :: i lol'd

It;s funny but actually it's true.

That's why its funny.

Subject: Re: REDS Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:04 am

Truth is funny alot. Like history. Marx used to say that history repeated itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Still trying to decipher what that means.

Guest

I think he means the second time there is an illusion that is glazed over it in order to obscure the tragedy it really is....

im speculating...

Subject: Re: REDS Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:11 am

He was elaborating on something Hegel said:
"Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." -wikipedia

Guest

perhaps the second time people believe it not to be true?

idk im just throwing shit out there lol

i bet my comrades know....

Subject: Re: REDS Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:21 am

Maybe it doesn't mean anything and he was just making a joke?

But yeah ask them.

Subject: Re: REDS Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:12 am

MarxistFreeman wrote:: I think he means the second time there is an illusion that is glazed over it in order to obscure the tragedy it really is....

im speculating...

Best example: Pre-1950s Tibet = tradegy Dalai Lama = farce

Aimrite?!

Subject: Re: REDS Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:12 am

Pannekoek wrote:: Truth is funny alot. Like history. Marx used to say that history repeated itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Still trying to decipher what that means.

He wrote that in the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louie Napoleon where he then gives the Second French Empire as an example. He states that the First Republic and the First Empire were the farce to Rome, as he says, it was done in "Roman dress". He then goes on to explain that the Second Empire a farce to the tragedy of Napoleon's, hence the title. Read sections I and IV for a better understanding.

Subject: Re: REDS Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:14 am

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:: Best example: Pre-1950s Tibet = tradegy Dalai Lama = farce

Aimrite?!

Not quite, there has not been an attempt to recreate the feudal state of Tibet.

Subject: Re: REDS Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:22 am

oligarch wrote:: Not quite, there has not been an attempt to recreate the feudal state of Tibet.

True. True. But Dalai surpresses the original Tibetian Buddhists as well. Perhaps even more so than China...

Case and Point. The Swiss.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5sOm-uQH9Y

Guest

The Lama and the priest class want to be "freed" so that they can reestablish their feudalist rule

Subject: Re: REDS Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:29 am

History has not repeated itself though.

Subject: Re: REDS Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:33 am

nillerz wrote:: commie bullshit

The movie is a pretty accurate depiction of the time.

Guest

oligarch wrote:: History has not repeated itself though.

you don't think we have made the same mistakes more than once?

or are you being literal?

Subject: Re: REDS Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:32 am

MarxistFreeman wrote:

oligarch wrote:: History has not repeated itself though.

you don't think we have made the same mistakes more than once?

or are you being literal?

I meant in regards to Tibet, and I mean history repeating itself in the sense that sense of how Rome was repeated in France and how France repeated itself.

Subject: Re: REDS Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:23 pm

Well of course it doesn't repeat exactly the same but it repeats all right.

Guest

ive seen it
and i liked it but the love story was to annoying
and it dragged on a bit
but
i would take Ten Days That Shook The World over it any day.
still good though.
and ftw its R

and it means the first time is a terrible tradgy and the second as a joke pretty much
like the nazi party and the republican party