Which of those was right?

Which of those was right?

Foucault doesn't belong in this mosaic. He was a neo-liberal.

Gandhi was right. I'm not actually sure who the others are anyway.

Still can be right/wrong/whatever

...

So the top two are Jeremy Irons and Gaben, right?

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.

...

That little man is pure evil.

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.

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.

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.

>looks

lad...

Huxley desu

btw Orwell wasn't "predicting" anything, he wrote satire of what was already around him

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

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.

do you ever think that maybe the reason they aren't fashionable is that they're disgusting authoritarian slug people?

Leddit

reddit loves free markets and being a smug prick

No, the reason they aren't fashionable is because their theories can't be used to increase the power of intellectuals.

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?

okay pol pot

Pol Pot was an intellectual.

maybe compared to you I guess

Baudrillard wasn't a prophet, what he was saying in the 90s was 100% topical and accurate even back then.

I just finished reading BNW and read that Postman article as a part of the same unit. What is wrong about the image?

...

None of them.

You called some of the most anti-authoritarian thinkers authoritarian slug people. Why are you even here?

nothing says anti-authoritarian like military coups and the catholic church

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

AAAAAA

>>Bertrand de Jouvenel
He really was an interesting guy, underrated as hell.
He was leftist-ish for a while btw.

I read On Power a while ago, pretty good. Bombastic, Nietzsche-tier style.

All of them to an extent