Was Bukowski an anarchist?

118 posts / 0 new
Last post
AnrBjotk's picture
AnrBjotk
Offline
Joined: 14-08-10
Jul 24 2011 12:22
Steven. wrote:
AnrBjotk wrote:
Jason Cortez wrote:
"Why would you beat your own wife? I mean she is YOUR wife. It's like keying your own car..." I am not sure what you are going on about here, as I was clearly using "your" in the relationship sense rather than ownership. A common conventional usage which I don't see how you could misinterpret, given the context. So thanks for your oh so clever and amusing witticism.
So let me ask you.....Do you think Budowski's wife was asking for it?

No, she didn't. Very few women do. However, Bukowski, like me, was rejected systematically by women through his entire teens, so it's natural that he had a love-hate relationship with them.
LIke me he wanted to love women, but was refused the right, this creates a lot of anger and hatred...

Yeah, that is some massively dodgy shit. You don't have the "right" to do anything with other people's bodies.

If you were rejected systematically, there is a reason for that!

And as for you having a lot of "anger and hatred", presumably towards women as a result is totally mental. And then you wonder why they rejected you…

Did they reject me because I was angry, or did I become angry because I was rejected? Which one makes more sense... Read Bukowski's and Houllebeqcs books and you will see what happens to men when they are systematically rejected for not being sexually 'good enough'... I do not condone rape, in fact I consider it the most atrocious act of mankind; But you can understand that when you want to love someone and they tell you that you are not allowed, it creates anger...

But this is besides the point. Was Buk an anarchist? He felt secure with a job, but was this under duress... Did he in fact dream of a world where he could write and be free without pressure to be a slave?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 24 2011 12:41
AnrBjotk wrote:
Did they reject me because I was angry, or did I become angry because I was rejected? Which one makes more sense...

I would think the fact that you seem to be emotionally disturbed would be the reason for both the rejection and the anger.

Quote:
But you can understand that when you want to love someone and they tell you that you are not allowed, it creates anger...

if you are emotionally disturbed, or a misogynist with a warped sense of entitlement maybe.

Seriously, look at your reasoning here, and the language you are using. You can love whoever the hell you want, you don't have to have someone "allow" you to do that - but that doesn't mean that you have the right to be with or fuck whoever you want.

Primitivists are weird.

darren p's picture
darren p
Offline
Joined: 5-07-06
Jul 24 2011 12:44
AnrBjotk wrote:
Did they reject me because I was angry, or did I become angry because I was rejected? Which one makes more sense... Read Bukowski's and Houllebeqcs books and you will see what happens to men when they are systematically rejected for not being sexually 'good enough'... I do not condone rape, in fact I consider it the most atrocious act of mankind; But you can understand that when you want to love someone and they tell you that you are not allowed, it creates anger...

Just because you 'want to love someone' doesn't mean they're obliged to reciprocate it, and if rejection causes you to get angry then I'd say they'd probably made the right choice.

If you're getting 'systematically rejected' it's because you're approaching women who aren't interested, you need to learn about body language or something.

AnrBjotk's picture
AnrBjotk
Offline
Joined: 14-08-10
Jul 24 2011 13:47
darren p wrote:
AnrBjotk wrote:
Did they reject me because I was angry, or did I become angry because I was rejected? Which one makes more sense... Read Bukowski's and Houllebeqcs books and you will see what happens to men when they are systematically rejected for not being sexually 'good enough'... I do not condone rape, in fact I consider it the most atrocious act of mankind; But you can understand that when you want to love someone and they tell you that you are not allowed, it creates anger...

Just because you 'want to love someone' doesn't mean they're obliged to reciprocate it, and if rejection causes you to get angry then I'd say they'd probably made the right choice.

If you're getting 'systematically rejected' it's because you're approaching women who aren't interested, you need to learn about body language or something.

They are not obliged to reciprocate anything. And please do not assume that when I talk of love I talk about sex. I have little interest in sex. It bores me.
As for there being something wrong with me, I can see that. But doesn't everyone deserve love (and I do not mean fucking)? If people tell you that you are worthless everyday, if every woman you approach tells you that, you have a few options. One, accept that and commit suicide. Two, try to change yourself (tried that, tried every "personality" possible, nice, shy, cool, angry, aggressive, relaxed, proactive,etc) and Three, come to the conclusion that you are not the one in the wrong, but that it is the worlds fault, that we live in a society where if you are not a certain type, you may as well be dead (Nr 2)

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jul 24 2011 14:29

Revol beat me to it, but you don't need politics, you need therapy.

Quote:
I have little interest in sex. It bores me.

Think how she must feel....

AnrBjotk's picture
AnrBjotk
Offline
Joined: 14-08-10
Jul 24 2011 14:40
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Revol beat me to it, but you don't need politics, you need therapy.
Quote:
I have little interest in sex. It bores me.

Think how she must feel....

Pardon?

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jul 24 2011 15:20

Well if you find sex boring, I can't imagine your past partners have found much enjoyment in it...

AnrBjotk's picture
AnrBjotk
Offline
Joined: 14-08-10
Jul 24 2011 15:49
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Well if you find sex boring, I can't imagine your past partners have found much enjoyment in it...

Sex on its own bores me. I see sex as a biproduct of love, and orgasm as a biproduct of sex. You don't need to have sex to be in love, and you don't have to have an orgams to have sex. What that means is that Love is the key to all things, and that everything else is just 'gravy'. I do NOT mean that I don't care about the woman's orgasm. But it should never be the reason for sex, the reason should be to celebrate each others love.
It comes from my interest in Buddhism, cause just like in meditation you do not do it for any reason, and if you achieve some enlightenment, that is a biproduct, pay it no mind. "Our" societies is based around sex, and the definition of sex being mutual masturbation, i.e getting orgasms. You eat to get energy, to live, if it tastes good that great, but it's not, in my view, the reason I eat.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jul 24 2011 19:46

First off, sex is good in it's own right. Love may improve the sexual experience, but to claim that sex should only be "to celebrate each others love" is a pile of moralistic nonsense and is not far from the Judeo-Christian belief that sex should only occur within marriage and be a celebration of God's love.

darren p's picture
darren p
Offline
Joined: 5-07-06
Jul 24 2011 19:50
AnrBjotk wrote:
You eat to get energy, to live, if it tastes good that great, but it's not, in my view, the reason I eat.

Why do you eat then? To celebrate food?

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Jul 24 2011 20:49

jesus christ.....

CRUD's picture
CRUD
Offline
Joined: 11-04-10
Jul 24 2011 21:44
AnrBjotk wrote:

I have little interest in sex. It bores me.

Sorry to hear that. I find love "boring". More like drinking liquid antifreeze. Pocahontas really did a number on me. She found sex to be exhilarating...so much so she tried it with all my friends. It's somewhat forced me to reconsider the meaning of love....to reconsider feelings of possessiveness or jealousy...to reconsider whether or not long term monogamy is possible or even desirable.

I've been leaning more towards polyamory...like Jean Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir's long term relationship. Traditional marriage/love seems to be, well, a pipe dream or fantasy. It won't even be "necessary" once women have equal access to the means of production anyhow.

Ethos's picture
Ethos
Offline
Joined: 6-07-11
Jul 24 2011 22:27
darren p wrote:
AnrBjotk wrote:
You eat to get energy, to live, if it tastes good that great, but it's not, in my view, the reason I eat.

Why do you eat then? To celebrate food?

If we're going by what he/she wrote on love and sex, I reckon' eating will be a celebration of hunger(?). Primitivist "philosophy" is entertaining.

CRUD's picture
CRUD
Offline
Joined: 11-04-10
Jul 27 2011 22:20
Chilli Sauce wrote:
First off, sex is good in it's own right. Love may improve the sexual experience, but to claim that sex should only be "to celebrate each others love" is a pile of moralistic nonsense and is not far from the Judeo-Christian belief that sex should only occur within marriage and be a celebration of God's love.

He/she is a follower of god according to a post in the primitivist thread.

allabouttactics
Offline
Joined: 26-07-11
Jul 27 2011 23:11

Charles Bukowski was a poet and he told the truth

The reason he is still famous is because he actually did manage to tell the truth. If he tried to write about his experiences through a lens of politics or anything he would have just been a hack.

The conclusion is up to us, the appeal of bukowski is that he had no preconceptions.

And I agree with the people who say he was probably a prick, he comes across as a really horrible guy from his stories but the reason that he is a good poet and writer is because he doesn't have an angle, it's egalitarian.

he didn't interpret anything he just wrote it down, he wrote the truth but the truth isn't political it just is

allabouttactics
Offline
Joined: 26-07-11
Jul 27 2011 23:41
AnrBjotk wrote:
revol68 wrote:
I actually can't believe I even bothered typed that response, you're obviously some idiot art muppet.

Stick to titillating art tards at shitty hipster galleries, I could even get you an exhibit in Belfast.

I'm glad you did. And as for the exhibit, please do!

Hieronymous wrote:
Tor SR Thidesen wrote:
As for his views on women (god, why does this ALWAYS happen, once again I will be the only one defending him) he wasn't a mysogonist. His wife clearly states this. He had a fucked-up childhood, rejected by women, and simply "made up for lost time" later on. And in his books the man is always the biggest loser.

Bullshit. In one of the documentaries about him, you can see him kicking Linda, throwing his wine glass at her, and verbally abusing her. He repeatedly calls her a "whore" and makes preposterous claims that all women are whores. I can't think of a better definition of misogynist. He was a total pig towards women.

If you read any biography of him, there are countless examples of him abusing women, nearly always while drunk, both physically and emotionally.

And his fascism and anti-Semitism has been documented as well. I personally think he did it to get a rise out of people, but it's still disgusting. He should be condemned for all of this; none of it should be defended.

So, if I kick a man for being an asshole I'm just a man, if I hit a woman for being an asshole, I'm a woman-hater?? Because women are delicate little flowers? Like shit they are.

noone said it's ok to beat men up either

allabouttactics
Offline
Joined: 26-07-11
Jul 28 2011 01:14

but the point is that it isn't to your taste

i don't like what he says. he's much worse than just being macho and ugly, he describes some terrible things. he was a right cunt, He wrote it down in a way that you can understand

you aren't meant to like it. ''he just recorded something,

he isn't a role model he's a dead alcoholic,

and a poet

AnrBjotk's picture
AnrBjotk
Offline
Joined: 14-08-10
Jul 28 2011 04:07
allabouttactics wrote:
but the point is that it isn't to your taste

i don't like what he says. he's much worse than just being macho and ugly, he describes some terrible things. he was a right cunt, He wrote it down in a way that you can understand

you aren't meant to like it. ''he just recorded something,

he isn't a role model he's a dead alcoholic,

and a poet

Actually, it's a misconception that he was an alcoholic; He was a drinker.
A heavy drinker, for sure, but not an alcoholic. Read his biographies for this info, his family are pretty clear that the public conception and the real Buk was quite different. He would drink heaivily on concerts in order to calm his anxiety, and later on it became his trade mark.

As for me believing in God, it's more complicated than that, I am not involved in any organized religion. But somehow I feel my personal religious views will fall on deaf ears 'round here.

allabouttactics
Offline
Joined: 26-07-11
Jul 28 2011 09:06

Yes but the reason that he was successful was because it was close to the truth,

I understand your point about everything being political but how could an alcoholic bum in America in the 50s and 60s write honestly about his life as a bum without being misanthropic and misogynistic.

Of course it's his take on it, but I can't think of a way for a drunk to write about being a drunk honestly without coming across as a pretty horrible person.

Drunks are like the drunks in his stories, if he wrote it conscious of avoiding sexism and so on then his stories would suck and they would be totally unbelievable.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Jul 28 2011 09:26
AnrBjotk wrote:
But somehow I feel my personal religious views will fall on deaf ears 'round here.

The real question is why you're bothering to express these views to godless Communists, and apparently are surprised that no-one gives credence to your views.

Personally, I give more attention to Kermit the Frog's utterances, than to any religious twaddle.

AnrBjotk's picture
AnrBjotk
Offline
Joined: 14-08-10
Jul 28 2011 14:04
LBird wrote:
AnrBjotk wrote:
But somehow I feel my personal religious views will fall on deaf ears 'round here.

The real question is why you're bothering to express these views to godless Communists, and apparently are surprised that no-one gives credence to your views.

Personally, I give more attention to Kermit the Frog's utterances, than to any religious twaddle.

Typical leftist view... You don't even know what religious belief I hold? I happen to be a pantheist, i.e believing that God is a concept, not subject to the human understanding and consciousness, we can never know what God is and therefore not follow any rules written by "him". We CAN celebrate life, and the beauty of nature, and hope that we someday achieve the level of consciousness necessary to see/understand Him/Her/It.

For more on the next level of consciousness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-Circuit_Model_of_Consciousness

yourmum
Offline
Joined: 9-03-10
Jul 28 2011 14:44

any belief qualifies as bullshit around here so your probably right about the deaf ears.

AnrBjotk's picture
AnrBjotk
Offline
Joined: 14-08-10
Jul 28 2011 15:00
yourmum wrote:
any belief qualifies as bullshit around here so your probably right about the deaf ears.

I assume you follow Dawkins then? You know, the absurdity is that both parties, religious people and Dawkin minians, both say they know the truth. Both you cannot prove Gods existence, nor disprove it completely. Both are ditches, as Osho would say.

welshboy's picture
welshboy
Offline
Joined: 11-05-06
Jul 28 2011 16:25
AnrBjotk wrote:
I assume you follow Dawkins then? You know, the absurdity is that both parties, religious people and Dawkin minians,

Are you for real? Thinking that religion and spirituality are tosh does not imply one has anything to do with Dawkins. Are you going to start referring to people as Darwinists next?

Quote:
both say they know the truth. Both you cannot prove Gods existence, nor disprove it completely. Both are ditches, as Osho would say.

I think you will find that a hell of a lot of religious do think that they can prove the existence of their god.
And Osho? Now you're quoting cult leaders?

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Jul 28 2011 16:40

For my two cents, I'm less concerned with who created the world, and more concerned with human action etc, etc.

But pantheism? Thats just a post-modern romantic atheism isn't it? That was Spinoza's card trick, if everything is god, nothing is. Either he was a radical believer or, what most suspected him of being at the time, a complete atheist.....

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Jul 28 2011 17:58
AnrBjotk wrote:
...God is a concept, not subject to the human understanding and consciousness, we can never know what God is and therefore not follow any rules written by "him".

Kermit the God "is a concept, not subject to the human understanding and consciousness, we can never know what God is and therefore not follow any rules written by "him". "

If something is beyond 'human understanding and consciousness' and 'can never be known', it is meaningless. So we might as well pretend Kermit runs the universe.

FWIW, I've got no problem with you having your beliefs, but I can't understand why you're telling us about them.

I'm a Commie.

AnrBjotk's picture
AnrBjotk
Offline
Joined: 14-08-10
Jul 28 2011 18:04
welshboy wrote:
AnrBjotk wrote:
I assume you follow Dawkins then? You know, the absurdity is that both parties, religious people and Dawkin minians,

Are you for real? Thinking that religion and spirituality are tosh does not imply one has anything to do with Dawkins. Are you going to start referring to people as Darwinists next?

Quote:
both say they know the truth. Both you cannot prove Gods existence, nor disprove it completely. Both are ditches, as Osho would say.

I think you will find that a hell of a lot of religious do think that they can prove the existence of their god.
And Osho? Now you're quoting cult leaders?

Yes, and my point was that both parties are not able to objectively prove their case. They cannot prove God exists, they haven't yet anyhow, and "you" cannot prove God doesn't exist... You both sit with your fingers in your ears singing "la la la la la la"...
Atheism is a religion.

Osho wasn't a cult leader. Again, no fact for that, but a few speculations.

Arbeiten wrote:
For my two cents, I'm less concerned with who created the world, and more concerned with human action etc, etc.

But pantheism? Thats just a post-modern romantic atheism isn't it? That was Spinoza's card trick, if everything is god, nothing is. Either he was a radical believer or, what most suspected him of being at the time, a complete atheist.....

It's not post-modernist, it dates back to the ancient greeks, and presocratic societies, and besides, the idea is so basic one could say it surely has been around since man developed consciousness three thousand years ago.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 28 2011 18:21
AnrBjotk wrote:

Yes, and my point was that both parties are not able to objectively prove their case. They cannot prove dragons exist, they haven't yet anyhow, and "you" cannot prove dragons don't exist... You both sit with your fingers in your ears singing "la la la la la la"...
Not believing in dragons is a religion.

fixed.

welshboy's picture
welshboy
Offline
Joined: 11-05-06
Jul 28 2011 18:25
AnrBjotk wrote:
"you" cannot prove God doesn't exist...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

AnrBjotk wrote:
the idea is so basic one could say it surely has been around since man developed consciousness three thousand years ago.

Seriously? ? ?
3,000 years ago?
We've been building towns for nigh on 10,000 years and making art for at least 35,000 years, probably closer to 60,000. Were these people not conscious?
Or do you mean some flaky hippy 'third eye' kind of 'consciousness'?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 28 2011 19:46
welshboy wrote:
AnrBjotk wrote:
"you" cannot prove God doesn't exist...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

also, God does exist, and he says he loves capitalism, and anarchism/communism is evil. You can't prove this is not true. So I believe it.