/lit/ - Literature

>>16049255
>I don't support affirmative action.

Doubt.

But in case you're sincere, I'll give you a more thought out response.

Sure, nepotism reeks, but your 'cold' system doesn't ensure it's demise. Rather, Socialism is generally just a tool used by those currently disadvantaged to try to enact the same inequalities for themselves. Having argued with them extensively, they generally don't deep down believe what they espouse (hence my doubt) but are little tyrants trying to seize power using false rhetoric. Tell me how you're going to stop upper level bureaucrats from giving their children favors in whatever cold system of your choice? This is doubly potent when the entire rhetoric of socialism is a lie (people are never equal).

>>15639339
You want to approach power in a relative way that ends up neutering a real revolution from the start. Jewish power is obviously vast as is shown easily in America's mysterious tirades in the middle east and by the blatantly obvious overly numbered seats of power held by such a small foreign minority.
It's all VERY simple.
The contradition is very easy to show by simply replacing "Jew" with "Chinese".
Pic related is the Jewish scheme of revolutionary jargon duping the lowest elements of society. They are the high element. No revolution comes solely from the low. None.

>>14967256
Good post.

Hail the new age, whatever strange form this present chaos molds it to.

>>17150
Most well-read intellectuals are actually communist because communist benefits them.

Mao and Stalin were intellectuals, Pol Pot was educated at Sorbonne. Communism, analysed objectively, is basically a theocratic form of government where the priestly caste of Marxism holds absolute power.

Bertrand de Jouvenel - On Power

James Burnham - The Machiavellians (as a introduction to the ideas of Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels and Vilfredo Pareto

It's actually quite frustrating to discuss politics with people with no knowledge of these works.

>Why is /lit/ so obsessed with communist revolution?

Because communism empowers intellectuals. /lit/ can't compete on the job market, so they dream about being apparatchiks in the nomenklatura of a communist state.

>Why not align your chakras and delve into a world of aristocratic heroism?

That would empower the opposite of /lit/, the warrior caste, or military types. They would never support that.

>>6445385
Or that leftism gives power to educated people.

Because it empowers intellectuals.

What about a reading list to cure radicals of their radicalism?

I would begin with Bertrand de Jouvenel, Robert Michels, Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto.

>>6328169
People who read a lot tend to be leftists because leftism empowers people who read a lot.

>>6299209
>This is why nobody respects humanities. Only you can argue in favor of some utopian equality when the whole world is based upon inequality and difference. It is like you refuse to see the obvious differences between people, both physical and mental, which imply different abilities.

They just, consciously or not, want what is best for them. A marxist society would give absolute power to the intellectuals who interpret Marx and other Marxist intellectuals, just like a Islamic theocracy gives absolute power to the ulema that interprets the Quran and the hadith. Communism as a ideology is merely the intellectual's path to become the ruling class, just like Liberalism as a ideology is the path for the merchants to become the ruling class, and Fascism for the soldiers and armed men etc...

Intellectuals are useless, they can't breed animals, They don't have the faintest idea on how to make sausages or forks or mobile phones. They are surrounded by all this stuff that they eat or use and they can't actually make a single thing, can't even begin to understand how they're made. If industrial production ceased tomorrow, if all the engineers and the specialist technicians disappeared off the face of the earth, they can't do anything to start things over again. In fact, outside the industrialized world, they can't even survive. They won't know how to feed or clothe themselves, or protect themselves from the weather. Their technical competence falls far short of Neanderthal man. They are completely dependent on society, but play no useful role in it. The only thing they know how to do is write dubious commentaries on outdated cultural issues.

The intellectual penchant for socialism is based on their desire to get paid, well paid, in tribute if not in money, for merely existing, since otherwise their entire existance would collapse.

>>5919441
Well, a society based on the precepts of Marxism is a society where intellectuals are the ones who through their talents at interpretation and exegesis of Marx's work becomes the ones who create the entire reality. If this is not absolute power similar to the one held by other priestly classes such as the Brahmin of India or the Magi of Persia, i don't know what it is.

Of course, you will never admit it. If there is something Marxist intellectuals never do is to admit that everything they do, they do for power, even though they always end up holding power in Marxist regimes.