/lit/ - Literature

>>22686741
Idea: the workers should control the means of production.

Problem: the workers lack the technical and political education to control the means of production.

Solution: people who have that education should assume control, teach the workers, and eventually hand off the means of production to the newly educated workers.

I really don't see how this is hard to understand.

>>11289526
>this buttblasted that an editor added a paragraph-long introduction to a book while leaving its contents unchanged
Wew lad.

>>11289932
Can confirm.
t. former teen who grew out of it.

>>10452581
>listen to 35-minute album
>easy to talk about right away — most songs are constructed to be earworms, and are therefore easy to remember and interpret
>watch 120-minute film
>easy to talk about right away — plot isn't too dense and you can pretty much remember the whole thing for a while, plus a well-made movie will drive the same point home with the script, the acting, the lighting, and the cinematography
>read 300-minute YA novel
>slightly more difficult to talk about right away— most of the parts are rehashes of other YA novels so there isn't much new to remember/interpret, but it's easy to forget parts because novels don't repeat themselves or use multiple elements to drive home the same points the way music and film can, so there's more work for the reader
>read 600-minute classic
>very hard to interpret offhand — much of the work will be original, and come from a cultural context that isn't your own, so even understandnig the novel fully involves more thought and outside research. it's a longer read, so you won't be able to remember its contents fully, and, like most (good) novels, there won't be much repetition or multiple reinforcement to help you in this.
It's also much easier to say something new/interesting about a piece of media that came out a few days ago than a book that came out multiple centuries ago. Put it all together, and badda bing, classic literature is hard to discuss relative to other kinds of media.

>>10034621
Anon from >>10026699 here.

The anon from >>10034907 is exactly right. For an egoist, voluntary, leave-whenever-you-want unions are the way to go, because they offer maximum freedom while still providing the benefits that a larger society would offer. If the friendship analogy isn't your cup of tea, think of insurance. You get insurance because it offsets risk and saves money in the long run (granted, this may no longer be the case, but let's assume it still is for the sake of argument), not because there's some legal or ethical system forcing you to. It's just what's best for you. Yes, taking out an insurance policy involves joining a group, paying dues, etc., but all these things are worthwhile because they can (and probably will) save your life. It's a calculation based on self-interest.

The anon from >>10035057 doesn't know how to apply the egoist framework (or thinks that friendships have no value). The egoist solution is to realize which people you enjoy sharing time with, do good by them, and think of it as a sort of exchange — your time for theirs. The best-case scenario is a friendship wherein both of you take much more than you give, because you're both just after each other's company, which is a huge gift to receive and a tiny one to offer. Friendships, at least the good ones, are very much
an egoist project.