/lit/ - Literature

>Writers claim they're starving because books don't sell
>Some romance writer on a reddit thread talks about making 20 grand per month from selling Big foot romance stories

So, which one is?
Is writing profitable or not?

>>17774821
>Back then we still jerked off to photos half the time
Pixelated adult ads at the back of gaming magazines.

>Communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless society

Explain to me how is possible a society without money, specialization of labour and a state?

Why marx never wrote about the explotation of commodities being equal to the explotation of workers?

Why isn't the fact that humans exploit plants and steal their fruits of labour so the workers can keep living as important as the explotation of workers?

Why is one type of explotation morally wrong and the other totally right?

What does this board thinks of audiobooks?

>>16075602
>poor people are exploited in the US when most universities are fighting to give free college to minorities
>most people that do cheap labour do very safe and easy job
>most of the jobs that marx claimed were explotaition of the workers are the ones that pay the most today (blue collar jobs)
imagine thinking you're exploited in the US.

1% of the population produces 90% of the wealth (pareto principle), this can't be solved with any form of redistribution or workers owning the factories (as marxists claims).

Even by the most extreme form of Stalinism, 1% of the population produces 90% of the wealth.

If you kill this 1% of the population (or send them to gulags), your national production falls by 90%.
So now you have 99% of the population trying to share 10% of the previous wealth.
This is the reason why communism always end up on starvation.

>but 1% isn't more productive they have 2 arms and 2 legs
top 1% produces more than 90% of the population.

top 1% mathematicians produce more papers than 90% of the population combined, same with musicians, other sports, paintings, etc.

Messi is more productive than 99% of the population.
That's because of genetic diferences in IQ, body, contientiousness, etc.

I'm starting to think Marx writings and his followers aren't really a proper scientific school of economics (since most of their theoretical framework of the economic field has been refuted by non marxist economists, specially austrians) but that we can view marxism more like an ethical criticism of capitalism, which they missunderstood as a real form of economics, but today clearly marxism should try more to evolve into an ethical criticism of capitalism to make capitalism improves on their ethical and moral evaluations of their cost (of production and distribution)?

Wouldn't that be a more realistic goal than to try to replace a system that clearly has shown to work better than the marxist alternatives?

Wouldn't a capitalism that also takes into account the morality of their forms of production and distribution and it's effects on issues beyond the profit motive, like what marxist should try to do on this century?

>>15116783
It's you Nick Land?
If yes BTFO

>>13564548
>you have to be an anarchist to be libertarian

>>13555800
>easy is bad
>dude just suffer for the sake of it lmao
>things being hard to do is virtuous

>>12349431

>>11488089
>millenniums