/lit/ - Literature

I am an Orthodox Marxist.

Every "serious" right-libertarian despises Rand. No exceptions. She's basically the source of the endless stream of lolbertarians who give us a bad rep.

I'm a meritocratic oligarchic republican "right" libertarian.

>>1130709
>give us a bad name
>republican
you can do bad all by yourself

Apolitical heroin escapist. It's a political position, but not one that is willfully ascented to. Well it is willful, but the political aspect is indirect.

OP here, also recommend some political books you like, theory, history, anything, i don't care what as long as it is interesting, i'd be willing to read pro capitalist stuff (i have in the past) as well.

my favorite so far has been Homage to catalonia


also let's try to be civil eh, i know politics can make us all passionate and heated but i expect some respect from all you gents

>some complex pseudo-political branch of libertarianism/marxism
>vote democrat or republican

>>1130732

>doesn't know that some states offer 27 electoral votes which tally up to decide where foreign policy will go, who will be chosen for the supreme court, a lifetime position, and what from congress / senate if it isn't fucking bought and stolen as it always is, will be signed or approved

>>1130732

To paraphrase the great American philosopher Donald Rumsfeld, you have to vote for the candidates you have, not the candidates you'd like to have.

I'm a welfare state capitalist, generally pretty far left, but I reject the 'big' left causes. I think they're fun to think about, but not practical or likely.

Somewhere between statist and liberal, leaning right .The argument is as follows: Man, while he may be prone to counter-producive must be considered innately destructive because no matter how much "good" there will always be instances where people will be "evil" and the state must intervene. This is standard social contract concepts, but it is not being handled effectively enough due to an emphasis on individuality. In order for the state to successfully mitigate the poetential evil of man it is necessary that behaviour intent on creating friction be eliminated. Extension of state control to some freedom of speech, etc..

However, since the state is an entity composed of the same easily prone to evil humans, it is necessary that law be given total supremecy over everything and freedom be not totally restricted as to prevent corruption. Assumption of upper level power must be technocratic, modified to prevent possible harm by complex ethical codes applied to all levels of society.

An altered confucian philosophic style combining the legalist approach with some applications of classical liberalism, if you will

I'm still mulling out the details, there is so much to consider. But it might end up in a manifesto of some sort at a later date

>>1130721
Not Republican, republican.

Liberal, in the European sense of the word.

>kropotkin: revolutionary grab my beard
>honk
>AAANNNAARRRCCCHHHHOOO-CCCOOOOMMMMUUUNNNIIISSSMMM

and that is the shit i belive in

>>1130744
so how are you going to keep the people in charge of the state in line with the law again?

>>1130775

Kropotkin, the anarchist santa.

>>1130794
I'll be honest and say that's the reason why it's merely an idea and not anything I'm seriously backing. I suspect it narrows down to a question of technicalities in who controls what.

However, this format treads on a very slippery slope. The state could very easily corrupt and sieze power unless effective safeguards are devised. In the end it'll probably be necessary that the restrictions on freedom be given greater berth than would be considered in a perfect system. The concepts of what may/may not be allowed will have to be very specific beyond the shadow of doubt- the entire contract must have an explicitly legal definition of ideas and be rooted in current realities rather than the typical abstract tract

until the safeguards are devised, it's merely an idea

>>1130831

If I had to put a label on it, I'm a minarcho-survivalist.

In more words, I'm a classic liberal who wants a true confederation of states, free of Federal control, with an independent and a heavily-armed populace.

In general, I'd say I'm an anarcho-individualist, but if I'm alive when that happens (and don't deny that humans will eventually evolve past the need for a government; eventually the jerk genes will die out) I'll get together with a bunch of anarcho-communists and live coöperatively. Anarcho-communism can work, but only if everybody involved wants it.
God, I feel like I'm writing a paper for government class.

>>1130862
>¨

Let me guess, you would listen only to metal in your commune?

>>1130862

>(and don't deny that humans will eventually evolve past the need for a government; eventually the jerk genes will die out)

Why would you say that? If there's any ultimate eventuality, from a survival perspective, it's the altruistic genes that will die out.

>>1130862
i like this guy

Basically, panarchism in the only answer for a modern libertarian society, a system of federations into which is incorporated many differing libertarian systems, from individualist to the most collectivist anarchist, everyone being free to choose which one to live under.

>>1130888

How is that different from the world right now, other than the more limited choices?

>>1130871
Metal sucks.
>>1130885
Now that we don't actually need to live as hunter-gatherers and are forced constantly into close social interaction altruistic genes are the ones that are beneficial: if you're a jerk you'll be ostracised, never find a mate, and die without passing on your genes. Plus genetic engineering of human feti will occur within the next few centuries.

And... you're all white middle or middle-low class males aged between 15 and 30.

>>1130888
Thank you.
>>1130892
Ummm... today you have no choice; you have to live as a capitalist or starve or be arrested.

Well actually, I suppose those are choices.

>>1130888

I find it hard to believe that all these factions will simply co-exist without competing for territory, resources, and so on. I see a system like this as a sort of permanent civil war.

>>1130896

>if you're a jerk you'll be ostracised, never find a mate, and die without passing on your genes.

Except that's not actually true. The less intelligent and more assertive(read: jerks) people are the ones that tend to have more children.

>Plus genetic engineering of human feti will occur within the next few centuries.

Your crystal ball is impressive. All mine does it make my face look all long-like.

>>1130896
But unfortunately, the jerks are the ones that breed the most.

The reason that i disagree with all ideologies is simple--we are at once and inherently free to act in any way. We are ultimately free. No matter what method of organization we choose, there will be material consequences for our actions, and some will be painful and negative while others pleasurable or productive. Here at this moment we are completely exposed to the freedom and the responsibility we have is to be true to our freedom, to not hide behind ideology or give accounts for why we are not as free as we should be or why our freedom is not how it should be. Political ideology--the total spectrum (well the spectrum is arbitrary) but i'll say from fascism to anarchism, is nothing but fluff and denial. The basis of all things is fear. We must learn this and then at once forget it forever, to paraphrase william faulkner.

can you watch this for me and maybe leave a comment :D?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Mx68ekHXLw

>>1130910
>he believes in freewill

>>1130909
>>1130908
So stop breeding with jerks.
Problem solved.

>>1130917
lol and you believe that free will and determinism is a true dichotomy? oh you.

>>1130921

I'm not breeding with anyone, thank you very much.

And frankly, I'll breed with whoever will have me at this point.

Well we had anarchy before civilisations arose; it's foolish to think that we won't have it again after they fall.

I dunno.
I usually analyze politics from an ethical perspective, which only seems to keep my mind naive.
Is there a name for that view?
It's not a very good view.

>>1130925
There is an illusion of free will, but in actuality we are bound by outside forces, resulting in us never being able to excise true free will. In order for us to have true free will, all outside existence must cease to influence us, but then nothing would exist at all. When nothing exists, free will exists; when anything exists, free will does not exist.

>>1130935
>anarchy before civilization
>civilization will fall

>>1130935

If civilization collapsed, what's stopping some form of government from just rising up again?

There was always some sort of government in the works because there are always leaders in a group.
As we got more intelligent, we were able to act in larger groups. Does this suggest that we devolve when government collapses into smaller groups or that humans just were not mentally ready for the challenge of a large political party?

>>1130944
This is a theory.

>I HAVE COMPLICATED, NUANCED POLITICAL VIEWS
>Vote Democratic or Republican in every election
Way go, kids

>>1130974
That's a different topic for a different thread.
Let's get what we have here out of the way, hmm?

>>1130974
you are late to the party see
>>1130732

>>1130935
really, primitivism?

son, i am dissapoint

either you are teens or you are one of the megaton mankids from Vinland. the proper question would be not about your political "views" but about your political deeds.

You're all right, you're too stupid to handle life without a government telling you what to do.

>>1130707
>FUCKING SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE, HOW DOES IT WORK?!

Socialist, now moving towards left-libertarianism, but still socialist since I can't seem to get behind the worldview of most left-libertarians. Mainly because most of them are too capitalism friendly.

Basically...
I like socialism in the work place, but also want private property
I like capitalism's way of producing a diversity of goods, but wish it wasn't so unstable.
And I wish capitalism would work without government regulation but I know it needs it.
I also know that it never gets as much as it needs, or always gets it in the wrong way.
I believe people to be essentially social in nature, and that they aren't driven purely by self interest, but believe that ultimately the society should base itself on the individual in terms of justice and economic orientation.

Basically I'm really confused. Who should I read?

>>1130996
>You guys are mankids
This is what I saw, then I just kind of ignored everything else you said.

>>1131005
>I like socialism in the work place, but also want private property
stopped reading here
and you should start

>>1130968
The concept of freewill itself is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Everything is a theory.

>>1130996
here's someone with the right idea

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."

>>1130700
who is the guy you are posting? i think it is a Russian poet. Am I right?

Free market libertarian. Just so you know that doesn't make me necessarily a capitalist, worker owned means of production are perfectly in line with my positions.

>>1130995
Not primitivism; I probably could have phrased that better. Post-Civilisationism.

Randian Capitalist here. Why? Because I'm smart.

>>1131035
0/10

seriously are you even trying?

>>1131012
soooo helpful bro

>>1130974
>Implying I vote.

>>1131042
Bein' serious my man. What? I don't get an opinion? Rand's reasoning is sound as fuck.

>>1131019
the theory of you being a faggot is a fact though

>>1131056
>Rand's reasoning is sound as fuck.

It's not, but hey, Marxists aren't any better.

Humans cannot act without their own self-interest (pleasure) in mind. Even if you cut off your own hand, you either did it because you wanted the experience, you wanted pity, you wanted to prove that you could perform an act without your self-interest in mind, you wanted to do it to benefit someone else to get that warm-fuzzy helping people feeling, or some other more convoluted reason that nevertheless comes right back around to pleasure-seeking--either physical or psychological.

It's like that episode of friends where Phoebe tried to prove that true altruism is possible (I haven't actually seen the end of that episode, but I assume that she either fails or they wrap it up neatly with some TV magick that falls-apart under scrutiny).

The only exceptions are things done semi-consciously as force-of-habit or instinct.

there is no such thing as a Randian Capitalism. Rand claims that laissez-faire societies are perfectly meritocratic. By using "Capitalism" you fall into the Marxist trap claiming the abstract, self-accumulating, Capital/Mommon to be the God and Master of the world.

this whole thread

>>1131066
Mainly because Marxists usually pull theories out of their ass instead of actually following what Marx said.

That's why he denounced them.

>"I am not a Marxist"
>--Karl Marx

>>1131082
But Nietzsche/Rand/Stirner denounced their "followers" as well

>>1131071
Yes, we know what psychological egoism is.

>>1131082

How's that whole history following a pre-determined path thing going? 20th century fucked up all the predictions? Shame man, damn shame. Scientific Socialism lol.

i don't think people would apparently despise Rand so much if she was not troll fodder.

with that being said, however, if you are a libertarian and not extremely wealthy then you, sir, are retarded.

i am an Independent.

>>1131090
Mainly because ______ists usually pull theories out of their ass instead of actually following what ______ said.

That's why ___ denounced them.

>"I am not a ______ist"
>-______ ______

>>1131090
Don't dare putting Nietzsche and Stirner along with Rand.

>>1131094
Wow; I've never actually heard of that before. Thanks.

>>1131099
>if you are a libertarian and not extremely wealthy then you, sir, are retarded.

Actually you are retarded for not knowing that their is more than one kind of libertarianism. Did you know that anarcho-communism is a form of libertarianism?

>>1131103
does it get you randy? you don't like your aryan masterminds to stand in line with a jew, a woman and an angloamerican jew-yankee devoid of all higher ideals?

>>1131103
Agreed.

>>1131115
there are many definitions to this word. the most common definition has a certain connotation that does not have association with anarcho-communism.

>>1131056
Except that she has an overly high estimation of the character and skill of businesspeople.

>>1131063
As is the theory of you being an idiot.

>>1131116
>devoid of all higher ideals
>Nietzsche
>Stirner
>higher ideals

What the fuck? if anything "Objectivism" with its aristotelian teleological basis of rational egoism is more idealistic than Nietzsche or Stirner

seriously do you know what you are talking about?

>>1131090
Nietzsche's ideal men are artists and philosophers, not capitalists who believe they are superior individuals just because they can create wealth. Creating wealth is not nearly as difficult as creating a great artistic work.

>>1131141
in America maybe, in Europe libertarianism always meant left anarchism

>>1131160
especially when that artistic work is your life

>>1131163
You must remember that most people on this board are probably from the US.

Until this past year libertarian meant to me what it did to the person you are responding to.

Try being more understanding of us noobs.

>>1131163
From the Oxford English Dictionary.

libertarian, n. and adj.

n.
A person who believes the role of the government should be limited to upholding individual rights, and who therefore opposes government regulation of economic or social affairs; an anti-statist. Also (with capital initial): a member of any of various political parties promoting these views.

adj.
Of, designating, or advocating a political philosophy which holds that the role of government should be limited to upholding individual rights, and therefore opposes government regulation of economic or social affairs; anti-statist. Also (with capital initial): of or designating any of various political parties promoting this philosophy.

>>1131176
what were you saying?

>>1131180
no gods, no kings, no dickshunaries

>Oxford English Dictionary
>English
>England
>Europe
>not the united states

>>1131191
In America the main strains of libertarianism as really minarchist-capitalist stances. See the Cato Institute and other similar think tanks to get a good idea of what libertarian has come to mean in the US

Not so in other parts of the world.

Not readan, just postan/bean cancer.

I think Rand get's more hate on this board for being a shitty writer and an uninteresting intellectual than for having crappy ideals. People around here aren't nearly as opposed to things like individualism or even egoism as they are to Objectivism on the grounds that a well-organized system based on the pursuit of self-interest doesn't look anything at all like a Randian Objectivist one. At least, that's what I've always assumed.

>>1131221
i just think that the whole idea of an "objective" philosophy, based on individual self interest is a self contradiction.

generally vote democrat
as far as deeper political views... well I think most issues should be looked at separately and a general philosophy is nothing more than a lazy but effective way to examine the issues without expending much effort

>>1131221
>>1131221

Yup, that's a good assumption. The problem, really, is when she wants to get objective normative ethics and objective aesthetics...

I'm fairly left, nearly socialist but disagree with them on enough to not vote for them.
member of the british laboour party

>>1131778
that's what most people say, and some actually attempt to do, but our political system won't really allow that being as there are basically two 'package deals' you can buy into

>>1131815
What do you make of New Labour?

>>1131821
dissapointed to be honest
but I don't hate Blair or Brown
I think all the labour voters who ran to the conservatives and lib dem camps made a huge mistake though.
I would also say that all parties have degenerated in a similar way.

Monarchist.

>>1131071
she fails
lest a bee sting her, bee dies
she donates money to PBS even though she hates them but this gets joey on tv so she feels good.

Agorism, austro-libertarianism, anarchism

a weird blend of goldwater conservatism and tory anarchism

>>1130732
>>1130732
>>1130732
>>1130732
>>1130732
>>1130732

>>1131854

I'm sad because apparently no one read my Rumsfeld post ._.

>>1131891
one guy doesn't care /= nobody read

Used to be republican, got fed up with their bullshit, now I'm a libertarian, though I lean more right than left. Fuck socialism, fuck marxism, and fuck communism in the ass with a ten inch long spiked and poisoned dildo.

>>1131937

Said with the grace and maturity of a true right-libertarian.

>>1131941

Eh. I believe what I want to believe. If I'm brash about it, its just how I am. Don't give a fuck.

>>1131817
political action is not limited to voting, and even if it was you have more than just two choices: vote during primaries + vote in state/county/city elections = many different choices and many different issues

local elections are probably the place where an individual can make the most difference, but ironically less people get involved at that level

Vaguely autonomist Marxist, I suppose?

>>1131005
you should read Douglass North and Elinor Ostrom -- their work gets closest to understanding the strengths and weaknesses of govt vs free market (spoiler: they both work in tandem)

I'm an idealist regarding anarchism. I personally think it would be perfect. The individual spectrum though IE respect for private property and all that.

But in real life I just go for left wing parties.

>>1131005

Marx. Harry Cleaver's Reading Capital. Hardt and Negri's books Empire, Multitude, and Commonwealth. Lenin's The State and Revolution.

>>1131937

>i hate communism because mommy and daddy said it's a bad thing!

>>1131937

>>1132267
This is why we can't have nice things.

Market anarchist, maybe right libertarian.

>>1132289
>>1132287
>>1131948
>>1131937
>>1131850
>>1131844
>>1131825
>>1131815
>>1131221

Anarcho-Syndicalist reporting

lefty pragmatist, which means market and stuff. although the reality of the situation is that there is only so much "politics" and governments can do.

Right-wing liberal.

Though, that's the European right, not American.

>>1132295
>Not a devout Marxist
>Must be a Glenn Beck neoconservative.

Either socio-economic libertarian, or liberal statist. Can't make up my mind because they bot work well in different geo-historical regions.

What bothers me in this thread is the disturbing amount of theoretical eclecticism that is going on. Politics isn't a choose-your-own-adventure game. Its also not about thinking about what kind of society might be the most ideal. Politics is about thinking about what determinate, concrete possibilities exist for changing, and pushing, society exist in our moment today. After saying that and looking at how fucked up the world is, I'm tempted to say that the only logical politics is to not have any politics -- but I still have a little hope that we can recover the meaning of politics. Even to call yourself a liberal or a conservative is ridiculous -- this isn't the French Revolution anymore people.

tl;dr the only politics suitable for modernity is Marxism

>>1132955

How the hell does the tl;dr relate to the rest of the post? If anything, the part before the tl;dr is an eloquent presentation of the absolute ridiculousness of marxism.

In any case...

>Politics is about thinking about what determinate, concrete possibilities exist for changing, and pushing, society exist in our moment today.

There exist no such possibilities. Democracy in action, baby!

>>1132955
I said it before--i'm apolitical. I use heroin as the political act. It is propaghanda of the deed. The message is turning my back away. Art is greater than politics. I have affinity for marxism, and yet, my only revolutionary act is to be the living dead. Since we are ultimately free anyway, since there is no denying the fact that you are completely free and absolutely nothing can prevent you from acting in freedom, all politics are inauthentic, since all of them claim to acheive a higher state of freedom that now exists.

>>1133027
and i didn't mean turning my back away. no i'm not moonwalking. anyway, typos...

I'm a localist.

I think every county and city should secede and be completely independent.

I'm a moderate with right wing leanings, so that means I'm all for a good military structure but I also like having socialized medicine. I am also in support of taking care of soldiers and those who are in dangerous jobs, but I hate unions since they just kind of suck money.

>>1133032

Would trade be allowed?

>>1133035

You're not American, are you? Those views put you pretty center-left(at least) on our spectrum.

I'm a clown.

They're all megalomaniacs looking to make a name for themselves.

libertarians are just young people who don't know they're conservatives yet.

I don't know enough to align with one ideology so I just go & research a certain topic whenever it becomes relevant.

>>1133060

Learn2political compass. There's all kinds of libertarians.

>>1133053
Yeah I'm fomr canada eh? We're pretty left wing to you guys, but I've always thought that militarism was a right wing ideology?

the purpose of the state is to promote freedom of thot. laws should exist to forbid actions that prevent freedom of thot, including murder and advertizing. if a citizen of a state does not have more opportunity to think freely than a hypothetical hunter-gatherer, then the state fails.

personally, i believe in the mandate of heaven.

>>1133064
this

also, Rand gets hate because she's a bad author

>>1133049

Yeah, unless the individual city/county didn't want to trade for some reason.

I meant political independence not economic "independence" (whatever that means).

Far right here. Still hate Rand.

>>1133082

>but I've always thought that militarism was a right wing ideology?

Not in the States. There are a few things that make you unelectable in the US. One of those is being anti-military, the other is being pro-national healthcare.

>>1133134
> the other is being pro-national healthcare.

This is completely false. You can't be for national healthcare for SOME people. On the other hand, if you're against national healthcare for some OTHER people, you're also unelectable (medicare, the elderly). It's complete insanity.

>>1133093
No she's not, she gets a lot of hate because her fans are idiots.

>>1133155

There's a reason her fans are idiots. It's because only idiots would consider her philosophy and writing to be anything but garbage.

>>1133142

You're right, I should have been more clear. I meant national universal healthcare.

I don't feel a need to catagorize my self into one of two groups who's sole purpose it is to disagree with the other group. No thank you.