/lit/ - Literature

>>13404887
Read Proudhon. Don’t post here again till you do

>>13404887
nobody is arguing for the abolition of all forms of hierarchy, the argument is that less hierarchical systems are far better than more hierarchical ones
but than again you can keep misinterpreting everything and shill for big corporations like the entire bunch of troglodytes coming from /pol/

The only hierarchy that will always reify itself regardless of the structural changes made on a societal level is the hierarchy of the strong BLACK bull over the white pussy

>>13404919
Socialism?

>>13404913
>tripfag

Opinion discarded.

>>13404913
Anarchisms doesn't work

>>13404887
>noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>we are all equal
>you incel nazi

>>13404929
BASED

>>13404930
Doesn't advocate for an end to all hierarchy. Advocates for worker ownership of the means of production. Stop cleaning your room and read a fucking book you utter retard.

>>13404887
>mfw my oneitis is into the leader type
>mfw she hints at me taking charge in different situations, while in groups
>mfw im the eternal beta

>>13404887
Some form of heirarchy being inevitable does not mean that crude and unjustified heirarchies should be the model for our societies, you knuckle dragging mongoloid

>>13404919
>shill for big corporations like the entire bunch of troglodytes coming from /pol/
That is typical of libertarians.
But the hierarchies that pol is thinking about are those of the national socialist order, where the corporations are under the suprevision of the state for the benefit of the local population.

>>13404919
It’s actually more complicated than that as well. The idea here isn’t that either side should be shilling at all.

We should all ask ourselves whether we speak for what we really believe in or whether we are trying to speak for what others believe in. Do any of you actually espouse any of this stuff?

As someone who has read economics fluently, I am surprised that certain issues aren’t tackled as much as the ‘problem’ of a hierarchy.

Consider why in Plato’s idyllic society, the people were assigned different ranks based on how pure their hearts were. Why, in his society, were the higher ranks filled with people who were good and these days our higher ranks are filled with people who are bad?

Yet again, it seems the problem lies not in the structure or the organization of society, the problem is simply the people who compose the society :3

>>13405001
>the problem is simply the people who compose the society :3
Yes indeed

>>13404969
I'd rather clean my room than read red trash.

>>13405036
Watching ten minute youtube videos on how Solzhenitsyn was an individualist, Nietzsche was a conservative and postmawdern neo-morxists are responsible for all the problems in your life is hardly a better way to spend your time.

>>13404887
as long as hierarchy exist, there will be those that defy it.

>>13404919
Why is less hierarchy better?

>>13404929
tpbp

Well democratic heirarchy sounds retarded and will still just be sociopaths coming our on top like usual. So idk how a """""justified"""" heirarchy would ever be a thing. Is the goal just technocracy or are lefties afraid of that one too?

>>13404969
If you're going to be a cunt then at least don't confuse socialism with communism.

>>13405049
Don't even watch that shite nerd, but I sure as hell ain't reading or watching red trash.

>>13405074
Collective ownership of the means of production has always been the definition of socialism. The use of the term "socialism" to refer to social democracy is a really recent invention and I'm pretty sure it's a means for capital to redirect revolutionary energies into causes where they pose less of a threat.

>>13405076
Why

>>13405099
Why would I want to read materials for an ideal that is no better than nazism? Why would I want to read propaganda of a system built upon misery and failure, and propagated by failures of society?

>>13405099
Socialism is the centralized distribution of scarce resources which have alternative uses. The collective ownership of the means of production is a type of socialism, but it isn't the only form. This is why you don't use socialism and communism interchangeably. They're different things.

>>13404887
>monkey command, monkey obey
Based

>>13405109
Historically most usage of the word "communism" arose from radical groups who thought the term "socialism" was too similar to "social democracy". It was a marketing ploy, not some serious ideological distinction. Socialism has always referred to collective ownership of the means of production, and is often radically opposed to centralization of any sort.

>>13405107
Seems a lot more sensible than running your mouth on things that you yourself admit you've never studied.

>>13405072
>just be sociopaths coming our on top like usual
But JP said that it is impossible because they conscientious hard working people and that they get discoverd very fast thus they have to move all the time to fuck over new people.

no

>>13405136
Communism goes back to at least Plato, but I don't give a fuck because it's irrelevant. Communism is a type of socialism, but it's not socialism in itself. Marx himself argues against certain types of socialisms in his Manifesto so to use the word socialism and communism interchangeably is ignorant.

>>13405163
Regardless of whether or not the terms can be used interchangeably, the word "socialism" was used to refer to collective ownership of the means of production long before Marx.

>>13405171
No it wasn't used that way because there are socialisms like Prussian socialism which don't have collective ownership, unless you want to say that all government or centralize distribution is collective ownership but that would be a misuse of the term.

>>13404929
based as fuck

>>13405192
Yes I think you raise a good point.

After all, the Platonic or Biblical forms of ‘socialism’ did not ‘collectively’ organize the means of production.

I don’t think St.Simon’s did either, do you? :3

>>13404960
whos the girl?

>>13404887

>>13405224
That is the single worst thing I have ever read in my life :3

>>13405192
Preussentum und Sozialismus was published in 1919. Marx died in 1883. Spengler also expends quite a bit of effort explaining that "Prussian Socialism" (which wasn't a term the actual Prussian state ever used as far as I know) was a redefinition of the term socialism.

>>13405202
Every form of socialism organizes the means of production in some sense. Every capitalism does too for that matter. That isn't what the "ownership" of the means of production means to Marx.

>>13405235
What's your point? The Communist Manifesto is a polemic against certain types of socialism which Marx is arguing against. If you want proof that there other types of socialism there you go. I don't give a shit about Prussian socialism.

>>13405241
>Every form of socialism organizes the means of production in some sense

Absolutely not. Simply holding private property in common, as in the Platonic (Republic here, not Laws) and Biblical forms of socialism, are not ‘organizing’ anything.

St. Simon if I remember correctly simply mandated where the workers live and how they live, but I don’t believe wealth redistribution or even changing where they worked was a part of his socialist agenda.

Very important you read up on stuff before you open your stupid fucking mouth and start talking about things you have no idea on :3

>>13405248
Well the point going the whole way back is that socialism doesn't refer to the abolition of all hierarchy. Past that I'd just say any group using the term to refer to anything other than worker ownership of the means of production is just misusing the term.

>>13405251
Doing nothing at all is doing something, but even so, Plato sure as fuck wasn't doing nothing with his Republic. He was theoretically organizing a society. Every society, in order to be a society, has to be organized in some way.

>>13405256
I didn't say a damn thing about hierarchy. I'm merely telling you that you're wrong to use socialism and communism interchangeably. Communism is socialist because socialism is defined as the centralized distribution of scarce resources which have alternative uses but not all socialism is communist.

>>13404913
Read Augustine. Don’t post here again till you do

>>13405136
Reds ignoring history, surprise suprise.

>>13404887
So what you are saying is we should get rid of humanity

>>13405287
humans were a mistake

>>13405270
Literally the fourth post from the top. That's what I was responding to. Aside from that, that's not the definition of socialism I've seen, or the one you get after a quick google search.

>>13405286
People misusing the term doesn't change what it means.

>>13405235
Yes we've all seen the Wikipedia article.

>>13405307
It is the definition of socialism that you've seen, you just don't understand it.

>>13405308
Well the guy who fucking posted about it clearly hasn't.

>>13405315
>>13405136
Just gonna link back to pic related. Past that idk what to do.

>>13404887
Not if I have anything to say about it, and I do

>>13405270
>Every society, in order to be a society, has to be organized in some way.

Wrong. Not like kind of wrong, like maybe a little bit, just flat out wrong. You can have a decentralized society. Do you even know what that means?

There’s a slight amount of organization, mostly related to the infrastructure and defense, of the society involved. But other than that anything more is entirely the nation’s direction.

The only reason socialism has any sway was due to two reason

1) it served as a functional opiate for the masses
2)it served the interests of those in power, to allow them to consolidate easier

All you have to do these days is preach socialism and you can almost be elected president. It’s sad really, and I fear that you might not quite understand the link between Fascism and economically-controlled socialism before it’s too late :3

>the virgin pointing out hierarchy exists
>the chad imposition of hierarchy

>>13405456
I am chad, you incel, all your sluts are mine

>>13405487
based

>>13405360
>Wrong
>There’s a slight amount of organization
kek

>>13404887
Based

>>13404913
butterfly tripfag has proven that he is a pseud. disregard everything this bluepilled basedboy has to say.

>>13404913
Fuck off