/lit/ - Literature

>>13548083
Heard this discussed on a philosophy podcast and similar criticisms were leveled. Interesting topic covered inadequately by an unqualified pop scholar.

she stole half the book almost word for word from NRx blogs because she knew nobody in the media or publishing world would call her on it

>>13548094
do you have a link to that podcast?
I'm quite interested in this shitfest.

>>13548083
Anyone have the book titled "this, but unironically?" I think that one is superior. It's written by a PHD who lurked on 4chan for a year who brilliantly dissected the website and it's culture.

Another postmodern author who claims that neo fascist movements have definitely taken youth just because m e m e s, and to prove her point, forcibly despises real, not virtual, tendencies like feminism that truly motorizes people.
I just can't comprehend how can someone write so many wrong statements without doing it on purpose. She projects an enormous shadow from something so tiny, it's at least suspicious

>>13548305
>just because m e m e s
that's quite accurate to be honest
You are understimating the power of digital age propaganda

>>13548083
>muh gamergate was a mygonistic harcelement campagne
I just quite there, I don't even think GG was some kind of noble movements, it was a clusterfuck, but you did very little research if you buy the narrative concocted by cliques afraid of losing moneys and narcissists schyzo.

>>13548353
*quit

>>13548083
I want a strasserite Angela Nagle gf.
I want to put a potato in her mouth, fuck her doggystale, slap her nonexistent ass and shout HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM POTATOES YOU FILTHY PADDYNIGGER SLUT at her.

zero books went to shit the moment Fisher left

>>13548343
>that's quite accurate to be honest
>You are understimating the power of digital age propaganda
Yes, but you need to qualify this. Political extremes of all stripes are making gains because the institutions of Western Democracy have lost a lot of legitimacy, and most economies are unsustainable ponzi schemes that can't offer the same standard of living enjoyed by the Baby Boomer generation (but refuse to lower expectations, acknowledge the hardship, or construct a society that can manage difficult circumstances better). Unironic ethnonationalism is a retarded response to these circumstances, and will only do more damage, but the memes wouldn't flourish if the network wasn't full of aimless young white men primed to lash out and to feel entitled to a phantom life which they felt they were promised.

I don't know if you realise this, but young men with no prospects is the key ingredient for political ructions. It could be revolution. It could be renewal. But someone is going to come along and activate those losers. If neo fascist memes are offering them the most compelling story, then we would be morons not to acknowledge that something is seriously wrong. Yet everywhere you look, anything that resembles a group of young men organising themselves (no matter how innocent, hobbyist, etc.) is ruthlessly attacked by culture warriors and so on. Fine. Suppress it as long as you can. But to solve it, the place to start is the truth: a lot of young people have been shafted by debt merchants and the false promises of a culture still trying to pretend it can fulfil the dreams of the postwar economic boom. Not possible.

>>13548460
douglas LAME is alright but their yt channel has some pretty bizzare shit every now and then
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmuSV1H8v_M

>>13548460
Hello, Zero Books readers.

>>13548491
He's a culture pleb and can't formulate his thoughts to anyone outside his in group

>>13548147
But that doesn't have an attention grabbing title and wasn't written by a fierce woman so fuck off bro

>>13548490
>But to solve it, the place to start is the truth: a lot of young people have been shafted by debt merchants and the false promises of a culture still trying to pretend it can fulfil the dreams of the postwar economic boom. Not possible.
And then what?

>>13548147
>It's written by a PHD who lurked on 4chan for a year who brilliantly dissected the website and it's culture.

Just a year? Does he take into account that 4chan permanently loses history and context as time moves on? Was it during one of the good years?

>>13548643
>tfw you're part of the Post-Moot era and can never change that

>>13548712
What's it like being part of the post-moot era? I really don't understand it. Like almost everything being output by 4chan these days is almost no different to the shit you see on the rest of the internet now.

>>13548490
But where does it translate from being an online meme to real life? Is their presence online indicative a revolutionary force, or are they just a bunch of limp wristed people LARPing their revolt?

>>13548643
>DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU

>>13548731
The fact that rather than developing a bubble where everyone congratulates me for my taste in film, music and litiature people relentlessly shit on it. That opens more doors to discovering possibly better things. I haven't really seen that anywhere else. Forums are dead and most sites have formed in to bubbles where everyone has the same favorite albums, movies and books. I really need to stop browsing this site, because it definitely doesn't effect me in a positive way but everytime i quit this site all i see are these big corporate sites where its all sunshine and rainbows and the wrong opinions get downvoted, reported and banned.

>>13548643
Smug and depressed I’m an old fag apparently.

>>13548643
>good years?
so like 2001?

>>13548805
>the bizarrely positive view that only a zoomer can have of post-moot 4chan

You think that 4chan isn't (very) prone to group think? I agree with you that the rest of the internet has turned to homogenized garbage but 4chan, nowadays, isn't much different.

>>13548805
Every form of gatekeeping has left 4chan. 99% of 4chan is an absolute pleb
/tv/ might be capeshit central, but so are the other boards

>>13548643
You never established that, you're just a pseud.

>>13548892
>>13548909
This place has always and will always be shit, but the poster you are responding to is absolutely right that other sites are corporate manufactured lollipops and rainbows. Other sites are much harder on different opinions. If your opinion is different on here, you just get called a faggot.

>>13548083
It's a quick read and not much if lost if you do and some may be gained. It was a huge mistake of her to focus on Milo so much, he's not particularly interesting

The internet changes so fast that this book is probably already vastly outdated. Meme culture is spastic in nature

>>13548643
Cancer here. Oh, how I have grown!

>>13548643
>it's [current year]
>the era of the brainlet

>>13548892
>nowadays, isn't much different.
Was it ever not different? The only difference is that "nerd culture" used to be more taboo in the early 00's and it got progressively mainstream, to the point where now it's essentially the mainstream culture now so maybe 4chan discussions and content about video games and anime don't feel so niche. But it was always populated by teenagers with shit taste. It got older for a bit, but then it started to attract newfags because of their trolling stunts and this proccess never stopped. Since its inception, 4chan has always had a constantly rotating userbase of younger and dumber posters. It feels worse now, maybe, because it got larger.

Other than that, it's all about politics and edgy opinions and 4chan is unique in the sense that it's a large forum where almost everything is still more or less permitted. You can have rabid ethnonationalists, genocide deniers and pedophiles talking about hating gays, other races and raping minors in most boards. This is the only reason people who actually post here feel like they couldn't do in any other large online forum and why it feels so scary and reprehensible to outsiders. And that's it. Because the internet is a much more policed, sanitized and centralized place, this is one of the few cesspools left.

>>13548974
I agree that it wasn't ever much better and I think it's also not particularly bad now - for what it is.
What's different now is that /pol/ is a thing and people are all political. Unlike 10 years ago.

>>13548129
Different anon, but here's one I listened to. http://thebrilliant.org/podcast/episode-94-kill-all-normies/

>>13548974
>You can have rabid ethnonationalists, genocide deniers and pedophiles talking about hating gays, other races and raping minors in most boards.

What the fuck are you talking about? I swear it feels like the newfags today think that the entirety of 4chan was /b/ in the past or that it was "always shit". That was just /b/. (And even /b/ was better than it is now since it's basically a porn dump now).

All the little blue hobby boards had their own sub-communities with mostly on-topic threads unlike now where anything can devolve into /pol/-esque shit.

>But it was always populated by teenagers with shit taste.
It was populated by internet nerds, usually of a particular social standing. They don't exist anymore.

>>13548981
People were less political 10 yers ago. Post-cold war politics are falling appart. Extremists have always existed but they were easier to ignore in the 90's and 2000's, now they are not. Even if /pol/ didn't exist here it would have existed somewhere else. Neonazi and neoreactionary boards would have seeped through here unless it became a closed board like SA instead, where only communists and transsexual progressives in their fucking 30's and 40's are allowed to grovel around their weirdo moderators and circlejerk about how awful politcs are in their own little safe space.

But the thing is, SA is also shit. If you want a definite rebuke go take a long hard look at the Something Awful forums and bask yourself in the glorious alternative. It was roughly a 4chan's sister-board during the 00's and had a similar reputation for trolling, memes and creativity except it had harsh moderation and less weebery. It went the opposite direction of 4chan and it attempted to preserve it's own culture over the years, as well as having a very responsible (progressive) view of politics and keeping all horrible people away. Tell me, how is it holding up as a forum? Is it that interesting and unique because it has an older userbade composed of goony neckbeards who feel superior becuase they are not bothered by edgy nazis and can pretend to have more sophisticated discussions about movies, vidya, literature and other more idiotic hobbies?

I would say no. It's a stale board of autistic idiots and no one bothers to talk about it because it's a dead community.

>>13549014
>It was populated by internet nerds, usually of a particular social standing. They don't exist anymore.
They got older? That, and internet nerds isn't a thing anymore. The internet became a thing normal people use daily, all the time.

>>13548147

does this book even exist?

>>13548974
Atleast /tv/, /mu/ and /lit/ used to discuss experimental art in small doses during the early years. You won't get a single reply if you'd try it today

>>13549017
You basically rephrased my sentence.

>>13549016
Got perma-banned eh? lol.

>Got perma-banned eh?
I would never get banned from that shithole. I used to browse it when it was interesting. When it got boring I started browsing 4chan. That was, ironically enough, around 10 years ago.

>>13548837
*2011

>>13549036
>used to discuss experimental art
/lit/ isn't even that old. I feel people are seeing things through rose-colored glasses. You can always go to some other board. If the older "smarter" user base moved on, maybe you should move on as well?

>>13549023
Couldn't find it.
But I find this and kek'd.

>>13549051
Is this parody? I don't understand how people can write an internet culture book, even ironically. I would cringe after every sentence if I had to write something like this while pretending it's some serious manual. It's even more embarrassing if this faggot is under 50.

>>13549044
>I would never get banned from that shithole.
Whatever you say man. I left that place once (or twice) when it became modded harshly. I came back around 2015 when gbs was basically /pol/-lite (and after all the mod scandals).

>>13549070
>I came back around 2015 when gbs was basically /pol/-lite
You mean circa 2008 /b/ except gay? It's funny to see goons attempting to be edgy about shit but it always comes out as contrived. I remember when gbs was an incel advice forum 10 years ago lmao. It's amazing how they now portray themselves as radically different, but they are just 4chan with less testosterone.

>>13549023
It doesn't. I remember when the image first appeared on the net and I searched the university's publications and couldn't find it. The guy even said it's on "ligmaz.com", so...... you should be able to do the rest of the math.

>>13549083
Man you must have banned to be this butthurt. 2015 GBS was pretty fun.

>>13548083
is this riveting or is she another individual offended by the word normie

>>13549046
Probably the last good year.

>>13549097
>Man you must have banned to be this butthurt
What you have is buyers remorse. You must have invested at least a few hundreads of dollars in Lowtax's scam website if you're that upset with the idea that some people don't like it. By the time I stopped caring about it, I wasn't even old enough to have a credit card. I browse it every now and then to see what came of it, and it's always shit.

>>13549132
Imagine being worried about being banned for what you say.

>>13549132
Buyer's remorse? lol. I've spent $20, one for the account and one for the upgrade (the upgrade is to save lowtax's spine after it got broken by Uwe Boll). I didn't have a credit card in the early days of SA either.

But like you're really angry at SA for it to be just disliking the website.

>>13549154
>>13549160
I'm not, I just don't like the place and its userbase. Why would I waste an account just for the sake of on contrarian post? They can have their shitty board for all I care. I used to like their video game board when I was a teenager. I head of Dwarf Fortress because of it, which is the only thing I owe them.

But there was always something about the way people discuss things there that felt fake. They way they talked about other internet culture they didn't like or politics creeped me out. It was like they were trying to be irreverant but highly puritanical at the same time. Ultramoralism masked as nihilism. It felt contrived and plastic and many users often start rituals where they purposely start purity tests to lure in the infidels to be banned and to reinforce the moral hegemony. Americans are fucking weird.

>>13549220
>which is the only thing I owe them.
You owe them 4chan.

>>13548083
Nagle is a voyeurs voyeur and thus a radically incomplete thinker

>>13549337
>I owe a 14 year old who used to frequent some gay website no one reads known only for its forums for a shitty japanese imageboard clone so other weebs could share their loli porn and shitpost about cats all day
I doubt it. It's like saying I owe newgrounds for shitty cartoon animations on youtube.

>>13548712
>>13548805
Can you describe what you mean by these bubbles what sort of media/literature you've encountered here that probably wouldn't be mentioned elsewhere?

The only thing I can think of was when I first came here was learning about kurosawa and ozu films

Also describe the other websites/forums you used before coming here. Personally I came here in 2011 and beforehand only used the bungie.net forums (dead site) and GameFAQs

can someone here write a book on 4chan from a metamodernist perspective

>>13549381
> beforehand only used the bungie.net forums
I remember going to the Blizzard general forums back in the day (mid 00's) because of Warcraft 3. A lot of edgy yet casual rascism and nazi jokes, people rating posts and method trolling. It's where I figured out /b/ culture was a thing.

>>13549377
>It's like saying I owe newgrounds for shitty cartoon animations on youtube.
In a sense. A lot of them started on newgrounds or at least drew inspiration from there.

I feel like you're ignoring all the stuff on youtube and other sites/social media is derived directly from 4chan and SA (and to it's contemporaries like YTMND).

>>13549408
>A lot of edgy yet casual rascism and nazi jokes, people rating posts and method trolling. It's where I figured out /b/ culture was a thing.

The internet was separate from reality back then and most people in those days weren't serious about anything, so you could crack a joke or two.

>>13548490
I don't know man, we are facing something new and not the same good 'ol generational crisis.
To fail to acknowledge the contemporary influence of a wildly new media such as the Internet after the explosion of social medias (with their alternative spaces), and to think it's still grassroots and not manipulated by invisible forces (something that Nagle fails even to consider), is quite not understanding what's going on since at least 2012.
It's a catalyst that not only accelerates processes but that creates new substances.

She actually plagiarized most of that book from KnowYourMeme

>>13548490
>But someone is going to come along and activate those losers.
Limp wristed and impotent academics have been larping as revolutionaries for decades. Why are people suddenly so scared of neo fascists entering the playground? They have less of a voice than the revolutionary left had in the west during the cold war, and little came out of it other than faggy little mini culture revolutions inspired by pederast frenchmen.

>>13549460
Reality just got so bad that we had so start joking sincerely I guess. Now I'm racist, I used to be left-libertarian back in the old days.

>>13548083
She's cute

>>13548083
Roasties

>>13549810
>since at least 2012.
The mayans were right.

>>13548731
Sure, the content is shit, but the (you)s are the same.

>>13548803
PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI

>>13549914
Yeah she actually is.
Also apparantly she's been cancelled by the left for her "A Leftist Case Against Immigration" article from around a year ago.

>>13549914
Definition of a 5/10

>>13548643
>tfw I've spent half my life on 4chan
>tfw I'm 30

Jesus

>>13548083
> keeps shilling this fucking book for years

>>13550107
who is shilling? why is talking a bout a book shillin it

just like all newfags who lurked only for the aim of capitalizing on the hype, it will be meme tier. 'normies' falling for memes that were made to mock the lowest common denominator of an anonymous website. the memed trying to fight the memes of shills and falseflags. trying to objectify the anonymous because in the attention economy of having the loudest avatar, a minority of no named users are hard to marketize

>>13549051
>needing an entire book to prove that the left can meme
Holy fuck the jokes write themselves

>>13548490

Pic unironically taken from r*ddit but expresses why the alt-right is winning on every important front.

>>13548147
I was actually going to post "this but unironically" in reference to the OP book title.

>>13548083
>The French intellectuals are ONE FACTOR in the degradation of the Anglo tradition
>Paglia is based as fuck

>>13550078
>the left

You're probably the sort of person who thinks brexit is a right-wing thing.

>>13550296
>alt-right
I'm pretty sure capitalism is winning.

>>13550415
I'm pretty sure capitalism is a phantom.

>>13548490
>we cannot maintain our standard of living
>so let's open the borders
Stones, glass houses.

>>13550589
That's your fucking takeaway from his post?

>>13550536
They will not hesitate to crush you the moment you try to assert yourself. No tears will be shed by the center or the left because all the rest of society looks at you with contempt

>>13550536
By this point it's a buzzword used by communists and their adjacents for anything they consider bad in modernity to justify their proposed reforms. It created this weird binary dialectic where one can only be pro capitalism or against it and those are the two major positions.

What is actually worrying is that the far-right is successfully using capitalism as a boogieman themselves, except they are also throwing jews into the equation. Even the american mainstream right is abandoning "capitalism" and attacking it as a way of threatening the elites. When the right starts getting fed up with capitalism, you know things are about to change drastically.

Now all we need is for the progressive alliance to break down and the hardline leftists start purging trannies and minority ethnonationalists from their ranks and you'll have the perfect recipe for extreme violence.

>>13550032
It's because of KONY2012.
(((They))) learnt a trick or two with that.
>>13550296
More like the new left honed its skills in shaming ordinary ppl bullying and accusing them of being racists, misogynists, antisemitic and fascists.
When they started to be confronted by the alt-right, who are openly all those stuff and even more, they didn't know what the heck to do and froze in panic.

>>13550690
>>13550733
I don't think you take my meaning. I say that Capitalism has never existed. It is illusory. It is nothing it all. The word has only existed as a curtain to hide what is really meant, and each person who uses it has a different meaning. It is not the spirit of the modern age, but instead the ghost.

>>13550733
>What is actually worrying is that the far-right is successfully using capitalism as a boogieman themselves, except they are also throwing jews into the equation.
You think far left never threw Jews there? Even fucking Marx connected those two.

>>13550760
>It is illusory. It is nothing it all.
Just as any system ever. That's what forms do, they hide stuff to make it easier to formulate theory and propose action.

>>13550736
>the new left
What does left-wing actually mean to you american fucks?

>>13550765
Not him but the far left changed radically after 9/11.
Before it was deeply anti-Israel (not anti-semitic, but still) and sided with Palestine, if not outright flirted with Islamic terrorism.

Hello fellow lefties here a guide for your secret invasion mission on the alt right hideout! https://qz.com/1092037/the-alt-right-is-creating-its-own-dialect-heres-a-complete-guide/

>>13550787
Far left is and was always anti-zionist. Except for the bried period when Stalin allowed Czechoslovakia to carry on their bussiness with Israel.

>>13550760
So what is the name of the system that exists?

>>13550785
I'm european and by "new left" I mean the american phenomenon. Obviously it's not left to me, USA isn't capable of thinking outside a turbo-capitalistic bulletproof safebox.

>>13550807
>by "new left" I mean the american phenomenon.

You need to give it another name since the americans need to understand what they have are just different shades of right.

>>13550799
>anti-zionist
Everybody is fucking anti-zionist, who the heck would be pro-zionism? Even Jews are anti-zionism if you ask them.
We were talking about anti-semitism, the left has never been anti-semitic.

>>13550781
But this is not so. A Republic has a clear enough meaning to, with an attitude that is understandable and meaningfully different than a Monarchy, a Kingdom, an Empire, and so on. Communism, though endlessly argued over, puts forward several clear, intended systems, and a few actual systems which appear with relative reliability. Fascism even offers a recognizeable attitude, even if its form is more variable. You take just about anything else with an -ism, and you can eventually get to the bottom of it. But in which of these things does Capitalism not exist? What is meant by Capitalism that is not present in each and every one of these, at least to some degree? In what way is Anarcho-Capitalism, for example, meaningfully distinguished from fuedalism? Is anything really meant by capitalism other than secularism? Except that secularism is present else where and is easily understood. No, capitalism does not, has not, and will not ever exist. Whatever the state of the world, capitalism will never adequately or even meaningfully describe it. Its only purpose is as a byword, a way of discussing some other activity in a way which your accomplices find useful, and the public finds disarming.

>>13550815
America doesnt have a mainstream right or left and if your think otherwise you dont know what leftism or right wing is. America is the great engine of liberalism.

>>13550803
Which system?

>>13550826
What about Corbyn? That's what all the newspapers keep telling me.

>>13548083
>Zero books

D R O P P E D

>>13550826
>the left has never been anti-semitic.
Who do you think carried out the last expulsions of Jews in Europe?

>>13550826
>Everybody is fucking anti-zionist, who the heck would be pro-zionism? Even Jews are anti-zionism if you ask them.

Hahahahaha

He seriously posted this.

>>13550843
>Corbyn
Anti Israel, of the old school, and self proclaimed antizionist. Not antisemite, he's been accused of that but he rejected it.

>>13550828
>What is meant by Capitalism that is not present in each and every one of these, at least to some degree?
Capitalism is economic system typical for industrialized societies where means of production are owned privately and operated for private profit. Bulk of labour force is bound to wage labour. State acts in a way it enforces equal rules for all actors and prevents violent coercion, while maintaining least possible intervention. I can understand your sentiment though, it requires certain level of understanding history in order to make sense of it.

>In what way is Anarcho-Capitalism, for example, meaningfully distinguished from fuedalism?
In a way that it's proponents are delusional enough to think that the society they propose could maintain non-aggression principle

Read this instead

>>13550907
You clearly don't understand what I mean. Private production has always existed. Private ownership has always existed. And even though communists will talk of eradicating all kinds of ownership, the society described still contains effectual ownership. And also, capitalism is used to refer to all kinds of situations where there is unequal treatment under the law, and where there is great intervention. Likewise, the allowance or dis allowance of violence in society is a completely separate matter in society, regulated and decided by a completely different system of ethics. You feel as though you have provided a clear description, and yet you have simultaneously described every society, and no society. It's a spook. If it capitalism can be considered anything at all, it can only be a faith in the system of trade itself above and beyond a faith in the people who trade.

>>13551010
>Private production has always existed. Private ownership has always existed.
No, it popped up after certain level of human development. Way too back, but still. It's also what makes the difference between capitalism and socialism. This private ownership must also manifest itself in the fact that bulk of population doesn't have enough capital to live independently, hence they must sell their labour to those who own enough capital.

>the society described still contains effectual ownership
Of non-productive assets.

>And also, capitalism is used to refer to all kinds of situations where there is unequal treatment under the law, and where there is great intervention.
And? It's a form, of course susbtance is going to deviate to a certain degree. Just as if you have secularism, you can still have religious folks organizing in political parties and voting against shit like gay rights.

>Likewise, the allowance or dis allowance of violence in society is a completely separate matter in society, regulated and decided by a completely different system of ethics.
No, it's not separate at all. When there is vioelence allowed actors would compete on the battlefield, not on the market. Martial sphere has to be minimized.

>and yet you have simultaneously described every society, and no society
I described USA, but I didn't describe USSR. I described German Bundesrepublik, but I didn't describe SIR.

>>13548083
>(YIKES)
If you're a grown adult and you unironically use this word, then you need to be curbstomped or put in a gas chamber. Fuck off and die, cunt

>>13549051
Didn't they think while writing that this might be a bad and cringy idea?

>>13550415
Are you a leftcom who unironically thinks that there's no fundamental difference between the Third Reich and WW2 America?

>>13550826
The right is pro zionism because they hate muslims more

>>13550980
Havent read this and i dont want to give any money to random people, so is this an actual fair observational piece or is it a Roger Scruton-esque shitty hitpiece? I find that the right, for all its flaws, has a better understanding of the left than vice versa.

Intellectuals and Society.

>>13551160
Never read it but it's on libgen, with this blurb. Putting Spencer and Evola in the same category is funny.
>In Key Thinkers of the Radical Right, sixteen expert scholars explain sixteen thinkers, providing an introduction to their life and work, a guide to their thought, and an explanation of their work's reception. The chapters focus on thinkers who are widely read across the political right in both Europe and America, such as Julius Evola, Alain de Benoist, and Richard B. Spencer. Featuring classic, modern, and emerging thinkers, this selection provides a good representation of the intellectual right and avoids making political or value judgments. In an increasingly polarized political environment, Key Thinkers of the Radical Right offers a comprehensive and unbiased introduction to the thinkers who form the foundation of the radical right.

>>13548083
I'm more sad that 4chan will never be the way it was.

>>13551010
You don’t know anything about history. In Heilbroner’s history of economics, the reason economics only emerges as a field of study in the 1770s is that if you go much earlier all economic activity was conducted through either ‘tradition or command’. Every worker either did the job their father did, or did the job their lord commanded them to. The idea of ‘free labour’ was a genuinely novel historical advent.

>>13551078
You are a pseud. You are speaking in terms that you cannot see. No one has ever been able to live independently. You vastly underestimate what assets can be productive. Even a pocket knife can be capital. It is not simply that capitalism varies, but that capitalism can either be seen in every society, or in no society. There is no way to define capitalism that prevents it from being either universal (and therefore meaningless) or too precise (and therefore meaningless). Your argument about violence demonstrates my point, in saying it is not separate, you separate it--there is nothing about capitalism that would prevent violent mechanisms from being considered a valid transfer of wealth, and your desire to limit violence comes from contemporary liberal philosophy. After all, the Dutch East India Company, the Virginia Company, most of colonialism was driven by a capitalist drive. It was only the Catholic nations which expanded with any other motive than private economic gain. You believe that you did not describe the USSR, but it is quite clear that there were individuals who had more control over resources than others, and those individuals acquired greater wealth, privilege, and honor. Which is precisely my point. A socialist calls capitalism the current system of distribution, but the new system operates under the same natural laws and results in an almost identical system, but with new terms and new aesthetics. And on the other side, in the 80s, many businessmen raided pensions, essentially stole from their shareholders, and more, all in the name of "capitalism", while everything they worked against was also called "capitalism," and to the extent that each of these groups used their power and influence to shape government, each was hardly different than the socialists they claimed were the great enemy. Capitalism is nothing. It is an empty phrase. It's only function is to either attack or support the conventional organizing principles of a society without openly discussing what the organizing principles are.

>>13551500
Is this pasta or are you too autistic to use paragraphs?

>>13551476
>You don't know history
>Regurgitates a single author's opinion
Perhaps the worst development of the "enlightenment" was explosion of people who believe what they read more than what they see. New words do not make for a new idea. The change you describe did not come from new ideas about labor, but rather from new ideas about tradition. What we see is not the development of some new economic system, but only a change in the moral system and a change in technology (itself a result of changes in the moral system). It is precisely in this moment we see the idea of capitalism come about, primarily to allow activity which would have previously been considered immoral. If we actually look at what actions were taken, however, they are not novel. Yes, the machines were new, but the relationship between worker and master was not. You, like most modernists, are getting tripped up by names and blinding yourself to reality.

>>13551513
Are you new, or just slow?

>>13551572
Don't post here often so I'm not completely familiar with /lit/'s retardation.

>>13551476
Banking and the advent of the merchant prince, which marks the birth of capitalism, started in the 1400s. The late 1700s is when capitalism was finally wrestling itself away from the corpse of feudalism.

>>13551579
Yeah, sorry we're not as comfy as r/books

>>13551500
>You are a pseud
I'm merely asserting mainstream perception. You are using your ignorance to come up with radically new ideas. The one who jumps up is the one in danger of being called a pseud.

>You are speaking in terms that you cannot see
Aren't we all? I at least have the vantage point of living in a post communist country and understanding that capitalism isn't some kind of universal, omnipresent law granted by God like you are trying to force it like.

>No one has ever been able to live independently.
Capitalists live independently. Hermits live independently, plenty of craftsmen used to live independently. They own themselves and sell products of their labour, they don't sell themselves so that others will own products of their labour.

>You vastly underestimate what assets can be productive. Even a pocket knife can be capital.
When productive capita existed in the form of knifes and like, societies weren't capitalistic.

>nothing about capitalism that would prevent violent mechanisms from being considered a valid transfer of wealth,
Yea, there is. It would result in violence being the primary kind of competition. Monopoly of state over violence is required in order for capitalism to prosper

>and your desire to limit violence comes from contemporary liberal philosophy
I haven't expressed any desires. Capitalism came from liberal philosophy.

>After all, the Dutch East India Company, the Virginia Company, most of colonialism was driven by a capitalist drive.
That's violence outside of polity, that doesn't endanger it. If you had violence that endanger the polity, there would be a pressure to limit capitalism and if you had violence in a polity, the whole system falls apart.

>You believe that you did not describe the USSR, but it is quite clear that there were individuals who had more control over resources than others, and those individuals acquired greater wealth, privilege, and honor.
Sayuz also deviated from the ideal from, yet the inequality of distribution was severly limited and the officials didn't own means of production. Prestige and honor are outside of this debate. Socialism doesn't say "Same shit to everyone, regardless of how much he contributes to society."

>It's only function is to either attack or support the conventional organizing principles of a society without openly discussing what the organizing principles are.
They are conventional only in capitalistic states. In different states the prinicples were different.

>>13551626
Honestly this is one of the most reddit boards around. People unironically write giant paragraphs and have long pseudo-intellectual discussions with themselves that look like personal blog posts.

>>13551594
But what about the discover of silver mines through Gaul in the late Western Roman Empire, its reliance on non-Imperial families, the large, privately held silver smiths, and the increasing allowance of non-Romans into the military hierarchy, and through that into control of previously imperial and Roman means of production and travel? Capitalism is not real, but is only a word developed by modern thinkers to allow industrial and trading practices that would not have been morally tolerated under more overtly Christian societies. Ever since it has been a canvas to cover what is really meant, by both its "opponents" and "supporters".

>>13551643
reminds me of nick land's blog, they deteriorated from being genuine disucssion to 2 or 3 literally psychotic guys, I think named wagner, collen ryan, and rome, spouting their word salad endlessly. I am not kidding he has posts with 600 comments of these guys posting their rambling givings

>>13551638
I won't respond to this poorly written mess. I didn't write a list of independent arguments, so don't take it piecemeal. You have done nothing but say "You're wrong, I'm right" nine times in a row. Try building to a point, and use a number of your ideas in support of each other, rather than spouting an inane list of "refutations" without support.

>>13551643
How should I know? Why do you?

>>13551670
>ugh stop dissecting my poorly understandable mess of an argument
Ok, where do I get the medal for victory?

>>13551685
> Why do you?
Because that's the site's reputation. But sure, call me a redditor if that makes you feel better about yourself.

>>13551666
I believe you. I never read Land's work but I read some of Moldbug's and it's pretty interesting stuff. Too bad it attracts so many autists.

>>13551648
Vast majority of Roman economy was agriculture. Agriculture perfomed by free farmers early on and by servile labour later on. Capitalism isn't about small things happening here and there, it's about what's the dominant form of production.

>>13551696
>no u

>>13550828
Profit. The key is profit. In other economic systems, profit may be used as a tool, but in capitalism it's the main goal.

On feudalism vs. anarcho-capitalism, of course they look the same! Ancaps designed it to look like feudalism intentionally. If, in practice, they would behave so similarly is a completely different story.

>>13550405
It effectively is when it's portrayed by most left institutions as such. Does it bother you that the left often sides with neoliberals on things?

>>13551787
Yes me, I won, you waved the white flag of anger, insults and refusal to argue.

>>13550296
The alt right is not winning on any front, it's a fucking shamble and a rapidly decaying wreck.
Establishment leftist tactics work, they fucking control the culture and don't gain anything by engaging with other ideas, true that some people desire actual dialogue but the majority are satisfied by the fake, puppet show version of dialogue put out by people like contrapoints.
It's infuriating coming up against this shit but it's fucking impenetrable, every time you engage with one of these people they do one of 3 things.
>Accuse you of something
Makes you look bad either way because you're either ignoring their accusation or spending your time trying to deny something instead of putting forward any actual ideas.
>Draw guilt by association between you and some idea that they've decided is untouchable (and these untouchable ideas only exist on the right)
Have you got one sperg follower? Evil.
Do the evil people agree or partially agree with anything you say? Evil
Do you use similar phrases or words to them (even if you're using in a different way)? Evil.
>They lie about what you've just said to them
Usually this comes in the form of some absurd amplification but often it's also just an outright misinterpretation that is hard to see as unintentional. Again this puts you in the position of either having to deny their accusations or simply leaving them unchallenged.
As stupid as it is this shit works, and no the solution is not to just say "yes i'm the evil man" that doesn't make you look good.
Note that most serious commies don't do this shit.

>>13551790
>Profit. The key is profit. In other economic systems, profit may be used as a tool, but in capitalism it's the main goal.
Interesting, can you please expand? What were for example the goals of Roman senator engaging in trade for profit and how would they differ from 19th century industrialist?

>>13551760
Exactly. A farm is capital. It is a technology used to produce many resources. Someone owns the farm, and someone controls the farm. Sometimes they are recognized as the same person, and sometimes they are recognized as different people. Also, there are different ways of distributing the profit from selling the produce. I used the example of silver, because it was, at the time, a recent economic change which had a significant effect on the economy and the structure of society. When you begin to separate out the ownership and avenues of profit distribution, along with the actual market mechanisms, you begin to see that the idea of capitalism is too broad to mean anything--it allows for almost any particular relationship of these things. Capitalism cannot be understood as agrarian versus industrial economies. It cannot be understood in free labor vs slave/servile labor. It cannot be understood purely as public vs private ownership. It cannot be understood as the amount of regulation, and therefore cannot be understood ether as the kind of regulation. We agree on a certain rough starting point for capitalism, and yet when we analyze the actual mechanisms, we cannot meaningfully distinguish that period from other periods under the terms of capitalism. It is rather just a feeling about how labor and production were treated or understood, even though even that had barely changed. Capitalism never existed. It's a meaningless term.

>>13551822
I am not saying that no one had any interest in profit before capitalism. what I am saying is that within capitalism, profit as a main goal became the norm.

Of course you can see capitalistic behaviour before capitalism. You can see tribalistic and socialistic behaviour nowadays, but no sane person would say that we live in a tribal or socialist society.

>>13551790
1. Spacing
2. Profit has always existed, even before currency. What you are describing can be understood as either greed or efficiency. Also, to understand profit, especially in the scope of individual trade, you must also include non-monetary benefit. So while I would agree with you that many today say capitalism is about profit before all else, I urge you to find any part of history where profit was not the primary aim. And this is precisely my point--the word capitalism is used by various people to mean various things, none of which are strongly defined, and none of which are actually a meaningful distinction upon closer examination. If a society measures profit only in currency, and nothing else, you cannot call that a unique economic system; after all the mechanisms of the economy are the same; all that has changed is the value system, which is a matter of faith and morals. Likewise, when critics says the capitalists should be overthrown, whom do they mean? Does this statement have any real meaning except to destroy whoever would stand in the way of a new government, which of course is not a change in the economic system at all, but is rather a change to the legal system and the philosophical system. You can only play this word game so long as you continually shuffle the lack of definition. Oh, what is this vague thing? It's just this other thing. What is this other thing? Oh, it is nothing more than this third thing. So on and so forth. Eventually it comes back around, and nothing has really been defined. The beauty, of course, is that each false definition requires examples (because it is implicitly meaningless), and whoever presents the case can provide whatever examples they wish. In this manner, by supposedly discussing capitalism, anyone can support or attack any other system of any kind by example just by calling it capitalism.

>>13551800
newfag

>>13551833
>A farm is capital.
According to conventional definition, land isn't capital.

>Sometimes they are recognized as the same person, and sometimes they are recognized as different people.
Free farmers say they are the same people.

>we cannot meaningfully distinguish that period from other periods under the terms of capitalism.
Yes, we can. We can see the disappearance of noble as the upper class and his replacement with merchant, banker and industrialist. We can see nobles extracting wealth from their property first by taxation of produce, then monetary taxation, taxation of labour and finally straight up wage labour. Sometimes we can even see transition from common property to private property.

> When you begin to separate out the ownership and avenues of profit distribution, along with the actual market mechanisms, you begin to see that the idea of capitalism is too broad to mean anything--it allows for almost any particular relationship of these things.
>Capitalism cannot be understood as agrarian versus industrial economies. It cannot be understood in free labor vs slave/servile labor. It cannot be understood purely as public vs private ownership. It cannot be understood as the amount of regulation, and therefore cannot be understood ether as the kind of regulation.
Your assertion is baseless. It can be understood with all of those.

>Capitalism never existed. It's a meaningless term.
So what are you saying is that there is no major difference between form of production in medieval and now? There is no meaningfull difference between production under USSR and USA?

>>13551896
Look, I get what you are saying when you say that either capitalism is everywhere or it doesn't exist. My point is that there is a difference between when some behaviour that exist (and perhaps is even frequent) and when this behaviour becomes the norm and what moves basically everything meaningful in that society forward. Yes, profit was aways important (while societies existed), but I it makes a lot of sense to me to give a proper name to an economic system where profit is at leats 95% of the "important things to consider"
Sorry, I am writing in an extremely crappy phone. I don't have any patience left to keep this discussion going.

>>13551896
>1. Spacing
Yes, learn it.

>If a society measures profit only in currency, and nothing else, you cannot call that a unique economic system;
Why?

>all the mechanisms of the economy are the same
People work in a different way. Elites own in a different way. State works in a different way.

>Does this statement have any real meaning except to destroy whoever would stand in the way of a new government, which of course is not a change in the economic system at all, but is rather a change to the legal system and the philosophical system.
There absolute was a difference. Socialist economy worked in a very different way.

>You can only play this word game so long as you continually shuffle the lack of definition.
You can play this games with words like "nationalism", "imperialism", "religiosity" etc. Human societies are complex and hard to define. When Diogenes plucked a chicken, the word Human didn't suddenly become meaningless.

>>13551940
You ass. Stop replying in this bullshit way. You don't belong here. Change or leave. A farm is more than just the land. If you simply buy a piece of property it is not yet anything. If you transform it into a farm, then it becomes capital. As a matter of financing and accounting, the land itself is not considered as such, but all the value of the capital is instead nominally held by the organizational system of the legal structure, the equipment, the contracts, and the intellectual property. All this can be owned by someone who does no work on the farm, and who has almost zero influence on its control; in a very real sense, this person would be little different than a feudal lord, especially if the farm was enough size that the free farmers were all but required to live on the property, at which point they must also obey the rules of conduct of the farm. The distinguishing features would be the language used (which does not change the underlying economic mechanisms) and the relationship all these people have to military action and defense of the polity (which is also a separate system from the economic system). With your very poor description of the disappearance of a traditional nobility, you again show your lack of real understanding, and demonstrate my point--the economic system did not change, but rather the language of the system, and individuals within the system. Further, in that gradation, you cannot pinpoint the moment of the transition from not-capitalism to capitalism. You say that it wasn't at first, and is now, but with no change was it suddenly complete, because at no stage can you say that particular change is a necessary component of capitalism. With your final comments it seems you have lost all ability to read critically. As I have said many times, and supported many times, the differences we see between these things are not rooted in a difference in economic system, but in other systems of social relationship. Conversely, many changes or shifts in economic system can be see and understood throughout history, but none of them can adequately be understood through the lens of capitalism. An agrarian versus an industrial economy is a meaningful difference, but the difference is not capitalism. Both actual and effective slave labor can exist within capitalism, so as much as there is difference between an economy of free labor and forced labor, it cannot be understood through the lens of capitalism. The state capitalism of China and the fascist economies of Italy and Germany, and particularly the industrialization of the USSR (as revealed by it's de-sovietization) show that as much as there are real differences even between methods of public ownership and control, it is effectively equivalent to capitalism, no matter how much the term is rejected. Capitalism allows regulation based on religion, based on ecology, based on politics, based on any grounds, and so Capitalism cannot be understood in terms of regulation.

>>13551790
In practice it's neo-feudalism.

>>13551992
just to give an example: yes, we do have very productive and lucrative farms nowadays in Europe or America, but no one would say that those countries have agrarian economies for that

>>13551992
But it doesn't make sense, because the system itself hasn't changed. The system is not the difference. While certainly, it is notable to investigate the transition of the organizing principles of a society, it is inherently false to believe that what changed was economics and And the reason that Capitalism is a particularly common but terrible scapegoat is that it is meaningless. It is used by people on every side to either support or attack one of these other positions, and sometimes even the same position by two people who agree on everything but communication strategy. No matter what the actual cause of change is, calling it capitalism is to place it in the wrong sphere, and therefore make any proper analysis impossible.

>>13552048
no! there is no practice, it doesn't exist yet.

>>13552053
But the difference between agrarian and industrial economies is not the difference between capitalism and something else. This is hopefully made clear by the fact that industrial, conglomerate-owned farms and also small, independently-owned farms are both examples of Capitalism. There are nations today, or at least provinces, that are still dominated by agrarian production, and these cannot escape the description of Capitalism. Remember too, the Soviets purged the Kulaks, who were wealthy farm owners, in the name of purging Capitalism. Furthermore, there is certainly an economic difference between a wind farm and a potato farm, but Capitalism cannot define it.

>>13552024
You clearly don't understand what a system is.

>>13552063
1. something being used as a scapegoat doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
"nazis used jews as a scapegoat. nazis where wrong about what they where blaming the jews for, therefore Judaism doesn't exist".
having some dumb opponents does not invalidate the point of all your other opponents.
2. there is clearly something lacking if you think that some plots of farm in the inka empire and google work essentially in the same way.

>>13552064
Dafuq you talking about?
What do you think global neoliberalism is? We're in media res of the neo-feudal transformation.
I know you have your ideal of how it plays out, but we're living it out as we speak. Who holds more power, governments of private banking cartels?

Our interests and policy are government more by multi-national private interest than by "sovereign" governments.

>>13552116
ok, you won me on that.

>>13552037
>Change or leave.
I've been replying like that since at least 2014. Long ass paragraphs aren't the way of 4chan, they are just stupid obscurantism where you inflate the volume of text by insults and platitudes.

>A farm is more than just the land. If you simply buy a piece of property it is not yet anything. If you transform it into a farm, then it becomes capital
That's a very modern understanding. Back in the day there weren't many tools and no one gave two fuck about intelectual property. The ratio between importance of capital and land was very much in favour of land.

>The distinguishing features would be the language used (which does not change the underlying economic mechanisms) and the relationship all these people have to military action and defense of the polity (which is also a separate system from the economic system)
Peasant is bound to the land, he can't leave this arrangement and peasants do their shit and lord extracts their created wealth, they aren't ordered to do specific tasks. There also isn't a distinction between peasants productive time and unproductive time, he's in constant submission.

>but rather the language of the system, and individuals within the system
Really? Nobility losing power to merchants is just a language to you? A sign of poor understanding?

>Further, in that gradation, you cannot pinpoint the moment of the transition from not-capitalism to capitalism. You say that it wasn't at first, and is now, but with no change was it suddenly complete, because at no stage can you say that particular change is a necessary component of capitalism
Obviously, because there's no clear cut change. Just there's no clear cut change between nationalism and non-nationalism or different races of humans.

> As I have said many times, and supported many times, the differences we see between these things are not rooted in a difference in economic system, but in other systems of social relationship
Economic system is social relationships.

>Both actual and effective slave labor can exist within capitalism, so as much as there is difference between an economy of free labor and forced labor, it cannot be understood through the lens of capitalism.
Sure it can. Labour market and slave market work a very different way.

>it is effectively equivalent to capitalism,
Nazi Germany was, USSR wasn't.

>Capitalism allows regulation based on religion, based on ecology, based on politics, based on any grounds, and so Capitalism cannot be understood in terms of regulation.
Less regulation=>more capitalism, more regulation=>less capitalism. Too much regulation=no capitalism.

>>13552115
Why do I ever expect you pick and choose responders to understand complex arguments? Of course there are differences between primitive tribal economies and today's economy. The problem is that Capitalism cannot describe those differences. Each one can be understood as capitalism, and described in capitalist terms. So, obviously, there are many, many, many different economies and economic systems throughout history, and yet, upon close analysis, the idea of Capitalism cannot be meaningfully used to distinguish any of them. Whenever some element is put forward to represent how Capitalism distinguishes one system from another, we see how this feature cannot be used in some other comparison. It cannot be identified. It is a species that does not exist. Either every system can be called Capitalism, or no system. It's fake. It's an illusion. It's a myth.

>>13552180
What?!!
How does this "incapability of describing the differences" of capitalism even work?! I gave you a very precise definition: "capitalism is a system where profit is the main goal of basically all economic agents". I think you can clearly see that this definition does not describe all human societies in history. of course my definition was simplified, but it doesn't matter all that much. As far as I understood, your definition of capitalism is even more vage than the one from the feminist who blames capitalism for her girlfriend cheating on her.
What do you propose then? saying that "we live in a society" and that's all? "we live in a democracy, an economicsystemless democracy"...

>>13552173
>You're wrong because I can't read
Economics is not social relationship. If you cannot understand that, you cannot understand economics.

>>13552228
And what, then, is profit?

>>13552243
What is it then? Physical relationship with capital being energy? Or some kind of metaphysical relationship?

>>13552255
A study of resources and their dispersion.

>>13552261
Geology is economics?

>>13552264
Geology is the study of rocks and minerals. If a rock or a mineral is a resource, it's studied under economics, but only in its capacity and function as a resource. It would be better if you didn't try to act dense though, because it is too similar to your normal behavior.

>>13552246
Ok, I think I understood your point better now.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that the growth of an empire and of a company is fundamentally the same fennomenom? they may be different and work in different ways, but, in essence, are doing the same thing.
Well, than you may be wright. What I am saying is way simpler than that. My definition of capitalism is way more pedestrian. But I will need to think a bit more before I can properly build a good argument.

>>13552293
Answer the question. What is profit?

>>13552279
>If a rock or a mineral is a resource, it's studied under economics, but only in its capacity and function as a resource.
Oh, so when I want to study distribution of iron deposits across the globe, refinement of that iron ore into steel and the various parts that can be made from that steel I should go study economics. Thanks for advice buddy!

So now you don't like semantic autism, eh?

>>13552299
Capital gain?

>>13552303
It's not semantic autism. You have a terrible understanding of the hierarchy of categories. The iron mining and refinement industries fit under the auspices of economics, business, and probably other things also, because almost no activity can be seen as exclusively one thing. But economics is not the study of a resource and its dispersion, but resources in general and their dispersion in general. That understanding is implicit to saying resources and their dispersion. If I put forward that physics is the study of bodies and their interactions in time and space, who would presume to think I meant it was the study of sex? I've provided you a strong and good definition of economics, and you're sore that it destroys your arguments so are going on in a meaningless way to make me tire and give up.

>>13552307
But money is not capital. If you think so, you seem to be equivocating the financial use of the term capital, and the economic use of the term.

>>13552299
it was precisely trying to answer your questions that I noticed how my definition could be perfectly used outside of what I considered "proper capitalism". But, as I think it somewhat still stands, here is my answer:
Profit is when you intentionally charge more for your product than what it would have cost so that you, in the end, earn money.
It's extremely generic, but I still think that in the last five centuries, profit (and, therefore, economic growth — because if profit is good, you must increase it) has become increasingly more important than ever before.
Anyway, I need more time to elaborate a good argument.

>>13552327
>The iron mining and refinement industries fit under the auspices of economics, business, and probably other things also
No it doesn't. No matter how good of an economist you are, you can't predict where will the iron resources be, you won't figure out how to make the best steel, you won't figure out how to make a car out of that steel. You won't know shit about what's actually going on physically, but you could figure out how to improve relationship between humans in a way that improves production.

>But economics is not the study of a resource and its dispersion, but resources in general and their dispersion in general.
You wrote this and you still don't see where's the error?

>I've provided you a strong and good definition of economics
No you didn't. You finally provided me with an understanding where is the source of your erronous reasoning. You made up an autistic definition of economics and now you are wondering why doesn't your autistic view conform with the conventional reasoning.

>inb4 you continue to defend your erronous definition
You know how was the field of study of economics called in it's infancy? Political Economy. Does that sounds like something free of humans? I mean it's not hard to find the conventional definitions used by authoritative sources, so why don't you do that?.

>>13552339
Under capitalism the market is perfectly capable of transubstantiating one into another. There's no problem.

>>13552345
Is profit only measured by money? And if these things are only done for money, what is the money for, and why don't people do things which would get them more money? How does your definition provide for an entire system, rather than simply being a definition of greed? What is different about the economic system? Or would it be more accurate to say that it is a difference in the value system?

>>13552393
An equiovocation is an equivocation. The problem doesn't lie in their similarity but in a clarity of terms. It is invalid to say that economic profit is capital gains. In financial terms, there are more kinds of profit than just capital gains; in economic terms, profit cannot be measured only in the increase in capital.

>>13552580
Yes, under capitalism profit is measured only by money and the goal to get more money is required mostly by the virtue of getting more money. If you don't get more money your bussiness fails. There's certainly a level of circular reasoning present. The resulting economic system is different because value system plays an absolutely critical role in economics.

>>13552588
>It is invalid to say that economic profit is capital gains.
Nah. You start a with capital of certain value, you do bussiness and get profit, your capital now has bigger value than it used to have. Value is in currency your capital can be measured on the market. If you want more conventional definition then "financial gain".

>>13552387
Of course economics will be unable to tell you where unfound iron ore will be; you are describing the chemical and geographic qualities of the iron ore, not its quality as a resource. In economic terms, unfound iron ore does not exist. It is not a resource, so cannot be studied. Again, I don't think you understand systems or categories, which is essential to your inability to understand my argument. You also seem to be under the illusion (as I suspected would happen) that by saying economics is not social relationships that I must mean it is without any relationship to social organization. A slave master in the American South had a different economic relationship to a slave master in feudal England, but not a vastly different social relationship, especially prior to Bacon's rebellion. The economic relationship is defined by each individuals relationship to resources, whereas social relationships are defined by many different qualities, which usually includes the economic relationship, particularly how the society views the economic relationship, regardless of the real/natural power dynamic that would be implicit to a particular economic relationship. I didn't use the conventional definition, because it is vague and poorly defined, largely due to vast disagreements between ideologues. For example, saying that economics is the study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services is the same as saying that economics is the study of resources and their dispersion, except that it's looser where it should be narrow, and narrow where it should be loose.

>>13552638
That is false on almost every level. For one, most capital depreciates. Also, you have used profit as the measure of the thing which you say defines it. Further, financial gain can be measured either in the profit from selling goods after producing them with capital, or by spending money on capital which is valued greater than the money you spent for it, and it can even be measured in potential future profit. Accounting, Finance, Economics, Law, and Philosophy would all use these terms in different ways which are not compatible with each other. If you are to speak in one sphere, you must use the terms as that discipline uses it. If you use a term in an idiosyncratic or novel way, you must clearly define it from the beginning. If you mean it only in a casual way, then you cannot play games with its definition like you are, and must instead be willing to accept that there is a loosely agreed upon "idea" being discussed.

>>13550815
I pay a lot of attention to UK politics and this is a total load of shit. Also i'm Australian.

>>13552609
It is only circular reasoning, and it is not true. Your last sentence betrays you. If the value system plays a critical role, then the ultimate value cannot be money. Money, after all, is only understood as a placeholder, a store, of value. What's more, most people in modern society are not particularly aggressive in pursuing it. Despite common talk that it rules everything, most people are actually quite stingy about what they would do for money. If this is the defining feature of capitalism, then no country is or ever will be capitalist. If our current society is an example of capitalism, then your definition can't be right.

>>13552661
>Of course economics will be unable to tell you where unfound iron ore will be; you are describing the chemical and geographic qualities of the iron ore, not its quality as a resource
Chemical and geographic properties of iron ore are it's qualities as a resource.

>You also seem to be under the illusion (as I suspected would happen) that by saying economics is not social relationships that I must mean it is without any relationship to social organization
OK, at least I got you to some backpedaling.

>The economic relationship is defined by each individuals relationship to resources
That would be the case if were individuals. We are not individuals. We live in a society. If humans were individuals, there would be no need for economy.

>whereas social relationships are defined by many different qualities
Don't accuse me of misunderstanding the system of categories when you have such a mess in it. Economics are study of human relationships in relation to production, distribution and consumption of goods. How much are human relationships formed by economy is of course ideologically loaded question, but I think we can agree that all human relationships can be influenced by economy.

>I didn't use the conventional definition, because it is vague and poorly defined, largely due to vast disagreements between ideologues.
So you, as a proper ideologue, made your own, that is no longer compatible with other terminology. Bravo, but I don't see why do you expect others to take you seriously.

>For example, saying that economics is the study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services is the same as saying that economics is the study of resources and their dispersion
It's so loose your pants fall down and geology fucks you from behind. Economic science is explicitely social science.

>>13552689
>For one, most capital depreciates.
So does life, hence reproduction.

>Further, financial gain can be measured either in the profit from selling goods after producing them with capital, or by spending money on capital which is valued greater than the money you spent for it, and it can even be measured in potential future profit.
Pointless obscurantism. You start with property of valued at X, and you end up with property valued X+Y, where Y>0 (adjusted for inflation between you start sperging). What's in between endpoints doesn't matter.

>>13552713
The funny part of our system is that money has really become a goal onto itself, partly by the virtue that it is reaching greater and greater levels of liquidity and more importantly by the darwinian virtue that without expansion you die. "Most people" don't matter, because they are workers they don't own the capital. It's the capitalists that administrate the reproduction.

>>13552741
>we live in a society
I knew this was coming. I even wanted to mock you by anticipating it earlier. Why have I bothered? Why have I wasted this time? You're completing a jigsaw with missing pieces and a blurry picture, just jamming together phrases, thinking they have meaning, as you blunder your way through to oblivion. Let me just say this last thing which might hopefully let in some light to your heavily curtained and dusty skull--economics is A social science, not Social Science itself; notably, social sciences lack science, and exist only as linguistic systems for applied philosophy. I hope when in your junior year, you branch out a little in your courses and realize that you've not understood things quite so well as you thought. Maybe take an economics course.

>>13548147
>>13548585
>>13548643
>>13549023
>>13550306
it’s not a real book you retards

>>13552789
What's funny is that you're completely and absurdly wrong. Money is very obviously not a goal onto itself. It is literally impossible for that to happen. What you are witnessing is not the emptiness of other people's beliefs, but the emptiness of your own. The one thing that is always meant by capitalism and never used is individualism. That is the hallmark of our age. It is not that all these other people you witness are only after money, it is that you can only recognize it via money, because you share no values with them other than the system of value. This cannot accurately be called capitalism, but from the beginning it has almost always been what is meant.

>>13552798
>You're completing a jigsaw with missing pieces and a blurry picture, just jamming together phrases
You mean like percieving civilization as sum of individuals?

>economics is A social science,
Really? Your post consists of 99% insults, 1% agreeing that I was right and 0% actually replying to my arguments. Your arrogance confuses me.

>>13552812
Please find a needle and pop your overblown ego. I explained mechanism by which reproduction of capital has became effectively a goal unto itself. Those people are after money, not because I recognize it as such, but because market recognizes anything as such.

>>13549914
>>13550095
She's cute enough, plus she has an adorable accent, plus she is (relatively) open-minded and nice to people that the rest of the ((left)) sees as inhuman. I like her, even though I found her book somewhat half-assed.

>>13551446
You and me both, but I'm also sad that somethingawful will never be the way it was, that the Internet will never be the way it was, that usenet will never be the way it was, and that neighborhood dial-in BBSs will never be the way they were, and that hobbyist technology is for all intents and purposes dead these days.

It turns out that Kaczynski was largely right, which sucks.

These types of people who do not understand the internet need to pull their panties out of their asses and stay off.

>>13552823
>we live in a society
Anyone who unironically says that should be banned from this site

>>13552902
Anyone that gets triggered by truism so hard he can't argue anymore should leave to R****t.

>>13552855
That does not explain it. I already addressed why it does not explain it. Why are you so defensive? Because I challenged the emptiness of your beliefs? But why then are you here? You have not put forward any strong beliefs. You are not evangelizing any cause. You do not have a clear position. The only thing you have put forward is a clear projection; you are saying what the motivations of other people are, and yet your description defies observed, measurable reality. If your perception was true, our economy would be vastly different. For one, there would be no not-for-profits. For another, everyone would be spending even more time at work. People would not buy brand name clothes, or eat fast food. In fact, there would be no luxury items at all. Entertainment would disappear. It is quite obvious, with only a few seconds of thought, that people, even billionaires are chasing more than just the accumulation of money. Certainly, very few people make any serious attempt to acquire capital.

>>13552916
>we live in a society
>anyone
>any one
>we live in a society

>>13550056
4chan was better before the institution of (you)s.

>>13552918
Please take another needle, there's too much pointless bubbles in your argument. There are non-profits, but they attribute to a miniscule amount of human acitivity. Again you failed to understand that the economy isn't run by the workers, it's run by the capitalists. One has to examine what are their motivations and not in the sense of "He's greedy fuck, he wants a golden house" but in the game theory sense. Even if capitalists wanted to do cool shit like explore Mars, they have to keep their accounting in black numbers. If they did something that wasn't profitable and end up in red numbers then it would damage their bussiness, if they did that too much they would go bancrupt. If they did something that would make less profit than doing something else or doing it a different way than someone else than would be the most profitable, then they start losing to a competition. Smith called this tendency the invisible hand of market, Marx called this the laws of motion of capital, but I'm willing to go even more insane and speak about emerging new lifeform.

>>13552948
Almost certainly. But, if I'm honest, I've never known anything else. And the (you)s are certainly why I'm still here.

>>13552971
Don't tell me about my own ideas like I'm ignorant, and don't act like your new opinion isn't a complete rejection of everything you've said up to this point. What you're talking about isn't capitalism, you know it, and you only call it capitalism because it makes your ideas more palatable to the normal. It's a trick I know well.

>>13552984
>blablabla
Any counterarguments?

>>13552992
Is it pronounced blab-la-bla or bla-blab-la?

>>13553010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4-aDsJuNAE

>>13548147
sounds like something a goon would write

>>13549083
It's funny that the goons who have gained a big following on twitter basically write fyad jokes with nigger and faggot excised

>>13552897
all of us need to stay off the internet. it’s destroying our minds

>>13550826
Anti-semitism was born from the left though

>>13553187
>>13552897
Little too late for that now that everyone is connected to the internet at all times.

You're right, the internet is too much for normies and now we have a generation of niggerstomper58s.

>>13552802
it's actually real. it was published but taken off the shelves like a day later for unknown reasons.

>>13553307
>Anti-semitism was born from the left though
Christian monarchs must be fairly left-wing then.

>>13553877
I didn't say the left invented prejudice against jews, christians hatred for jews was not of the same nature than the one that associated jews with capitalism/elites

>>13548643
Just missed being oldfag.

>>13548837
/b/ was never good.
It is true that the modding has become 50x more cancerous since Moot left.

>>13548909
No, the gatekeeping is stronger. It's just by mods.

>>13551160
It's a money grab, most of the "profiles" in it have been done to death by the writers who've written the same article for 15 years. There's nothing really interesting in it beyond a quick overview of a slew of figures that arn't all related to each other. Moldbug is in the same section as Spencer

>>13548643
confession: i used to think cockmongler was moot for years

>>13550100
well, 4chan is where we found our community and identity. leaving this place would be weird since religious people almost never leave the church. it's nothing to be ashamed of i think it's one of the most preferable groups to identify with

I legit wish I'd written a book about /pol/ culture since I understand it but anything I wrote would only be compared to her shitpile so no.

>>13556362
...how?

>>13551476
Roman society was pretty far advanced as far as division of labor goes. They mostly, like now, extracted taxes and had the military enforce them but in addition to slaves there were merchants, craftsmen, traders etc

>>13550760
Isn't capitalism effectively a meritocracy where the merits are gauged by financial success? A moneycracy basically.

>>13557280
What you’re describing is oligarchy

>>13548643
>Tfw I knew about 4chan since oldfag times but I didn't start visiting it till recently since my friends made me think its all just underaged hentai and nigger jokes. Had they told me its also full of antisemitism and people who pretend to read books I would have been all over it.

>>13548643
right on the newfag/cancer border. honestly think it was the best time for 4chan. 'oldfag' era is cringy "soup /b/ros moar epic sauce lulz! !! !" type posting that is kind of unbearable. newfag and cancer eras were the periods where we were really developing an interesting alternative to prevailing internet culture that continued right through to 2014.

>>13558719
>since my friends
At least you knew people who knew about 4chan, or hell, something internet related back. I just got blank stares when talking about internet shit back then.