/lit/ - Literature

I hate Communism more than Objectivism. At least it's not responsible for the death of millions. And Christianity worse than it.

>Tybrax not a choice

Objectivism.

Christianity I'm pretty okay with, and I'm a Marxist so...

I'm cool with both Christianity and Communism

anyone that puts objectivism ahead of communism is a hypocrite. at least it can work in the right conditions, marxism can't without inhumane controls in place.

>>1460637
This.

No Islam?

>>1460642

Marxism =/= communism. Marx was a communist, but not all communists are Marxist.

can you stop trolling and get back to whining?

>>1460635
>I hate Communism more than Objectivism. At least it's not responsible for the death of millions.
That.

Also Christianity is cool with me and helped pacify feudal Europe a great deal.

>I hate Communism more than Objectivism. At least it's not responsible for the death of millions
>Also Christianity is cool with me and helped pacify feudal Europe a great deal
0/10.

Holy hellcat a triple-whammy of troll, totally terrific ty

>>1460651
i'm generally curious.

>>1460653
*genuinely

>>1460653
more like generally stupid

Communism and objectivism are two bad ideas that don't even work.

However, the virulence of communism is way higher. Millions of dead bodies kind of prove it.

Objectivism is a harmless fantasy for high-school kids - that in most cases grow out of it to big and better things while keeping the interest in cultivating the intellect.

No contest to me.

Christianity won't be the most hated as there's a few Christians on this board. They're the type that deny the Bible is homophobic or that swearing is bad however. May as well be atheists.

Why are people dreaming. Marxism and Communism aren't going to work. Ever. Give it up already.

I hate communism most.

>>1460657
>>1460635
>>1460639
>>1460641
>>1460649
Wow how are all of you forgetting all of the people killed by Christianity? You should be ashamed

>>1460658
The staunch atheists on here are even more embarrassing imo. This is meant to be a board that appreciates philosophy.

Plus, does anyone read Arendt these days?

Am I the only one troubled with the OP picks for the survey?

OP, please explain. Wouldn't it make more sense something like "Totalitarianisms: which does /lit/ hate most, communism or nazism?" or something of that kind? Honest question, thanks for the answer.

>>1460668
Religion is different. for every dead body there's probably been 100 Christians free from guilt and accepting death.

>>1460668
What about those saved by it ?

>>1460671
>false assumptions about this board+not realizing atheism is the truth

>>1460680
>>1460675
see >>1460658

>>1460668
Those people would have died anyway.

>>1460658
Bible's not homophobic, and why would swearing be bad?

>>1460687
I guess you're right, it's great to be an immortal

>>1460689
>Bible's not homophobic
Quote about stoning gays please?

>>1460685
You don't have to be a Christian to know more about religion history than "duuuur, religion wars are evil, religion is evil",

>>1460693
..but what if you're a Christian COMMunist?? What then?

>>1460692
There isn't one.

>>1460658
*Sigh* Apparently all Christians are really staunch Baptists/Pentecostals?

Why does the average 4chan atheist assume that the majority of the worlds Christians are sola scriptura Pentecostals? Did Zwingli win? Did Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church vanish? Half of the arguments I see against Christianity on this read about the DUR HUR CREATIONISM seem so American focused that they make no sense to me in a pre-dominantly Catholic/Secular country like France.

>>1460695
Then you probably are a Saint-Simonian and you have an exotic taste for outdated ideologies.

>>1460697
My feeling exactly.

>hurr communism is not going to work

None of these are ever going to work.
Communism and objectivism at least try to be coherent and are based on (albeit faulty) reasoning instead of some desert nomads' psychotic episodes.
Communism at least aims for something that could for a moment pass as a functional society.
It obviously fails at that, but at least it tries instead of being nothing but an excuse for one's own egotism and total amorality.
So, from least to most hateable :
communism > objectivism > christianity

>>1460696
Sodomy

>>1460671

lol at the idea that communism itself either directly or indirectly actually caused the death of a single person in the history of humanity

>>1460708
>communism less hateable than objectivism

>>1460716

Trying to implement it did. Then again, has anyone ever tried to properly install Objectivism?

>>1460708
>Christianity
>Never going to work
Your an idiot.

>>1460719
Try Somalia.

>>1460716
how about the application of the idea lol

>>1460720

>your

>>1460719
Hong Kong. Objectivism fucking works in the right circumstances. Communism never has because people are selfish.

>>1460723

>>1460722
Communism has never been applied or attempted to be applied. Fact.

>>1460710
While that's not a quote, what do you think sodomy means, and what relationship does that have to the bible?

>>1460723
Your Mad

>>1460719
Trying to implement it goes against it's very nature. The revolution will just happen.

>>1460728
Well, what do you call thirty dead cats?

>>1460736
270 lives lost

>>1460740
>>1460736
Catslaughter destroys so much life...

>>1460740
A CAT-TASTROHE

So many retards here that think communism = death of millions

death of millions was cause by ruthless dictators like Stalin, not by communism.

Anyway, communism in the way that Marx and Engels envisioned it was never reached anywhere, plus Marx always said that the proletarian revolution needed to happen in capitalist societies of the west.

Problem is it was applied in an undeveloped state like Russia that was yet to achieve the capitalist society that communism needed to replace.

>>1460730
The Christian God condemns sodomy which the only way gays can have sex.

Xtianity is by far the worst. At least the other two are economic disciplines that attempt prosperity. Religion opposes just about everything useful and shackles society with bronze age mythology. Nothing useful except providing you cover if your one of any number of psycho bigots or consoling you if you're a weak individual.

Shit what am I saying I need this.

>death of millions was cause by ruthless dictators like Stalin, not by communism
about time the Trotskyfags showed up

I think Stalin and Mao were both perfectly respectable people who for the most part did the right thing

>>1460748
Who said that it killed millions?

>>1460756

Have you even read the thread?

>>1460756

Mao and Stalin's regimes are responsible for the death of tens of millions of people (maybe upward estimates of 100M).

The question is to what extent were these deaths a product of the ideology, the regime, or inefficiency with dealing with things like famine. Most of these deaths were starvation.

>>1460758
Yeah, one person. One person then said that the deaths had nothing to do with it. So one person I see out of the whole thread.

>>1460752
So edgy using "Xtianity" you rock that Greek symbol for Chi.

itt: americans don't know about politics, and can't count either

Fucking retarded communists. You do nothing. Nothing will come true for you.

>>1460771

Why thank you. It was also an attempt to troll any christfags that might bitch about using an "x"

>>1460765

I don't even understand why people still call those regimes communism. Those were authoritarian personality cult regimes with nothing but a passing resemblance to what ideological communism was about.

But I do agree that it's hard to envision communism working because of the very selfish nature of human behavior.

Communism did not kill million, state capitalism did and collectivism did.

>>1460772
ITT: Communists that are asshurt.

>>1460765
I hate this stupid game of "Real Communism doesn't condone murder/cruelty/etc". It may not, at any rate however every iteration we've seen of a Government System labeled "Communism" has usually led to large swaths of people being eradicated (Mostly Academics and other people the party feels won't jive with the new regime). I have no idea how people can wiggle out of the Ideology card when you have folks like Che Guvera and Pol Pot who will say verbatim what there political motives are. It's like saying Hitler wasn't a *real* Fascist even though he said he was and followed most of the tenants to a T.

>>1460776
I just wanted to give you praise for respecting the religious system so much that you'd use part of the Labarum in your description.

>>1460783

Mainly short hand.

>>1460781
YOU FOOL THAT ISN'T MARXISM! Even if he once said that his ideas might have to be enforced with power to take over MARXISM IS INTELLIGENT Well...Marx and Engles were bumbling drunks...and they did retract basically everything they put out.... YOU WISH YOU COULD BE A MARXIST Even if it was only believed by mostly "political illiterate" people following like sheep...

>>1460765
Yes, starvation, because communism doesn't work, and can't provide food for anybody.

>>1460781

So by your logic if I go out and kill millions in the name of Democracy that automatically links Democracy with killing of millions.

I'm not a communist by any stretch, but all this HURR DURR COMMUNISM BAD is really annoying, and I bet 99% of people who do it don't have even a most basic understanding of the ideology.

>>1460802

Don't know why people are responding to me, I just gave a neutral perspective, I ain't a commie bro

>>1460802

That's because it was applied in countries that were underdeveloped, of course they couldn't provide for everybody. Like I said earlier, communism was meant to be used in the developed and rich countries of the west, not in Russia and China.

>>1460813

China's actually doing pretty well in the governments after Mao. But China isn't particularly communist.

>>1460808
>Posts.
>Doesn't want people to respond.

>>1460635

The only reason why Objectivism hasn't killed anyone is because no one cares enough to try and apply it.

>>1460817

Hey, I meant respond as if I'm defending Marxism.

>>1460765

Starvation caused by the economic inefficiencies caused by the implementation of a command economy + collective control of the means of production - this when it wasn't used as a state terror weapon.

Plus, millions of people were flat out murdered by communist regimes all over the world.

I for one have very little patience for the "good intentions, you know?" argument. Implementing communism leads necessarily to a totalitarian regime which cant' survive without terror. The corollary of every totalitarian regime is the terror and war against its own people.

Read Arendt already. Or Popper.

>>1460829

I'm a libertarian btw but thanks.

>>1460832

That's even more stupid than communism. Might as well live by the law of the jungle.

>>1460806
Please see
>>1460795

I really wonder how many people who take the "Well Communism isn't inherently flawed/dictorial" have read Das Kapital or any further writings by Engel and Marx?

Also for your Democracy stab, yes if every system that called itself Democratic (Although really we mean Republican) and while being a Republic wiped out large segments of it's population because it was inherent in the Republican system of governance then yes I would say that 'Republicanism' is flawed. There is a reason why only poor/desperate countries try the Communism gambit and not affluent ones.

>>1460832

Nice to meet you. I'm not a libertarian.

I wasn't refuting your post, just adding my perspective to the question you left open.

>>1460836

Economically conservative and socially liberal? Cool jungle.

Lenincat.jpg anyone?

Which does /lit/ hate most?

>>1460850

Don't think I have a reason to dislike you so I'll go with the annoyingness of Tybrax

>>1460806

I believe the exact opposite happens.

People who believe that communism isn't intrinsically a totalitarian/murderous political system tend to not know very well the theoretical foundations of marxism or, if they do, they fail to acknowledge their ultimate meaning - how the use of terror is essential to that kind of government.

This is also true for nazism.

>>1460840
if you assume marx can't be wrong in some parts and rather good in other parts, then that's a rather poor study of marx and a poor approach in general.

>>1460857

Nazism wasn't outright economical though. It was more unlta-nationalism

Objectivism - common sense defense of egoist utilitarianism glorified as philosophy.

Christianity - monotheistic, open religion, based on compassion and duty, easily shapeable to support almost any form of power structure.

Communism - ideology based on the belief that, once the conflict of class is resolved by the absence of class and individually owned means of production, man will be able to organize all his social and material needs in a most harmonic and friction-less way.

Clearly Objectivism is the one of the three that I disgree with the most.

People who don't share this thought either misconceive the effects of the other two for original properties, or share a anti-humanist mindset.

What's wrong with Objectivism? :(

I hate communism the most.

>>1460868
Or know a bit more about Communism then you do.

>>1460868

>based on compassion and duty
>not apocalyptic cult based on thought crime
>hahahaohboy.jpeg

this arendt guy reads too much polisci. you take communism to be a grand political system, however, it had a growth process to reach that final conceptual and practical form. one of these steps was indeed grand sociopolitical system making, but those who do not take this step, such as humanist marxists, may still lay claim to the normative vision of communism.

tldr read outside your box

>>1460867

I'm with Arendt (and most serious scholars) here too. Nazism was never nationalist till the late stages of the war when Nazi leaders thought it'd be a good idea to associate nazism with German nationalism to a) keep the support of the people for as long as possible b) cover their asses in the post-war.

That's a myth created by a propaganda manoeuvre.

>>1460865
And National Socialism gave us the Volkswagen, Autobahn, Rockets, Jet Propulsion and The First Government Anti-Smoking Campaign.

On another note why is it okay for people to fly a Hammer and Sickle but not a Swastika? Wouldn't a Catholic have just as much of a reason to be offended by the Hammer and Sickle as a person of Jewish decent the Swastika?

Everything after the German Ideology is pap

>>1460880
Correct, it was also an active effort on the part of the Nazi Party to try and take away the Old Prussian Conservatives who opined for a restoration of Kaiser Wilhelm II

>>1460871
reading the blackbook of communism doesnt inform you about communism.
not even marxism.
but stalinism

communism as an idea is way older than Marx and his works. Its also extremely hetereogenous.
People who believe that communism has built in a way of totalitarian rule are either lazy or have a concept of liberty that is equal to the theology of free market liberalism.

i hate americans more than communists. americans' idea of a good life is marrying your sibling, owning a mobile home with a meth lab, and speaking incoherently in some gay texan accent.

>>1460895
*sigh* I'm done. This is like Poli-Sci all over again.

>>1460902
> political sciences
> "science" developed with the normative purpose clear in mind: how did the democracies of the UK and USA became so awesome and how can other places be like it.

>>1460879

I'm a girl and I read enough outside of my box. I'm not sure what you mean by claiming the normative vision of communism without reaching the final conceptual form of marxism. You mean those who stay by The Paris Manuscripts and don't go all the way till Das Kapital (at least)?

>pro commies, you don't know anything about communism and should go read more and understand it better
>anti commies, you don't know anything about communism and should go read more and understand it better

>>1460909
Yes yes keep on using the term normative for everything. Gotta milk that Philosophy degree for all it's worth.

>>1460896
For future reference, suttlety is key when you're trying to troll.

Communism and Christianity are both slave religions. Only Objectivism holds up individual rights. Communism steals your money and gives it to parasites, Christianity steals your money and gives it to God. (The clergy) Only Objectivism lets you realize you are the only one responsible for your own actions, good or bad. Everything else is parasitism.

>>1460895
>mfw you think that that shit is somehow accurate for "Stalinism"

>>1460918

Cool story bro, ring me up when you move out of your parent's house.

>>1460914
Yes cept the Pro-Commies tend to ignore the other Communist countries who seemed to be very convinced of there communist bonafides unless Lenin and Trotsky were just bullshiting us.

>>1460918

not sure if troll

This is funny.

1st stage

Communism is great, stalinism is a completely different thing.

2nd stage

Communism is great, stalinism and maoism are completely different things.

3rd stage

Communism is great, marxism-leninism is a completely different thing.

5th stage

Communism is great, late Marx is a completely different thing.

Current stage

Communism is great, Marx is a completely different thing.

How does anyone still take communists/marxists seriously is ridiculous. In the scale of respectability they're pretty much at Randian levels these days. Pathetic know-nothings fanaticists.

>>1460914

This is all is ever comes down to.

>>1460924
But but...Marxist Social Theory...and...and...but...

Is Das Kapital worth reading?

>>1460930
It's as enjoyable as Atlas Shrugged.

>>1460914

Revel destroyed that argument 15 years ago, no?

That's merely politics.

so is Keynes the best one right now? im gonna read this soon.

>>1460940

>>1460930

In my opinion the Communist Manifesto is a better read for a first approach to Marx. Go from there. And use plenty of secondary sources.

>>1460910
well, basically. taking communism as a grand sociopolitical system is a mistake, which is a mistake not limited to marx alone. basically, any social theorizing that does violence to what humans actually are with theoretical arrogance.

read this, from page 87 onward
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/unger/english/pdfs/social_theory6a.pdf

you know, after reading through the whole thread with the intent to maybe contribute something worthwile, I can throroughly agree with rousseauists that think killing a large portion of urbanized elites and generally any dissenters is a very practical way of public education, because people are clearly overrated...

... you guys are just sooo fucking stupid.

I gonna bang my head against a wall now for a while, to punish myself for being so gullible to actually read this crap.

>>1460944
worst book ever. trying to sound all prophetic and just so short and pointless ._.

>>1460943
>

>>1460950
Make sure you take Hobbes along with you.

>>1460951
Because it's Hayek!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

>>1460954
Dat fucking rap...
I do love the rap tho

Hayek's alright, but I disagree with him on "don't question the system because evolution has made it all good" line.

>>1460950
weirdest coceivable fashion of offending everybody I ever saw on 4chan.

just to be clear, this is not a compliment either.

>>1460946
>taking communism as a grand sociopolitical system is a mistake, which is a mistake not limited to marx alone. basically, any social theorizing that does violence to what humans actually are with theoretical arrogance.

So, how should we take communism? Can you explain it by your own words?

That PDF reads like an introduction to the Frankfurt School's critical theory. Not exactly ground-breaking stuff, is it?

ITT: People who don't understand Marxism.

Marxism is a way of analysing society and a way of understanding how society works and changes over time, it isn't a blueprint for what a future society could be like. Marx himself was critical of socialists that just made up abstract models of how things should be, he called them "Utopian" and spent most of the communist manifesto telling them why they were wrong. People using the term "Marxism" wrongly, as in anybody saying "Marxism will never work" as if it was a blue-print of a functioning society, are just displaying their ignorance and get an auto-loss.

Speaking of Utopias, Objectivism is just that, a Utopian idea dreamed up by a stupid ungrateful skank who hated all things socialist despite benefiting from different forms of socialism for her entire life. If it wasn't for the Bolshevik revolution she would never have got her University education, without the New Deal arts programmes she wouldn't have got her start as a writer. Objectivits tend to be white, middle class (UK definition of middle class btw), anti-social neck-beards that think they're better than everyone else. I personally know a bunch of objectivits and there's only one of them I would call a reasonable human being. The behaviour of people calling themselves Objectivist here and on other sites doesn't do them any favours anyway. Really Objectivism is just a fantasy of unfettered Capitalism, and yes it has killed millions of people.

cont.

Christianity is too broad to hate properly. I can't bring myself to hate it because it covers so much, if someone asks me if I hate christians I just ask "which ones"? Westboro Baptists, Free Presbyterians, Maria Ducé Catholics, yeah fair enough, shower of bastards. Liberation Theology Catholics, Quakers, some of the Unitarian groups that run Hospices and stuff like that, the nice ones that hand out sandwiches and tea to drunk people at the weekends, 13th century Cathars, sweet, more power to them, I can't believe what they believe but it makes them do good things so fair enough. Really, any religion in itself is neutral, neither good nor bad exactly, its what people do with it that counts.

>>1460982
Frankly do we *need* to understand Marxism? It's pretty much in the dustbin of failed ideas but Academics and Romantics like to keep on bringing it back up.

>>1460987
>romantics
You mean Marxists. It's still used now; every politician will be influence by Marxist ideas one way or another. Also affects legislation. So it's not in the dustbin at all, still very much alive.

>>1460982

Objectivits tend to be white, middle class (UK definition of middle class btw), anti-social neck-beards that think they're better than everyone else

Not Objectivist but kinda just described me.

>>1460986
Really 13th Century Cathars? Do you know how batshit insane those folks were? If Catharism/Albegensianism had become the dominant religion in France/Northern Italy the intellectual and already fragile social stability of those regions would tank.

Also nice job putting Non-Liberal Catholics and Free Presbyterians in the same column as the Westboro Baptist Church.

>>1460993

forgot to greentext

>>1460982
This is a very good post bro. Well done.

post-marxism

>>1460987
erm, marxism is mostly about the analysis of capitalism.

so, at least knowing about marxist thought (not necessarily agreeing with it) seems kind of useful in a capitalist society.

>>1460986

All varieties are batshit crazy and if any one of them got power they would be just as horrid as all the other denominations that had power in the past.

>>1460992
Keep telling yourself that slugger, I'll buy you an SKS for when the Workers get riled up again.

Guys.

Unless you're reading it in German, the name of the book is Capital.

>>1461005
Huh? U mad bro?

>>1461007
Guys

Unless you're reading it in Greek it's called "The Library"

>>1460968

Misread Hayek's spontaneous order concept.

>>1460982
Marx is back to being a Marxist here. Marxists/Communists/Post-modernists are all over the place these days.

>paragraph 1: Marxism is merely an analytical tool.

"All that philosophers have done is interpret the world in different ways. It is our job to change it". - Karl Marx"

>paragraph 2 - communism never existed in the real world, except when I get to praise the "accomplishments" of the October revolution.

>>1461010
About as mad as I am at the idea that the "South Will Rise"

so not really..si

>>1461013
>Misread Hayek's spontaneous order concept.
Please elaborate, if you would be so kind.

>>1461004
No...just...no.

While I understand the Anti-Religion type likes to take the Ivory Tower "Fuck you guys you are all the same approach" a passing glance at history would be beneficial before claims are made.

>>1461016
Oh, American then. So just retarded and fat.

>>1461022
Canadian but eh, I can see why you'd think that.

>>1461013

>"All that philosophers have done is interpret the world in different ways. It is our job to change it". - Karl Marx"

This quote is a little ironic, seeing as he planned to write(and wrote some of) an incredibly extensive analysis/criticism of theoretical liberal capitalism.

>>1461023
Eh, what's all this being Canadian aboot?

>>1461030
Not much really, going to UBC for Archival Studies. Dual Citizenship ftw.

>>1461032
Good job. Hope the fees aren't crazy tho.

>>1461032
Compared to what I paid in the states for my Undergrad? Hell no. 4.1k an Academic year. I was paying roughly double that a year for a simple BA.

>>1461041

Cheaper than in UK too.

>>1461021

>Implying they're all not batshit insane

>>1461046
Yeah, I was stunned when I found out that Gradschool would be cheaper then Undergrads.

>>1461050
They aren't. Seriously read an honest to god scholarly history book rather then idiotic polemic.

>>1460979
well, i look at it as an attempt at social critique. it's not complete, but it is an approach, specifically the idea of economic conflict is kinda important.

as for critical theory not breaking new ground, i don't see how you would hold both this as well as a simplistic understanding of political theory. in any case, the key idea of the text i linked is that grand political theories are not realistic or empirical about how humans actually behave, but imagine society to be teleological and organized along structures, which are more theoretical constructions than reality. frankfurt guys make this mistake all the time as well, so i don't know what u are talking about.

>>1461046
We have a 1 year masters, but I think that's probably 2 or 3 years.

Then again, go to Canada with a UK masters, get told "4 years of study =! 6/7 years of study"

>>1461056

>still trying to imply Christianity isn't insane

>>1461069

>>1461070

>>1460987
Nobody "needs" to understand anything in particular, but if you're going to have an opinion about something that isn't bullshit then, yes you should probably try and understand what it actually is.

Incidentally, "Marxism" i.e. seeing the world in terms of class, seeing geopolitics in terms of competition between nations states for resources, seeing history as being driven by economics. Thats how the people who actually run society see things too, if you read the types of newspaper / magazines people with real power actually read, or the internal documents of the various governments and international organisations, its pretty obvious that they are basically Marxists but with an inverted value system. I.e. they see things the way Marxists see them, they just don't see any of what they do as wrong.
>>1460995
Yeah, that was a bit of stretch, I just kind of like them after reading Montaillou. And yes, but those were the first three groups of Christian ball-bags that came to mind as i was writing, if i had time i'd look up the names of some of those fuckers in Africa and South America that I don't like.

>>1461061

>mfw when I plan to emigrate to North America after 4 year physics masters

>fuckers in Africa and South America
>isn't talking about Catholics
>intrigued

>>1461077
You'll most likely be fine. At worst they'll just be like "yeah, that's a bachelors".

>>1461072
Well go nuts, explain the insanity.

>>1461013
>>1461019
Yo, if you've got some insight, please share.

1) Communism, because it makes almost no economic sense.

Objectivism and Christianity are tied

>>1461101

>Christianity
>makes sense

>>1461101
How does it not make economic sense?

>>1461084
I'm thinking of some of the Christian evangelical churches that basically share the same supernatural universe as the local animist / pagan religions except they believe that they are "Witchcraft" / Satanism. Its basically doing today what the Catholic church did to the rural peasant cults in the middle ages. And its the way they get on as well, having noisey counter protests at these cool little pagan ceremonies that people have been doing for hundreds of years. They do worse than that, some of them are just pure personality cults, but that shit just annoys me.

Communism

Christianity was actually really good a long time ago (pre-dark ages). It's just really outdated nowadays

>>1461121

S'like Christianity and Islam in places like Nigeria, stoning witch children

http://clogic.eserver.org/2002/cunningham.html

say whattt?

>>1461119
Have you ever taken an entry-level econ course? Have you heard of Adam Smith? Are you stupid?

>>1461206

Ignorance incarnate.

>>1460713
And now you have found a way to be superior to me! Your rapier wit has pierced my heart.

Objectivism. I'm fine with liberation theology, and I'm a Marxist-Leninist.

>>1461206

>Implying 18th century classical liberal economists were right about everything forever, or that modern macroeconomics is explained by it.

Seriously, if you've going to go the free market route, at least familiarize yourself with the Austrian school or something that actually keeps pace with the times. I mean shit, the reason Marxism has so many branches is because it is supposed to be scientific socialism, so various leaders adapt it to the material conditions of their countries and try out different methods of applications. Compare Cuba to Haiti, for instance, if you think it works out poorly everywhere. I sincerely doubt that Cuba would have been any better off had they maintained the US-supported non-communist dictatorship as opposed to communist dictatorship, and many Latin American countries would arguably be doing better if it wasn't for the US support of terrorist organizations and anti-communist insurgents.

>>1461285

>>Implying 19th century meandering middle-class intellectuals were right about everything forever.

>>1461349

>Implying modern Communist movements didn't take Marx's ideas and run with them

>Implying orthodox anti-revisionist Marxists aren't a tiny minority

> 184 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
> implying /lit/ hates when clearly it loves

Well, considering that I'm a Catholic who supports liberation theology, I'll have to go with objectivism.

>>1461386

>believe in God
>chose less dictatorial option to hate most

Makes sense.

As I am a Lutheran, I'm gonna have to go with objectivism. I don't much like Communism, but it isn't as bad as objectivism.

>>1460631

It's so inconsistent for a Christian to be a capitalist. For fuck's sake, capitalism as an economic system rewards greed and punishes those who lack ambition. Communism on the other hand requires an individual to have a strong work ethic and be willing to share and work as part of a collective. Communism is more conducive to Christian teachings than capitalism...

>>1460635

The cost of capitalism is way higher. 36 millions die of hunger every year because they cannot afford food because rich countries buy up everything so they can feed their hamburglers.

OP

>>1461437

Russia and China had pretty damn catastrophic famines too, as did many African nations which tried to embrace marxism - when the Cuban ambassador to Tanzania said "revolution has failed here", you know that the whole red enterprise is a crock.

>>1461436
I disagree. Christianity is largely about having integrity in a world of free will. Capitalism allows a Christian the freedom to decide whether or not they want to be brotherly and mindful of others or ruthless and only out for selfish gain.

When the government makes one share--that is not Christian, because it is not done by one's own choice. The mindfulness of others is thrust upon them whether they will it or not.

A true Christian will keep a hand out for others even if he or she doesn't have to, you see.

Ok, seriously? This is the longest thread I've ever seen on /lit/, and its started by a fucking troll with a fucking troll picture.
Fucking Tybrax.
Yes, I mad, you people should no better, I expect Communist/Theist troll/argument debates from /b/.

>>1461460
>>1461436

Christianity implies a nanny state of massive proportions, so should be more comfortable with a more imposing state. Having said that, Marxism embraces atheism more. Capitalism turns church into a business.

>>1461458

Oh yes they did, but they didn't externalize the costs of those famines like capitalism do thus creating a false image of communism being worse because the capitalist don't have to see the deads they cause.

In this beautiful world of capitalism we produce more than enough food for everyone but the poor cannot afford it since the rich countries buys it all up to produce meat for their fast food.

>>1461468
Your posts says little more than "I have no concept of what Christianity is."

You are aware that Jesus hung out with fags and prostitutes and thieves, right? You're also aware that he never once told them to change or stop what they're doing?

Christianity is about choosing good when you don't necessarily have to. Anyone who says Christianity is advocates for a nanny state knows nothing about Jesus or his followers.

>>1461458

The Cubans have said no such thing. There was a mistranslation in the press that got picked up and ran with, which is what you're referring to.

The HDI of Cuba is relatively high, compared to other countries with similar natural resources and populations, especially considering the effects of the trade embargo.

>>1461460

Jesus instructed his followers to sell their belongings, and in general wasn't too keen on people hoarding wealth.

What that wikipedia article leaves out is Jesus' teachings. Jesus taught that we should feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the injured and ill, visit those in prison,[1] and (again and again) that the rich cannot get into heaven[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. (He harps on that.) Jesus even tries to inaugurate an "acceptable year of our lord"[9], which is taken to mean a Jubilee year when slaves are freed, debts forgiven, property redistributed. That article pretty much leaves out all of that. It's the rich person's view of Jesus, as a religious figure that requires belief, but no action. Even in wikipedia, even on an entry on Jesus, the wealthy win and their view predominates.
Pshaw.
[1]Matthew 25:35-46
[2]Matthew 19:16-24
[3]Mark 10:21-25
[4] Luke 1:53
[5]Luke 6:24 But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.
[6]Luke 12:16-21
[7]Luke 16:19-31
[8]Luke 18:22-25
[9]Luke 4:19
Luke 4:19. The final statement describing the mission of Jesus is a summary of the first five. Jesus has come to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. This is primarily a statement about the Year of Jubilee when slaves were set free, the land reverted to the original owner and was not plowed, planted, or harvested, and all debts were cancelled (cf. Leviticus 25). This was supposed to happen every 50 years, but there is some question as to whether it ever happened in Israelite history.
Regardless, Jesus is saying that He intends to inaugurate a Year of Jubilee. And since the Year of Jubilee primarily affected people who were in slavery, hardship, or debt, Jesus is showing with this concluding summary statement that He was concerned not only with mankind’s spiritual needs, but also with their physical wellbeing. Along with the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, Jesus wanted to bring relief from suffering, sickness, slavery, injustice, crushing debt, generational poverty, and governmental oppression. http://www.gracecommentary.com/luke-4_16-19/

>>1461505
Wrong.

Jesus tells them it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven.

He's saying "the choice is yours, wealth is a hindrance." But, still, they still have the choice. He's not watching over them like some nanny state despot.

Really, your perceptions about all of this is laughable. You clearly never read the New Testament.

>>1461437
>The cost of capitalism is way higher. 36 millions die of hunger every year because they cannot afford food because rich countries buy up everything so they can feed their hamburglers.
Yes, it's inherent to capitalism that the population of the richest semi-capitalist nation has tastes that happen to be extremely environmentally toxic. Great argument. No, but seriously, it's fine if you're a Marxist, but it's so hackish when you conflate reality with archetypes. The United States is capitalistic in a lot of ways, but it's not the living fucking embodiment of capitalism, in the same way the Soviet Union isn't the living fucking embodiment of socialism.

>>1461519
Jesus never forced anyone to follow him or to do what he wanted them to. It was always their choice.

It is this free will that Christianity is based on. Anyone can do good when they're forced to do good. Jesus (and God) want you to do good because that is your choice.

>>1461530
>>1461530
>>1461530
>>1461530

>>1460649
>>1460635
why do people think communism is directly responsible for the deaths of millions? powermad dictators who happened to be commies yes, but you could make an argument capitalism has killed milliions of people also

>It is this free will that christianity is based on.

Except that nobody does good just because they want to do good. They do good because they believe its the only way to get into heaven. Now its obviously not this black and white of course.

No christan does good without feeling in some way it is a nessesary behavior in order to get into heaven or live a happy life.

Honestly when an athiest does good that means more. Because they don't have a threat of hell in some way influencing them to choose to act that way.

I'm not even an atheist and I can see this

In some way a christans free choice to do good is forced on them with the threat of hell/

what is objectivism?

>>1461524

The closer a nation is to true capitalism the toxier to the environment the tastes of the populace become.

>>1461561
This.

>>1461547

If Christianity killed millions, so has Communism. And Capitalism. And Republics. And Islam. And anything else that you could use to describe some powermad dictators.

I hate mustaches. They killed millions.

>>1461496

>implying no all loving father that will care of you and give you eternal happiness in return for buying into the system

>>1461537

lol'd

>>1460631

All of them desire dogmatism.

Communism mostly so.

>>1461626
you're like the powermon of d&e

It's clear which one is worse - the one that requires you to believe in some supernatural horsecrap.

The other two tie. Where has Objectively been explicitly applied to a country though?

>>1461650

>Objectivism

Excuse me.

I don't especially hate any of them, really.

The one that inconveniences me the most with pseudo-intellectual douchebags all the fuck around me is objectivism, though. It's fashionable to try to act smart and masturbate to Ayn Rand, you know.

So I'd have to pick that on, for its effect on people who don't even bother to read what it's about.

I smell Christfag in this thread

>>1461661

Post-war America.

Also, communism replaces the deity with the state. This requires a greater degree of indoctrination and is ultimately more dangerous.

>>1461704

Hmm interesting. You feel placing all your faith in your political leaders requires more indoctrination than placing it all in an invisible Jewish magician?

Also, wasn't post-war US a good period for the economy, or have I been manipulated by the rightwing faggots?

Objectivism.

Christianity and communism have directly or indirectly inspired interesting art, literature, cultures, etc.

Objectivism produces nothing but pasty nerds with inflated egos who write the most purple, boring shit imaginable.

>>1461713
>asking truman capote for knowledge

>>1461729

Great novel though

>>1461735

Retarded fascist fanfiction written by an ugly, possibly autistic Hollywood screenwriter rich girl with philosopher pretensions.

>>1461746

>>1461754

Just sayin'

>>1461713

I think elusive nature of God and the supernatural help keep people from thinking very hard about their beliefs, religion is built upon centuries of false logic and emotional manipulation. Also, religion does not have to eradicate secularism, where as communism must dismantle religion as it would any other institution that might hold greater authority than the state (for example, family).

Communism demands that people believe that the government always knows what is best for you, a much harder task when human nature can so readily reveal itself.

Communism has never killed anyone because it has never truly existed in a government. Anyone who says "communist Russia" was actually communist after Lenin's death needs to brush up on their history.

>>1461770
No idealized political system ever exists perfectly in reality; therefore, political ideology has never killed anyone.

>>1461776
Oh shit, you got me.

I think every thread on /lit/ just needs to die. Can we just start the fuck over?

>>1461783

Stop ruining the shit party

>>1461770

Lenin was a fucking opportunistic faggot who promised everything the peasants wanted and delivered famine and autocracy.

My hate goes in the order of the image.

>>1461783
I think every Jew in Germany needs to die. Can we just final solution the fuck over?

>>1461788
Hey, he tried and he only had a couple years to lift Russia up from rock bottom -- up to the revolution, it was a feudal state in all but name. (It didn't stop being a feudal state, but Stalin didn't help too much.)

>>1461797

Yea, the Russians never went to space...

Good thread - I love it when /lit/ gets butthurt. Also, OP is a faggot.

>>1461807
>Also, OP is a faggot
nope.

>>1461805
>implying everyone in your country has to be rich to go into space

>>1461809

>implying everyone is rich in the us

>confused whilst reading thread

I haven't been on /lit/ in a while. Is !WvWWh.l.CE Tybrax? wtf

I don't like communism but I find the Marxist analysis of things interesting. Much more interesting than Rand's shit anyway.

But yeah, communism killed millions and objectivism is middle to upper-class kids annoying others.

I don't know much about Objectivism, but from what little I have read I don't dislike it.
Communism. . .heh
Christianity? Well, I probably have to say that this is the worst amongst the three. Not the idea of morality, but the fire 'n' brimstone aspect scares me and I live in an area where 90% of Christians (estimated, duh) are ignorant about even their own religion.

>I live in an area where 90% of Christians [...] are ignorant about even their own religion.

It's called Earth

Objectivism is silly, but I can't hate something that individualistic.

Christianity is silly, but has been around for 2000 years and has some interesting history.

Communism is silly, and is really distasteful to me both in practice and theory. It's the worst, in my opinion.

>>1461852

Pretty decent answer tbf

Christianity, the basic morales or outdated and religions themselves only inspire conflict. Beisdes, most christians celebrate their faith on a whim – only submitting themselves to the belief of an all-powerful diety who’ll carry them to paradise when they die, whether they’ve been a dick or not: “If I’m really sorry I’ll go to heaven!”

Secular humanism is more of a transgression towards a uniformed society, despite the derpy claims that christains make that “they respect everyone”, the church and its followers typically denouce anything that isn’t themselves and are swift in banning any and everything that remotely mentions them.

Objectivism and communism are idealistic, but have the potential for success. Christianity has been consistently altered but deters itself from the basis of what makes it horrible.

I don't hate Communism or Christianity. I disagree with most of the fundamental tenets of Communism & think it's a pretty bad ordering principle for society; I disagree with Christianity insofar as I do not believe there is a god; but I have enormous respect for Christianity & a certain muted respect for Communism - in some sense, if it was wrong, it at least had its heart in the right place.

Objectivism is beneath contempt.

>objectivism
>implying it's an objective philosophy
>implying you can even be objective

>ITT hopelessly people trying to defend any of the above three options

Christianity > Communism > Objectivism

imo objectivism isn't necessarily a bad thing, just portrayed poorly by the extreme right wing.

Communism
>>1461852
also that

>>1462589

saved

meanwhile in america,

>>1460697
Most "angry atheists" in my experience are southerners who's parents made them go to church one too many times.
Or otherwise just retards.
I really don't think the average atheist appreciates how diverse in belief different Christian sects are. Of course they will all claim they do anyway simply because admitting otherwise means you are wrong about something, and we know people just can't do that under any circumstances whatsoever.

>>1460631
Objectivism is just being a selfish asshole, really.
The other two at least operate under the pretext of helping people.
That being said, Communism has done more harm to the modern world then the other two could even hope to do.

Communism

>>1460986
The Westboro Baptist Church is hardly Christian, in that they completely disregard anything Christ said and get their entire ideology from the old testament.
Their interpretation of religious law is actually closer to ancient Mosaic law..which is ironic considering they hate Jews so much.

>>1462589
I loled hard at that pic.

>>1462634

I assume the 60s are the fallout of the American war effort? It's insane, how quickly things flipped back over.

>>1462704

If it weren't for Hitler, America would've completely imploded by now.

Objectivism, if you hate communism it's because you've never read Capital and you don't understand it

>>1462704
not really because of the war. it was balanced growth of manufacturing into jobs into increased consumption.
obviously a command economy is no go and govt has limited effective tools to control the economy despite the aspirations of social theorists, but the idea that free market is rational or always leads to beneficial growth is also mythologized. for starter, 'free market' doesn't specify any particular reality. the power of financial technology, interest capture of government and other institutions, control of investment decisions by concentrated and rather self interested sources, traditional government tools breaking down due to globalization of labor and financial markets etc etc means that there is probably nothing governments can do about the economy, provided that current arrangements and political methods stay the same.

having some idea of making social progress through collective effort/cooperation is actually rather helpful in terms of increasing the resources available to policymakers to effect change as well as making possible the reimagining of society for the better. if you really care about what's going on, ie the real lives of real people, then stop hurping about communism aand actually treat these historical thinkers as humans who were confronted with real social problems and who tried to find their solution. provided that they had good intentions, i'll never 'hate' them, but rather constructively criticize. this si different with rand though since she has not the best intentions and thus hate is warranted.

>>1462732
History>Ideology

>>1462768
right fucking on. i basically completely agree with this post & am just giving mad respect to you for writing it.

>>1462773
Capital is steeped in history. I think people have a misconception of the book, it deals less with communism and the communist vision than it does with inherent truths about capitalism. They call it the "birth of the social sciences" for a reason.

>>1462773
are you serious? don't tell me you actually subscribe to that glenn beck indoctrination bullshit

>>1462773
Not only are the two not mutually exclusive, they are completely dependent on one another. Cool platitudes bro.

>>1462790
Thinking you can understand the nature of communism by reading "Capital" is like thinking you can get an idea of what Christianity is by reading the Bible: retarded.

>>1462796
Do you really have the authority to say that when you've clearly read neither?

>>1462799
Are you seriously advocating ignorance ?
Or are you pretentious enough that you think reading Capital is enough for you to get what communism is all and ever will be about ?

>>1462815
Like I said, Capital isn't even about communism, it's about capitalism. Other than that I don't even get what you're arguing, but I suspect what you're saying is that communism is automatically discredited because of its "history", which isn't true.

>>1462833
>Like I said, Capital isn't even about communism, it's about capitalism.
Considering I was responding to >>1462732 your point is irrelevant.

Otherwise what I'm arguing is that we are not in the 1890s anymore and that defending communism with "OMG YOU MUST READ THIS BOOK CAPITAL, IT'S SO TRUE" is a gullible teenager answer at best, or a sectarian one at worst.

>>1462778
well, i'm glad someone read it. :3

>>1462857
I also agree with it, which is why I get buttmad when people throw out all of Marx's good critique of capitalism with all his ridiculous utopian visions of society

Objectivism, Christianity and then Communism.

In order of hate.

im a marxist and what is this

protip: marx said the ideal political-economic structure was "stateless communism" which essentially looks more like anarchy than anything else. doesnt sound the Sov. Union, now does it?

>i hate objectivism the most

Communism thread?

I would like to note that a true communist society without all the little things like genocide and starvation and oppression would require a post scarcity economy. Possibly with a strong AI governing instead of petty humans.

>>1462898
Ah, once again, the high-schooler cliché "USSR was not true Marxism/true communism".
An irrelevant argument which should not make you forget that this "false communism" STILL rose to power thanks to communism ideology.

Sovietism is a direct child of marxism. The fact that you are unable to see the connection between the two just show you rely too much on your own analysis capacity.

>>1462913
nope.avi
taking the human element out of communism is fascism.

>>1462898
That's not even a plan. Simply eliminating the state would in no way address the problems of class society and economic disparity. As a Marxist, you should know that communism, a classless, stateless society, is the higher stage and socialism, which has a state, is the lower stage of development on the road to communism. At best, the Soviet Union was building socialism for a bit.
>>1462921
nope.avi

>>1462898
> Pretend they defend "stateless communism".
> Will vote for/support good old state communism at any occasion.
mfw

Manicheanisms ftw

4. Idealism

>>1463183
Manicheans!? I thought the Dominicans wiped youg uys out

>>1461817
I'm gonna go with an impostor who finally cracked his trip after posting as TyBrax without a trip for weeks following the real TyBrax's departure/suicide.

>>1460631
Why isn't Modernism/Nationalism on this list?

Destroyed all that is beautiful and good in this world. GIVE ME BACK MY BELLE EPOQUE

i'm sorry i've been rude to everyone