/lit/ - Literature

>>15213985
I don't read anything written by people that look like this.

>>15213985
> nathan robinson

Why you should be [believer of ideology I support]

>>15213985

>>15213985
I tried reading it and it was just like "the status quo of semi capitalist America is imperfect, therefore socialism"

>>15213985
Why does Nathan always post this thread? Have sex you ugly incel

>>15213985
I'm sorry to have to tell you, but you're cripplingly retarded.

>>15214002
Fpbp

>>15213985
God damn has leftism fallen.

Imagine being Adorno and looking at the future of marxist theory, and this being what it became. A literal LARP for people that live in Brooklyn.

>>15215617
Nathan, the gay Korean dude? Hahahahahahah

>>15213985
The title is off putting. Is it a real book?

>>15213985
>nooo capitalism isn’t perfect thus we need socialism
Fuck off

Any books on why leftists love to suck nigger dick?

While I would be in favor of economic reform, my main qualm with socialism is that socialism is not just economic: there is a whole package of religious and cultural beliefs that you seem to need to agree upon to be a socialist. Shit like religion is just an opium for the masses and is useless, shit like family units should be destroyed and small social units broken down. Plainly false dogma like like how people are actually all equal inside and how you're a bad person if you actually like and want to stick with your tribe. Dumb materialistic shit like saying that bread and material things are all that is actually valuable and that morals and ideals are bourgeois fantasy. The whole thing is so fucking dumb that I will never ever call myself a socialist to stay away from those lunatics as far as I can.

>>15213985
is the book free?

>>15216571
>socialism is when everything is free
and to think i thought /lit/ was slightly smarter than /pol/ or /tv/

>>15214002
So, by Anglos?

>>15216624
>thinking /lit/ is smart and /tv/ isn't the best board
okay newfag

>>15216624
>>socialism is when everything is free
Pseudo-socialists (aka berniebros and liberals in general) actually believe that

>>15213985
Speaking as a communist: nathan robinson is a faggot and a retard

>>15216706
How so?

>>15213985
>reading a single book of ideological propaganda and then embracing it permanently

https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1588060714366.webm

>>15216721
>https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1588060714366.webm
Dead link

>>15216489
But it's always aughtrights that are obsessed with BBC, mutt's law and all that

>>15216735
auth*

>>15215606
>>15216055
>capitalism isn’t perfect
Putting it very mildly there, bootlickers.

>>15216646
I didnt say /lit/ was smart and /tv/ is my most browsed board regardless of its incredible stupidity. learn2read

>>15216752
You said you were under the impression /lit/ was smart until that post but I have known /lit/ is pretty dumb for about 5 years. I have a pynchon thread going on /tv/ now instead.

>>15216624
>implying
fuck you, you dishonest bastard. I asked if it was free, not for a fucking monologue about the definition of socialism. Anyway, if you are distributing propaganda for the political opponent of capitalism, you should ideally make it free and not a capitalist product marketing a capitalist compatible lifestyle, which it is and which it will continue to be as people buy it to display on their shelves or talk about with their friends, embarrassing.

>>15216547
Are there any modern sects of socialism that don't carry the taint of all the usual liberal-progressive pieties and bourgeoisie decadence?

>>15216781
Not that I'm aware of. Although I'd like to know too!

>bro just put literally all your eggs in one small basket and walk down this treacherously slippery path bro it cant go wrong trust me

>>15216781
Strasserism has been dead since the Nazis, but it may be the closest thing to what you're looking for. Basically Nazbol Gang but not memeing.

>>15216836
So, nothing serious? Got it.

>>15216730
>iphone poster

>>15216840
Correct. It's a sad state of affairs.

>>15216830
universal healthcare really is a treacherously slippery path

>>15216848
having universal healthcare is not socialism bro

>>15213985
Having the economic system as the main concern of your ideology (be it capitalism or socialism) already shows that you're a braindead consoomer.

>>15216842
Here's what it looks like if you aren't using an iphone

>>15216852
dude the means of the production in the hands of the workers really is a treacherously slippery path bro really should leave them to the slimy oligarch

>>15216865
i see where your confusion is coming from, you're mixing up real life implementation of socialism your magical fantasy that exists only in the heads of people you, a pretty common mistake

putting one single authoritarian entity charge of literally every aspect of your economy and by extension your life is a pretty dumb idea, yes, literally worse than having a slough of oligarchs and small businesses, and history has proven that literally every time you retards got your revolution

>>15216635
If you mean filthy brits, then yes

>>15216721
Ofc you posted it on /wsg/ instead of /gif/

>>15216865
>the means of the production in the hands of the workers
it isn't that we think its a bad idea, its that you're delusional if you think you will attain it

>>15216865
>the means of the production in the hands of the workers
I wish somebody could tell me what this means in a practical sense. Right now I can come up with an idea for a new product and then take my own money and build a factory to produce it. If the product sells, I'm rewarded for the risk I took. If it doesn't then I'm out of the money it took to build the factory.

Under a socialist system do I have to approach a group of people with my idea and hope they decide to build the factory themselves? If the product doesn't sell do the workers have to pay out of their own pocket? I don't see the impetus for innovation or risk taking under socialism.

>>15217312
i guess one aspect would be if there was a law that said that a certain number of workers get to make decisions like share holders do

>>15217360
Whenever I ask these question nothing but vague answers to questions I didn't ask. I'm begging one of you to prove to me that socialists aren't idiotic teens with a half baked understanding of economics who haven't thought things through.

>>15217375
i'm not a socialist, i was just giving an example for what they may mean by 'means of production in the hands of workers'. i am on the same boat that i never get anything more than vague rhetoric with no practicality or policy

>>15216750
>bootlickers
Cringe

>>15217312
Paying the workers in shares of the company

>>15216856
>asmr police interog

>>15216781
Maoism

All political projects are satanic distractions from the cosmic game. Read The Grand Inquisitor.

>>15217866
You can do that right now but what do you do, buy groceries with company shares? That's why it isn't done. It isn't practical.

>>15213985
>ethical socialism
"Socialism" in the Anglosphere is just a theory of niceness.

>>15217877
Maoism made it a point of policy to exterminate all remnants of traditional Chinese culture.

God, you guys are all insufferable. I imagine your peers simply groan when you tell them these things.

>blocks your path

>>15215606
That is basically the logic of every socialist I've met

>>15214002
what if this was cormac mccarthy

>>15217312
the idea is that under socialism you are not allowed to hire anyone to work under you, you can only bring workers to your company if you agree to share ownership of the company with them.

the whole idea is to break the hierarchy of owner/worker since its considered inherently exploitative.

>>15213985
>the only alternative to capitalism is socialism
ishygddt

>>15215606
haha!! have you read piketty? i havent - interested in your take on it. is it th same?

>>15218813
Yeah I get that, but how does it work on a practical level? Where is the incentive for risk taking that is involved in business? Are workers going to be financially liable for failure? It wouldn't make any sense to share profits with workers if they don't take a share in the risk as well. There's nothing stopping business from paying its workers purely in company shares but the reason this doesn't happen is because nobody wants to owe money to their place of work after a slow month.

>>15218866
yes, shared responsability. usually it has turned out in places like workers co-ops that distributing the weight of the company across all employees helps the company resist economic crisis better than if a small board of shareholders do.

>>15218947
It's a fools deal. Most people can barely manage their finances longer than a month into the future and you want them to personally withstand financial downturns? Imagine working for two weeks and getting a bill instead of a paycheck. It would not work which is why it isn't done.

>>15214002
Why does a socialist dress like this? The proletariat would tear him apart.

>>15216547
>>15216781
Probably market socialism. Its still very relevant in economic theory and as such, its only a economic theory.
Tbh i have this same problem and see many others also having it. People that would otherwise agree with the left in economic terms and support their ideas but are repulsed because of the other social ideas that the left seems to be more concerned with.
I pretty much dont agree with their premises of making all social codes as fluid as possible. And sometimes saying stupid shit like polyamory and "open" relationships are the way to go since they somehow "decommodify" sex, and treating the certain preferences that people have as solely the products of some alien plant that must be done with.

And then get all mad and grumpy when you mention that most societies with polygamy have it for even stricter hierarchy codes and how even the most egalitarian and old hunter gatherer tribes today are monogamous without having any "capitalistic" mentalities. How the free love hippy groups ended up breaking apart as people grew and found that relationships were more fulfilling the more exclusivity you have with the partner and the people that stayed more often ended up with violence and other social hierarchies.

This is all a shitfest and desu there are plenty of leftists that dont subscribe to all these notions. But this all contribuites to why the left in general is always on the losing side and subdividing itself further and further. Most of them are just horny people that try to play as the leftist but only care about imposing and removing the social codes they dont like, instead of trying to focus on the economic issues that your average person could agree with.

>>15217312
>Right now I can come up with an idea for a new product
This idea is completely foreign to socialists and they will unironically react to it as if you’re speaking in tongues

>>15219213
It is kind of funny to see how implicitly conservative modern socialists are. It's a bad sort of conservatism which disdains all sorts of innovation out of hand, leading to stagnation. It's most certainly not their goal but it is a natural consequence.

>>15219262
>>15219213
>>15218964
Would advice you to see how worker co-ops work. You have coops like mondragon corporation that are leading and working with companies like google and microsoft in various fields of innovation and do all this by democratic means.

>>15219315
I would "advice" you to pop the cock out of your mouth.

>>15214157
amen brother. fuck ideologies, political, religious, secular, and otherwise. if you identify with any -isms you have set yourself up for a life of suffering

>>15219405
Just one more minute anon, i feels too good.

>>15213985
What does it mean to "be a socialist" or "be a conservative"? I have no power besides voting which is a meme. How can I tell if someone is a socialst or communist or fascist or liberal or whatever the fuck from their actions? OP, how do yoi prove that you are a socialist? Because you "support" certain ideas? Support how? With money? You constantly try to convince people of it?

>>15216547

>shit like family units should be destroyed and small social units broken down

Marx literally had a wife and seven children. He was speaking specifically of bourgeois families and how they are based on management and transfer of property.

>>15219430

you organize locally retard

>>15218844
I have not read Piketty. I do have a life you know ;)

>>15218690
It's a common pattern.

>>15219430
It's precisely this defeatist, derisive, deterministic attitude that allows those fat fucking Karens in the lifted SUVs and red-white-and-blue bandanas to win elections. The mere thought of their flabby neck-cheeks and moldy vaginas is enough to drive me to the polls out of spite.

How does Socialism manage to avoid cronyism?

>>15219495
What marx said at the time is even attacked and deemed too "bourgeois" by many today.
Take a look at Guattari for example, endless sperging on how families dont exist and how monogamous love was "capitalistic". And how he was reckless to anyone inside his group that were starting to develop a exclusive relationships and was so busy fucking models and taking drugs that left his daughter to develop fungus on her scalp and other health problems from the lack of basic hygiene and parental care.
There is always a big divide on my mind when people talk about "bourgeois" families. Part of me thinks they are refering to these more old and "traditional" forms of families that included more than your nuclear families that are just father, mother and 1-2 kids. Another part thinks they just refer to any family or even concept of family which to me sounds closer to the way of life the elites have than any working class person does.

>>15214002
He doesn't look like a fag. He looks like a Neremeny Bentham LARP.

>>15219643
>Communists then: oppressing women via coverture is the nature of bourgeois marraige
>Communists now: actually sexual liberation is quintessential bourgeois degeneracy, only Communism can stop this and restore an ethic of sexuality suitable for life in a Human Community
Complete 180.

>>15219780
>actually sexual liberation is quintessential bourgeois degeneracy, only Communism can stop this and restore an ethic of sexuality suitable for life in a Human Community
Where do you see people saying this? More often than not you see them attacking anything that is deemed bourgeois

>>15213985
>After reading this book, it's really hard to see how someone can be both intellectually honest and not a Socialist. He just rips apart capitalism like nothing and exposes it's flimsy ethical basis. There's no turning back to capitalism after reading this
Yet, nothing you said is an actual argument, so clearly it doesnt matter what you think.

>>15219943
I guess those are more unorthodox Communists, I consider DSA types like the OP's character as just radical liberals.

>>15216750
Critiquing capitalism as something that destroys tradition from a socialist perspective is... ...interesting.

>>15216714
first of all he wears pocket squares and suits and fedoras every day and he speaks with a fake english accent, he's a complete freak. Second of all, if you read his work its apparent that his ideology is just regurgitating things noam chomsky has said without any understanding of the reasoning that led to those positions.

>>15216781
there's a group of brooklyn hipster socialists that have built up a following by rejecting liberal idpol and being edgy and not politically correct. Listen to podcasts like chapo trap house, trueanon, red scare, and cum town (though they're not super political they're very much in the middle of this ecosystem). I suppose Zizek would probably be the main theory inspiration for these kinds of people

>>15213985
loadspeaker with legs, atleast the cover is honest

>>15220259
That's what Adorno was trying to do, and it's even more difficult to deny that capitalism erodes culture and tradition today.
Retarded /pol/acks talk about Adorno and the Frankfurt School as if they were trying to say "look how we can destroy culture with gommunism," but they were doing the opposite and saying that unfettered American capitalism was the problem. They were right.

>>15220556
that image honestly has so many layers to it i think anybody could criticize something about it

>>15219423
Believing in nothing is just nihil-ism, Anon.

>>15218554
>Aaron Bastani

Kek

>>15220556
>difficult to deny that capitalism erodes culture and tradition today.
The erosion of tradition is just a side effect however whereas most socialists will have the total destruction of all (not all but you get my point) current societal norms as step one. And sooner or later it has to be done, if you want to overthrow all the current hierarchies you need to destroy tradition.

>>15219509
Am i a socialist because i am a member of a labor union? I attend our monthly meetings and am a member of one of our volunteer committees. Does that make me a marxist? I don't do it because im ideologically driven. I do it because i enjoy it and think its the right thing to do.

>>15219586
I'm not defeatist. It's cringe to read people online saying they are a "socialist" or a "fascist" when they are clearly just a NEET or just repeat phrases from what they hear and read in outlets like NYT or Daily Stormer or whatever rig. Some cunts have all kinds of opinions on politics but literally do not change their lifestyle in any way or do anything to advocate it. When you drive to the poll and cast a vote which makes no difference to anything, what are you? A democrat? A socialist? A nazi? Or just a larper?

>>15217874
He is clearly just opening a bunch of weird tabs to get replies.
Notice how most of them are google searches.

>>15219591
It doesn't

>>15220444
All of those podcasts are the height of bourgeois decadence.

>>15221750
I'm not a socialist, you don't have to convince me that they have their own insidious goals, but this is clearly not a "side effect" of capitalism anymore.
Capitalism's only goal, the real telos of it, is endless expansion of the cycle of production and consumption. Anything else will eventually be an impedance to this, and it will eventually be subsumed as the cycle furthers its own ends. It finished discarding moral imperatives as useless over a century ago. By the end of the 60s it had already absorbed rebellion against itself and turned it into a fully-predicted-for, fully-planned part of its own system. The 21st century will see it finish that same process with the entire concept of a person's identity.
These aren't little aberrations, small things we can tweak to fix. This is the system becoming more efficient at reaching the goal it's always had.

>>15214002
I went to college with this fag. Fuck him and fuck his fake British accent

>>15218749
Good thing it's not.

>>15222372
>>15220444

I can't grasp how anyone watches any of those insipid "breadtubers" believes themselves on the vanguard of some important cultural revolution. The only thing possibly worse is being a Marxist that is also a Bernie supporter.

>>15222425

How a supposedly materialistic and scientific ideology can assign willingness, motivations, and goals to something that clearly doesn't have sentience is beyond me.

>>15223249
I told you I'm not a socialist. Regardless, if you're still in denial about the effects capital has on the western world, you have to be actively trying to avoid these realizations.
Of course abstract systems have goals. They aren't stated in a charter or hard-coded into an AI, but they're there if you look for them, plain as day. What do the various pressures of capitalism select for? What behavior does it reward, and what behavior does it punish? It tends towards certain things and leaves others behind, even if you can't think abstractly enough to see it as a conscious beast.

>>15223606
Not the other anon.
But is there even that big of a consensus on what characteristics capitalism pressures and selects for? Even in this thread you have various people saying that capitalism advocates for the "degeneracy", tearing of the family units and some sort of hypergamy among women, while others present an image that its capitalism that protomes the patriarchy, enforces the family unit, the monogamous relations, as if the moment you dont have capitalism we all turn into these free love hippies that are presupposed to be inside us and repressed.

>>15223688
>Even in this thread you have various people saying that capitalism advocates for the "degeneracy", tearing of the family units and some sort of hypergamy among women,
I'd argue this is pretty clearly the case. America has been firmly capitalist without even the threat of a labor movement since the first World War, and here we are, watching all of that unfold.
The ultimate market expansion is to make one class of identical consumer comprising the entire world. We aren't there yet, but it's where we're going. Languages other than English (and in another hemisphere, Mandarin) are a barrier to consumption, so they have to go. Cultural distinctions mean we have to waste time and energy advertising to different demographics, so it'll be more efficient if we can get a nice umbrella shade of mulatto.
While we still work on this, we find whatever ways to instill a need for consumption we can. Make everyone miserable and sell them antidepressants, there's a business model you can replicate forever.
>while others present an image that its capitalism that protomes the patriarchy, enforces the family unit, the monogamous relations, as if the moment you dont have capitalism we all turn into these free love hippies that are presupposed to be inside us and repressed.
Mostly the opinions of insulated utopian socialists that see this as something to strive for. I don't.

Isn’t Marx irrefutable? No one has ever successfully refuted his works.

>>15213985
>>15214002
samefag
*yawn*
/pol/ a little to /b/ for ya?

>>15216055
Well Marx explained how Capitalism causes Socialism, in some pretty fine detail too. He was taken so seriously he shaped economic and political changes enacted purely to avoid what he predicted.
Capitalism was meant to be a bridge from Feudalism to Socialism. The tiny group holding all the value of labour have modified everything in society to keep us doing donuts on that bridge and they know it can't last.
Either the bridge wears out, relying as it does on injustice, or the tiny rich group become irrelevant and get torn to actual chunks within a few months.
None of this is controversial.

>>15223776
>America has been firmly capitalist without even the threat of a labor movement since the first World War
...and yet a common talking point is that leftist elites run the government, media and education, with right-wing values being under constant existential threat.

>>15218866
>Where is the incentive for risk taking that is involved in business?
Yeah, i'd like to know that too. Because I've been watching businesses move towards cartel or monopolistic behavior since the 80s and risk is always seen as something to be reduced, if not abolished.
Yes, every shareholder shares the risk.
Maybe that Ayn Rand stuff really was utter bullshit.

>>15223863
>leftist elites run the government
Not the previous anon, but i think the term "leftist elites" is pretty absurd as it would imply their dissolution if they were really leftists. I think what you more often see, as this by taking the explaination of the previous anon, is that elites need to expand consumption and get rid and recode any social codes to achive it, so they take the mask of the "progressive socialist" to help the capitalistic machine decode and recode stuff more easily without ever attacking the capitalist machine.

>>15223937
That is WAY too nuanced to be a right wing talking point. Bannon and Co have fed to the potato-tier Trump voter the idea that leftist elites run everything and therefore the administrative state needs to be dismantled. Bannon said exactly this in these words.
Trump might have got out of his control, but the point will come back to you from the most absolute shit-tier Republicans: leftists are ruining the country and the American way of life.
When actually there's never been anything but hard capitalism for a century.

>>15218749
physiognomy is real and cormac literally couldn't look like that for how based he is.

>>15219022
most socialists are the spoiled children of petit bougie who believe themselves members of the proletariat for currently working part time retail and are wholly disconnected from the working class or their culture.

>>15220556
technology is the cause of eroding culture

>>15223991
>physiognomy is real
scammers wouldn't make a dollar without people like you.

>>15224007
>most socialists
gonna need to see some stats on that one, might be true in the suburban USA where your whole worldview is formed, but if you travel to union meetings around the world you see the dreadful weight of prole workers who really don't like bullshit because their lives don't have any room for it. One big lie or treachery can put a family in the gutter when your work is precarious.
TLDR get out more.

>>15216547
Italian fascism is not much different than most commie countries in practice and doesn't hate traditional culture.

>>15216735
>using "political compass" terms
go back

>>15219315
>a select, niche group proves it works

>>15224026
>t. looks like the author

>>15218813
but who's going to stop me if i want to and the other party wants to? hierarchy is bad so there is no one who can order me around. trying to control basic voluntary association is never going to work. and literally every relationship has nonidentical balance and thus hierarchy; you can't avoid a fundamental reality of nature by imagining some ideal that sounds nice. every single relationship between a man and a woman is unequal in power, specifically physical. so a woman could never agree to something with a man because the power balance is encouraging her agreement or some shit. you people are so dumb.

>>15221708
he isn't saying that, retard. you don't need to identify with someone's faggoty ideological system and be consistent of shit like that to have beliefs and opinions.

>>15223785
you can't refute nonsense because it does not accept basic rules of life.

>>15224040
i'm so sure those working class europoors want to abolish family structures and loss their property. unionizing doesn't mean being a socialist.

>>15224146
>hierarchy is bad so there is no one who can order me around.
>can't see a life outside a hierarchy
okay, you have a dog's brain.
Social models of organization involve spheres of influence. Withina field of influence there can be small ad hoc hierarchies, but they aren't rigid and only exist as long as they are of utility. Centralized leadership works within spheres of influence. It's wasteful to have some alpha dog trying to take over something he knows nothing about and anyone who's actually done work, not white-collar slogging, has seen this happen.
>>15224193
europoors aren't even a good ground for socialism, they are too comfy. Socialism is huge it jibes so well with values they've retained from pre-industrial times.
>>15224179
>it's nonsense because i can't refute it
golf clap

>>15224235
>Socialism is huge in asia, south america and africa because it jibes so well with values they've retained from pre-industrial times.
capcha fucked me

>>15219315
>one company works therefore every company needs to be like this

>>15224235
>hierarchies don’t matter when we do it
Oh ok

>>15224160
>egocongenialism

>>15224321
>what are spheres of influence
>i don't know I'm a captive animal so i organize into hierarchies which are beneficial to corporations but cause my life to deteriorate, making ethics weakness and co-operating into servitude
every get the feeling you've been normalized into narcissism?

>>15224357
>all this assumption about me simply because I disagreed with something you said
>if we rename hierarchies then they stop being hierarchies and we can use those
Krauss-tier bullshit

>>15224235
sounds like you think the hierarchy in business is ok

>>15224397
>Social models of organization involve spheres of influence. Withina field of influence there can be small ad hoc hierarchies, but they aren't rigid and only exist as long as they are of utility.
Maybe you need to spend some quiet time with these two sentences, you seem to be struggling.
>>15224487
Only where useful, hierarchy as an ideology is as dangerous as any other. Mindless defence of hierarchy is a waste of time that you'll run into a lot.

>>15213985
It depresses me when I walk into a bookshop and see dozens of these types of books in the politics section. It's always a red cover, always a shitty and intellectually lazy rehash of labour theory of value. I can't figure out whether the authors realise the irony of them earning a living wage by riding Marx's coat tails, writing a watered down defence of socialism in the modern age. Pathetic

>>15213985

>>15224497
>only exist as long as they are of utility
Like a business relationship under capitalism?

>>15224179
substanceless criticism. ignored

>>15224026
you can tell exactly what kind of writing this guy does by looking at his face

>>15224981

>>15224985
same with this fuckin guy