/lit/ - Literature

N

>>16628147
Stop posting this uncle tom. Read Marx, Isaak Illich Rubin, Postone, Heinrich, and Sraffa.

>>16628173
>Read Marx
you should just get a button on your keyboard that posts this for you automatically

>>16628173
Marx is a fucking spook. Fucking pseud.

>>16628147
It seems this Vaush guy on YouTube can counter him quite easily.

Take your meme back to >>>/pol/

>>16628366
Is this an inside joke or something, why am I being mocked by a fucking trip?

>>16628378
it's our resident tranny /pol/ troll

>>16628173
>Read Marx
I have. He's a fucking retard

>>16628378
We were just discussing him
>>/lit/thread/16625539

I am not trans, of course.

>>16628402
>Read Marx
>Promoting Sowell

>>16628424
Complete coincidence, then. Ironically actually one of my friends watches Vaush. I had no idea he made a video on Sowell prior to you mentioning it just now. I'll watch the video I guess, though it's technically not a book.

>>16628435
I have a friend that repeats his talking points. I guess it's better than repeating Sargon of Akkad's like he did before, but it's still kind of annoying.

>>16628435
Alright. Sorry for coming off so flippant. Lots of arguments going on around here and real tired of seeing this dumb guy.

>>16628431
He's not OP. I've not read Marx, only one book deciphering his work. One of the many things I learned from that book was that my prior concerns with jumping into Marx blind were absolutely correct, in that I am certain I would never have properly understood it without necessary context or supplementary explanations.

>>16628442
tell your friend to stop listening to pseudy e-celeb faggots and start reading books

>>16628454
Same here. I don’t want to read him either. But I do trust Wolf and Cockshott and Harvey

>>16628474
>trusting Harvey
That explains your autism. Wolf is alright and Dickblast is based tho.

>>16628501
Odd. Why don’t you like Harvey?

>>16628474
>Cockshott
omg plz stop he sucks dick. literally everyone in CS should not be allowed to talk about anything outside of CS he is embarrassing. read >>16628173 and other real economists like dobb, kalecki, lange, arrow, and hurwicz.

>>16628543

>>16628147
Most lefties just don't read him. Honestly, it's probably because the lefty canon is too big to allow for any detours.

What I can say, is that I mainly reject capitalism, because 1. it values function over ethics and 2. it's only around 500 years old, so anyone saying it's somehow human nature or that its our best option fails to recognize how long we have lived without it--granted, it is better in theory than feudalism, the situation capitalism puts us in, (colonialism) is ethically unpalatable. Moreover, it's brevity is hope that something beyond capitalism is possible.

Also side note: it's polarizing to see the only opponent of Sowell to be socialists or something. Literally just read Keynes.

>>16628147
marxism or leftism has nothing to do with economics, mises already destroyed it as well as carl menger
marxism is actually a culture, it can be anything the marxists want it to be even if it complete throws marx away despite what the psypaths and ignorants will tell you to fool you

>>16628147
If you're being sincere, read The Bell Curve next and really have your mind blown.

>>16628147
>>16628173
>>16628366
Investigating for decades the nature of Investigating for decades the nature of Marxism, I ended up concluding that it is not just a theory, an “ideology” or a political movement. It is a “culture”, in the anthropological sense, a whole universe of beliefs, symbols, values, institutions, formal and informal powers, rules of conduct, speech patterns, conscious and unconscious habits, etc. That is why it is self-founding and self-referential, being able to understand nothing except on its own terms, not admitting a reality beyond its own horizon or a criterion of veracity above its own self-proclaimed ends. Like any culture, it has in its own subsistence a value that must be defended at all costs, far above the requirements of truth or morality, since it constitutes the totality of which truth and morality are partial elements, which is why the claim of charging it in their name sounds to its ears like an intolerable and absurd revolt by the parts against the whole, a senseless violation of the ontological hierarchy.

The constitution of its identity includes self-defense devices that impose severe limits on rational criticism, appealing, when threatened, real or imagined, to mythological excuses, to collective self-deception, to pure and simple lies, to mechanisms of exclusion and liquidation of inconveniences and to the sacrificial rite of the scapegoat.

>>16628625
I am, and I won't.

>>16628638
Why not? Go watch an interview with Charles Murray and you tell me he seems like a disingenuous political hack.

>>16628637
the cope rightoids go through when they are told to stop talking about things they haven't read

>>16628637
>>16628147
Those who think its possible to “contest” Marxism by a well-founded attack on its “principles”, are deluded. The unity and the preservation of his culture are for the Marxist above all considerations of an intellectual and cognitive order, and for this reason the “principles” expressed in the theory are not exactly “the” foundation of Marxist culture: they are only verbal translation, imperfect and provisional, with a much deeper foundation that is not cognitive but existential, and that identifies with the very sacredness of culture that must remain untouchable. This foundation can be “felt” and “experienced” by members of the culture through participation in the collective atmosphere, in joint ventures, in the memory of past glories and in the hope of future victory, but it cannot be reduced to any particular verbal formulation , however elaborate and prestigious it may be. That is why it is possible to be a Marxist without accepting any of the previous formulations of Marxism, including that of Marx himself. That is why it is possible to participate in the Marxist movement without knowing anything about its theory, just as it is possible to critically reject the theory without ceasing to collaborate with the movement in practice. The critical onslaught against theoretical formulations leaves the existential foundation intact, which, attacked, then retreats into the impregnable shelter of mute certainties or simply produces new substitutive formulations which, if they are inconsistent with the former, will not prove to the Marxist anything but the infinite wealth of the unspeakable foundation, capable of preserving its identity and its strength under a variety of contradictory formulations that it infinitely transcends. Marxism has no "principles", only unspeakable impressions in constant metamorphosis.

>>16628660
I kind of agree, but I think that's just the far left in general and this has more to do with the fact that Marxism dominates this political subsection

>>16628655
>the cope rightoids go through when they are told to stop talking about things they haven't read
Shut your mouth leftist scum, i did not make these texts, I simply translated them, you are an ignorant worm who has no idea about the history of the marxist movement and how many times they changed ideas, because in the end all marxists are all either psycopaths or ignorant morons

The man that wrote the original text was a member of the brazilian communist movement in his young years and helped the militia in the military period to fight the government to stage a communist coup (which they got eventually through cultural means and space occupations), but he studied this demonic mental illness called marxism for decades, pic is his library just on marxism
More recently he also ass raped Dugin in a formal debate if youre interested

>>16628644
I wouldn't immediately assert that he is disingenuous, but having watched a bit of an interview just now I would say he seems to at least be driven by some emotional preconceptions which I cannot and would not want to empathize with. One of his beginning remarks was with regards how the idea of speaking about the 'american dream' as a term nowadays would lead to confusion, which seems like complete sappy dodgy bullshit to me. If it were actually true it would likely not be brought up in that way, sort of thing.

>>16628424
>no leftist cares about equality of outcome
So if everyone had equality of opportunity and black people still failed is it okay to let them fail?

>>16628462
I’ve tried. It isn’t going to work. He just doesn’t,Ike reading. If only I could get someone to adapt Amusing Ourselves to Death as a video game, then I might be able to convince him to ditch e-celeb debates.

>>16628705
Everyone has biases, my point was does he seem genuine & professional enough to not completely fabricate statistical material to push his narrative.

Once you start reading the book you realize all it's all just them analyzing studies done by the government and other institutions.

>>16628637
this is the best post I have read on this website in literal years

>>16628702
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olavo_de_Carvalho#Controversies
*inhales*
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No but seriously all rightoids need to be put in camps you are all retards

>>16628442
Sargon is smarter than Vaush
>>16628722
Destiny’s debates are actually really useful for forming arguments and making opinions

>>16628660
this post is equally good, but you need to identify the specific existential foundation of the ideology. It has obvious connections to Enlightenment philosophy, Judaism and Christianity, colonialism and 3rd world frameworks, etc.

>>16628737
The stuff about science seems like you’re standard continental philosophy crap to be fair.

>>16628740
>Destiny’s debates are actually really useful for forming arguments and making opinions
His debates are just a further demonstration of our media’s need to prioritize entertainment value of content and how it degrades the discourse. It’s disgraceful.

>>16628719
>no leftist cares about
>cares
I used the word “talk” for a fucking reason.
>So when black people still fail
In what? Another sort of slave state? Or actual anarcho-communism, where there isn’t any poverty or unjustifiable hierarchies? Lets try it and see

>>16628402
Kek, sneed

>>16628740
>Sargon is smarter than Vaush
Damn. That means Sowell is extremely stupid

>>16628442
I finally understand why people watch vaush then. I guess the obesity makes it easier for his fans to pretend they're him

>>16628766
I think it’s because he’s a reasonably smart, charismatic guy who seems to be great at developing a sort of parasocial relationship with his audience. Just watch him when he’s responding to donations; it’s kind of sickening.

>>16628758
If they care about it why wouldn’t they talk about it?

>uhh that hypothetical would never happen so it’s pointless to think about
>>16628757
t. Mad your favorite YouTuber couldn’t answer a basic question about their ideology

>>16628737
>>16628655
>his only arguments are fallacies
As usual with you scum, you know youre cornered because you have no idea how to respond, actually you were destroyed already, the two posts already encompass everything you maggots always do, marx was refuted already by economicists of all schools of thought, but it doesnt fucking matter because marxism is simply demonic as i described with the translations

>hahaha...
"Risinho de deboche é argumento de puta"

Debauchery giggle is the whore argument, loosely translated

Go suck a dick and go to hell commie scum, go socialize your your means of production with your local hobos (that is, your anus, as the only g you produce is shit)

>>16628780
>t. Mad your favorite YouTuber couldn’t answer a basic question about their ideology
Can you not read. I despise all e-celeb pundits.

>>16628789
Why?
Also can you not punctuate.

>>16628147
Let me just state I am not a huge scholar of Sowell. To my mind, he is just yet another sycophantic supporter of the long discredited neoliberalism.
Calling Thomas Sowell an Uncle Tom is a deeply racist comment, even though it is usually leftist who will state it. Racializing his thinking from the get go is cruel and unfair. Calling him an uncle tom simply means that black people are not allowed to form their own beliefs, that they must go along with progressivism or be seen as a house servant for conservatives. What could be more racist than that? Yet this comes from those who are avowedly anti-racist. What a crock of shit.

Now I am going to contradict what I just said. What empowers Sowell's arguments, paradoxically enough, is that these are forbidden thoughts for a black man. He thinks the idea of systemic racism in the contemporary world is a propagandistic ruse. Indeed, by applying rigorous empirical standards to the question, there is no known way to interpret the idea. It's a value laden belief system, relegated to the realm of opinion. He has concerned himself with analyzing race relations and has come to conclusions that contradict the liberal orthodoxy. And he has an argument to support it. So that makes him an academic Stepin Fetchit.

He even had the gall to support Trump, which to the left makes him a race traitor. The contradictions, as you can see, are building up. Perhaps the left is more racist than it wishes to admit.

>>16628147
My interaction with his popularisation has been incoherent undisciplinary pop intellectual.

Like a right wing Chomsky and equally dismissible.

At least show me your Zizek.

>>16628829
>At least show me your Zizek.
Imagine an intellectual that flirts with Hitler the way Zizek with Stalin.

>>16628798
>Why?
Because I think they actively contribute to the degradation of meaningful political discourse.
>Also can you not punctuate.
Because my mind has rotted to the point that I often forget that question marks even exist.

>>16628732
>>16628173
>>16628431
>>16628737
You have seen nothing, all I did was translate a short article from Olavo de Carvalho, he has written a fuck ton about communism because he was one in his younger years and studied the whole deal and people that wrote about it, but he went further and studied the revolutionary mentality and movement in general

Marxism and its communist variants are one of the worst inventions Satan has personally helped bring into this word if he didnt create it himself, but it only survives if the majoriry of good people are kept ignorant in my point of view, the youngesters are easy y because theyre not only ignorant, theyre also very fucking stupid thanks to modern education

Thats what Olavo de Carvalho recommends to understand the communist movement and talk about it with some property, it would take 4 to 5 years of study he says:

(1) Marxism classics: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Dzedong.
(2) The most important marxist philosophers: Lukács, Korsch, Gramsci, Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, Lefebvre, Althusser.
(3) Main Currents of Marxism, by Leszek Kolakowski.
(4) Some good books of history and sociology about the revolutionary movement in general, like Fire in the Minds of Men, by James H. Billington, The Pursuit of the Millenium, by Norman Cohn, The New Science of Politics, by Eric Voegelin.
(5) Good books about the history of communist regimes, written by non apologetic points of view
(6) Books from the most famous critics of marxism like Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, Raymond Aron, Roger Scruton, Nicolai Berdiaev and many others.
(7) Books about the strategy and tactics about the taking of power by communists, about the underground activity of the communist movement in the West and specially about the "active measures" (desinformation, influence agents), like those from Anatolyi Golitsyn, Christopher Andrew, John Earl Haynes, Ladislaw Bittman, Diana West.
(8) Testimonies, in the biggest number possible, by ex-agents or communist militants that tell their experience of serving the movement or communist governments like Arthur Koestler, Ian Valtin, Ion Mihai Pacepa, Whittaker Chambers, David Horowitz.
(9) High value testimonies about the human condition in socialist societies, like those from Guillermo Cabrera Infante, Vladimir Bukovski, Nadiejda Mandelstam, Alexander Soljenítsin, Richard Wurmbrand.

>>16628831
Musso or Horthy or Franco for fucks sake are Stalin equivalents. Hitler is full blown Juche or Cambodian.

>>16628745
>this post is equally good, but you need to identify the specific existential foundation of the ideology. It has obvious connections to Enlightenment philosophy, Judaism and Christianity, colonialism and 3rd world frameworks, etc.
Yes of course, I was just translating a small article that seemed to apply well to OP's question, but evidently the revolutionary mentality has its roots in times prior to Marx

>>16628837
Your entirely avoiding the real movements of working people in favour of some satanic cult of party members.

Then again your fanfiction is significantly disconnected from disciplinary approaches to the object of your study.

>>16628722
you cannot consider yourself to be "smart" while at the same time dislike reading CMM.

>>16628840
Lenin is probably a good match for DAnnunzio, but I’d rather see a match with a non fascist right winger who understands the animation of spirit of culture

>>16628847
>Your entirely avoiding the real movements of working people in favour of some satanic cult of party members.
>Then again your fanfiction is significantly disconnected from disciplinary approaches to the object of your study.
When you have read this entire list, come back
>>16628837
>(1) Marxism classics: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Dzedong.
>(2) The most important marxist philosophers: Lukács, Korsch, Gramsci, Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, Lefebvre, Althusser.
>(3) Main Currents of Marxism, by Leszek Kolakowski.
>(4) Some good books of history and sociology about the revolutionary movement in general, like Fire in the Minds of Men, by James H. Billington, The Pursuit of the Millenium, by Norman Cohn, The New Science of Politics, by Eric Voegelin.
>(5) Good books about the history of communist regimes, written by non apologetic points of view
>(6) Books from the most famous critics of marxism like Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, Raymond Aron, Roger Scruton, Nicolai Berdiaev and many others.
>(7) Books about the strategy and tactics about the taking of power by communists, about the underground activity of the communist movement in the West and specially about the "active measures" (desinformation, influence agents), like those from Anatolyi Golitsyn, Christopher Andrew, John Earl Haynes, Ladislaw Bittman, Diana West.
>(8) Testimonies, in the biggest number possible, by ex-agents or communist militants that tell their experience of serving the movement or communist governments like Arthur Koestler, Ian Valtin, Ion Mihai Pacepa, Whittaker Chambers, David Horowitz.
>(9) High value testimonies about the human condition in socialist societies, like those from Guillermo Cabrera Infante, Vladimir Bukovski, Nadiejda Mandelstam, Alexander Soljenítsin, Richard Wurmbrand.

If you really give two shits about working people you never met or are one (i highly doubt you even work), study actual serious economy schools, the Austrian school should be the most intuitive to understand so you can start there
https://mises.org/library/union-myth
https://mises.org/library/truth-about-swedencare
These articles are enough for the average american leftist (the shit they say to the young morons is always the same everywhere since they took over the school systems globally), go to the books later

>>16628442
so he went from one fat, pseudo-intellectual faggot who defended pedophilia to another fat, pseudo-intellectual faggot who defended pedophilia, good to know

>>16628173
>Read Marx, Isaak Illich Rubin
>Isaak Rubin
Executed by Stalin in 1937
You are all such a fucking joke

>>16628868
what's wrong with loving children?

>>16628836
Why?

>>16628829
>Chomsky
>a mere pop intellectual

>>16628573
Shut up faggot

>>16628885
absolutely nothing

>>16628638
At least you admit, implicitly, to being indoctrinated into a religion

>>16628815
I can't tell if this post is semi ironic, completely ironic, or completely unironic.

>>16628889
Sorry.
Psuedo pop intellectual.

>>16628829
By this you mean people who take his quotes about the history of slavery out of context? Yea, I agree that's shit. We're discussing Sowell and his actual writing, though, not edgy teens on the internet.

>>16628829
>At least show me your Zizek
Zizek, for his part, repels the moral leveling of Nazism and Communism, saying that the former killed collectively, while the latter tried to at least formalize some accusation, as in the famous Moscow Proceedings. The comparison reveals that mixture of ignorance and bad faith without which no one can become a respected leftist intellectual. The defendants in the Moscow Trials were eminent Party leaders, tried for treason. Senior German government officials on a similar charge were also tried by military or civilian courts. The masses of those killed by communism did not have the privilege of any judicial process. They were condemned en bloc, for belonging to undesirable social groups, just like the Jews in Germany. In both cases, the individualized process, which in democracies is the most elementary of human rights, becomes a prerogative of the nomenclature, while the "working class man" goes to the slaughterhouse in anonymous lines, without knowing what he is accused of. The symmetry is perfect, but for Zizek, invisible.

Taht was from 2007 or 2008 I believe, when Zizek showed this gem

>>16628147
Can a black person philosophy?

>>16628447
>dumb guy
Are you implying you are smarter than Sowell? Jesus...

>>16628173
>Uncle Tom
Tall poppy syndrome. Any time a man who happens to be black is intelligent and tries to do well for himself, unsuccessful, hateful blacks try to pull them down with such terms.

>>16628173
Marx was racist sexist writer of deviant art tier pottery

>>16628862
55 hours manual cunt. Eat a shit. Bohm failed

>>16628943
>racist sexist
you're saying that like it's a bad thing

>>16628758
>unjustifiable hierarchies
Loaded.
This load this is thicker than the COOM of a month of nofap edging.
>materialism
>justice
>implying

>>16628862
Also I skipped 6 because it’s a joke and 7 and 8 are incorrect demands. Substitute Fitzpatrick andrle etc and actual labour history. So fuck you mate.

>>16629095
>knowing how the system works in practice is an incorrect demand

>>16628454
>I've not read Marx but he's retarded because I have read a book about Marx that tells me what to think of him
>I would never have understood him by reading him, but by reading another book by someone else telling me what to think of him
What? It's really not that hard to read Marx and form your own opinions, you sheepbrain.

>>16628147
It really is incredible how accurate Sowell's description of leftists' behavior is whenever they are confronted with ideas they don't agree with.

>Sowell suggests that intellectuals rely heavily on what he calls "verbal virtuosity" (clever phrasing, vague euphemisms, witty quotes, deceptive labeling, name-calling and sneering asides) to substitute for evidence, logic and analysis. Other tactics of "verbal virtuosity" include dismissing opposing ideas as simplistic, portraying those making opposing arguments as morally unworthy, invoking "rights" which have no legal basis, vague calls for "change", reliance on the abstract versus the concrete, and a constant "filtering of reality".

Give up, OP. No one in this thread has actually read Sowell, let alone debunked anything he says judging by the comments I'm reading. They're only proving him right.

>>16628815
>He thinks the idea of systemic racism in the contemporary world is a propagandistic ruse.
Where do you get this from?

>>16628147
I've read a few of Sowell's books and still can't understand why some people find him so compelling. Could it be that his readers tend to be people who don't do much reading? Even pop economists like Ha-Joon Chang provide more compelling arguments than Sowell. Read his Economics: A User's Guide. It dispels some of the economic myths Sowell has been peddling for years.

>>16629207
The irony of this quote, and others like it by Sowell, is that he's guilty of the very thing he accuses the intellectuals of doing.

>>16629392
Like what? For all your rigmarole you gave no actual substance, not one example.

In fact this entire thread has been devoid of a single actual reply to Sowell. It's highly disappointing, everything here is just obscurantism or ad hominem, it's all deflection, distraction, and dementia. Not a single specific instance of ideas was presented despite numerous claims of refutation. Refutation of what? I didn't think /lit/ had gotten this bad but it really does appear to be ruled by pseuds and those who argue in bad faith for the sake of it.

>>16628929
It's just consequentialism/psycopathy, anon

>>16628758
How can you possibly be so dogmatic?

>>16629419
When we're talking about big cultural or economic questions, a few sentences won't do. Do you really expect us to write paragraphs correcting all of Sowell's errors? Also, notice that the Sowell enthusiasts don't give any actual substance either, no examples. They're always in the role of the critic. Look, for example, at the broad claim made in this quote >>16629207. It's so general that it's bound to apply to some intellectuals. All it serves to do is confirm his readers' prejudices. It's akin to how astrologists work.

>>16629207
Doesn't wittgenstein say something similar?

From the right I would criticize him for the same reasons I criticize any libertarian, both for the assumption that freedom is something to be valued above all else and their treatment of people as economic units rather than being social creatures. What good is a strong economy if you have no answer to "drag queen story hour?" Culture is important but they neglect it because freedom.

>>16629187
You are crossing multiple anons. I do not think Marx or Marxism is retarded. Marx is in fact, quite difficult to read. It is deceptive to claim otherwise. I know this only because I have read a book describing the many popular terms which held specifics meaning to Marx specifically within Marx's own knowledge of Hegelian philosophy and of his time, such as 'contradiction' or 'materialism.' Both of these terms hold different modern meanings which to not align with the definitions Marx operated under in his writings. They are not insurmountable barriers, but they are undoubtedly barriers.
Another such barrier was Marx's dialectical approach to writing Kapital. If I remember the book correctly, Marx wrote specific undeveloped concepts and terms in part one which, if left undeveloped, would produce logical fallacies upon examination. It was not until later parts of Kapital in which these concepts received their actual full explanations. As I remember, this was intended to represent a trap for critics laid by Marx which would easily identify that they had not read or grasped the entire work. Also if I remember correctly, there was about a 30 year period between when the first and last parts of Kapital were published, after which Marxism had began to form surrounding some of the initial undeveloped concepts of the first part.
If there is one thing which I understood most easily prior to and after reading this book, it is that the only people capable of reading Marx clearly and without misinterpretation would likely have already read him.

>>16629462
Still waiting of a refutation of a single principle of Sowell. I would surmise from your attachment to that post that you have, in fact, not actually read Sowell. Very few of Sowell's argument are what I would call vague or generalized hit pieces about other groups or thinkers. I would still like to ask for a refutation of Sowell, literally, not of an anon attempting to summarize one part of his writing in that anon's own words.

>>16628173
>Marx: The workers must seize the means of production, end the capitalist stage of history, and provoke dialectical materialism towards an end of history and ultimately a secular paradise and end of want.
>Marxists: Yes but how do we carry this out in practical terms?
>Marx: I AM NOT A UTOPIAN, FIGURE IT OUT BY YOURSELF
>Marxists: Atrocity Atrocity Atrocity

>>16628147
If you're serious (more likely you're a troll) you should first realize there's noting really original in his writings. He's basically just parroting Milton Friedman. In fact if you go and watch Friedman's old Free to Choose TV series on youtube a young Sowell will pop up. You won't find much anything published specifically criticizing Sowell because he's just a standard monetarist who didn't really contribute anything but that was THE dominant paradigm and you better believe there's a lot of criticism written on it. The whole idea of inflation being a pure monetary phenomena is basically using the same (faulty) empirical measures Friedman used in the 1960s to today enough to prove that wrong.
Now if you mean his more "sociological" stuff well basically every claim you find there is going to be like sociology in general and largely unfalsifiable with an infinite amount of takes... obviously /pol/tards will say blacks are just biologically inferior.

>>16630254
>single principle of Sowell
Such as? There's a conspiracy to keep down the black father by white liberals?

>>16628937
Cuck syndrome. A white guy falls head over heels for a Black person because they share the same values as them and considers them to be intelligent just because of these shared values.
Ex.
>Candace Owens
>Briahna Joy Gray
>Coleman Hughes
>Nikole Hannah-Jones
>Don Lemon

>>16628894
Welcome.

>>16628637
>>16628660

Anon have you read any of Ratzinger's criticisms of liberation theology? You're thoughts remind me of his definition of Marxism as an ortho-praxis, which he elaborates on as therefore not able to be used by the Catholic church as Aristotle and Plato's philosophies were.

>>16630315
>Such as? There's a conspiracy to keep down the black father by white liberals?
You need only find a single principle quote of Sowell and list some opposing writer which you believe would soundly refute that principle. Not one of a economic theory laid by somebody before him, not of a generalization of a label others have chosen to ascribe to him, but an actual refutation of something he has said. That would be enough to convince me to read that writer, the ultimate and genuine goal of why I made this thread.
I would not battle for Sowell's arguments, though I will easily clarify what his arguments are for you, given that I have read his books. On one such point, as you seem to be hinting at, Sowell cites that african american's economic rise out of poverty was far greater prior to the civil rights era. The percentage of african americans with unmarried parents, unemployment, and crime also rose sharply in the 60s. Certain people attribute the broken black household to a legacy of slavery, but in generations closer slavery these issues were far less apparent. It could then be asserted that many of these economic and social issues are a modern development, one marked by a generation of new, experimental social/economic policies, not a legacy of slavery as some have portrayed it. What Sowell then argues, generally, is that fashionable and politically attractive policies have been enacted for the express purpose of bettering people that were relatively better off than before those policies began in certain criteria. The blame of these poor conditions has then been towards external factors, such as the influences of society, or the legacy of slavery. So often, Sowell explains, do people ignore the trends of empirical data which would logically mark the 60s as a reversal of direction in these issues. Sowell would not broadly argue that anybody is conspiring against blacks, only that certain fashionable social policies have been enacted without viewing their impacts, and have avoided blame with inherently fallacious revisionist accounts of history. He might say that the black family has been tarnished at the expense of the white liberal's vision as a savior of the people.

My intention in writing this is not to be debated, but to provide an example by which another anon could provide a writer with a counterargument, since it seems so few people have actually read Sowell that they could do it themselves.

>>16630367
>Anon have you read any of Ratzinger's criticisms of liberation theology?
He did, you could try going to Virginia to talk to him personally or send him a letter, i think he would answer you, though he has read almost everything you can think of, you can try using google's translation tool to get some of the ideas when im not here, i will translate the first
https://olavodecarvalho.org/um-cadaver-no-poder-i/
https://olavodecarvalho.org/um-cadaver-no-poder-ii/

Why are there still those who follow Liberation Theology? Apparently, no reasonable person should do that. From a theological point of view, the doctrine that the Peruvian Gustavo Gutierrez and the Brazilian Leonardo Boff spread throughout the world was already demolished in 1984 by the then cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (“Liberation Theology”, 1984), two years after being condemned by Pope John Paul II (see Quentin L. Quade, ed., The Pope and Revolution: John Paul II Confronts Liberation Theology. Washington, DC, Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1982). In 1994, theologian Edward Lynch claimed that it had already been reduced to a mere intellectual curiosity (“The retreat of Liberation Theology”, The Homiletic & Pastoral Review). In 1996, the Spanish historian Ricardo de la Cierva, who nobody would say was misinformed, considered it dead and buried (see La Hoz y la Cruz. Auge y Caída del Marxismo y la Theología de la Liberación, Toledo, Fénix, 1996).
A decade and a half later, it is practically an official doctrine in twelve countries in Latin America. What happened? Such is the question that a group of eminent American Catholics asks me and which, certainly, also interests Brazilian readers.
To answer it, it is necessary to analyze the question from three angles:
(1) Is LT a Catholic doctrine influenced by Marxist ideas or is it just a communist ruse camouflaged in Catholic language?
(2) How are articulated LT as a theoretical discourse and LT as a militant political organization?
(3) Having answered these two questions, one can then apprehend LT as a precise phenomenon and describe the special mental form of its theorists through the stylistic analysis of their writings.

>>16630463


At the first question, both prof. Lynch as well as Cardinal Ratzinger, as well as countless other Catholic authors (for example, Hubert Lepargneur, Liberation Theology. An Evaluation, São Paulo, Convivio, 1979, or Sobral Pinto, Liberation Theology. Marxist Materialism in Spiritualist Theology, Rio , Lidador, 1984), provide remarkably uniform answers: based on the principle that LT presents itself as Catholic doctrine, they begin to examine it under this aspect, praising its possible justice and humanitarian intentions but concluding that, in essence, it is incompatible with the traditional doctrine of the Church, and therefore heretical in the strict sense.

Add to that the denunciation of some internal contradictions and the criticism of their social proposals founded on an arch demoralized Marxist economy.
From there they depart to decree its death, ensuring, under the terms of prof. Lynch, that
"While it is still attractive to many American and European scholars, it has failed in what liberationists have always said to be their primary mission, the complete renewal of Latin American Catholicism."

Every revolutionary ideological discourse can be understood in at least three levels of meaning, which must first be distinguished by analysis and then hierarchically rearticulated as one of these levels proves to be the most decisive in the concrete political situation, subordinating the others.

The first is the descriptive level, at which he presents a diagnosis, description or explanation of reality or an interpretation of some previous doctrine. At this level, the discourse can be judged by its veracity, adequacy or fidelity, either to the facts, to the state of available knowledge, or to the doctrine considered. When the speech brings a defined action proposal, it can be judged by the feasibility or convenience of that action.

>>16628173
>uncle tom
Nothing reveals a leftist’s true racism more than a successful black man that does nott fit their stereotype.

>>16630451
You must realize African socities were more matriarchical than European right? That's not even getting into any "legacy of slavery" just the fact the neculear family as an institution was always there longer and much stronger amongst amongst Anglo-Americans than others. Things didn't just start getting worse for blacks when deindustrialization and other phenomena started but amongst whites (just at a slower rate because they were more deeply embedded in those insitituions). Obviously there's way more blacks in the national power elite today than before the 1960s when it was purely Anglo-Saxon. The implicit assumption I guess is blacks would be better off without affirmative action and such but it's hard to deal in hypotheticals... there's no way to say one way or another but it's possible and likely they would just be worse off. You can't blame social degeneration beyond a certain point on do gooders without embracing a conspiracy view of things. Obviously Sowell would say access to welfare makes people lazy and worse off but any liberal could just blame the strict restrictions and such trapping people.

Anyways most of Sowells ideas are just Friedmanite wisdom boiling down to stuff like:
>people know how to spend their money better than the government
Obviously that's a popular idea and even leftists use to justify stuff like UBI. If inflation is just a "monetary problem" all you gotta do is keep its growth predictable and remove all discretion there and you'll have no problem but if it's just as much fiscal obviously it might be more complex (even the idea of "controlling" it is absurd in the era of cryptocurrency). That's not even getting into the Keynesian notion of an economy freely being able to reach a state of equilibrium with high levels of unwanted unemployment perfectly fine (which of course he would reject).

>>16630530

The second is that of ideological self-definition, in which the theorist or doctrinator expresses the symbols in which the interested group recognizes itself and by which it distinguishes those from within and those from the outside, friends and enemies. At this level he can be judged on his psychological effectiveness or correspondence with the audience's expectations and desires.

The third is strategic disinformation, which provides false clues to disorient the opponent and deflect in advance any attempt to block the proposed action or to neutralize other effects targeted by the speech.

At the first level, the speech is ideally aimed at the neutral observer, whose adherence he intends to gain by persuasion. In the second, to the current or virtual supporter or activist, to reinforce their adhesion to the group and obtain as much collaboration as possible from it. In the third, it addresses the opponent, or target of the operation.

Virtually all criticisms by Catholic intellectuals of Liberation Theology have been limited to examining it at the first level. They demoralized it intellectually, proved its heretical character and pointed out the old vices that make any proposal for socialist remodeling of society unfeasible and destructive.
If LT's mentors were Catholics sincerely committed to “renewing Latin American Catholicism”, even if contaminated by Marxist ideology, this would have been enough to disable it completely. Since this type of critical analysis emerged from mere intellectual discussions to become the official word of the Church, with the study of Cardinal Ratzinger in 1984, LT could consider itself, from this angle, to be extinct and overcome.

Now read this testimony from General Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking KGB officer who has already defected to the West, and you will begin to understand why intellectual and theological demoralization was not enough to put an end to the LT (“Kremlin’s religious Crusade”, in Frontpage Magazine, June 2009, Lima: Centro de Estudios y Publicaciones). In 1959, as head of Romanian espionage in West Germany, General Pacepa heard from Nikita Kruschev's own mouth: "We will use Cuba as a springboard to launch a religion conceived by the KGB in Latin America."

>>16630556
>you're the real racist
Nothing reveals the fact that left and right politics in America are just two different ways of proclaiming one's love of Black people is both sides pathological desire to ridicule the other by calling them a hater of Black people.

>>16630593
The testimony continues:
“Khrushchev named‘ Liberation Theology ’the new religion created by the KGB. Her inclination towards 'liberation' was inherited from the KGB, which later created the Palestinian 'Liberation' Organization (PLO), the Colombian National 'Liberation' Army (ELN), and the 'Liberation' Army National of Bolivia. Romania was a Latin country, and Khrushchev wanted our “Latin view” on his new religious “liberation” war. He also wanted us to send some priests who were co-opters or undercover agents to Latin America - he wanted to see how "we" could make his new Liberation Theology palatable for that part of the world.
“At that time the KGB was building a new international religious organization in Prague, called the 'Christian Peace Conference' (CPC), whose aim would be to spread Liberation Theology throughout Latin America."
“In 1968, the CPC - created by the KGB - was able to direct a group of leftist South American bishops to hold a Conference of Latin American Bishops in Medellín, Colombia. The official purpose of the Conference was to overcome poverty. The undeclared objective was to recognize a new religious movement, which would encourage the poor to rebel against the 'violence of institutionalized poverty', and to recommend it to the World Council of Churches for official approval. The Medellín Conference did both. He also swallowed the KGB's christening name: ‘Liberation Theology.’ ”

In other words, in its essential lines, the idea of LT came ready from Moscow three years before the Peruvian Jesuit Gustavo Gutierrez, with the book Teología de la Liberación (Lima, Centro de Estudios y Publicaciones, 1971) presented himself as its original inventor, certainly with the approval of its true creators, who had no interest in public recognition of paternity. The child's guardian, Leonardo Boff, would enter the scene even later, not before 1977.

>>16630367
>>16630463
I translated the first part about Liberation Theology, if youre going to try trasnlating other articles from Olavo de Carvalho, you need to take into account Portuguese has some features I dont think English has, such as refering to words you would normally use the pronoun "it" with "he" or "she", because in Portuguese words have "genders" or "sexes", usually determined by which vowel it ends with
Ironically the leftists here are pushing for a gender neutral language, this movement needs to be destroyed as quickly as possible

>>16628173
>Read Marx

Sowell actually wrote the fairest and objective analysis of Marx if anyone is interested. From what I remember it covers Hegel, Capital, his other writings, etc. I recommend it to anyone interested in learning about Marxism. Any other analysis by a conservative writer would have been "manifesto bad" but this is not the attention of the book at all.


Also read "Migrations and Culture"

>>16630619
Cope, faggot. Your ideology is rooted in stupidpol. Read leftcoms or shut the fuck up, you faux leftist

>>16630677
Ok

>>16630670
figured i would some examples
professor or teacher can be "professora", if refering to female teachers, or "professor", if referring to make teachers. "Professora" is a feminine word, and "professor" a masculine one
Gwnderless words already exist like "presidente" and "estudante", but their "sex can be determined by articles ("o", "a", "os", "as") and numerals ("um", "uma")

Another difference of Portuguese is that it doesnt require the subject to be explicitly given like English does. You could say "went to school" in Portuguese for example (foram à escola), becaue the subject of the sentence is implicit in the verb "foram"

>>16630592
>You must realize African socities were more matriarchical than European right?
I don't even know how this is related to what we were talking about, not joking.
>The implicit assumption I guess is blacks would be better off without affirmative action and such but it's hard to deal in hypotheticals...
Sowell would argue that this is not an implicit assumption or a hypothetical, it is an explicit assertion he has made based in what he describes as empirical realities, data on before and after certain socio-economic policies were enacted in the united states.
>there's no way to say one way or another but it's possible and likely they would just be worse off.
Sowell would likely attribute this line of thinking to a concept which I referenced earlier as an obfuscation of cause and effect (my own words, not his directly). Sowell might argue that you, in this very post, are selectively choosing which points of evidence to weigh critically to support your pre-existing vision of how societies develop or operate. He argues that intellectuals choose to be held accountable for their insights only when it is beneficial to their vision, that when their ideas don't work out it can easily be deflected to a rejection of empirical evidence which would imply direct cause and effect, something which would otherwise invalidate those existing preconceptions within the intelligencia. Sowell argues that there is, in fact, a way to say one way or another whether or not people would be better off with or without a policy, by viewing evidence and trends locally and globally, before and after.
>Obviously Sowell would say access to welfare makes people lazy and worse off but any liberal could just blame the strict restrictions and such trapping people.
I'm not sure what the last half of this sentence is referencing, but Sowell's main arguments against the welfare state are based in empirical trends surrounding the establishment of those policies. He specifically rejects the rationalistic view of conclusion making, that what seems rational for a policy will then validate it's intended effect. This (these are my words now) plagues both left and right arguments on these subjects, as what they really boil down are how different people think populations will/should operate within a given framework, without regarding how actual flesh and blood people have and are operating on a purely statistical level. Sowell would not obviously say welfare makes people lazy. He would describe empirical realities and THEN draw conclusions about how different incentives may change people's behaviors.
>people know how to spend their money better than the government
If I were trying to describe what Sowell has actually said, it would be that certain government institutions do not operate under restraints and incentives which keep private businesses as beneficial. I have enough formal knowledge of fiscal or monetary policy to debate you on the terms you use, however.

>>16630726
>I have enough formal knowledge of fiscal or monetary policy
*I do not have
is what I meant to say.

Marxism does not work.

Socialism does not work.

Communism does not work.

>>16630787
But they WILL eventually work.

>>16630828
If by work you mean end in mass death and starvation sure.

>>16630828
it wont
mises already demonstrated that

>>16629556
>MUH CULTUREEEEE
tradfags are the biggest copers around

>>16630726
Blacks came from societies that weren't patriarchal in the same sense as say England. Mothers were always more important than fathers. You wanted to sidestep slavery so you could go back farther. If Sowell wants to say strong nuclear families with father figures ever were a thing amongst blacks I could just say that was a short anomaly imposed on them by a more dominant Anglo-Saxon culture which is dying/dead.
You're not dealing with a snapshot of something but change over time which means theories not just data. Even if you have all the data wrong your theory can be wrong. Going from the deflationary Great Depression era to the economically stagflationary 1970s you would have to deal with so many variables you could make a strong case for basically anything if you're clever enough.
You want to claim there was some "failure" since blacks aren't better off so don't try to tell me you're not starting with a conclusion. You're assuming there was an alternative path (obviously possible) and also those other paths could have better outcomes (possible). You're ignoring what I said about blacks successfully being incorporated into the power elite today in a way not imaginable 70 years ago. I don't believe in some sort of Marxist stagial theory of development, paths are always open but you're also making another assumption that intellectuals are the primary driving force behind choosing how things develop.
I'm not going to poo poo on any naive concept of causation you have but things in sociology are more complex than psychics. Businesses want to maximize profit, people want to maximize pleasure, government wants to maximize prestige/power. All of those are dangerous drives.

>>16630960
*Even if you have all the data right

>>16628780
>Why wouldn’t they talk about it so Sowell could debunk it?
Do you know how stupid you are?
>It is pointless to even think about this hypothetical
>I will shoot you if you do
You’re on the wrong board

>>16630991
i want you to get down on your knees and suck my cock
to me thats what you lack in your life, a good aryan conservative big cock you can keep yorself busy with ;)

>>16628937
My words mean he is a dumb guy. This is provable by observation.
My intellect is greater than his in a few metrics, but probably not others, but this irrelevant.

>>16631013
Damn, anon! Why waste that aryan cock on a woman when you could spend every last drop on a man butthole! Get over here!

>>16630960
>Blacks came from societies that weren't patriarchal in the same sense as say England.
American blacks come from cultures inherited in the United States. Practically zero cultural practices of modern blacks reflect what was seen in the african societies they came from. We are functioning under two extremely different and incompatible views on history.
>If Sowell wants to say strong nuclear families with father figures ever were a thing amongst blacks I could just say that was a short anomaly imposed on them by a more dominant Anglo-Saxon culture which is dying/dead.
What Sowell has said is that immediately after slaves were freed, marriage rates among black were higher than they are now, and they stayed high until the 1960s. They were at many points higher than whites. This is reality. It is not how things "probably were" as you assert.
>You're not dealing with a snapshot of something but change over time which means theories not just data.
I agree, I really highly recommend you read Sowell since it seems the two of you have two completely incompatible views on history.
>Even if you have all the data wrong your theory can be wrong. Going from the deflationary Great Depression era to the economically stagflationary 1970s you would have to deal with so many variables you could make a strong case for basically anything if you're clever enough.
Sowell argues that honest, testable hypotheses from whole sets of data comprising an issue are possible, and that the perception that history is just "a matter of perspective" is a product of dismissive political rhetoric.
>You're ignoring what I said about blacks successfully being incorporated into the power elite today in a way not imaginable 70 years ago.
If we were to measure the progress of blacks to affluence by their political representation, then sure this point would be valid. Political representation and socio-economic wellbeing are two entirely separate concepts with zero correlation and zero cause/effect relationship, as Sowell asserts.
Almost all of the things I've cited here come from his book Black Rednecks and White Liberals, which I detest for it's edgy title, because the book itself is hardly edgy. I think we've both made our conflicting views clear, and the only way to further discussion would be for you to actually read this book to test the hypotheses you have about the cultural history of the united states against Sowell's evidence. I don't know you in real life, obviously, but if I did I would basically force you to read this book, not just because I enjoy Sowell's style of logic but because many of the most fundamental presumptions you hold about history and politics are directly addressed in this book. I am similarly looking for that sort of book in the opposite direction, why I made this thread.

>>16631084
Would you claim Euro Americans have no trace of the cultures they came from? Black American culture is definitely "different", it's not just habits picked up after getting there.
Also all the data on the black family Sowell is citing is revisionist. Go and look for academic works on the "black family" from the 1920s and it's all about the pathologically dysfunctional aspects... of course you could say those were all written by racists but they don't paint the picture Sowell is. Anyhow marriage rates is a formality and says more about the dominant formal cultural norms, what you want to know is how much cuckoldry and such is really going on.
If you want to know why blacks act the way they do you're just being lazy because there's a lot there.
If you seriously believe what you do about theories than an AI could find patterns in data sets and solve all social problems... but of course I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

>>16628730
The guy literally fabricated statistical data and used the legit ones out of context

>>16630927
All I see is buzzwords and I can't make any sense of them because they're used improperly. What am I coping about?

>>16628147
Has anyone ever posted his ideas or even a quote?

>>16628147
>Most if not all of the left leaning people I know in real life do not read,

Gee these are the same people who claim education makes you left-wing. Gee I wonder what the reality is.

>>16628886
Ah, a child.

>>16628147
Maybe read some Marx

>>16631871
aren't his ideas just generic neoconservativism?

>>16628885
>>16628892
Based.

>>16628573
>Literally just read Keynes.
Colonialism is only necessary because of retarded Keynesian thought.

>>16632070
Huh? Colonialism kicked off in the 19th century. No one tried to justify it on Keynesian logic and that wouldn't make much sense (trying to manage the economy of an empire as a whole while maintaining national differences gets you all the problems of the EU).

>>16629207
Too true. OP and his question will never be addressed. Sad!

>>16631645
>Would you claim Euro Americans have no trace of the cultures they came from?
No, but it is certainly true of African Americans in the 20th century. They had inherited much of their own culture from white southern culture, which as you state was inherited from certain parts of Europe. Human assimilation does not inherently coincide with lasting cultural values, though it can. Showing that one instance does does not prove that all will follow, as is the case Sowell presents in the book. To assert that blacks inherited their culture from white southerners, and to assert that their culture was one of lasting roots from African tribes, are two statements which can be analyzed and tested under evidence. It just so happens that one such author has done this, his name is Thomas Sowell. If you'd like to recommend an author who has done the same analyses but come to a different conclusion, you're more than welcome to, but you still have yet to do this.
>Also all the data on the black family Sowell is citing is revisionist. Go and look for academic works on the "black family" from the 1920s and it's all about the pathologically dysfunctional aspects... of course you could say those were all written by racists but they don't paint the picture Sowell is. Anyhow marriage rates is a formality and says more about the dominant formal cultural norms, what you want to know is how much cuckoldry and such is really going on.
Regardless of the what judgements we make about the black family, the argument was how is has changed over time and what conclusions we could draw from scrutinizing that evidence.
Also, you practically use 'cultural value' here in completely opposite stances to fix your specific viewpoint. When cuckoldry is brought up, it is a cause for alarm, but when high marriage rates are brought up, it says more about """society""" than individuals. Does marriage matter or not? You seem to have conflicting statements about this within the same paragraph. If marriage doesn't matter, why would cuckoldry be bad? If marriage did matter, why would you need to attribute it to an external source like society?
I question what form of history, in your view, would not be revisionist. Drawing political conclusions from history as a whole does not make that conclusion or account revisionary. The difference, here, anon, is that I've read a book on this particular aspect of history which I have drawn examples from. You have provided literally nothing other than a claim to go read academic books from the 1920s accounting the state of the black family at the time. I am certain, however, that you have not read these books, nor are aware of their contents, because if you did I imagine you would at least cite some form of argument as I have done with Sowell, an author which I have actually taken the time to read. You have formed a complete mental dead end anon, it is something which can only be perpetuated by your persistence to see history as synonymous with whim.

>>16632224
I actually made this thread about a year ago when I started reading him. It was similarly fruitless. While I do believe in the validity of Sowell's arguments, I also genuinely would like to see opposing views which function under similar critical processes.

>>16632266
Those Southern white Norman larpers who Sowell thinks blacks learnt everything from weren't exactly mommas boys and had families characterized by tough fathers that were there and demanded respect... now I don't think you need to resort to some sort of Jungian racial spirits but I'm claiming those influences weren't as important and didn't obviously last as long regardless of the linguistic history of ebonics or whatever.
I wasn't making any value judgement just pointing out some cultures don't fuck cousins and some do, some find cuckoldry particularly comedic or problematic and others don't "care".
Also every aspect of the post civil war reconstruction period is questionable. Most academics at the time painted a very different picture, revisionists later changed most of that.

>>16632487
One of the pivotal arguments in that books is that much of modern black ghetto culture comes from white southern redneck culture. Hence the title, Black Rednecks and White Liberals. Again, I highly recommend you read it if you're interested in that topic.

>>16631027
>My intellect is greater than his in a few metrics, but probably not others, but this irrelevant.
you really should stop posting permanently, dumb cunt

>>16632540
I'm aware but I don't buy the thesis. Of course it's hybrid but the real peculiar aspects are directly at odds. Like I said, to matriarchal. Being quick to violence and such isn't just some southern thing it's a general evolutionary strategy in extremely degenerated situations. All that led to urban decay is a lot more factors than just culture.

>>16632317
I'm sorry but the discourse on /lit/ is low quality in proportion to the amount of /leftypol/ participation.
I too, wish there were any serious critique of Sowell's books but as you know there simply never are on here.

If you do ever find an answer, I beg you to share it here for all our sake's.

>>16628512
Not him, but Harvey doesn't understand Marx
https://web.cortland.edu/worrellm/Papers_files/A%20Faint%20Rattling.pdf

>>16628740
>Sargon is smarter than Vaush

>>16632619
How can you dismiss these claims without reading the book?
You are so frickin' lazy and dishonest....
Do you even know any black people!?

>>16632619
>I'm aware but I don't buy the thesis.
You haven't even read the book let alone the thesis. Nor have you cited anything which imply the contrary, you've only provided rational probabilities for why it might be wrong, not any body of work which directly counters it. Explanations for possible alternative views are not substitutes for hard evidence. For the third time, if you have read a book which addresses the same issue and supports an opposing view, please recommend it. Your decision to agree with rationalizations which fit your preconceptions is as arbitrary as those rationalizations themselves.

>>16629412
>no u

>>16628147
Actually vaush just dismantled his, frankly, high-school tier rhetoric https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kQxXPjiW1k0

Why Liberalism Failed Patrick Deneen, although he doesn't directly address Thomas Sowell.

>>16628147
Leftism is nothing more than a religion for lazy self rightous people who believe themselves to be better than everyone else by the sake of their own believes and "good" intentions, not by their actions and results, there is no intelectual on the left anymore, that's why all they do is to recicle marxism on every aspect of human life, since their ideas are somewhat attractive to people who wants to rule the world by making people dumb and blind, you find billionaires supporting this religion. Without the capitalist money and human laziness and stupidity marxism would be nothing more then an stupid idea in this god forsaken world. For all these reasons none of them can fought back against Sowell.

>>16628173
Always amusing how these types never want you to start before their heroes. It's always "read theory" and never "read philosophy", is it comrade?

>>16632695
I have skimmed it. And no I don't know any black people, I'm not even American but my opinion is more informed than you

>>16632748
>not any body of work which directly counters it
I did, the standard academic account from the late 19th century (not that I agree with that) which was highly critical of all aspects of negro life

>>16633203
>I did, the standard academic account from the late 19th century (not that I agree with that) which was highly critical of all aspects of negro life
Who wrote it? How does it counter what Sowell asserts?

>>16633238
Go to archive.org and search for any academic work on American negro life published between 1870-1900. The general consensus was very poor until people like W. E. B. Du Bois show up with revisionist accounts.

>>16628758
>Lets try it and see

Every fucking time with these delusional idiots. You're a blight on humanity. You fail to realize what's at stake if your stupid idea fails. And you'll never get your way unless your side plan to go full authoritarian dictatorship. You're a delusional moron who'd be better off minding your own business and keeping your stupid thoughts in your dumb head.

>>16628173
Socialists are genuine racists who hate black people.

There's no other explanation.

>>16633070
>vaush
Into the trash

>>16633287
>Has anyone disputed Sowell, I bet not. You lefties simply can not tolerate listening to people you don't like
>Vaush did
>Vaush? lol into the trash

>>16633302
>thinking some overweight landwhale wannabe e-celeb is in any position to “refute” anyone
You e-celeb worshipping faggots are al legit retarded

>>16633302
OP here, I watched the Vaush video in full last night. It's really difficult to derive meaning from this video because of how improvised it is. He misinterprets Sowell twice and very literally misquotes a statement Friedman makes like 5 seconds prior. I will try to deconstruct each of his pauses/arguments later this evening if the thread is still up but practically all of this video has really nothing to do with any stance Sowell has on anything, it is at best just a refutation by Vaush of presumptions he has made about Sowell.

>>16633287
Seriously even Destiny for all his faults has utterly dismantled that moron Vaush. Anyone unironically calling themselves a syndicalist is a joke.

>>16633340
I don't watch Vaush unless he's debating Destiny or some other e-celeb, don't care about him outside of that. Just pointing out the irony of righties saying lefties can't debunk their prized faux-intellectuals but when they do you just dismiss them the same way lefties do. You're both the same lol.

>>16633302
>>Vaush did
No, he certainly did not
That video is full of misrepresentations and bad faith arguments
Exceptionally wrongheaded

>>16633392
He's shitposting, don't bother replying to him.

>>16633070
wow he can't even pronounce Sowell correctly
1/10 would not re-watch

>>16633369
Alright, I'll be waiting for that post, OP.

>>16633070
Perfect example as to why fat losers need to Jill themselves. Imagine being this stupid. Can’t imagine how dumb his fans must be

>>16633203
Bro, are you trying to have a giggle at my expense? Are you a master troll?
You did not read the book; you are ignorant.

bump

>>16630463
>>16630530
Thanks for the translations, appreciated

>>16628366
>Vaush
https://streamable.com/i6m4e8
https://streamable.com/i6m4e8
https://streamable.com/i6m4e8
kys

>>16634941
>that first link
Holy fucking shit

>>16630451
this kind of assumes that everything is hunky dory for white families too but if you look at that the white working class during the same time period you'll see it being decimated by the same forces. as always, race is used as a blind to hide the class war behind

>>16634941
>https://streamable.com/i6m4e8
KEK, based twitch scholar retroactively refuted himself within 2 minutes

>>16634941
>https://streamable.com/i6m4e8
Holy shit, the complete whiplash in attitude after she claimed her assailant was brown...he went from sympathizing to just mocking her. I'm happy I'm not an extremist towards any direction, I can't imagine acting so vile towards someone because their misfortune is bad for my ideology.

>>16633269
If we don’t do something completely different from state-capitalism WE ARE GOING TO GO EXTINCT.
I realize what’s at stake, perfectly.
>Full authoritarian
I oppose that route. The USSR didn’t work, and no, the eco-fascism meme isn’t going to save us either.
What I keep advocating is the EXACT OPPOSITE of dictatorship. I am not delusional, nor even naïve for this advocacy. I am quite pessimistic about it coming to fruition, but I am not delusional about how these actions can transform the world and the human mind, and then the world again.

>>16634941
Wow. It's actually that bad. I thought the other anons were exaggerating. How fucking divorced from reality is this guy mentally?

>>16633369
Bro are you going to post or not?

>>16635246
>I oppose that route.
And yet, every single time leftism has been tried it ends up full authoritarian.

Kindly fuck off retard.

>>16635390
That’s so stupid it sounds intentional.
Every time authoritarians seize power they’re authoritarian.
You wanna resist that as much as I do. Get your economics figured out and come meet us, kid.

>>16628173
I did read Marx though
The book where he seethes at Stirner for dozens of pages

>>16635246
>If we don’t do something completely different from state-capitalism WE ARE GOING TO GO EXTINCT.
Anarcho capitalism is inevitable, dont worry

>>16628660
>Those who think its possible to contest Marxism by a well-founded attack on its principles, are deluded.
accidentally based rightoid

>>16635588
Contradiction in terms. Try that out and you get something similar to Blade Runner (so extinction)

>>16628147

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQxXPjiW1k0&t=249s

here you go

>>16628147

>>16635836
Stuuuuuupid

>189 replies

How do y’all fall for this shit every time?

What books by Sowell should I check out? When I was growing up and getting interested in reading, I would check out his opinion pieces in the Sunday perspective pages of the papers (the type where one side was liberal and the other conservative because the papers were originally two different companies that went through a merger, I'd read both sides). He always had some of the best articles even though I always figured I was "liberal" growing up.

>>16635991
His best 3 imo:

1. A Conflict of Visions - a seminal work in sociology, political philosophy, and even psychology that's been highly cited by other social scientists such as Pinker and Haidt. Very original and has a Dostoevskyan description of human nature to it.

2. Knowledge and Decisions - this is the book that Hayek called "the best book on general economics in many a year." It arguably should have won him the Nobel Prize. It's very dense.

3. Intellectuals and Society - basically a massive BTFO on all forms of authoritarianism, especially the sheep-in-wolfs-clothes authoritarianism that comes from well-intentioned people. Make sure to get the big second edition, which was heavily revised and is hundreds of pages longer than the first.

It's hard to pin down only 3, but these have been my favourites. Basic Economics is alright, but it's only mind-blowing for people who've never taken an econ 101 course before.

>>16635836
Nice ideology, explain firm efficiency.

>>16635991
I would highly recommend Race and Culture: A World View as well as Black Rednecks and White Liberals
Beware: you can't unread those books and like OP, it's basically impossible to find any opposing view that's as thorough. It's what you might call a redpill (as dumb as that sounds it's true)

I fell asleep, bumping.

>>16634994
They’re all the same link

>>16633369
We’re waiting

>>16634941
>>16634994
>>16635083
>>16635194
>>16635247
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsJz6LPTd4Y

>>16630556
Leftists hate successful black people because they can't bribe them with gibs to vote for them

>>16635566
>You wanna resist that as much as I do.
And yet your solution is infinite power to the government, it will always end up the same way.

My refutation against neoliberal capitalists is that I live in peak neoliberal capitalism and it fucking sucks.
I don't care if it's on the left or right side, the first group to emerge from the frothing bog of shit that is the American political landscape and start publicly murdering bankers and economists while claiming full responsibility will win my allegiance.

>>16637356
Nice damage control IrishLaddie

>>16637356
I don't think anyone was accusing him of being a rape apologist with the clip.

>>16633369
ok so you lied, I would ask why but you're probably never returning to this thread again. I'll just say that this really hurt me because I thought you were going to post something so I bumped this thread with the hopes you would follow through and now I see it was just some cruel lie to prolong the life of the thread, a thread you never intended of returning to. I thought this site produced and attracted sick individuals but this kind of sickness is just too much, it's so spiteful with how it plays on the emotion in order to get someone to waste their time.

>>16637827
lmao i sort of want someone to just give you a hug

>>16633408
>>16635368
>>16637351
>>16637827
Shhhh

>>16638144
Not falling for it.

>>16635633
>Contradiction in terms.
Only if you take anarcho in the sense of original anarchism
Anarcho in that sense means no State, not the lack of hierarchies
And ancap is inevitable because of the constant decrease in transaction costs and the evolution of technolgy (like bitcoin)

>>16638682
I'm at 04:40 though I don't know how much more I will need to write given the last third of this video has little to do with Sowell. I will probably make a new thread considering how long it is.

>>16634933
I found he does some English articles too
https://olavodecarvalho.org/category/english/

>>16638934
We'll see.

>>16631864
Where and how?

>>16638934
Holy shit, this is gonna be good.

>>16638934
Where can I subscribe to your blog
I would be happy to find more fellow admirers of Sowell

>>16635246
>WE ARE GOING TO GO EXTINCT

You clearly don't have faith in humanity to adapt and survive. Perhaps even thrive in a post-global-warming era. These are challenges we will need to face and learn how to adapt to if we have any hope of conquering the stars. Unless that's not on your list of priorities and you'd rather succumb to a mediocre "safe" and "comfortable" existence. I'd rather learn to adapt and overcome.

>I oppose that route.
YOU don't have a choice in the matter. It's not a direction you, the individual, can choose to go when you're advocating for communism, especially anarcho-communism. That's what you people fail to understand when you advocate for this stuff. You will never get the majority of humans on board with your idea for more than a generation, maybe, and so to keep it going you NEED authoritarian dictatorships. It arises naturally out of that kind of system because you will never get the majority to go with it for a long period of time. It exposes a fundamental lack of understanding of humans at scale.

>>16639657
lol anon here pulling up his bootstraps to deal with temperature rising above the levels in which cellular life is possible
i have a few things to say about your last paragraph: you gotta realize that every social system necessitates domination, insofar as every social fact (instiution) uses power to both produce (positively) the subject and oppress (negatively) and exclude according to the rules & values that the population upholds. this is a super common sociological insight. (you can see the inverse of this idea of power but in the field of freedom isaiah berlin's concepts of positive and negative freedom)
once you realize this you can see that power is present in anarcho communism too, shame will be present, domination will be present, but in a different form. you don't really need authoritarianism or dictatorships to control people; but also, control isn't just a buzzword for bad, it just denotes organization, division of labor, etc.
power and organization can produce situations of freedom that couldn't have been possible without it otherwise. any social amalgam works like this. the chief characteristic of any social fact is that is has *power*.

>>16628147
>I am genuinely seeking counter arguments to Sowell. I am not seeking counter-arguments to conservatism or libertarianism whatsoever

You are genuinely seeking arguments, but you don't want counter arguments to his political philosophy?

Doesn't sound genuine to me.

>>16628147

Regarding free-market economics...

What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets By Michael Sandel
The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power By Joel Bakan
The Locust Effect: Why the End of Poverty Requires the End of Violence By Gary Haugen and Victor Boutros
Can We Be Happier? Evidence and Ethics By Richard Layard, Baron Layard
Preventing Violence By James Gilligan
The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power By Shosanna Zuboff

>>16639977

I forgot this one:

The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths by Mariana Mazzucato

>>16628660
>This foundation can be “felt” and “experienced” by members of the culture through participation in the collective atmosphere, in joint ventures, in the memory of past glories and in the hope of future victory, but it cannot be reduced to any particular verbal formulation , however elaborate and prestigious it may be. That is why it is possible to be a Marxist without accepting any of the previous formulations of Marxism, including that of Marx himself. That is why it is possible to participate in the Marxist movement without knowing anything about its theory,
This reminds me of lenins marxists ideology. karl marx himself was completely against ideology. lenin created a contradiction, and karl marx's ideas have been spread through the ideology structure.

>>16628173
>Calls rational black economist an Uncle Tom
>Recommends generic undergrad-tier socialist tracts
Want to know how everyone can tell you're an unironic pseud?

>engaging in politics
Yikes

>>16638934
Tell us when the new thread drops

>>16628637
Just like judaism

>>16640816
I will quote everybody

>>16634941
>"almost every female friend i've had..."
hehehehehe

blehg

Didn't realize until this thread that the butterfly tripfag was such a drag on the sub. This place must have been much better before him. Sad I didn't get to see it.

>>16641693
That whore was here since the begging of /lit/. She just went more retarded as time passed. She is around her 50s so she is probably showing her first signs of dementia because her age.

>>16641785
*beginning

>>16628147
Tbh I'm leftist and quite fond of Sowell, and I think most of his arguments hold up quite well. I don't see any problem with being generally left-wing while also finding Sowell quite intelligent. I would say not to make such a big deal out of it.

>>16628625
Am I the only one who didn't have their mind blown by The Bell Curve? Like yeah it was good, but it was kinda average. It wasn't amazing but it wasn't the piece of shit many make it out to be. It seems hardly anyone else has this opinion on it.

Sowell started as a Marxist in college and switched when the inefficiencies of the government agencies that hired him not accepting / acting upon his evidence based reports

>ctrl+f "token"
>0 results

>>16628147
I agree with many of the things he says but then he starts going on about how Trump is doing a good job as president and Obama was bad and I realize he's just another nutjob.

>>16641877
do you know what a token is? Sowell is a genuinely top fucking percentile genius. Tokens are when you throw someone into a highly visible position to advance a position without regards to who the person is, only that they fill some criteria.

>>16641898

>>16628176
Marx is a jew. Read Martin Luther and Jan Hus.

>>16628366
His video sucks fucking ass. Does this guy actually read any single book of Sowell? I could write an essay debunking every single of his points, but this anon is doing>>16633369, so no point in wasting my time

>>16641918
He's not actually going to make the post, he's just shitposting with screenshots.

>>16641955
Only time will tell. Regardless, it doesn't seem like Vaush actually read anything by Sowell.

>>16641970
I odn’t think Vaush reads outside of academic studies

>>16641970
Of course he didn't. He doesn't even know how the surname is pronounced correctly. Very sad only!

>>16642101
Is it Sow-ell or Tsao-ell?

>>16642126
The former is closer
"Soul" might even be more correct

So communism functions under the belief that people need to be controlled, right? I agree with that but I don't believe I need to be controlled. I think I'm above the system and can do what I want. Other people though need to be controlled. What does this make me? A communist?

>>16642059
He reads "theory" if that means anything.

I'm done. What should I title it?

>>16628173
Sowell used to be a Marxist.

>>16633070
>>16628366
>>16633408
>>16635368
>>16637351
>>16637827
>>16641918
>>16633392
>>16639271
>>16639416
>>16639588
>>16640816

>>16642534