/lit/ - Literature

>>17285371
She's a woman.

>>17285371
>written by a woman

>>17285371
KEK no, it is the ultimate thing, anon. This is not the final boss. There is no boss.

>>17285380
You are the boss.

Barter is a myth made up by economics, and money is a measure of debt, not some super idealistic exchange mechanism. It never was invented as such, and it never will be seen as such. Also, an economy without an army is meaningless

>>17285371
She had ugly feet

>>17285387
Everyone is the boss.

>>17285371
>woman

>>17285371
Those with the most resources will hold a monopoly on violence and eventually become a state entity, essentially returning to feudalism. Also she's retarded.

>>17285489
based and based
basedposter

>>17285371
You just can't derive free will from A=A. QED.

she spent the last years of her life on welfare and her insitute stooped so low they had to get a government loan
it refuted itself

>>17285489
Feudalism is good tho. It’s the freest society that is feasibly stable.

>>17285371
She’s a Jew

>>17285371
Seriously, anon. Don't bother. Every philosopher was refuted. Just use the damn thing when it seems fitting.

>>17285567
This, nobody gets everything right and that isn’t the purpose in the first place their works are merely a single piece in a mosaic of ideas.

>>17285567
And that is probably not even the point of her books. Some literate people are fucking retarded.

>>17285564
>t. Someone who’s never lived under feudalism

>>17285587
Not an argument.

>>17285567
>>17285576
Based but good luck finding like-minded people on /lit/, people here are too unoriginal to come up with their own ideas after studying diverse philosophers, so they latch on to One True Philosophers like a religion instead.

>>17285600
>t. someone who is poorly read about feudalism

>>17285602
It just makes me sad, anon. Because people also do that on goodreads too. So it is not like I have any hope. I get in here mainly because people just say whatever shit they have in their heads and I can check how rotten things are.

>>17285371
She refuses to accept that axioms are arbitrary postulates that are supposed to not need proof because they're self-evident like an honest foundationalist would do.

>>17285616
Still not an argument, that's just an ad hominem also you're wrong.

>>17285564
>feasibly stable
Odd considering it was disappeared by enlightenment values

>>17285657
>also you're wrong
Tell me about a modern day feudal society that’s vastly more successful than a democratic one

>>17285983
After over a thousand years. Besides, any decent historian can tell you it was the plague which spurred the renaissance which caused the early days of enlightenment which begat centralized despotism which liberal enlightenment was a reaction to and not a particular failure of the feudal system other than being BTFO by the same disease that BTFO of everybody and which scientists still fear today.

>>17285394
This is pretty spot-on..

>>17285371
There's not that much to refute in Rand (not to say her philosophy is empty, but it isn't that rich or wide-ranging). She doesn't even really attempt to give an account of politics, economy, psychology, or sociology and humans in general. She's best read as an inspiration for young or dispirited people to do their own things and not let themselves get bogged down in herd mentality and castrating criticism, but nothing more. She's really the adventure novelist of philosophy (on top of being an actual adventure novelist).

>>17285587
Feudalism isn’t something you “live under” because it was too decentralized to be tyrannical.

>>17286020
>"heh we've destroyed all traditional societies, if you can't name one then I guess they're bad lol"
>"also prove to me that feudal societies are more successful than liberal democratic ones (I am not specifying any criteria btw)"
Retard.

>>17286034
Thanks, anon. I had to make sure. There is hope.

>>17286042
>traditional societies are so resilient they can’t even stand up to some tards with pen, paper and some free time
Truly a source for awe and trembling

>>17286072
>he doesn't know about the genocides in the Vendee, Brittany etc.
>he doesn't know about Cromwell's genocides
>he doesn't know about the Terror
>he doesn't know about the Napoleonic era
Anon, I...

>>17285622
Damn son we are living parallel lives.

>>17285394
t.

>>17286072
See
>>17286028
The liberal enlightenment wasn’t even a reaction to feudal society you ahistorical pleb. It had already been swept asunder by the plague and replaced by the “enlightened despot” model which was basically a retread of classical centralized imperialism.

>>17286097
The application fits pretty well though. It’s very clear that Ayn Rand just accepted the barter myth, as exemplified by D’Anconia’s money speech. It shows that her idea of capitalism is way more idealistic than capitalism actually is

>>17286097
He’s right tho. Coinage was invented by maritime Hellenic traders as a better stand in for maritime loans in order to give prospective traders liquidity to take resources from one side of the Mediterranean to the other and all parts of the Near East

>>17285622
>>17286095
Yeah and truth be told even among experts in philosophy you'll find a lot of people who, though bright (they're not sycophantic pseuds hovering endlessly around One True Philosophers), are incredibly timid and see that as a virtue. So they narrow down on microproblems within a contemporary existing framework and make very small changes. They're at least contributors to philosophy, better than the One True Philosophy-ists on /lit/ and Goodreads, but it goes to show most people are just not cut for becoming great philosophers themselves. It's super sad.

>>17286121
By the way, now that I think of it, I think Harari accepts this overoptimistic ‘exchange and cooperation’ aspect of money as well, which isn’t how money is usually seen. Ironically, this idea ignores the very thing Marxism always gets criticized for, namely human nature. The human drive for money is usually very spiteful, and not some noble idealistic endeavor where capitalists use the power of money to build utopia

>>17286144
the earliest currencies were all same value as their bullion value, they were literally commodities, you can argue paper money is based on debt, but coins are a real stretch

>>17286175
>the drive for money is spiteful

citation neded but also nice "scarcity based thinking"

>>17286159
Part, if not all, of this is due to the final triumph of enlightenment pedagogy over classical pedagogy by the dawn of the 20th century. By now there are essentially no remaining pockets of legitimate polymaths and the ones that might exist are hyper obscure because no one is trained to understand or think like them. Everything is hyper focused and specialized and outside of their field they are mostly woefully inadequately read.

>>17286178
You’re kinda missing the point I don’t argue your particular point here but what I’m saying is that the currency itself was invented to facilitate the business of loans and finance and not to be used by the common man as a means to exchange. This nuance is very important and often taught wrong by a variety of disciplines who aren’t necessarily reading up on anthropology of the antiquities as well as they probably should.

>>17286159
I basically feel like going One True Philosophy is akin to going Full Retard.

>>17285371
All the characters that agree with me are good, all that don't are bad. The good ones will always roll a twelve in the dices of fate because they follow MY ideology. That's how the world works. Humans don't have basic value and dignity because I've never experienced it, they need to earn it by MY standards because thare is one way of living and that is MINE. Of course, there is free will and they can achieve their subjective goals, but they will only be fulfilled if it stands under MY criteria.

Jeez, and people think Stirner was a sperg? Stirner had more heart in his earlobe than Rand had in her totality, and to a degree more insight into the world. She was probably beaten down so much by the American economy and it's relationship with immigrants that it developed a kind of Stockholm syndrome.

Just read Weil, Camus, Milosz, Jasienski and watch Bresson, Tarr and Kurosawa. More dignity, more empathy and a understanding of the world deeper than teenager rationality and sensibility ffs.

>>17286178
That’s not why I consider Graeber’s money as debt idea more likely than money from convenience. Money as debt connects economics to something that humanity already had, namely religion. It makes sense that money developed naturally from the temple complexes of Sumer, because it fits with Sumerian life being centered around the religious structure which had the administrative capabilities and the Sumerian fear and obsession with sin and guilt, it fits pretty well with Jean Bottéro’s account of Sumerians being obsessed with the gods and what they owed them. It’s certainly more likely to me than making exchange easier so that you don’t have to carry a pig everywhere you go. That’s the problem with the idea of barter, it just pops up out of nowhere

>>17286244
instead of one ounce silver coins they could have used one pound bars, who cares, what's your point, graeber is not rigorous and makes bad pop books

>>17286279
>That’s the problem with the idea of barter, it just pops up out of nowhere
sort of like how cigarettes pop up as currency in every prison in the united states because it's easier than bartering? before tobacco was banned obv

>>17286144
>>17286121
I wasn't saying he's wrong. I was just giving credit to Graeber

>>17286306
That’s done in a society that’s already familiar with money. The point of the barter myth is that it doesn’t account for the first form of money. Swapping money for cigarettes isn’t such a stretch, because people are prison are already familiar with money having value

>>17286093

Wait, the fuck is the point of bringing up Vendée?
The royalists did put up a fight, they just got raped, figuratively and literally.

>>17286327
True, this is also mostly based on Debt. I just hate this 4chan tendency that you’re never allowed to base your ideas on anything

>>17286282
Yeah but it’s a lot easier to translate percentages of interest when you have little coins. That’s my point. Interest preceded coinage and coinage was invented to make interest easier to appropriate and exact. I remember my macroeconomic professor getting this nuance wrong too when he explained the dawn of coinage using a classic example that it’s hard to barter a half a cow. The fuck it is! Half beef carcasses are as barterable as anything else!

>>17286340
The regime change wasn't just pen and paper, it was very bloody.

>>17286336
but that's the point, money is a technology that creates value, before that if you want some ramen noodles from your bunkie, but he's only looking for some new girly mag to fap to, and you don't have one, then you have to take what you do have which a bunch of soda and trade it to someone who has a spare porno so you can go back and trade it to your bunky for the ramen. wouldn't it be easy to just give him a pack of marlboros which he can then trade for a porno or not later? why yes it would, but it's not like people stopped exchanging commissary goods in prison after cigarettes were removed.

graeber makes the mistake thinking that because no one wrote down barter that it didn't happen, as an anthropologist he should know better, but then again he's not a great academic, just a middling pop book writer

>>17285371
because greatness is not hereditary, it is inevitable that some great men will be victims of circumstance while mediocre descendants of other great men leech off of the success of their forefathers

>>17286364
show me the ancient documents where the interest on loans is calculated in percentages?

>>17286380

Sure, but you would expect that a resilient regime would be able to withstand bloody events too, that's the point. Royalists did put up a fight in Vendée and around, they had multiple armies, but the only reason they managed to last half as long is because the colonnes were too busy raping and burning everything standing on the land.

>>17286040
The feudal lords are tyrants though

People really think barter is a 'myth'?

>>17286381
>graeber makes the mistake thinking that because no one wrote down barter that it didn't happen
It's surprising that it wouldn't get a let a mention in ancient writings. We still have debt certificates and trade orders from the sumerian era.

In order to be A, A must be a thing-in-itself as well as a category that contains only A, so to say that A is A is reductionist.

>>17286424
why would you write down barter? it's a completed transaction

>>17286398
It’s literally in the Bible, usury, it’s kinda (or used to be) a big deal.

>>17286434
oh that's convenient, link me to it, thanks

Objectivism is no different from nihilism, get fucked you fucking idiot, you just refuted nothing and embraced everything.

>>17286434
usury is not the same as interest compounding at percentages, is this the kind of lazy "scholarship" graeber peddles?

>>17286410
Cope lol. Massive amounts of people were slaughtered as a result of the Revolution.

>>17286391
Intelligence, strength, dexterity and your personality and attitudes are all highly heritable.

>>17286413
How are feudal lords tyrants? Their power was checked by the king and his sheriffs and judges, the clergy and their bureaucracy, and the burghers and guilds with their economic sanctions. The lords in turn checked the power of the king via their conclaves and military support which they would withhold if the king attempted to become tyrannical. Read a book.

>>17286042
hahaha this nigga was complaining that the other guy's argument was just an ad hominem, but then his own argument is literally just calling the other dude a "retard"

>>17286410
>Sure, but you would expect that a resilient regime would be able to withstand bloody events too, that's the point.
The regime was put past a breaking point by many things, including taxing wars and famines (often due to weather conditions that the kingdom couldn't control but whose consequences they were still blamed for).
Also remember that the absolute monarchy of Louis XIV was in no small part grounded on dismantling the power of the aristocratic feudal class.
So the revolution is really a consequences of many things, including the entire reign of the longest-ruling French king of history, and of a centuries-long process of state power consolidation.

Was absolute monarchy fundamentally resilient? It turns out it wasn't. But it was already an attack on feudalism, and the starting point of the modern state. Feudalism itself survived for the better part of a millenia before being dismantled over several decades and various major conflicts.

>>17286464
>The lords in turn checked the power of the king

>>17286460
not really, so many boxing champs try to promote their sons and they end up failing even though they have both the same genetics and training

>>17286448
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3632489?seq=1

>>17286482
>mfw some pseud on /lit/ can’t even in2 Magna Carta

>>17286456

On both sides, but more royalists ended up getting clocked. The point is that the feudal regime wasn't more resilient because of some essential properties.

>>17286431
Not writing it down exactly, but someone somewhere describingthat it happens. Does it appear in the work of any of the Greek historians? Or the Roman satirists? Some of those wrote pretty well on the daily live of their contemporaries.

It raises questions about the scale of the phenomenon. I don't doubt barter existed in person-to-person interactions, but was it ever a significant economic mechanism?

>>17286460
Then explain why so few great leaders have great sons?

>>17286497
But it is anon. Liberal democracy has been in a near perpetual state of war for it’s very existence since it’s inception and the philosophic ideas of the enlightenment precipitated the concept of total war and levee en masse which has led to devastation and instability never before known by mankind. When feudal societies went to war it was always limited and often the goal of battles was capture and not extermination.

>>17286381
Graeber's point is that in small tribes and villages, people wouldn't need to barter. Everyone knows each other and are probably related one way or another, so they would be able to rely on debt. One person gives you his goat and then you owe him one. It's a combination of reciprocal altruism and kin selection.

>>17286529
>Liberal democracy has been in a near perpetual state of war for it’s very existence since it’s inception

What timeline are you on?

>>17286546
This and the literature i posted >>17286486
Supports that theory because they used livestock fractions as a stand in for the concept of interest exchange rates. He quit replying to me after that lol.

>>17286464
Cool but the vast majority of the population were serfs under the direct tyranny of their lords

>>17286505
well isn't trade something different than debt? seems like a different albeit adjacent topic

>>17286529
when was the last time two liberal democracies went to war?

>>17286574
i was reading your 30 page paper bruh

>>17286560
The timeline where the American Revolution was immediately followed by the war of 1812 which was less than a generation later followed by Civil War which was a mere 50 years later followed by WWI wherein millions died to preserve Republican France which itself was born in the Reign of Terror and then immediately declared war on their neighbors shortly before eating itself from the inside momentarily becoming an Empire with a senate before it had was ganged up on for attacking literally everyone and then the Republic was borne again of fresh blood before etc. etc. it’s been one huge clusterfuck that only chilled out a bit because everyone got nukes but even that didn’t save 1/10th of Vietnamese being exterminated in a decades long total war.

>>17286475
>"hahaha guy A made no argument so guy B made no argument too lol isn't that funny hahahaha lol it's like putting in zero effort or intelligence in your posts makes people respond in the same way lmaoooo hahahaha"
Retard.
>>17286495
The Magna Carta was bad btw.
>>17286497
If we have to be serious about this, late royalist France wasn't even remotely feudal, it was an absolute monarchy. Early modern monarchs and their "enlightened despotism" bullshit undermined their political system and left them open to bourgeois coups like the French Revolution etc. Feudalism is definitely far more resilient, however, since the king is ultimately in charge of determining the destiny of the political body. In liberal democracy, infighting will inevitably sap increasing amounts of energy and instil a form of political schizophrenia. If liberal capitalism ever collapses, it will be because of internal problems, not defeat by external power etc.

>>17286599
The problem is that they can’t help themselves from self righteously declaring total war on everyone else.

>>17286624
yeah, because as we all know europeans only started waging wars on each other after 1776 before that the continent was peaceful

>>17286631
I was just using Magna Carta as a concrete example of this nobility checking the king as happening to preempt him asking me to post proof and then I would have to lengthily explain another event. I agree it did set some bad precedents for feudalism.

>>17286645
>philosophic ideas of the enlightenment precipitated the concept of total war and levee en masse which has led to devastation and instability never before known by mankind. When feudal societies went to war it was always limited and often the goal of battles was capture and not extermination.
>>17286645
Good thing I never said that

>>17286666
Meant to tag my other post>>17286529

>>17286658
based

>>17286464
>Being corrupt is illegal! it's right there in the book so it'll never happen.
I wish I was as naive as you, Anon.

>>17286723
>>17286631
Based fellow feudalist chads helping taking over the ayn rand thread and blowing the capitalist and communist kiddies out of the fucking water on matters of history

>>17286846
What is even your point here unless you have an incorruptible society to point me towards?

>>17285371
What philosophy?

>>17286854
Look at history, lordly "fealty" to the king meant shit. If you want specific examples look at Europe during the late HRE. Nothing but petty squabbling territories paying lip service to a king and betraying him as soon as the pressures of ethnicity, the mercantile class, or protestantism/catholicism made you choose sides.

Need more armies? need more taxes? need more harvest? it all comes from squeezing your populace until they kill themselves or starve to death.

>>17286272
But what if I took red pill?

Freedom or liberty is not the most important thing in life, God is. Consider it refuted.

>>17286218
The decline in polymaths is overwhelmingly due to advancement in various fields rather than a decline in "pedagogy". There are tens of thousands of active scientists working on specific problems--to be at the forefront of even a few of these requires a lot of training and constant reading.

>>17286846
And to further debunk your point the king could attempt to be as corrupt as he wanted and vice versa the nobility but their power was quite literally physically and materially checked and balanced against one another via land and military resources. A lord would need to cajole all the other lords to go along with him and the king was in a perpetual state of cajoling the different factions of his lords and as part of this cajoling the king would then bargain with the constituency commoners in order to court their favor. The commoners for their part would play their noble lord abc their king off of one another for as much as they thought they could safely negotiate. The whole society was physically, materially balanced and did NOT solely rely on the rule of written law which is what we do today and is why our system is much fragile. That one would even argue against the fragility of our system is absurd because even the founders and champions of it acknowledged this central flaw of it. They championed it because they believed it would lead to more freedom but on this front they were wrong because in the end it is the instability of it which has robbed the common man of large swaths of liberty in his day to day life turning him into a cog in a machine for the ends of the central state.

>>17286901
Oh wow it’s almost as if the lords were checking the power of a central government thirsty for tithes and man power. The late stage HRE fell because one house gained too much power and centralized under the early enlightenment doctrine of the enlightened despot. Once they monopolized power they set about raping all of their resources and people for the goal of putting down a rebellion of swamp Germans. The failure of which you point to is not feudalism failing the common man but of centralization failing the common man which it will always do because to centralize society is to necessarily warp resources of the people into a central black hole of inequality that literally geographically exists on a map.

>>17286957
Do you know what a comma is?

>>17286381
>before that if you want some ramen noodles from your bunkie, but he's only looking for some new girly mag to fap to, and you don't have one, then you have to take what you do have which a bunch of soda and trade it to someone who has a spare porno so you can go back and trade it to your bunky for the ramen.

There's zero evidence people engaged in these kinds of sequence of trades (trading W for X for Y for Z). The far more realistic model is that if I needed Z and you had spare Z, I simply asked you for it and you provided it. The understanding is that if I have excess W and someone needs it, I will provide it. Someone who violates this social understanding is ostracized or punished. It's far more efficient and we actually have anthropological evidence for it.

>>17286989
Assuming for some reason feudalism took longer to end (no black death or something of the like), wouldn't this monopoly of power and centralization happen anyway under an emperor?

>>17287017
Maybe and then again maybe not. Even before the plague elements of this society were being stressed, but by far the greatest threat was that the bureaucratic glue holding it together, the Church, was becoming corrupted from within leading to the anti pope crisis. This crisis was influenced by the HYW and the machinations of the Plantagenets and Capets. However, it is quite possible that without the mass deaths that allowed the kings to grab much power and land from the noble class that the renaissance would have had a wholly new focus to reform the bureaucracy and not the obsession with the central state it ended up becoming fixated on because it’s quite possible that this central state simply wouldn’t be there to fixate on. Thus, inherent aspects of this decentralized society would have been preserved and essentially feudal but other aspects would likely have continued to evolve. One mistake people make is that feudal societies didn’t evolve and advance technologically or philosophically but this is mostly due to contemporary people not being familiar with the advancement that was made. A concrete and easy to refers example is that their agricultural tools and techniques advanced to such a degree that Europe was critically over populated and this success was their weakness against the plague and what facilitated it to spread so strongly and consistently.

>>17286582
Debt will naturally arise from trade on any scale greater than a small village (and probably even on the scale of a village too). Then you need to keep track of the debt but also deal with the fact that some debt are never paid back, that others are paid very late, that sometimes lowering someone's debt puts him in better shape to reimburse later, etc. The two seems hard to separate really (although they're distinct, they seem to come hand in hand).

>>17286624
Most of those wars were waged by a majority of empires or monarchies and a minority of liberal democracies and authtorian regimes. Not really disagreeing that there have been many wars since 1776 but it's hardly different from earlier European history. How many times have two liberal democracies been at war with one another?

>>17286666
A bit disingenuous to claim total war is a direct consequence of the enlightenment, when the first total wars happened way after the 18th century and involved a variety of regimes, many of them pretty hostile to enlightenment values. Levee en masse is a consequence of state organisation and politics at the scale of the nation-state, not philosophies about separation of power and constitutionality.

If anything the idea of using the population of an entire country as a reserve for war is way older than Englihtenment, while its actual implementation is way more recent. The rise of demography as a science is a more direct cause of the two worlds wars than Montesquieu.

>>17286218
Specialization seems more of a consequence of the industrial revolution tb.h. (and the subsequent explosion of technical fields in extent, diversity and output). It follows naturally from the division of labor.

>>17286994
Reminds me of Hesiod's Works and Day, where he advises his readers to engage in that very give and take behavior, and to be those who give more than they take, so that in a pinch you could always ask your neighbors to return a favor (and of course you stop giving to those who don't return favors).

>>17285371
She's jewish

>>17285371
It's dumb.

>>17287351
You’re trying to pull a John Rawls The Law of Peoples move on me here but it won’t work because I’ve read Rawls and this assertion that they do not wage war on one another is false and Rawls himself tries to save face by equivocating on the point that the CSA was not a liberal democracy because it had slavery but this of course is a no true Scotsman fallacy because it WAS a constitutional democracy wherein there was a parliamentary government participated in by the majority of the citizens. Was it perfect, no, but to say it wasn’t at least a form of liberal democracy is like a whiney tankie complaining that true Marxism has never been tried. Furthermore, as recent as WWII we have a constitutional monarchy in Imperial Japan which was just as tempered and liberal on constitutional make up as the supposed liberal democracy of Imperial Great Britain at one another’s throats. In the popular imagination GB gets a pass and is warmly adopted as a quirky democracy with a king by Americans and the French but in reality they are nearly mirrors to the Japanese by purposeful Japanese design. Rawls further undoes himself later on in the book when he acknowledges that the United States performed several violent coupes against South American democracies at least, for my tempers sake, he didn’t try to defend his feeble proposition again by doubling down on the No True Scotsman and claiming that 20th century America was not a liberal democracy.

Okay and now that I’ve cleared that up, let’s get back to the OTHER point which is that if liberal democracy was so stable and peaceful as is often claimed then it would have no need to BE involved in countless wars of intervention in the first place. It is not real peace when you give a liberal democracy a free pass to invade the HRE or any other peoples or state simply because they happen to be engaging in another form of government. This is a double standard of hypocrisy tantamount to that famous nagging senator from Rome “and furthermore Carthage must be destroyed” except liberal democracy (and filthy tankies too btw) rejoin in an unending chorus every day, every decade, every generation “and furthermore x MUST be destroyed”

>>17285371
Synergy, compassion, and fairness are evolutionarily selected for and are better strategies than pure selfishness. This is one of the deepest motifs of our entire culture, you'd have to be an absolute moron to miss it.

love exists

>>17287376
>Levee en masse is a consequence of state organisation and politics at the scale of the nation-state, not philosophies about separation of power and constitutionality.
These organizations would not have been possible without the political and social philosophic writings of a Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau. To argue that they are disconnected is to argue that philosophy is totally inert and impotent to influencing the world in which we live and this I reject outright.

>>17287504
Extremely debatable take anon, what in Rousseau, Locke and Hobbes is so essential to the formation of artillery regiments and large-scale armies?

>>17287480
I'm not trying to pull anything, I'm making a statement of facts. Constitutional regimes weren't in the majority among the important countries involved in WWI, that was only true for WWII (which was largely a consequence of WWI). That was also not the case for the Napoleonic wars (which started as defense wars btw, and then Franch became an empire, so the claim that liberal democracies are the one who declare war on everyone else also doesn't work here).

And if you look at the post WWII military landscape the size, frequency and total casualties of war have considerably decreased compared to the century and a half prior (despite the total population skyrocketing).

So, to go back to the original argument, "liberal democracies are in a constant state of war" only to the extent than European nations have always been constantly at war, and arguably not even that. It's a pretty meaningless statement, unless you consider the War on Terror to be a full-on war (in which case it's one of the less bloody in history).

>then it would have no need to BE involved in countless wars of intervention in the first place
Why not? Countries don't go to war only because they're instable, they go to war for economic, territorial and political gain, as well as ideological reasons. By your logic the Roman Empire was always extremely instable, so were the kingdom of France and the kingdom of Britian, etc. I could even argue the opposite, that those countries engage in war of interventions but never in full-scale conventional wars is a sign that they do no face existential threats. Would be a bit of a contrived argument, but not more than your own.
Your whole argument seems pretty confused.

>>17288032
How do you suppose that such large forces were marshaled? Through the centralized governments formed via the influence of these philosophers ideas. Without the centralization taxation to the degree necessary to purchase and develop massive artillery regiments could not have been raised and nor could an entire nations worth of young men been conscripted to feed into the maw of industrial warfare. In feudal society war was mostly handled by a limited class for a limited war because power was decentralized and broken up taxes were lighter and mass conscription unheard of.

She was and always will be a midwit. And her sex scenes are cringe ++

>>17286028
>>17286117
You both literally said the same

>>17288122
3/4 of the Entente was liberal democracy and the First Republic declared war on the HRE Napoleon came after. Do I need to waste my time on the rest of your historically inaccurate post?

>>17288122
>>17288343
Okay, okay I’ll bite again. OF COURSE THE ROMAN REPUBLIC WAS UNSTABLE AS FUCK READ LIVY!!!!
>Countries don't go to war only because they're instable, they go to war for economic, territorial and political gain, as well as ideological reasons.
And this is wrong too, it’s essentially Marxist materialist history. People go to war because of insecurity, insecurity which I concede, can be exacerbated by material want but the two are often totally mutually exclusive. When the feudal powers went to war it was because of a familial or dynastic insecurity, who could possibly make the argument that verdant England and fruitful France were ever materially in need? Likewise the Republic of Rome (despite the contemporary propaganda) was never under direct threat from Carthage nor under any type of want for the Italian heartland is a veritable breadbasket even more so after the first Punic war and yet still she saber rattled throughout the Iberian Peninsula. It is always intense psychological domestic instability which leads up to a nation lashing out. On this front feudalism again wins out because it’s inherent stability held in check the insecurities of the Kings. Even the famous HYW should be properly looked at not as a cataclysmic event but a simmering feud that was cool, on again, off again and always limited, quite limited by scope as well as brutality by custom and societal structure. There was no mass butchering like Cannae or Zama or Somme or Stalingrad. Only Agincourt can be said to approach this but that single battle was a quite unique case for a variety of reasons mostly the desperateness of the English.

>>17285587
Real feudalism has never been tried

>>17288343
>3/4 of the Entente was liberal democracy
I said important players, I'm not talking about Monténegro, let's see:
>Japon, Russia, Germany, Austo-hungary, the Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria
Monarchic Empire
>Britain
Constitutional monarchy
>Italy
Monarchy
>France, US, Brazil, China
Liberal democracies, including two weak republics

Even for the smaller players, 6 kingdoms, one emirates and three republics on the Allies side, 6 republics, four kingdoms, two duchy, one emirate. Of course here clients relationships are more important than regime types.

> First Republic declared war on the HRE
Come on, there was not doubt every neighboring monarchy was preparing to strike, they just choose to take the initiative. Call it the fundamental incompatibility of Monarchy and Democracy if you want, it's certainly not a one-sided situation where France attacked perfectly peaceful neighbor for no reason. The animosity went both ways.

>Napoleon came after
Literally mentioned it in my post.

>>17288537
>OF COURSE THE ROMAN REPUBLIC WAS UNSTABLE AS FUCK READ LIVY
Throughout most its history? And so were France, England, etc.? What about Alexander 's Macedonia or Darius' Persia? No need for capslock btw.

>And this is wrong too, it’s essentially Marxist materialist history.
Not at all, what are you even on about. Have the US never gone to war for mostly economic gain? Hint: take a look at the past 20 years. No need for Marxism here.

>People go to war because of insecurity
"War is the continuation of politics by other means."
You also seem to confuse need and expectations of gain. I never said people go to war only because their material needs are unfulfilled, that's just you forcing (again) a narrative of urgency into the argument. I said economic and political gains is one of the big reasons for war, it doesn't entail a rich country won't go to war to get even richer. Where the European colonial powers all in need when they undertake the colonization of Africa? Did they not expect to gain something from it?

>feudal powers went to war it was because of a familial or dynastic insecurity
You're framing it as insecurity when it could just as well be confidence that you have a shot at winning (with massive benefits). Clearly insecurity and instability can often play a role, but it's childish to pretend it's an universal explanation. What was the cause of the Norman conquest of Britain?

>It is always intense psychological domestic instability which leads up to a nation lashing out.
You'd need a pretty strong demonstration (nearly a mathematical one) to support that "always". Unless you mean instability in a very broad sense (there is always going to be some measure of instability and anxiety in a large state). Manufactured anxiety to gather popular support for war that benefit mostly certain groups is also not necessarily real instability.

>>17285657
well you’re just a giant HOMOnem

Believing that one lives in an objective world is a leap of faith. In other words, consciousness takes primacy over existence.

>>17289176
isn't that just a fancy way of saying cogito

>>17285394
>Barter is a myth made up by economics

>>17285377
Fpbp

>>17285564
this guy doesn't read history lol

>>17285377
Checked and fpbp
/thread

Also lol at the simp in atlas shrugged who does trying to fix the engine on the last train in America while Dagny is getting fucked by the biggest chad on earth, John dialogue. Not to mention she was reemed and rammed by a sexy white metal engineer and a spicy Latino copper miner/ Renaissance man. Meanwhile this pencil neck white knight is trying his hardest but his midwit brain just can’t do it. He screams into the void, realizing he’s doomed himself trying to appease dagny, and she doesn’t even think of him, she is too busy getting fucked and slapped around by 3 giga chads(possibly four, that Swede pirate is also in utopia) I give any rand credit, she wrote the most accurate woman(dagny) and the most realistic white knight (whatever her faggot simp secretary’s name is) lol.

>>17285371
I would, but her books have cover art that's just too good.

On a more serious note, her philosophy is impractical and full of contradictions, and a society operating under it would quickly collapse. However, the books have nice aesthetics and are a fun read if you like to feel like your on top of the world once in a while. Just read them for fun, and not for the sake of developing a new worldview.

>>17289436
holy shit this guy actually read it lol

>>17289548
Clamped. Back to r/communism

>implying a female philosopher didn't just plagiarize the things men wrote

>>17289436
I cringed very hard at this scene too

>>17285377
FPBP

>>17289436
bro you're not supposed to read her books, just pretend like you have and affirm how horrible they are

She's a woman who try to act like a men.
Failed from the beginning, she just had to be good to fucked not make philosophy while she was moaning