/lit/ - Literature

>People employed by the state in a purely state-run institution are fearful of right-wing propaganda

Sounds like they're acting in their own rational self interest, to me.

headline: "How persistent can a failed ideology be?"

neat article op seems wicked evenhanded

>>1827941

I think it's an editorial.

Is that a woman or a long-haired man on the op-pic?

The thing is that the knowledge they would spread would be very tenuous and would amount to little more than anti-communist fearmongering.

That's a bad biased article from a libertarian and conservative think tank you have there OP.

>the widely believed myth among Swedes that Cuba is a relatively prosperous welfare state

Nice argument right there, not pulled from his ass at all.

The librarians are right, the only purpose of such a information campaign with be to support a right-wing opinions. The real debat, over the problem of young people not knowing about gulag, should be the state history curriculum.

>>1828024
the state of the history curriculum

>>1827941

How the fuck can you be even handed about the deaths of 100 million people and the ruination of entire ways of life?

>>1828081
Capitalism has killed more people and continues to.
Let's just say 200 million what the heck.

>>1829380
Capitalism has never killed anybody, imperialism has. You can argue that corporate interests influence imperialism, but that has more to do with the military industrial complex and other companies which are propped up by the state.

>>1829380
Assholes kill people. Not capitalism, socialism or even communism.

>>1829405
Native Americans are the best example of how capitalism is fundamentally destructive to alot of civilizations. The right to property is freeing. Yeah right.

>>1829380
>make up statistics

lol communism

>>1829418
LOL.

As communist I'm in favor of the Swedish decision.

And there's nothing wrong with killing vast numbers of people. If you can't think of a subset of the population that should be starved to death or put in camps you already have you big liar.

>>1829418

>Nomads living in tents
>civilization
>lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Did you know that there are Holodomor denialists just like Holocaust denialists? Silly commies.

Well, OK you can talk about the crimes of the Soviet Union. That history should be discussed, but at the same time, you shouldn't perpetuate the myth that the Soviet Union was in any way communist. The Soviet Union's economy was centralized, state-planned capitalism with modest allowances for market driven forces; in contradistinction to the US, which was largely market based capitalism with varying degrees of state intervention.

>>1829511

So we should ignore the fact that they called themselves communists, that they tried to implement the "dictatorship of the proletariat" called for by Marx himself, and that the Soviet Union was just one of MANY results, all of which failed?

The US and Western Europe are far from an idealized purely "capitalist" society, but I wouldn't ever argue that they aren't capitalist.

The Soviet Union was the result of trying to implement Marxist ideas. It is communist.

Get over it.

>>1829433
Dat 5th column is strong in this one.

MFW when commiefags come out of the woodwork to defend the Gulag and Holodomor

Seriously, you guys are just as bad as the Nazifags.

>>1829524

Communists really wish they could kill millions of people.

Group-hate is at the core of the ideology.

In-group,out-group thinking is at the core of the human mind. Communists seize on this primitive mechanism and try and make the "proletariat" the in-group and the other economic divisions as out-groups. This mechanism dehumanizes the other groups and makes it perfectly natural that they would seek their extermination.

Which is exactly what happened in real life during communists societies.

>>1829438
Dude, they were only living in tenets because of small pox. They had huge cities of upwards of 100,000 people, but smallpox had like a 90% fatality rate, and they just fled the cities.

You know, we once had a board for these sorts of discussions. It quickly become Stormfront. Now, I'm always up for a good political discussion. I frequent many political forums, debate with people in real life, and so on and so forth. But when I come to /lit/, I want to read about literature. Not retread the same idiotic ground from every singly insipid thread on "Communism vs. Capitalism" with angsty teens whom think they're deep or groundbreaking. Get your /new/ out of my /lit/ and stay out. It doesn't belong here. Fuckers.

>>1829519
Yeah? Well, we also say that we have a democracy in America, and we all know that is a joke.

We also claim that the American economy is a free market based system, but that is a lie. Free markets assume that consumers are making rational choices of what to buy based on the best available information, but EVERYTHING in our economy is based on image and illusion, not fact. The whole point of the advertisement industry is to mislead, confuse and misinform people so they make irrational choices based on partial information. This rot goes all the way up to the top, where Godman manipulates entire sectors of the global economy.

So, we CAN'T call our system capitalist at heart, even though we desperately would like to. Likewise, the Soviets would have loved to lay claim to the mantle of communism. Their ideology was distantly informed by Marxist theory, yes, in practice, this was not the case. Really, the only two parties who would like to have you think that the Soviet Union was communist would be the Soviets themselves, to legitimize their regime, and also the United States, because they can point to the horrors of the Soviet Union and paint anyone who wants to help reform the system as a crypto-Soviet.

>>1829555
The majority of communist parties have tried to legitimize Soviet reign, it's not just the former Soviet leaders.Look at the denial of Holodomor on Wikipedia, most communist parties, including the US Communist Party, rush to the defense of the Soviet Union whenever it's criticized. If the Soviets weren't communist, then why aren't actual communists denouncing it?

>>1829531
But killing people in the name of the revolution is not mainstream Marxism. More properly, it is the authoritarian strand of Marxism, which is Leninism. It is important to note that most mainstream Marxists were highly critical of Leninism. You should learn history before you pronouncing sweeping, ignorant stereotypes like Communists want to murder you and redistribute your stuff to lazy black people.

>>1829564
No. Just--no. Most major left-wing, Western thinkers have been highly critical of the Soviet Union: Guy Debord, Noam Chomsky, George Orwell just to name a few. Most thinking people have been aghast at the authoritarian nature of the Leninism. Indeed, most mainstream Marxists were deeply critical when Lenin put forward his views.

>>1829571

Authoritarianism is the primary mode of implementing communist ideas. I'm not going to debate every single possible sub-grouping of communist thought.

Many 'libertarian socialists' spend much of their time defending authoritarian socialists.

Chomsky defending Chavez and Castro as a primary example.

It is "mainstream". Most 'non-authoritarian' Marxists frequently prescribe "psychological therapy(read: reeducation camps)" for anyone that argues about the egoist nature of human beings.

>>1829519
>>1829531
>>1829598

Holy shit, are you the same CapitalistBastard from /r9k/? I haven't seen you in what feels like years.

>>1829598
>Authoritarianism is the primary mode of implementing communist ideas.
No it's not. The core of the original, mainline Marxist theory was worker control of the means of production, something that would develop organically as workers began to organize. A vanguard spearheading a revolution (i.e. Leninism) was NEVER part of the equation, and mainline Marxists immediately realized the implications of this: it was a cynical engrossment of power under the pretext of the helping the workers.

As far as your claim that libertarian socialists defend the authoritarian practices of socialistic leaders, that's just a lie. Chomsky will NOT defend, say, Castro's suppression of democracy or censorship of the press. BUT he will point out the fact that the US's foreign policy toward Cuba is absolutely brutal. Two totally different things.

>>1829598
Oh, and saying that the majority of Marxists have a hard-on for re-education camps is just plain ignorant. Please point me to one major, mainline Marxist who argues this. And no, Stalinists and Leninists don't count as mainline Marxists.

>>1829598
>It is "mainstream". Most 'non-authoritarian' Marxists frequently prescribe "psychological therapy(read: reeducation camps)" for anyone that argues about the egoist nature of human beings.
I know. Like, all those FEMA camps Chairman Obama is setting up. Alex Jones told me so, so it must be true!
trollface.jpg

>>1829619

I've been around for a lot longer than /r9k/.

>>1829629

>And no, Stalinists and Leninists don't count as mainline Marxists.

I love talking to 20 year olds.

>>1829648
And I love talking to Randriods.

>>1829651

Who said I was an objectivist?

Since you have your own conception of a mainline marxist(lol), why not give the definition?

Otherwise discussion is fruitless.

>>1829531

>>1829662
Very simply, communism has always been a democratic movement. It's always been about good work being adequately rewarding, both in the sense of monetary compensation as well as in the less tangible sense of feeling proud of a job well done. Basically, mainline Marxism argued that as capitalism progressed, wealth would become more and more concentrated (sound familiar?) and that there would be more and more consolidation until only a few corporations were left (sound familiar?). Finally, the workers themselves (not a Leninist vanguard) would demand a more just economic system, and they would organize to put it into action. That was traditional mainline Marxism until the advent of Leninism.

>>1829706
I think you skipped the whole "violent revolution" and forcibly toppling the government part. Nice omission.

http://www.thelocal.se/34160/20110603/

Fuck you, Sweden. Fuck you.

>>1829706

Wait, you actually believe wealth is more concentrated on an international scale?

That's insane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUwS1uAdUcI&feature=channel_video_title

>>1829721
Yes, there will be a revolution, but it doesn't necessarily have to be violent. A revolution, widely defined, is any transition or shift in the power base of a socio-economic system. For instance, I would argue that since Reagan, there has been a more or less constant (nonviolent) revolution on the part of oligarchs (industry, the financial sector, the top 0.01% of wealth holders) to control the government, and they have more or less succeeded.

A worker's revolution wouldn't have to be violent. It would just mean that people take on a more class conscious sense of identity. It would mean people acting and voting in their own class interest. This would be in contrast to what we see right now, where the people in the Tea Party vote for the interests of the oligarchs and against their own class interests.

>>1829746
That's an abstract use of the term revolution, at best. Could you at least try?

>>1829746

>For instance, I would argue that since Reagan, there has been a more or less constant (nonviolent) revolution on the part of oligarchs (industry, the financial sector, the top 0.01% of wealth holders) to control the government, and they have more or less succeeded.

If that's the case, they are doing an amazing job of enriching the world. Especially in nations that abandon marxist conceptions of economics.

>>1829752
It stretches the definition of revolution, yes, but it doesn't render the term too nebulous. Take the aptly named Reagan Revolution. Corporate power is much more concentrated and has much more influence than it did when Reagan took office. They have changed the game without firing a single shot.

>>1829764

You seem to ignore the fact that as "corporate power" has increased, world wealth has vastly increased.

Seems that Capitalism works. Mad?

>>1829754
Enriching the world? LOL, you mean like when they crashed the economy in 2008?

>>1829771
I don't think this post even deserves a response. So fucking stupid.

>>1829771

You seem remarkably well-fed for a "crashed" economy.

>>1829768
Yeah, capitalism (or whatever passes for capitalism) sure works great, if you're rich. I think, though, the people getting a nickel an hour for stitching up baseballs would disagree with you, as would the average American worker, who has seen his wages stagnate since the advent of the Reagan Revolution.

>>1829774
When the real estate bubble bursts and trillions of dollars vanish into thin air overnight, we don't live in a system that is enriching, let alone grounded in reality.

>>1829776

The interesting thing is as it is implemented in poor countries they become rich.

Chile, South Korea, China, etc.

>>1829778

A temporary contraction in growth does not mean that an economy has "crashed".

We've been growing since 2009 son.

It will take time to work through the mal-investment but the world economy is still churning.

You are talking about a recession that saw consumer demand drop 5%.

Hardly the end of the world, chicken little. Next, you will tell me we are about to run out of fossil fuels or something equally asinine.

>>1829777
Yeah, because their economic system isn't as retarded as the United States'. Pure capitalism doesn't exist in reality. State intervention is a feature of all "capitalist" economies. Indeed, it can be reasonably argued that capitalism itself is a state program. But the nature of state intervention will differ from nation to nation. Now, compared to, say, South Korea, our system is so fuck up. We don't invest in physical infrastructure or human resources. We give away trillions to defense corporations so they can "defend" the country. We can't get a handle on health care insurance companies who rip off their consumers and inflate prices. We can't stop the financial sector from fucking around. And on and on and on.
Yeah, capitalism managed well can make a poor nation rich. But capitalism managed poorly can make a rich nation poor, which is what is happening to America.

>>1829790

>But capitalism managed poorly can make a rich nation poor, which is what is happening to America.

Cite a historical example of a nation that was rich and became poor via Market reforms.

It doesn't exist. The US is still the largest economy with top 5 HDI.

Stop buying into stupid rhetoric designed to get you to support some pol.

>>1829788
Yeah yeah, the free market will fix it. We've heard that cant before.
Look, we're not out of the woods yet. Not by a long shot. The problems are much more systemic and insidious than you make them out to be. I can go through them if you want. But take my word for it, part of the problem isn't with capitalism itself. For the most part, the problem is that capitalism in America is absolutely dysfunctional, and the only entity that can fix it (i.e. the state) is too timid and weak to mess with the forces that are fucking things up.

>>1829792
You're missing my point. Market reforms in America are nearly impossible, mostly because the financial sector has a stranglehold on the legislative process, and has lawyers who can outgun the federal government.
I don't even think state regulated capitalism is that great a system, but well regulated state capitalism is better than American-style, gangster capitalism. And yeah, 'Murica strong right, but our public education system is crumbling, at a time when Asian nations (particularly China and India) are training legions of scientists and engineers. We used to be able to import scientists and engineers from China and India, but these folks can now make a pretty good living in their own countries without moving to America. You might not see a problem, you might be complacent enough to think the free market will fix everything, but I see trouble on the horizon.

>>1829792
I'd quote R. Kennedy's bit on GDP not measuring the quality of our friendships, but I'm thinking that wouldn't advance the discussion anywhere. As much as I agree that the US is still strong after (or despite) the Reagan revolution, you can't deny that there's been a widening gap between the rich and the poor. The problem isn't that capitalism's made the US poor, it's that deregulated capitalism has concentrated a lot of wealth within the top 1%. Whether or not this is bad depends on how you define "inequality," but there's still a huge gap in opportunity between the classes.

>>1829792
Isn't it ironic though, that I, a student of the humanities, am more hard nosed and cynical about our political-economic system than you are? You think of ourself as a man of the world, a consummate capitalist, but you seem whimsical and out of touch with strife and pandemonium capitalism has caused. Your faith in capitalism gives you an air of serenity, certain that capitalism is not only the best system devised, but a natural and eternal system. These are strange times we live in.

>>1829811
>>1829809
>>1829801

>>1829813
Run out of arguments, eh?

>>1829788
Hey dude, we don't agree 100% and I think you sound a bit like a douche, but I just wanted to give you kudos for linking the Hans Rosling TED talk, he's amazing.

CapitalistBastard the Randroid seems to forget that China and India have terrible per capita rates.

You keep claiming that the world is getting richer, but fail to bring up the fact that the wealth is very centralized with a few groups.

Enjoy being a tool for the ultra-rich. Nobody buys it.

>>1827926
>Let's not educate our youth about an ideology, they might not like it!
>>1829725
>Many young Swedes favour dictatorship
>oh that's interesting.jpg

Can't we just discuss sweden? they seem to be japan levels of batshit insane.

>>1829811

Probably because I see "cynical" beliefs as immature.

It's easy to imagine everything crumbling. Destruction is comprehensible to everyone. Building and creating is much harder.

It's pleasurable imagine holding someone richer down and taking his shit. Rationalizations about how he got the wealth through "exploitation" justifies it.

My pet theory is based on outlook. Left-leaning people are biased toward current consumption and capital depletion.

Right-leaners are biased toward investment and future consumption. This results in capital accumulation.

World is stuck in debt-hell. Wealth is focused in small groups that continue to grow.

If America isn't going to have nationalized banks then why did they break loose from the Brits? What's the difference in going from perpetual debt to one nation making a switch into perpetual debt to major privatized banks? How is America a wealthy nation when every dollar it produces is owed?

>>1829835
Your pet theory is pretty shallow and self-serving, also not really substantiated and politically simplistic.

I probably agree with you on like 90% of things, but just saying if you don't want to come off as an idiot don't have idiotic pet theories.

>>1829835
>It's easy to imagine everything crumbling. Destruction is comprehensible to everyone. Building and creating is much harder.
I agree. But beyond some glib statements about how wonderful capitalism is and how it's enriching everyone (the former statement highly questionable, the latter demonstrably false), I've been the one offering critiques of the system. If we were on the Titanic as she were sinking, I would be the one ushering people to the lifeboats and helping them on with their lifejackets, while you would be singing the praises of the ship, how grand and unsinkable she is.
>It's pleasurable imagine holding someone richer down and taking his shit.
I just want every child to have a decent education, a safe community, a clean environment to play and grow up in, and enough milk to drink. In other words, I want everyone to have a shot at a good life. I don't want everyone to have an XBox and a Ferrari. That you think I'm out to take your stuff and give it to the "less deserving" says more about you than me. Hey, but if you want to talk about one group bleeding another group white, I suggest you open your eyes and take a look at what the rich are doing to the poor.

>My pet theory is based on outlook. Left-leaning people are biased toward current consumption and capital depletion. Right-leaners are biased toward investment and future consumption. This results in capital accumulation.
Words are coming out of your mouth, but you're not actually saying anything. If you think the rich give a fuck about the future of America, you're kidding yourself. If they did, they'd be investing in the future of America so we can compete with Asia and Europe. But as it is, they only care about amassing their own fortune.

>>1829835
You are kinda right. The humanities student is wrong for denying the achievements of Capitalism. The humanities student is not being nihilistic, just misguided criticism. What the humanities student should be saying is: the USA is experiencing growth, but a lot of the growth has been captured by the ultra rich to the detriment of the lower & middle classes. Alternatively; that a lot of the growth in Capitalism is illusionary because it has neglected the cost to externalities (e.g. the environment)

o wait, CapitalistBastard has revealed himself with his pet theory to be an "not quite" deranged objectivist. Except the objectivist mantra has been slightly rephrased - rightwing (read:individualism) = good, leftwing (read:collectivism) = bad. CapitalistBastard, I am disappointed, you had me thinking you were a savvy pro capitalist.

Capitalism, the idea that the richest and greediest work for the benefit of all.

>the horrors of communism
There are no any "horrors of communism". There are flaws of systems in countries where they tried to build communism.

Communism is a totalitarian system and therefore is considered flawed in a system where democracy and personal freedom is valued.

>>1829876
communism is not inherently a totalitarian system :|

I don't think capitalist is the problem in itself, however corporations have far too much control now and are abusing the legal, political and economic systems that are in place. Heres some interesting facts:

http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-about-inequality-in-america-2011-11#if-you-arent-in-the-top-1-o
f-americas-earners-youre-pretty-much-screwed-15

>>1829880
Give us an example.

btw, that example you are thinking of,... it is wrong.

Can't we all just vomit into the abyss of politics, abandon everything and go out in a fiery orgy?

Does anyone know any GOOD literature on these topics ITT?

>>1829884

I am only guessing here but Aussie aborigines, African bushmen, Zapatistas in Mexico, the Anarcho Syndicalists still operating in Northern Spain, Twin Oaks Communists in the USA.

Communism is not dogma just as capitalism isn't, they are both wide ranging sets of economic ideas which can be applied with different political ideas.

Government is what you decide to obey, you may as some of the examples, run your society within another different society successfully even if it differs on economic style because it is really the political that matters, a democracy or similar will allow it generally a totalitarian won't.

Totalitarian communism is just flavoured totalitarianism, the same applies to capitalists in the same situation. The current Russian government is a good example, it went from totalitarianism communism to a sham capitalist democracy underneath which was a capitalist totalitarianism/oligarchy - not much difference but its the totalitarianism that was the theme, the politics not the economics.

>>1827926
>>1827926
>mfw they don't differentiate stalinism from communism

>>1829899
sorry, I should have made myself clear. Don't give us examples of irrelevant/ failed societies.

A bunch of tribesmen elders / anarcho paramilitary does not prove a "succesful" system governed by communism which is not totalitarian. i.e. My local kindergarten is not example of a successful fascism system working.