/lit/ - Literature

>>18794115
>I read the Communist Manifesto
>origin book
>Written by the creators of said beliefs
oh /lit/ faggots, you never cease to amaze me.

That is exactly why rich people export labour to the third world, to create a division between the pseudo- and sub-bourgeois middle class that still lives in first world countries and the permanently depressed lumpenproletariat of third world countries. They let the former proletariat have a relatively cushier existence by turning the first world into "service economies," which allows them to be fattened-up hedonistic retards with low expectations who think having a big screen TV and smartphone means progress is infinite.

Then they get those literal retards, who make their coffees and do their manicures, to vote for endless wars against the third world, so that all "developing" nations can be kept in the hands of juntas and dictators, so labour will remain depressed there, because labour consolidation and organisation is impossible.

You get to live in London thinking you are part of the same progress of the modern world while you do some menial job for a rich guy whose dad's dad's dad made the family fortune as a robber baron. You never see or think about the 500 chinks who made your clothing and trinkets. Thus the chinks can remain in mid Industrial Revolution slavery conditions that would be completely unacceptable in the West. It's a great scam. Read Lenin's Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism, it's pretty good on this topic.

Your mistake is in thinking there's a "we" or "us" that includes both you and the rich bankers and capitalists who don't give a fuck about you. Those bankers are now so confident in their control over BOTH you and the distant Chinese workers that they are tanking your economy for a goof as well, pushing you below even a service economy, into a gig economy that they can liquidate and rearrange any time they feel like it, for example when some Silicon Valley management guru tells them that they need to control your life for your own good by destroying your job or expropriating your family farms for more "rational" farming by the lobbyist and Democratic donor class.

Where modern communists go wrong is in thinking that the only alternative to this is to become some kind of mulatto fetishizing post-racial post-national utopia overnight. The alternative is to realise bankers are living cancer and having markets and trade is not some magical system called "capitalism," where you are magically disallowed from smashing banker cabals into a billion pieces any time they try this shit.

Libertarian garbage all conveniently popped up after WW2 as CIA astroturfed alternative to communism, it is a religion for people who are too scared to go further right. People who want to think in simplistic binaries like "Mao vs. McDonalds running your life" instead of rejecting both.

>>18794115
Proletariat just means you have to work for wages to survive which most Americans do. If there was a functional welfare state letting anyone who doesn't want to work stop you'd have a better argument but that's not quite true obviously. The fact most consumer goods are manufactured by foreigners isn't really new, most things people in most countries in the 19th century were consuming was coming from someplace else since international trade was less regulated. Marxism and liberalism aren't in conflict there but over how/why those things are produced and distributed... Chinese workers today probably wouldn't want to make laptops for Americans without material incentives coming from there so without capitalism the Chinese working class might turn inwards to try to develop China more. That's where the charges against Marx come from, that a peaceful global system outside capitalism might not be possible and liberalism is the real end of history.

>>18794115
>>18793184

>people who don't want to work will subordinate people who do

socialism is for low iq children who think if they just meme hard enough they'll defeat the highest iq people on the planet...comedic delusion

>>18794181
>>18794505
Nigga you expect me to read all that shit lmao

>>18794181
Marx failed because it requires the proletariat to be philosophers, as naïve as Plato thinking we could get a philosopher king. two sides of a fictional coin.

You're Leninist suggestion of a cabal oppressing the non-west perpetuating capitalist hegemony is an in vogue conspiratorial substitute for the inevitable Darwinian outcome of a free market. "developing" countries are full of low iq, low info, ancient tribal superstitious, indolent, regressive dead-enders. The west and china and eventually india have relatively industrious, creative, productive members that naturally rise to the top of the hierarchy.

"Post-racial" is dead. enforced equity as a means of effecting equality assumes that all disparity is systems rather than agents. Which is true if you consider culture a system, false if you consider only laws past and present as well as non-cultural incentivization, a contradiction in terms.

Nothing will change because as soon as any Marxist are marxists for the exact same reason that capitalists are capitalists, they're trying to get a larger slice of the pie for themselves. So every time any Marxist gets any psychological or fiscal capital, they instantly become capitalists because that's where the rewards are and everyone follows the rewards. everyone.

>>18794633
You have been psy-op'ed by the intelligence agencies into thinking "capitalism" and "the market" are inevitable metaphysical forces that compel human beings to act like nouveau riche Californian human garbage and turn every city into a stratified favela.

It's just not true. Humanity went through the "whoa, we really are capable of some libertarian dystopia shit aren't we?" shock and shockingly rapid growth realisation in the 19th century, and from that came a whole range of reactions and possible alternatives. Many states have implemented mixed political economies to avoid the terrors of kleptocracy and the terrors of socialism.

Ever read Polybius or the Renaissance republicans? We need to recover the virtue of realism, and a commitment to human virtues as superior to any sociological "iron laws." People in the ancient world and Renaissance Italy knew perfectly well that states rise and fall, business cabals sometimes overpower states, all kinds of fucked up shit happens, but you do your best because the virtue of a healthy commonwealth is still superior to these exceptional moments of disease and decay.

Marxist utopianism and libertarian fatalism are two sides of the same coin designed to make you give up and give in.

>>18794658
>>18794633
>>18794505
Now watch communitards try to explain why a communist country would create a state operated central bank and also receive financing from wall street banker as well as welcome capitalists to do business. All Marxists have is theoretical nonsense completely insulated from the real world.

>>18794658
>We need to recover the virtue of realism, and a commitment to human virtues

exactly what I said, your solution is an entire population becoming philosophers. I agree that would be best, but you're staring at anything but the high gravity obstacles.

In an experiment where they introduced currency into an ape community, the males all bought sex and the females sold sex to buy food and status items. It's not metaphysical, it's physical.

The old world religions and culture value generators are stripped and repurposed for cyber tribalism. It's over for now, not hell, but purgatory. We're waiting for the Tyrell corp to take the reins so we can enter the leisure phase of human existence. Only took 200k years, 10k+ after writing, 200+ have science, not too bad.

You're optimism of answers in the past rather than the future is going in the grave with you.

>>18794748
>You're optimism of answers in the past rather than the future is going in the grave with you.
Optimism is good, anon. You have been terrorised into loving a short-sighted science fiction vision of a dystopian future, dreamed up by parochial pessimists. We are a species that outlawed slavery, created rules for conduct in war, and created the notion of the absolute sovereignty of the individual over his own self-cultivation, despite every apparent trend pointing in the opposite direction, toward increased brutalisation. The very fact that libertarianism exists shows that idealism is a real force in humanity, just one that is currently being channeled into naivete.

The choice is existential, either resist the chinaman when he comes to make you his genetically engineered cyberslave or don't. If you really choose to embrace slavery then that's on you. But don't delude yourself with Nick Land faggotry that it was inevitable.

>>18794781
>loving a short-sighted science fiction
>resist the chinaman when he comes to make you his genetically engineered cyberslave

You sound like the myopic luddite's with their menacing clogs waving in the air certain that they can stem the tide of textile machines eating away at their artisan virtue.

Once the textile machinery, car, computer, smart phone, etc were invented, they couldn't not spread like a virus. It's biological. Crspr, robotics, VR, etc, it can't not be normalized. The days of Socrates walking the market place or shylock being roundly condemned for usury are over. You don't need to embrace the brave new world, but it will you.

>>18794854
>Care for us! True, indeed! They ne'er cared for us yet: suffer us to famish, and their storehouses crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act established against the rich, and provide more piercing statutes daily to chain up and restrain the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and there's all the love they bear us

>>18794505
>Proletariat just means you have to work for wages to survive which most Americans do.
no, proletariat means that you're propertyless, that you have nothing to lose but your chains, that your interest is in abolishing the current state of things. there are many people who have to work for wages to survive whose interests are opposite to that of the proletariat, who want to conserve the current state of things because they have something to lose within it -- a privileged position relative to the proletariat, because e.g. they own petty property or they have a resume or even just connections that can secure them a great paying job until retirement.

>>18794633
>Marx failed because it requires the proletariat to be philosophers
u wot? communism is just the proletariat following its interest, crushing the obstacles to satisfying its needs as they appear. this requires zero philosophizing

>>18795210
>following its interest
and what are its interest? working for others and forgoing the pleasures of outrageous materialism, or succumbing to our most apish hedonistic impulses?

Or do you like to pretend that society would be just as materially advanced with ego out of the equation. or even better, do you pretend we aren't hedonists mammals?

>>18794115
anon discovers third worldism

>>18794115
>I don’t see you can even be communist as an American since we are the bourgeois.
Dear McDonald's wage cucks: stop complaining, you're literally the bourgeoisie!
Change can come from the inside, I guess, anon.
You should read his actually good works instead. I think the CM is overrated and only pure faggotry comes from people who only read that.

>>18794566
this is the fucking literature board.
READ NEGRO READ

>>18794115
Back in high school, people used to print this book, Mein Kampf, and the Kama Sutra on library printers to waste paper and piss the librarians off

>>18795322
kek

>>18794115
>Anyway, what other origin books are there are politics. Written by the creators of said beliefs.
Well there are some for anarchism, I think the conquest of bread is a look into what anarchism would look like and I've heard people saying that the author seems like a nice person.
You won't find the same with capitalism, or any other ideology. Why? Because the time period where these thoughts emerged necessitated that the working people should be able to read about an alternative to the current structure of power. There's not really any reason to make a book about why capitalism is swell since most people by default just accept the status quo without much further analysis.
Another thinker that might interest, haven't read him either, is Burke, he talks about why hierarchies and an elite class are necessary among other things which define classical conservatism.
Much of it has fallen out of favor though, this was during the time were the ruling class had much more prestige than the current NPCs which make up the elite of our time.

>>18795292
>and what are its interest
abolition of the state of things that condemns it to perpetual existence as a class of people who toil endlessly but have nothing to show for it
>working for others and forgoing the pleasures of outrageous materialism, or succumbing to our most apish hedonistic impulses?
neither
>Or do you like to pretend that society would be just as materially advanced with ego out of the equation.
is ego out of the equation when you follow your interest?
>or even better, do you pretend we aren't hedonists mammals?
do I? people certainly seek happiness, but they can also understand that this sometimes requires sacrifices in the short term.

>>18795353
could you explain conquest of the bread to me? I read it as a manifestation of guilt for inherited wealth more than a real guide to how to set up a state.
why should everyone alive today continue to live as long as possible?
why should a nation intentionally stifle growth for the sake of satiating all citizens?
how would this system not imminently devolve into a corrupt kleptocracy within a decade?
maybe its just that hindsight is just 20/20 but as a person of korean heritage it seems that the road to hell (communism) is paved with good intentions.

>>18795387
>neither
>sometimes requires sacrifices in the short term

hedonism is genetic. socialism, as you point out, is not entirely aligned with hedonism. What they gain in socialism, they lose in hedonism. that requires a philosophical bent. that partial ascetic long view.

You think if you just explain it enough to people, institute some laws, it'll all come together. But they explained obesity to people, even made some lawz an incentives, and where did that get anyone?

You'll never turn pleb proletariat into phil proletariat. If they were capable to thinking like that en masse, they'd be joining the capitalist ranks.

>class of people who toil endlessly but have nothing to show for it

except they do have something to show for it, stuff. They love stuff and you'll never get them to not love stuff. and they'll never love their neighbor more than their stuff. In fact, they love the stuff in part because it makes them look better than their neighbor. and that thinking is biological. Marxim is stranded on the rocks of evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac

>>18795397
I am not an anarchist and haven't read it, I just think it's what OP was asking for in terms of anarchism
As to your other questions, it's hard to say how to realistically apply a mode of government, I really can't make it work in my head since society now is vastly different than it was hundreds of years ago, so if you want something more practically applicable you should read contemporary authors on the topic, the old sources are more useful if you want to understand the philosophy and theory behind it.

>>18794136
>Communism: ORIGINS

>>18794115
>We’re in charge of industrial labor.
Wait 30 years and see if that's still true. More like the west will be in charge of the new third world.