/lit/ - Literature

What the fuck is up with marxists/socialists /lit/?

Do they just read chomsky in high school and never intellectually mature?

>>1937630
>chomsky
>marxist

I doubt that they really want to opt out and return to a state of nature, even if there was a place they could do that. They just look around at our modern very large, complex, mobile, and diverse societies and think "I never agreed to this." They feel small, powerless and insignificant. They feel alienated. It's perfectly normal to feel that way sometimes, because monkey brains weren't really designed for dealing with this many people, or to have people continuously moving in and out of your group. City life literally makes us all a little crazy. They can't blame "society" as a whole for being incomprehensible, so they blame "government". If government was smaller, less powerful, then things would be better.

>>1937625
>>1937630
a fight between two stawmen. how cool!

>>1937638
Or at least more simple. Overpopulation is a problem. In smaller communities things would be easier to fix.

>>1937638
:(

>>1937645

Except overpopulation is mostly a problem in third world nations that already consist of small tribes of people.

In first world nations, the birth rate is usually less than 2 children per family, which means that their populations are actually in decline.

>>1937645
You know I've never really heard libertarians talk about smaller communities. Anarchists, yes, but mainly primitivists or deep ecologists whatever that brand of luddites call themselves rather than ancaps and ansocs.

Libertarians/objectivists seem pretty content with huge monolithic authoritarian institutions as long as the public has no semblance of control over them

All hierarchy is inherently wrong, economic or political.

ideology is rather self sufficient

>>1937663

>>1937662
Well... I don't really consider myself a libertarian (and definitely NOT an objectivist). But I like some of Nozick's points, for example. I'm not an ecologist nor a primitivist, but I really think that most of our modern problems were cause with the rise of the demographic density of our cities during the Industrial Revolution.

>>1937663
Uh... Could you explain why?

>>1937660
>decline

Nope, immigration from third world countries is making population grow.

>What the fuck is up with libertarians

They are people who want a minimum or no state.

>What the fuck is up with objectivists

They are people who adhere to a philosophy drawn up by Ayn Rand.

>>1937662
Shut the fuck up and finish your goddamn album drake.

the weeknd is upstaging you and you made it happen

>>1937635
>rand
>libertarian
>there's that word again blah blah blah

Way to miss the point, retard.

Would a minimum state be that bad...? Why?

>>1937649
hey man. i've met some reasonable and insane people on both sides. political bipolar disorder is spreading like a disease. nothing but misunderstandings and gross generalizations. reasonable dialogue can't happen. and it's riduculous that we find it only happening in groups of people who share our preconceptions or rather misconceptions. i'm not innocent either though. political topics are so emotional what can be done? the way politics is sold through news to get ratings is to keep it emotional.

big government or big business. as if it mattered. fortunately i try to keep politics out of discussion with friends and family. whether this move is idiotic or smart is forever debatable, right?

nb4 everyone calling everyone else with a different opinion brainwashed juvenile sheep.

>>1937689

>Nope, immigration from third world countries is making population grow.

Yeah, I should have been more specific. Maybe "native population" would have been a better term.

And it's worth noting that in a deregulated libertarian/anarchist society, immigration would probably be more prevalent.

>yfw the first person to use the term "libertarian" was Joseph Déjacque, a communist, but Randroids think the word is theirs

>>1937701
Depends on what you mean by minimum state. At present, some form of democratically orchestrated state intervention in economic productive relationships is desirable because the majority of the human race is being exploited for the wellbeing of the minority.

Otherwise the state should fuck off.
>>1937703
chill the fuck out dude it'll be ready when it's ready

>>1937710
>I'm an anarchist. Smash the state!
>Corporations are okay though

>>1937719
Hahaha, I know! Anarcho-capitalist is an oxymoron.

>>1937707
Immigration movements are caused by need, for example: because you can no longer subsist being an agriculturist and you need to move to the city to work in a factory. In small communities it's more difficult to robe from the administration without being noticed. Regulation from a state would not be needed in a community where everyone know each other. There would be problems and conflicts, indeed. But things would be more simple, and easier to fix. It's easier to agree with 500 persons than agree with 1.000.000.

>>1937740

>Immigration movements are caused by need, for example: because you can no longer subsist being an agriculturist and you need to move to the city to work in a factory.

Or maybe because you want to live in the city and quit being a smelly farmer?

>>1937712
>state intervention in economic productive relationships is desirable because the majority of the human race is being exploited for the wellbeing of the minority.

That is only true if you're a utilitarian or egalitarian. Which are fucking retarded positions to take, and equivalent to religion in that they are wholly opinion-based and unrelated to truth or fact. So unless you also want to discard the separation of church and state, you cannot legislate morality, which is exactly what you want to do when you say it is desirable to intervene in the exploitation of the "majority" by the "minority".

>>1937719
>>1937723

>Implying corporations aren't state sanctioned enterprises that are created by corporate law and are given special privileges by the state.

>>1937719
Corporations are simply a form of legal entity that a group of people with one or more common goals call themselves. They would not exist in their current form without the state, but co-operation (and thus corporation-like organizations) would exist.

>>1937746
Do you know how did 19th century proletarians live?
Believe me, you'd prefer to be a smelly farmer.
And that was the time when the most important demographic movements happened.

>>1937750
What are you?

Property is theft

>>1937750
lol

>>1937750
Calm down man. I know what you're going through, It's a phase. Lots of us go through it! It's nothing to be ashamed of, unless you don't grow out of it.

I'm sick of people associating libertarianism with Ayn Rand instead of Thorough, or Proudhon, or... fucking anyone else who actually wrote and said things worth reading and listening to.

>he isn't a mutualist
>2011

>>1937798
Then you become a fidgety fat person spending most of their time online, trapped in a beastly pathos of implicating society and governance for one's own financial and personal shortcomings.

>>1937751
Say your neighbor is more economically successful than you. His children will start off with an advantage over yours. On the whole, the majority of the time, those born with more money will continue to make more, and eventually you'll have distinct classes. As the rich become richer and the poor become poorer, it will become necessary to the rich to create a state, for which there are really only two purposes:

1. Maintain the status quo, in which the rich remain rich and the poor remain poor, or better yet, enable the rich to become richer and the poor to become poorer.
2. Pretend to be useful to everyone, including the poor.

What have you guys read to make you disagree so vehemently with objectivism? I'm not a huge expert on philosophy, but human judgement isn't the best, so I think some sort of objective standard of morality is needed. I know that doesn't make the most sense as all moral systems are derived from human judgement, but what I'm saying is that it would be better to have a standard of morals conceived in a rational and logical setting as opposed to sort of "winging it," and going by situation and context.

>>1937802
I think both of those guys mostly fall under some brand of socialism.

I like libertarians. At least they have a (albeit half-assed) commitment to social freedom. That's a step up from Alisa Rosenbaum.

>>1937828
Five people are tied to a train track. One person is tied to another. You don't know any of the people, and don't have time to learn anything about them. There's a train headed for a split in the track, and in front of you is a switch. If you don't flip the switch, the train will kill five innocent people. If you do, it will only kill one.

Do you flip the switch?

>>1937828
The objectivism you're talking about is not the objectivism we're talking about.

>>1937833
Yeah, but Kantian ethics are stupid too.

>>1937832
The variant of that thought experiment with the fat guy is the easiest to solve because fat people are evil.

>>1937840
+1 internet to you.

>>1937835
Obviously.
>hurr universal application of one-off actions occuring because of unique circumstances

>>1937832
I walk away and pretend I didn't see anything.

>>1937847
Violence can be perpetrated through inaction, especially when you could have easily prevented it without any real risk to yourself. That action makes you a murderer of five people.

>>1937835

I am sure that is the most persuasive counter-argument he has ever received.

>>1937853
hurr durr otherwise the murder of one people, you're a murder anyway and can't do anything to avoid it.

>>1937856
>one people
It looks more tarded than I pretended.

>>1937853
>implying I'd care

Everybody's gotta go someday, at least they died instantly by being vaporized by a train, rather than slowly dying of cancer.

The very act of processing the information:
"Flip switch = one death
Do not flip switch = five deaths"
means that you have taken an action on and conscious decision towards that scenario. You either murder one person or you murder five people.

Also,
>property is liberty
>property is theft
>property is impossible

>>1937826
> and the poor become poorer

See this is just ridiculous. There is a fucking shitload of historical evidence that success is spread out in society. Relative wealth is inconsequential; the 1st percentile of american households in terms of wealth is somewhere around the 70th percentile worldwide, and above the 99th percentile in India. Whenever you reference relative income or classes in societies that are UNIVERSALLY affluent, you are talking purely about envy and greed. And framing a discussion on envy and greed in the terms that you do is fucking ridiculous.

Why do Republicans love Rand when objectivism is all about the greater good, and they clearly have the priorities of a small group of the super wealthy in mind?

>>1937895

because lower taxes!

ITT: libertarians won't admit actual Marxian socialism is inherently democratic, and Right Libertarianism inherently isn't.

>nyaa personal liberty nyaa

>>1937898
Oh

>>1937893
Democratic is not synonymous and does not necessarily imply good, nor can you assume it is desirable. As Borges said, it's an abuse of statistics. And in many situations it is anti-liberty. If the assurance of liberty requires toning down democracy, so be it. There's no reason to assume competence on the part of "the people"; in fact their record is almost wholly negative.

>>1937829
Just... wow. No. At least read the fucking wikipedia page before you talk about writers that you know nothing of.

>>1937890

>>1937899

The only reason they have for supporting it is because they're a part of the privileged minority. It isn't based in logic, just like no capitalist moralizing is. If someone proposes imposing equivalent taxes on the wealthy, they vote no because 'libertarianism'.

>>1937909
I admit I'm not well-versed in proudhon but I do know thorough and I will fucking bitch slap you if you think he has anything in common with american libertarianism

>>1937909

No, he's right about Proudhon. As for the guy who wrote Walden, it's not like anarchism (and I mean real anarchism) ever had a chance in a country as nationalistic and culturally divisive as America, so fuck him and his bourgeoisie transcendentalist individualism.

Pic related, what real anarchists look like.

HEY YALL NIGGAS BEST LISTEN UP.

The Free market is not good.
Government intervention in the market is not good.


But (Heres the important part homes listen to this shit),

THEY ARENT BAD EITHER.

They are NEUTRAL and wether they are bad or not is DEPENDENT ON THE SITUATION IN WHICH THEY ARE APPLIED.

So stop saying "Hurr durr the free market will fix everything ever and has no flaws at all and if we just get rid of the gubment the free market will make my penis bigger and give everyone a pony."

And stop saying "The free market is the devil because capitialism and making money is evil always and will instantly lead to child slaves lead paint being put in milk jugs"

Youre all retarded. Stop contorting reality to make it fit your dumb fucking abstract economic philosophies. Your libertarian boner for the Free Market is not based on any sort of concrete observation of the world but just on some asshole who wrote X book on why capitalism is dandy and YOUR OWN CONFIRMATION BIAS.

>Something good happens
DURR THE FREE MARKET PROVIDES RON PAUL 2012

>Something bad happenes
HURR IF ONLY THE FREE MARKET WAS AT WORK RON PAUL 2012

Libertarians are dumb, the worlds problems dont magically go away if you leave them alone, stop being 12.

>>1937905
>If the assurance of liberty requires toning down democracy, so be it.

PEOPLE WILL HAVE MORE FREEDOM IF THEY HAVE LESS SAY IN WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES

>There's no reason to assume competence on the part of "the people"; in fact their record is almost wholly negative.

And of course you, being an might randian superman, are not part of "the people".

>Talking politics
>2011

>>1937931
Emma Goldman seemed to think Thoreau was pretty cool. Are you saying Emma Goldman wasn't a "real anarchist," because if so, you can take a huge flying fuck in the direction of off.

>>1937938
>The Free market is not good.
>Government intervention in the market is not good.
It sounds like the market is no good. Maybe that's the problem.

>>1937938

hey bro, I have some disappointing news for you: You just brought centrism to a fight between anarchists, and therefore are every bit as idiotic as the Rand cultists. Capitalism is the consummate economic manifestation of statism. Any class society is a slave society.

And if anything in the world does work out 'on its own,' it'll be because more people begin practicing economic mutualism as the global population continues to grow.

>>1937950
>implying democratically elected rulers is really anything but a mechanism by which a government no more just than any other fools people into thinking they're being heard in any real capacity

>>1937963
*the democratic election of rulers is

(Sorry... half asleep.)

>My view of world's problems and political culture are better than yours : the thread.

>>1937961
NIGGA LEARN TO FUCKING READING COMPREHENSION.

WHAT DID I SAY AFTER THAT FAGGOT? WHAT DID I SAY?

>THEY ARENT BAD EITHER.
>They are NEUTRAL and wether they are bad or not is DEPENDENT ON THE SITUATION IN WHICH THEY ARE APPLIED.

EAT A BILLION DICKS NIGGER

>>1937963
So we should just drop it right now and let John Galt and the other supermen run things.

>>1937960

Goldman is meh. Besides, I was hardly being serious, I just don't care for the man's writing.

>>1937905

>democratic doesn't mean 'good'

Right, if you're a petty, greedy member of a ruling elite it doesn't.

That said, you're not talking to a Marxist. I don't have any particular amount of faith in the proletariat itself. The real challenge facing intellectuals in the 21st century will be to persuade the masses to overcome the psychology of slaves.

>>1937977
>implying all anarchists are capitalists

what is wrong with left social ideals and a free market economy with certain restrictions? such as the restrictions that should have been in place when the oil rigs fucked up?

>>1937974
wow u mad. u the same idiot that's mad about the harry potter thing?
anyways we are talking about different things here. you are talking about whether intervention is good or bad, and im talking about whether the thing that is being intervened with is good or bad.
learn to differentiate... faggot.

>>1937981
Fair enough. Who would you consider along the same lines, but prefer over Goldman?

>property is theft

I've heard this before but how is that so?

>>1937997
Godwin, William

>>1937893
>mfw Marxist socialism and communism is libertarian because it is stateless.

>>1938000
It's just a viewpoint. None of these are actual facts.

>>1938007

I realize that, but I don't understand the viewpoint. Is that implying that like... land belongs to everyone and owning it is theft?

>Democracy
>Not Tyranny of the majority.

>>1938007
Possibly the single most pointless statement ever.

>>1938009
If you are talking land.. here is how it could be viewed. Property is the fruits of ones labor. Since land is not the product of labor it is held in common and by staking off an area and calling it yours, you would be stealing from the common. Now, if all property is theft, HER DFSDJFSDGDSFG FFFUUFFUUULLOLLLSLSLDALSDALSDLASDA, or something along those lines.

Because it makes sense.
However, the government should be involved in all network based things. This is because they give the cooperations the right to take land by force essentially.
All networks should be like the road system in america basically.

>>1937980
>implying any anarchists are capitalists

>>1938021

Jesus, that's fucking ridiculous.

>>1938029
Who are you to tell, fascist ?

>>1938004

yes sir, I'm completely unaware of this statement, true under all circumstances but in the context of anarcho-capitalism.

>>1938021

wait, it occurred to me that maybe "property is robbery" applies not only to land...

so... having personal possessions=robbery as well?

>>1937997

Personally? Bakunin, Kropotkin, Chomsky

>>1937989
>wow u mad

Excellent argument.

>anyways we are talking about different things here. you are talking about whether intervention is good or bad, and im talking about whether the thing that is being intervened with is good or bad.
learn to differentiate... faggot.

Learn to reading comprehension. We are in fact talking about the same thing, youre such an idiot you dont even realize it.

>>1938045
The phrase "property is theft" doesn't refer to personal property, it refers to capital. So land would be included, but not things like beds, tootbrushes, etc.

>>1938047
you haven't said anything new with this post. why did you post at all? just to reiterate?

>>1938055
And you didnt say anything new in your post, just confirm once again that you didnt read my previous post and call me mad.

Actually read my post here >>1937938 and then talk.

>>1938068
sure is summerfag in here

>>1938081
>Call me mad
>Call me a summerfag

You really missed your calling as a lawyer.