/lit/ - Literature

>on a kindle
KEK

>>22195101
>what would be the point of destroying industrial society if you have to squash it down every couple of centuries until the sun goes out?

>What's the point of cleaning my house if it's just going to get dirty again?

So you can live like actual human beings.

>>22195101
he was kind of a retard
read jacques ellul instead

>>22195114
This

>>22195110

Lets say you strive to overthrow the system
you will likely not live to see to its destruction
then your children/grandchildren will live in a turbulent time post collapse
all for the faint promise that at some point some distant descendant of yours will be "free"

and then the cycle will repeat
meaning you will only secure a window of freedom for SOME of your distant relatives

seriously, I am being retarded here? the system cannot be reformed or destroyed indefinitely, at some point it will either mold humanity to its needs or will just consume centuries of human effort to suppress it

and we are already at the point where AI is a serious consideration rather than science fiction, so the system might just figure itself out before it can collapse under its own weight anyway

so unless a solar flare fucks all electronics we are heading for the worst case scenario Ted had in mind when he decided to chimp out and mail bombs to people

>>22195101
Technological Slavery should get rid of those questions, are you a zoomer and need a quick answer instead?

>>22195101
I read somewhere that we've depleted all of the easy to access fossil fuels and that if industrial society collapses we won't have the means to extract the remaining fuel required to kickstart it back up again.

>>22195101
Technological slavery is just ATR+ISAIF and a collection of letters he wrote, but those letters are pretty good. He talks about his mental state in the woods and how he could focus intensely on every sound and use all of his instincts when hunting small game. IIRC he also wrote about wanting to represent himself in court because the warrant to search his shack was invalid and all the evidence connecting him to the bombings should have been thrown out.

I've never read ATR all the way through but I've read ISAIF probably 8 or 10 times at this point. Everytime I read i'm amazed by how on point he was, and a new line sticks out at me.

>>22195311
It would take mass effort and unreal cohesion of people at every level to re-align the global supply chains which hold our current world afloat. The population would necessarily have to re-delegate themselves to certain castes and toil away for resources.

>rants about leftism
>his "power process" is just what Marx had already described as alienation
what did he mean by this

>>22195101
>feels like he isn't living like a real human
>didn't have a gf
many such cases

>>22195114
Read Ludwig Klages instead.

>>22195171
>Lets say
By the same "logic" there's no point preventing contamination of water, nuclear pollution, pollution, etc. This is just a normalcy bias where whatever has not yet been fixed you argue it would be too much bother to even try. Or a slave mentality where you just agree with whatever happens to exist around you at the present moment. Either way, shut that mouth of yours and don't impede people.

>>22195110
MEH gotta agree with the above idiot on basic principle anyway. Partly the critique is cast asif it were a utopianistic thing (partly it is) but that'snot to say that the critique itself isn't accurate.

My only complaint with Ted is this,
>>22195101
>he had leftists nailed
as if psychology only applies to one contemporary political faction. It's a common intellectual flaw observed in people in all groups; pretending it only applies to one lot of idiots is not actionable as it doesn't result in you overcoming the intellectual flaw in yourself and thus being unable to actually utilize the information to improve yourself or your society. Which makes you useless.

>>22195101
>are his other books worth a read?
I think so. Primarily I think Anti-Tech Revolution is interesting because in it he develops what is probably his real, most profound contributions: that man has nearly no agency over his path through history, that cultural evolution and the course of history is guided by purely Darwinian principles and human reason, want and desire have no place in it. I do not recall if he explicitly says this in ATR but that is the real message of the first part of it. Even if you do not end up agreeing with him (I do, largely, for what it is worth) it is such an abjectly grim proposition that I think it is worth entertaining.
>what would be the point of destroying industrial society if you have to squash it down every couple of centuries until the sun goes out?
There is good reason to believe that in that all of the low hanging fruit of easy-to-access cheap energy (ie mineral coal surface deposits) are long gone, the stepping stones to get back to where we are are gone for good. Even today the amount of energy required to access fossil fuels is slowly but inexorably rising and socalled 'renewables' could never sustain themselves let alone allow for the massive growth of industrial economy.

>>22195811
>(ie mineral coal surface deposits) are long gone, the stepping stones to get back to where we are are gone for good. Even today the amount of energy required to access fossil fuels is slowly but inexorably rising and socalled 'renewables' could never sustain themselves let alone allow for the massive growth of industrial economy.
late stage capitalism

For centuries, quite literally, humans have proposed alternatives to this meat-grinder of raw materials to produce disposable garbage, but the notion of capitalism itself (get money, sell garbage, sell more garbage) is incompatible with conservation or even maintenance. If this stopped and if built-to-last came in instead then all of those jobs would disappear and not be replaced by anything lol - it would take a massive global war to actually stop what's going on and the total annihilation of all world powers.


Also you'd be shocked to know how much energy the internet requires to keep going. I did the maths on this once, in terms oil barrels per day it worked out at something like the total annual use of a large european nation.

i.e. we're quite literally bleeding the planet dead in order to provide new dresses for women and speedy access to cat gifs.

>>22195114
Having read both I do not think that Ellul really offers anything other than the most cursory and limited analysis. People like to big-dick on the internet by trashing TK in favor of this Frenchman and he is certainly superior literature. I am not going to say reading him (The Technological Society, Propaganda) was a waste of time but it was more akin to reading poetry than history. And for all their length I am not certain I am much or any better for them. One never sees any one summarizing him and I think it is for good reason.
This is not to say that TK has written the real pièce de résistance on these matters. I feel that has yet to be written and must engage the specific technological and demographic (must touch on the ideas related in Revolt of the Masses) realities which catalyzed us into where we are today and as well must expound a specific theory of history which accounts for the idea
>that man has nearly no agency over his path through history

>>22195101
>what would be the point of destroying industrial society if you have to squash it down every couple of centuries until the sun goes out?
Because Ted was concerned with practical solutions, not pie in the sky utopian dreams. Sure you can sit around making excuses not to fix society because "but, like, it doesn't fix everything forever maaaaan" or you can blow shit up and make the world better right fucking now.

>>22195862
>late stage capitalism
A meaningless phrase that shows you're talking to a cultist.

>>22195905
Hard agree.

>>22195905

imagine changing one techno-industrial master for another haha
...unless?

>>22195905
I do not understand how that phrase became the meme that it is. It seems that people use it when they don't want to or cannot explain or analyze something precisely. It was tailor made to be followed by an eyeroll emoji.
Additionally, I can never understand the tacit implication that an industrial production society managed directly by the state or more 'democratically' or whatever anti-capitalists want would be any less horrific.

>>22195114
>read jacques ellul instead
>"I believe nothing can be understood without dialectical analysis."
lol

>>22195905
>>22195915
that's cute, it simply recalls that this outcome was predicted by Stalin and ignored by the west (and the successors of Stalin) as far back as the 1930's,

e.g. at that time Roosevelt was doing some good things, state funded public works created most of the nice things in America for example, but he wasn't able to address or remedy the causes of why his state-intervention was necessary as the financial class would oppose those remedies; thus it was the financial class themselves who were insisting on maintaining the anarchy of capitalism.

That you still find it comfortable to ignore the reality of the situation demonstrates why your society is incapable of extricating itself and at the same time why it doesn't matter; let the drug addict die in a ditch if he refuses to help then go to his house and clean it up.

>>22195862
>>22195811
Shocking how people will go to great lengths to read about alternative systems of government or economies before they actually try to understand how basic capitalism works.
When one method of production or one resource becomes prohibitively expensive, the market adapts. People won't just keep banging their heads against the wall buying oil if at some point it becomes more expensive to get it as compared to an alternative.
Secondly, practically no developed country in the world is pure laissez-faire capitalist. Essentially every single one has introduced thing like price controls to do things like affect incentives or wealth distribution. Saying that capitalism will inevitably lead to X is a pointless argument most of the time since practically no country is purely capitalist.

>>22195934
>I do not understand how that phrase became the meme that it is
it's propaganda; it accurately refers to this: >>22195961 and so of course it's been maligned before you've even heard of it.

Sort of like how a leader seeking World Peace has already been maligned in advance by the Christians as being Satan.

>>22195808
>Either way, shut that mouth of yours and don't impede people.

no
stopping pollution of a river has a visible, tangible effect
stopping "the system" so it wont pollute in the first place (and wont do so ever again) is a big ask to say the least

>>22195967
Not sure why you responded to >>22195811
As I was not addressing the merits of 'capitalism' and am quite indifferent to it. I imagine you were referring to my comment about surface coal but your response is completely immaterial to what I was saying. My point isn't some peak-oil 'if trends continue' nonsense. It is that there could be a situation where, after a collapse of some kind, industrial society could not get its bearings again because of an unavailability of cheap energy sources. Cheap energy is not an historical constant, you know.
As an aside, I think this is pretty interesting reading
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/
>>22195969
Is the implication here that Stalinism or total state control/whatever is some sort of solution to the problems of industrial production as outlined by the author indicated in the OP? I am unsure how your comments are germane to the topic of the thread.

>>22195998
>(and wont do so ever again)
*or

whatever you get what I mean nigga

>>22195967
>When one method of production or one resource becomes prohibitively expensive, the market adapts.
I used to believe this as well until the bail-outs and the reality that the corporate owners ignore the market entirely; forcing their unwanted movies, songs and videogames and books, etc. ..... and then I learned about capitalism itself where the impetus to making money actually means introducing a shortage of goods in order to inflate the value of your worthless goods and preventing production, which would lower the value of your goods. It's a simple thing; hence constant inflation and currency debasement.

> People won't just keep banging their heads against the wall buying oil if at some point it becomes more expensive to get it as compared to an alternative.
They will and they are, they have no other choice. You need your car to go to work. You need to buy that (garbage) to impress your partner. You need to buy that suit ti fit in with your colleagues. You need to take out a massive loan to pay off a worthless piece of property. You need to do all of these things or you won't fit in.

The problem of thinking here is that we think the market will adapt but the market doesn't matter anymore; the largest companies, bailed out by tax money when they fail, will insist in doing whatever they please; running a business like a personal or ideological pet project, and ignoring their failures (if massive personal profit for themselves can be considered a failure) whilst dragging the host nation deeper into the gutter over the decades they remain in business.

Outsourced production, for instance, means that you have very expensive goods so that the government can tax these goods. If the price of the goods fell it would be called a disaster because the jobs couldn't be maintained and the government couldn't pay its employees with the revenues.


>purely capitalist
Well capitalism, technically, refers to the buying and selling of stock. It has nothing to do with actual production. Hence why speculation was considered illegal in previous centuries, for the obvious reason that it undermines the currency and production power of the host Nation.

>>22196001
>Is the implication here that Stalinism or total state control/whatever is some sort of solution to the problems of industrial production as outlined by the author indicated in the OP?
Yeah, basically - although minus the Marxism. A nation is the only legitimate company, after all, and it enables democratic reform. A private company has no such mechanisms and has an incentive which runs contrary to production power.

>>22195998
>stopping pollution of a river has a visible, tangible effect
stopping the promulgation of mental illness via inefficient cultures has an even greater visible tangible effect.

>stopping "the system" so it wont pollute in the first place (and wont do so ever again) is a big ask to say the least
it would be a big ask not to throw those barrels of nuclear waste into the river!

>>22195967
>>When one method of production or one resource becomes prohibitively expensive, the market adapts.
contd. >>22196024
This is true to an extent, I should say, we're living through this at the moment and it's a good lesson in how things slowly turn to shit in globalism,

So, the price on peanut butter goes up from 2.50 to 5.00, nobody buys this. The price goes up even more to compensate. Even fewer people buy this. The company who produces the peanut butter holds a monopoly on the production and sourcing of the goods, they won't let anybody make it cheaper. The company realizes that they can make more money by selling the sourced materials for other things; vegetable oil. Useful for fuel. Peanut butter slowly disappears from the shelves.

>>22196031
A nation as company will be subject to the exact same pressures as private industry: competition and predation. Drives towards greater efficiency, yields and control will necessarily continue unabated. Demand for greater 'quality of life' from the populace will continue. All of this necessarily results in the need to control the expectations and opinions of the masses and continually extract more value form their labor. That so-called socialist and so-called capitalist countries have largely converged on a sort state-centered techno-managerialism tells us all we need to know about 'political solutions'.

>>22196031
>A nation is the only legitimate company, after all
Sounds like sophistry.

>>22195967
This guy get's it.
Hayek was only wrong about monopolies.

>>22196118
lol a slave defends his filthy stupid master

Yeah, a nation 'is' the only legitimate company. You pay taxes because you're a shareholder, the democratic process is you sitting on the board of shareholders and directors arguing your case to why the money should be spent here or there. Since you can't stop being a shareholder and since you and every other group are entirely subject to the decisions of the directors of the state you have a far greater impetus to take it seriously and be adult about it.

e.g. "you have a republic if you can keep it,"

>>22196094
>A nation as company will be subject to the exact same pressures as private industry: competition and predation. Drives towards greater efficiency, yields and control will necessarily continue unabated. Demand for greater 'quality of life' from the populace will continue.
Mostly agreed, except that obviously the democracy controls the thing entirely so that quality of life thing is actionable. The predation-competition is also removed from the equation as the company runs on taxes to produce or fulfill a specific non-profit service, since it's bills are paid it can focus entirely on fulling the function. Having a business fill in for this "hopefully it will get the trains running, take care of patients in a hospital" necessitates the profit motive at the expense of the function itself.

e.g. if you're American your tax money already paid for the nuclear plants to be built, for the uranium and plutonium to be mined, or for the roads to be built, etc. so you own these already, you're a shareholder in those things, except you're obviously not treated like a shareholder since the profits are held by someone else and you're charged exorbitantly for the use of these things. A third party has come between you and your property.

>>22196065
Good. Do we really need peanut butter? Do swedes really need to be able to eat bananas and mangoes? Pure luxury.
Also why are we pretending as if the end of the industrial society won't result in some modern Medieval warlord dominated world?

>>22196190
>Yeah, a nation 'is' the only legitimate company.
Yeah, sophistic garbage. Why does its legitimacy matter? Your state doesn't give a fuck about you, they'll inevitably see you as another faceless urbanite who's existence revolves around the economy regardless of how you cope.

>>22196205
Stop paying taxes then, like Ted said. And good luck with that.

>Your state doesn't give a fuck about you, they'll inevitably see you as another faceless urbanite
Te difference is that a corporate third party already dos not and has no reason to consider you as anything but this already, whereas the state is designed for you; must listen to you (unless the bedrock laws are one day totally ignored) and its laws supersede anything else. If you don't like X company you have a means to proscribe it and have its people hanged.

The large problem here with western corporations is that the governments legally 'cannot' fuck you up by denying you your rights, but they want to, so they use third party groups to accomplish it - with questionable legality, e.g. youtube censors your freedom of speech, the government itself cannot.


>>22196197
>Good. Do we really need peanut butter?
Do you really need shoes or a roof over your head? Sounds like you're going to be quite happy eating the cricket paste lol

>>22196223
>putting bananas and peanut butter on the same importance level as shoes and a roof
ok senpai

>>22196205
>> You pay taxes because you're a shareholder, the democratic process is you sitting on the board of shareholders and directors arguing your case to why the money should be spent here or there. Since you can't stop being a shareholder and since you and every other group are entirely subject to the decisions of the directors of the state you have a far greater impetus to take it seriously and be adult about it.
how is this sophistry?

>>22196231
if anything the roof is more subject to this decline; why would a property owner rent a house to one tenant if he could kick you out and make 8x as much by renting the rooms to foreign labor? can your barista wage compete with 8x laborers?

your barista wage is the same as the peanut butter; it's a fundamental line in the sand where tolerable civilization is defined.

>>22196223
>Te difference is that a corporate third party already dos not and has no reason to consider you as anything but this already, whereas the state is designed for you; must listen to you
This is nonsense, where does it necessitate a state care about your interests in a manner a corporation does not? If you're going to argue that Capitalism only allows for artificially instilled demand then I see no reason I should take you seriously when a functioning economy-driven state can and will do just that.
>>22196236
I don't care for autistic semantical arguments about legitimacy when the problems with Capitalism are more obvious than corporations vs governments.

>>22196250
Nice way to try and belittle me. You really are here for a discussion and not to personally attack your interlocutor. My point was that we were able to build shoes and roofs before globalisation. So we don't actually need unnecessary luxury items like bananas in places where bananas don't grow.
My wage is just fine as is yours I hope

>>22196254
>This is nonsense, where does it necessitate a state care about your interests in a manner a corporation does not?
...
Why do you have the right to vote and enter office? Do you even know?

> I see no reason I should take you seriously when a functioning economy-driven state can and will do just that.
It's not a matter of opinion, half of the world operates on state owned companies and the benefits of this to the citizenry speak for themselves: the Arab Emirates have state-run oil and their citizens literally have free houses built for them and money given to them as a monthly paycheck regardless of whether they're working or not (probably the best example of what i'm talking about on the basic level), England and its NHS means you aren't bankrupted if you fall over or get cancer, Chinas state-controlled capitalism speaks for itself in the public works projects all over that place (hundreds of millions lifted out of poverty through state-backed businesses being established each year)..

..and the only reason many families in America are barely able to make ends meet or have houses today is trough their grandparents and Roosevelts introduction of social security.

>>22196289
>bro just kill and pollute the World so you can consoooooom
Yeah you're a bugman.

>>22196272
I'm baffled that your quality of life has already fallen to the extent that you see basic food as a luxury good lol - i don't you're serious basically, or that you're doing a major cope as your society has half-collapsed.

>do swedish people NEED bananas?!

What did you mean about medieval warlords btw? Do you think you'd fare well in that scenario?

>>22196301
err... why are you responding if you're not reading properly?
>> just kill and pollute the World so you can consoooooom
>ur a bugman
nothing i've said has resembled this

>>22196254
> autistic semantical arguments
AKA basic shit you should have learned in school about what a government is and how it operates. sad.

>>22196302
My quality of life is probably better than yours, thank you. Eating bananas in a country far far away from where they grow isn't basic food... I don't know how detached from reality you are to think that way.
How is it my society? Are you living off the grid?
Nope, I'd probably fare as badly as you would my dear. Doesn't change the fact that this scenario is more likely to happen than us coming together in a commune and sing kumbaya.

>>22196315
>nothing i've said has resembled this
If you defend China then you are a neurotic urbanite subhuman that sees China's 1.5 billion human population as a good thing and not an aberration of the highest order. If you can't even understand how you're a cuck for Capitalism then that's on you.

>>22196272
>warlords
I mean, I already know how to produce lots of nice things and it can be accomplished really quickly, and my soldiers paid very well and made very loyal and trained very proficiently, by rounding up people like you and living off the product.

You have a lot of reasons, in reality, to not let it get to that point. Cherish your democracy and save it, or we'll do it the hard way. I'm not going without my peanut butter either way.

>>22196320
>my dear
Oh forgive me, breeding-stock, I thought I was talking to a young boy.

That's actually far worse if - ... actually, no that's far better if you as a Woman are realizing that petty consumerism is not wonderful. Keep at it.

>>22196323
errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm i don't know how to respond to this; i'm literally giving reasons why state-production is DEMONSTRABLY SHOWN TO BE FAR SUPERIOR (i.e. much better) than anarchic capitalism and you're all like "UR A KEK FOR CAPITALISM - BECAUSE COMMUNIST CHINA!"

Just where does your loyalty lie, citizen? To the band of foreign pirates or to your god-given noble lord and his generous democracy he has entrusted you with?

>>22196346
Lol wut? You think I'm a woman because I called you dear?
At least I'm fully aware of what a waste of space and air you are.

>>22196346
>errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm i don't know how to respond to this; i'm literally giving reasons why state-production is DEMONSTRABLY SHOWN TO BE FAR SUPERIOR (i.e. much better) than anarchic capitalism and you're all like "UR A KEK FOR CAPITALISM - BECAUSE COMMUNIST CHINA!"
That's not relevant to the argument I'm making. You either side with the Earth or you take pride in being an atomized tranny urbanite faggot like you're doing right now.

>>22196323
>(dying of cancer in a ditch)
>n-no *coughs blood* saving my life w-would be s-socialism

me: my expression turns grim. i wonder who has done this to my people.

>>22196360
>needs excellent health care to support the billions of niggers you brought into this world through economic prosperity
Yeah this is why I think you're evil.

>>22196355
>That's not relevant to the argument I'm making. You either side with the Earth or you take pride in being an atomized tranny urbanite faggot like you're doing right now.
What a fucking weird chain of thought you have. Declaring me to be saying the opposite of what I've been saying and adding pejoratives to the mix.

explain how you arrived at this conclusion from anything that was said? and bear in mind you asked me for examples of state-production doing better than capitalism and I gave you these examples.

>>22196353
>You think I'm a woman because I called you dear?
>At least I'm fully aware of what a waste of space and air you are.
you should talk to the above guy, he wants to meet trannies.

Look, do you have any real responses to the topic or not? You've declared peanut butter to be a luxury good and ignored the case given you about how companies are operating today; i.e. why prices are up, which you're resorting to ad homimen over, >>22196065 and you've also said that you desire to be a slave (re: warlords).

I think we arrived from this point: >>22195808 or maybe that was someone else, where you said that there's no point solving the problems

>>22196374
If you think treating the illnesses of people is evil then you definitely belong in an asylum or a prison.

ask me how I know you're a product of propaganda

>>22196001
No you're right, nothing I said had any bearing on your post.

>>22196024
I'm sorry but I can't read this post and not think that my post was correct and you don't completely understand capitalism. For what it's worth, economics is incredibly complex and I think most people on the planet don't fully appreciate that. Not that I have a complete grasp on it either.

I think what you're trying to get at is that companies play outside the traditional rules of capitalism primarily through government interference in bail-outs. Firstly, understand that bail-outs are very uncommon. Everyone points to 2008 banks as the prime example but that's going to be an exception since the Fed was staring down the collapse of the entire U.S monetary system. If Disney were to go bankrupt tomorrow, nobody would bail them out because they're not a systemically important company. I can't think of another industry off the top of my head that is nearly as systemically important as banking. Banking is the exception. For that matter, it wouldn't even be a huge deal if 1 or 2 banks collapsed. It was the fact that several of the largest banks in the world all at once were in trouble at the same time.

I know that you'll say that their failure highlights a problem with incentives inherent in capitalism since they were incentivized to chase what we now know are risky assets over security, with the knowledge that they would be bailed out. The idea that banks' interests might be adverse to the depositors' is not new. It's not even a problem unique to capitalism. Any economic system in which one institution is relied upon to both store money and lend it will run into the same issue since investment will practically always be incentivized, whether private or public. The way this was traditionally dealt with was with high reserve requirements. That way if the economy tanks for whatever reason, people will always be able to withdrawal their money.
If this isn't a problem unique to capitalism, then I see no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Point your anger at the shitass fed instead. Especially considering that one of their primary duties is to oversee the banking industry anyways, which they clearly failed miserably at.

>>22196394
>What a fucking weird chain of thought you have. Declaring me to be saying the opposite of what I've been saying and adding pejoratives to the mix.
I'm pointing out that your idea that corporate fueled consumption being intrinsically inferior to a people-minded one when they both serve the exact same purpose of allowing for useless, excessive consumption to take place is fucking retarded and a pointless distinction to make when the real problem is that you allow for the means of production to proliferate on this scale in these systems to begin with.
>explain how you arrived at this conclusion from anything that was said?
That you're an urbanite technophile? That was obvious.
>and bear in mind you asked me for examples of state-production doing better than capitalism and I gave you these examples.
I did not ask this. "Doing better" is in mind the issue.
>>22196399
>If you think treating the illnesses of people is evil then you definitely belong in an asylum or a prison.
If you think that creating an entire demographic of superfluous men dependent entirely on technological society because you HECKIN' love Capitalism is intrinsically a moral good because it supports the means of production to help distract these same useless pseudo-men your society has allowed to produce en masse then you should get your skull violently smashed over the curb with a tire iron.
>ask me how I know you're a product of propaganda
That I'm not a spiritual jew like you which filters your confirmation bias.

>>22196419
*is in my mind

>>22196394
>I think we arrived from this point
nope but nice schizo.
Not tranny friendly either but you sound very insecure with your sexuality.
>you've also said that you desire to be a slave
never claimed this, how nice of you to try and do a Cathy Newman.
You are confusing me with some other retard ITT.
My point was that apart from a few issues like monopolies our system isn't that bad for now and all we need to do is tone done on a few frivolous good (peanut butter for example).
I know you hate my guts but please try to at least stay intellectually honest instead of insulting and belittle me.

>>22196424
>our system isn't that bad for now
Oh look another mechanized technophile urbanite that worships progress.

We are reaching the point of no return, where the power elite will have the tech to mind control you, or just kill you, while they will be completely unassailable and no hope of revolt will remain. Ray kurweil and yuval harari have written plently, they are giddy with excitement for when you will be a compete cyborg slave.

>>22196411
>I'm sorry but I can't read this post and not think that my post was correct and you don't completely understand capitalism.
I could just say the same thing and have the normalcy bias on my side, it's not particularly interesting. I gave proofs of how 'capitalism - free markets' is counter-to-production and how "the market will fix it" doesn't exist anymore.

My argument, if you want to change my mind, rests upon...
1) the stock principle where that (as we can demonstrate) a company will make more money by not producing goods so that the value of their already held goods increases.
(again, capitalism 'is' this and nothing more: it is the buying and selling of perceived value in a company; i.e. lit. speculative trading)
2) "the market" itself (and arguably this is really an argument against private monopolies) is demonstrated in various sectors to completely ignore the public; entertainment and press, most obviously, where the public gets what they're given and are coerced and bullied into declaring it to be lovely and interesting.
2.1) however 'many' companies fall into this bin; being interwoven by design with states because they 'give jobs' to the public, the government intervention is to flatten the ineffective models and produce effective industries but prop-up those preexisting businesses - so it's not just about 2008 or 2006 or 2004 or 2009 (or any other of these flatlines).
> It was the fact that several of the largest banks in the world all at once were in trouble at the same time.
2.2) yes, globalism and tariffs on overseas production is the system.

>I know that you'll say that their failure highlights a problem with incentives inherent in capitalism
not necessarily, state-production or state-owned is demonstrated to prevent these failures from occurring; oversight with aim in mind vs. quick profit w/ no care for the long term. At the first premise though, 1), the profit-stock capitalism is understood and demonstrated as simply not being an efficient model of production 'as' the incentive 'to' produce is secondary to the incentive to profiteer from the preheld goods.

To put all of this in context, I think Teds critiques of (most things) are accurate and valid, but that these problems he laments as being impossible to ever overcome actually could be overcome if the state took control or or reformatted many of these profit-seeking models that pass as businesses.

> Point your anger at the shitass fed instead.
That's another example of a private company being given control over a fucking really vital public organ. It's called the 'federal reserve' but I'm sure we both know it's not a government entity.
>. Especially considering that one of their primary duties is to oversee the banking industry anyways, which they clearly failed miserably at.
absolutely agree lol

The question of technology:

>shit-tier theory
Ted Kaczynski
>mid-tier theory
Martin Heidegger
>high-tier theory
Jacques Ellul
>god-tier theory
Emanuele Severino

>>22196419
>That you're an urbanite technophile? That was obvious.
Not really - I'm not "against tech" - holy shit, ... you've adopted the critique 'of' Ted, Ted doesn't say this. Have you even read any of his books? I say this QUITE SERIOUSLY

ok, to the real point we're both interested in
>I'm pointing out that your idea that corporate fueled consumption being intrinsically inferior
I'm just being realistic: we 'can' control a government we cannot control a corporation unless through a government. If you're serious about stopping the bad things then you need to understand how to accomplish that, i.e. via government.

>the real problem is that you allow for the means of production to proliferate on this scale in these systems to begin with.
There's no other alternative. How do you propose we build space fleets in 2300 if we've ditched our entire mechanized industry? There's no reason we should stop any advancement, but allowing those advancements to go on in unknown private sector hands is king for trouble. ALL of the problems Ted describes is (re: industry n tech) is caused by private sector and non-accountability and the introduction of things to the public which are untested and unknown and produce awful consequences. Especially thinking og things like massive mental health epidemics due to the introduction of bizarre yet harmless technology, I could give you essays about this for things like facebook or television news; the negative consequence I was saying is like having the nice nuclear plant and NOT REALIZING that ground contamination even exists.

>you HECKIN' love Capitalism is intrinsically a moral good
not even close - I'm giving strongest possible arguments 'against' capitalism lol
> an entire demographic of superfluous men
this is inhuman and relative - all people are considered superfluous already, I'm trying to make you not be.
>I'm not a spiritual jew like you
look if I put on a bishops robe and told you all this would you agree with it and go along with me? I'll do that if you like.


>>22196424
not to skip giving you attention, but you've been rude so.. here:
much of (my replies to the above guy/s) can be said to you as well. I think we were talking about the same things anyway.

>I know you hate my guts
ngga i dont even know you, i know you hate peanut buttr and called me a dear, that's about it

>>22196580
ed. whoops
>, the government intervention is to flatten the ineffective models and produce effective industries but prop-up those preexisting businesses
, the government intervention is -NOT- to flatten the ineffective models and produce effective industries but prop-up those preexisting businesses
PRETTY VITAL DISTINCTION THAR

>>22195101
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/ted-kaczynski
I read all the books and they're good here is the library for free

>>22195101
Anti tech revolution is interesting. I’m sad he’s dead I wish he could have published more.

>>22196580
>>22196658
>it was demonstrated
You keep saying that, but you haven't demonstrated anything at all. Half of what your posts are straight up nonsense. I'm not gonna go through and nitpick each and every piece of your word soup though because I'm not a professor grading a paper, I was hoping to have an intelligent discussion.

The one thing I'll correct you on is your definition of capitalism. It's not "buying and selling of perceived value" or whatever you're trying to say. It's an economic system i.e. a philosophy for how people should exchange goods and services. Saying that it's "the stock principle" or anything else is completely nonsensical. That's like saying communism is public services or something. That just doesn't make sense. At best, it describes something that might be part of the economic system, it's not a definition.
Capitalism is really an economic system defined by private ownership of property, private ownership of the means of production, and markets free from government interference. That's why in my original post I said that there are practically no truly capitalist countries nowadays, since they've all introduced controls in their markets, either for better or for worse.

Secondly, everything you said was already addressed in the post you replied to. Again, state-owned banks will run into the same incentive problem as private banks because the issue at its core comes from facilitating investment and nothing to do with profit motives. All economies need investment to grow, regardless of who owns the means of production.

I will no longer be replying to this post because I don't feel like you've adequately challenged my opinions.

>>22196593
Ellul fucking sucks. He says nothing of value. All he gives is a taxonomy of the modern state of things, and barely anything of the historical 'why is it like this' and even less of 'what spheres of action are open to us.'

>>22197556
>You keep saying that, but you haven't demonstrated anything at all.
wow that pissed me off more than it had any right to.

> Half of what your posts are straight up nonsense.
> word soup
> though because I'm not a professor grading a paper,
> I was hoping to have an intelligent discussion.
> I don't feel like you've adequately challenged my opinions.
fucking rude. fucking dumb also.

What am I doing when I'm writing something for you to read? MAKING A CASE. Can't you follow what's being said, shitbrain? You're a baby.

>Secondly, everything you said was already addressed in the post you replied to. Again, state-owned banks will run into the same incentive problem as private banks because
>(just ignores entire case and proofs and simply repeats he what said)
Hahaha you fucking retard
You have no arguments and you lose.


>The one thing I'll correct you on is your definition of capitalism.
oh this should be funny
>It's not "buying and selling of perceived value" or whatever you're trying to say. It's an economic system i.e. a philosophy for how people should exchange goods and services. Saying that it's "the stock principle" or anything else is completely nonsensical.
Holy fucking jesus. CAPITAL-ISM IS THE MOVEMENT OF "CAPITAL". It's not some philosophy...or even a "system" for that matter ... as nobody invented it. It's just the inherited habit of a couple of centuries of short-selling since Speculative Trading was legitimized. That's all that 'capitalism' is. You're coming from a century of cow-brain cold war propaganda, obviously, so your ignorance of this and your belief that it's something formalized and logical has to be forgiven.

>markets free from government interference. That's why in my original post I said that there are practically no truly capitalist countries nowadays, since they've all introduced controls in their markets, either for better or for worse.
Wow it's a shame you couldn't understand what I already I said about that, here: >>22196580 >>22196289 turns out that you agree with me that 'capitalism' doesn't work and requires state-control to work prosperously and state-intervention, in lieu of top-down control, to prevent the economic profligacy from wrecking everything all at once.

And that's how we got to >>22195862 Stalins comment on Roosevelt, which is where you waddled with your chinese made yankee flag on your Styrofoam burger, blubberguts, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNtJUX1AgJc


anyways
>I will no longer be replying
good call. You need to do a lot of learning before you can talk to me without making me want to smash your face in for being dumb.

>>22195101
>he had leftists nailed all the way back in 1995
yeah thats cause theyve always existed and theyve always been harping on the same shit and they just pretend their ideas are revolutionary and new
1984 didn't "predict" shit either. they were always there

>>22195101
Did you know leftist existed before 1995? Why are chuds so incredibly impressed with themselves.

22197906
terrible bait

>>22195377
He quotes a lot of Marxist literature and ideas in his letters

>>22197906
>comes into thread only to throw an incel tantrum about "chuds"

Why are you like this?

>>22199091
Why are chuds?

>>22195101
H