/lit/ - Literature

capitalism

best critique is of course Marx's and all the advances on marxist theory since then

>>3138043
This.

Bracing for stormfags

I think people are too privileged. I think they don't use their brains enough. I see people who have never talked about politics ever arguing over the election like they know everything about it. It's some form of entitlement in which people believe they know everything because they know how to google. It's a side effect of the age of information.

Humanism

visible in the eyes of each young person is a spirit utterly vapid

>>3138035
Pacification, anti-intellectualism, and everything that was wrong with Western society at every other point where the people weren't getting fucked by disease or barbarism.

itt: tumblr

>>3138048
too many criticisms to count. Red White & Black by Wilderson is an interesting one though

>>3138055
>>3138046
They're here.

The fact that humility isn't seen as the highest of all virtues.

>>3138106
Arrogance on the part of the meritorious is even more offensive to us than the arrogance of those without merit: for merit itself is offensive.

Nietzsche

-most important problem with society today
Monetary structure.
-best criticism of modern society
"money as debt" videos (although I have different opinion then the ending as to the best solution given at the end of the third video)

>>3138047
What this guy said.

I think people have too much. When people have too much, they get greedy, and they want more and more. It happened in a Sociology study of these two tribes (the Arapesh and the Mundugumor). The Mundugumor lived in a better climate, so they had more resources, but because of that, they got greedy and became a very hostile tribe. The Arapesh didn't live in a very desirable climate, so they had to work together to get what they needed to thrive. As a result, they are very gentle and loving.

But humanity is in too deep. We've grown to be greedy people, and we can't fix it because... well... we don't want to. We want to fix the bad repercussions that come from living in a greedy society, but we still want the items and materials that have made us greedy.

And what has greed done to us? It's made the wealth in this country distribute very unevenly because the rich are keeping it for themselves, and will do anything to generate more wealth for themselves. This is where all of the major problems in the country have stemmed from (or, the political and humanitarian ones). It all stems from greed. If we didn't have greed, we would all be more giving, the wealth in this country would be redistributed, and everyone would be able to survive and live comfortably.


Call this edgy or whatever, just throwing my opinions out there.

There's no culture. working is shown as the meaning/purpose of life. So I guess you could say capitalism

>>3138047
>I think people are too privileged

The apocalypse is not something which is coming. The apocalypse has arrived in major portions of the planet and it’s only because we live within a bubble of incredible privilege and social insulation that we still have the luxury of anticipating the apocalypse. If you go to Bosnia or Somalia or Peru or much of the third-world then it appears that the apocalypse has already arrived.

Instant gratification

>>3138134

>There's no culture.

A lot of the West has forgotten just how important tradition can be. My own family included.

It's a shame, really. It's an important aspect of community that we've just done away with.

The war on drugs must end.

Objectivism, in any sense

>>3138049
>visible in the eyes of each person

Fix'd

Narcissism.
It all roots from the utterly unnecessary self-adoration grown from absolutely nothing but the need to please only ones' self.

>>3138047
>>3138051
>>3138106
>>3138114
>>3138123
>>3138133
>>3138144
>>3138186

People who think that they see the fundamental problem with society in others (and somehow, mysteriously, not themselves) are the problem with society.

>>3138224
lmfao retard u just called urself the problem with society

>>3138133
This doesn't seem right to me. Why is there a stereotype of poor inner-city people beating the shit out of each other for resources?

>>3138224

Nice denial, keep pretending that the problems aren't even there.

You're a joke.

>>3138035
M–C…P…C'–M'

>>3138043
No. Imagine a capitalist society---only every single individual in that society is extremely altruistic. Products would all be made for the satisfaction of everyone else, rather than just making money.

>>3138224 My nigga!

>>3138224
>>3138254

samefag

>>3138233
>200 years ago in Haiti
>anon is a slave
>"Guys, our life isn't that fucking bad. Holy shit, you guys are just entitled little babies."

>>3138035
>By that I mean, what do you think is the best criticism of modern society?

>>3138233 The problems are everywhere. People by their very nature are imperfect. You are just angry that he's making a point that implicates everyone as the problem and not just one person or persons.

The lack of ethics that comes with a heavy media, consumerist capitalist society. Consume, don't think, don't educate, don't work, just consume. Aka a hell of a lot of complacency.

>>3138230
that's called communism

The problem is simple. People aren't perfect, so on a long enough timeline the problems compound until bad things happen.

Society is its own problem. So some of us come to answers like anarchy, but that isn't it. It has no answer, other then not having people. And as we are people, that's not much of an answer at all.

Buddhas idea of desire being the root of all evil is quite good, but enlightenment is impossible, even for him. Need is the origin of desire, and it's built into our DNA. You can't escape it. People just handing you food doesn't solve the problem.

>>3138179
This. The Brave New World shows this pretty well

Pride in ignorance.

>>3138043

9/10, almost thought you were serious until you same fagged:

>>3138046

>>3138230

that's communism you n00b. look into what marxists call 'use-value' vs. 'exchange-value'

>>3138228
Well, a stereotype is an oversimplified idea that many people have about a certain group. A stereotype isn't completely true, it's people making generalizations with little knowledge.

But if it is true, then it depends. Are these people about to die if they don't get said resources, or do they have enough to survive on but still want more? If it's the former, then good question. I guess their instincts kick in and they'd do anything to obtain what they need to survive. For the most part, I don't know. If it's the latter, then they're doing that because they feel entitled to have more. They're bad people, and even with very little, they still get greedy. The basic necessities are too much for them. They don't know how to value it, because they're just bad people with no morals and ethics.

>What do you think is the most important problem with society today?

inner suburban white kiddies blog whoring and postulating among online forums of pseudo intellectualism and then going out into reality to find themselves as dumb as they were when they first entered the sphere of the online refuge.

>>3138568
But suburban kids don't make up all of society.

>>3138574
but they're the ones who walk around town taking photos with vintage cameras and getting tattoos on their necks.

>>3138578
So are you saying the rest of society has no problems, and the only places where the problems lie are in these suburban kids?

>>3138592
i think he's just angry that he's too genuine to have friends

>>3138592
give me reason to believe otherwise

>inb4 poverty, homelessness, minorities etc etc

>>3138594
>implying poverty and homelessness aren't problems

>>3138603
how so?

>>3138593
I think so too. He's too much of a deep thinker.

>>3138607
Well, with poverty, you barely have enough money to survive.
With homelessness you don't have any money (or very very little) to survive.

If these aren't problems, I don't know what is.

>>3138614
problems for whom?

>>3138617
Problems for the ones living with poverty and homelessness.

Capitalism.

Just wanted to reinforce that.

But to simply put it, if we all just stopped being so fucking retarded everything would be swell now wouldn't it?

>>3138617
Everyone, bitch.

>>3138626
and how would modern society go about fixing these problems?

The media.

>>3138674

communism

>>3138678
edgy teen detected


comment disregarded

>>3138674
Democracy for once.

Its rather complex really, but a serious pluralist commonwealth society would do a far better job than hyper-capitalism in a Democratic-Republic

>What do you think is the most important problem with society today?

General acceptance of the State as a legitimate body of organization.

Ideology.

We can begin the restructuring of society by declaring legitimate what we have denied for so long. Lets us declare Nature to be legitimate. The notion of illegal plants is obnoxious and ridiculous in the first place.

>>3138757
What makes it any more ridiculous than illegal human actions?

>>3138757
>illegal plants

the plants are not illegal, the distribution and use of them is though.

>>3138769
Are you trolling?

>>3138777
No. I actually agree with you, but I still want to know your answer.

>>3138774
>the plants are not illegal, the distribution and use of them is though.

So I could grow them in my garden for aesthetic reasons without being caged for cultivation?

Nihilism

>>3138774

Meh, kind of. In my state I can legally use and cultivate as a caretaker

>>3138780
Well obviously there is a vast difference between a conscious decision made by a person, to a natural molecule inside a plant being illegal. Are you trying to argue for relativism or against objective morality in a very abstract way?

>>3138774
I don't know if you've ever lived in Australia, but there are and ought to be illegal plants.

Kudzu.

>>3138784
they would have to prove that you are cultivating them first.

>This Logos holds always but humans always prove unable to understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For though all things come to be in accordance with this Logos, humans are like the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out, distinguishing each in accordance with its nature and saying how it is. But other people fail to notice what they do when awake, just as they forget what they do while asleep.

>For this reason it is necessary to follow what is common. But although the Logos is common, most people live as if they had their own private understanding.

Every last bit of western society is predicated on a cavalier disregard for small-t and capital-T truth. It's been replaced with a pathological, singular devotion to utility. In fact, I'd go as far to say utility is the only criterion modern humans will accept to measure a claim on "truth" or "fact". We live in the era of the Last Man.

Note that this is not the same of the way 20th century existentialism and post-structualism problematize truth claims. That's done for good in 2012.

There are only the lies, the images, and desire begetting itself. Something terrible is coming.

This thread need not have gone beyond the first reply

>>3138866
I disagree. All marxist critique in the west comes from the province of highbrow fashion. The day historical materialism delivers us from evil is the day I will eat my hat. With a sauce of your choice, in fact.

>>3138886

You've forgotten that the revolution does not need you or your hat.

>>3138894
It's never coming, so of course it won't.

>>3138896

You sincerely believe in capitalism as sustainable to perpetuity?

>>3138900
I don't consider it sustainable, but that has nothing to do with an inevitable proletarian revolution.

The inflated importance of things written on the internet.

>>3138864
>Something terrible is coming.

I got spooked.

Spelling errors.

>>3138905

Unrest breeds adversity breeds adversity breeds revolution. It does not need you or your doubt. Inevitable is the exact right word.

>>3138921
Even Marx says it's contingent on class struggle you illiterate. The only class struggle going on is the capitalists' boot on everyone else's neck. The problem of course is everyone became preoccupied with the weight, the size, and the exact brand of boot it is and would like their own.

>>3138930

That's one of our current problems, yes. But time will come all the fuel's burned and the proletariat are unable to sit still. We've got plenty of kindling but the end is clear up to a point

>>3138956
I don't mean this glibly - be careful what you wish for.

>>3138930
can you please reevaluate the difference between capitalist and consumerist. Thanks.

>>3138967

Go on. It's not a wish, and I see scant need for caution.

>>3138970
wtf

>>3138970
You might want to read that post again and reevaluate your ability to read.

>>3138971
Please let's not bullshit ourselves here. The last thing you want as a westerner is the day oil triples in price or some such fossil fuel related catastrophe. Granted, it'll be worse elsewhere, but whatever it is people got used to living suddenly becoming unaffordable isn't necessarily a pregnant era for revolution. If you thought the lapse into fascism in the 1930s was bad, just wait for when society tries to deal with a situation in which its comforts are likely to never come back.

>>3138035
Corruption in government
Wealth Inequality

The root of these 2 problems --- Privacy

Then culturally,
Familial Decay
Overpopulation

The solution? Sterilization after the 3rd child.

I know a major problem with American society is a ridiculous level of materialism and anti-intellectualism.
Not sure if that's a huge issue in Europe or the rest of the world, but here it's fucking destroying us.

>>3138114
damn that nietzsche a sharp motherfucker

>>3139065

>Familial Decay

Is what, exactly?

>>3139195
It's like particle decay for the nuclear family.

>>3139234

Personally I wouldn't say the concept of family, but rather the decay in commitment to family that is the main concern. Divorce rates, deadbeat dads, and ineffectual single mothers who are fine with letting their kids be raised by TV are all big problems.

I'm also saying this to curb the anti-gay sentiment that usually springs up when the topic of "familial decay" gets mentioned.

>>3139296
It was a joke.

People like us who spend too much time asking and trying to answer questions that haven't any answers--we are the problem. The only way to rid ourselves of these "problems" is to conform to society and live happily in the flock.

Oh shit someone on the internet thinks people should stop being so inquisitive better pack it in guys no more thinking from here on out.

Maybe not the worst thing ATM but glorification of the excess should be stopped.

>>3139315
I'm glad you understand.

>>3139157
I think that problem is global. I personally blame the internet and TV. They bombard people with utterly superficial crap that most people conform with what they see instead of searching for anything more intellectually valuable. Why read if I can laugh of pictures of cats?

>>3138035

Overcrowding

>>3138224
I don't think anybody who's arguing the points that the people you're quoting are isn't very aware that they're complicit in the whole mess. Your post suggests that you think you're only capable of criticising anything from an external vantage point.

You only complain about excess because you've never had nothing

You complain about capitalism because it's trendy to do that

You complain about overcrowding because you know you're not one of the people who will be called to die

>>3138035
People not all being practicing Buddhists.

>You complain about capitalism because it's trendy to do that

You're right no one has an earnest concern for the future. This is all about hollow trends.

Fucking moron.

>>3139405
Am I on Tumblr?

>>3138427
its true though

>>3139413

Earnest concern can be trendy

Saying that the problem is "capitalism" is vague and uncritical in a way that suggests you're saying things you think smart people think

People are far too self focused, and encouraged to behave like narcissists I think in some ways. I can't pin down exact factors contributing to increased narcissism, but a recent psychological study here in Australia claims that it's a lack of disciplining at home and in schools that breeds self obsessed children. They just always want their way.

And no one mentioned the poisonous buds of fascism starting to bloom around the world.

Thanks, /lit/. My headache's worse now.

>What do you think is the most important problem with society today?

Ant and Dec.

>>What do you think is the most important problem with society today?

Untreated mental illness.

This. Women like this are the problem with society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi1gortW-Zs

>>3139500

An identity built in opposition.

It's always the same with this archetype, they get their sense of self out of the vilification of others - all the while playing the victim card. Irony in motion.

This is the kind of embarrassment one would hope to grow out of in their teens. Not embrace it as the drive behind your entire life..

This idea that humans are separate from nature, that we own the planet and can do whatever we want with it without consequences. Barring some incredible leaps in technology, we are destined for desolation.

>>3138794
he was probably just wondering whether or not you though it had a moral highground or something.
speaking of which, isn't the objective nature or morality a problem in society? I mean I guess the basic guidelines being passed down from prophets or deities or some other culteral influence is helpful when it comes to avoiding chaos,but isn't it a pretty worrisome concept that if someone's faith decrees they enslave someone they may do that without question?

Multi - culturalism

The biggest problem is our failure to fully utilize our ability to distribute information to large amounts of peoples.

Despite the amount of different economic schools and the variety of thinkers within them the media can do little better than raise taxes/lower taxes cut welfare/increase welfare type discussions?

Despite the plethora of thinkers on the right, left, and beyond, of the many types of conservatives, liberals, and those that don't fit easily into such labels the media feels that a majority of them are not worth mentioning?

Despite the many criticisms of the military-industrial complex and of how the Afghanistan/Iraq War was executed we only get no blood for oil/we took out a dictator and instituted glorious democracy or military spending should go on unabated/cut everything related to the military type arguments?

Even the non mainstream outlets only provides information that fits their ideological view so you're still going to have to find out about a large number of things on your own.

>>3139622
I'll second that one.

>>3138224
Yah they're all a bunch of idiots amirite

>>3139645
>Despite the amount of different economic schools and the variety of thinkers within them the media can do little better than raise taxes/lower taxes cut welfare/increase welfare type discussions?

>Despite the many criticisms of the military-industrial complex and of how the Afghanistan/Iraq War was executed we only get no blood for oil/we took out a dictator and instituted glorious democracy or military spending should go on unabated/cut everything related to the military type arguments?

There you see the Hidden Hand, the influence of the all-seeing eye of the Illuminati controlling the puppet strings of the world media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_OawJA68jI

The Tao makes no effort at all
yet there is nothing it doesn't do
if a ruler could uphold it\the people by themselves would change
and changing if their desires stirred
he could make them still
with simplicity that has no name
and stilled by nameless simplicity
they would not desire
and not desiring be at peace
the world would fix itself

37 (Red Pine's translation)

>>3138035
Inability to see other members of society as human beings, as in a kind of involuntary solipsism. I say this because I suffer from it myself, and i'm sure its the cause of a lot of problems in society.

Pathological egalitarianism.

Philosophize all you want, here is the legitimate biological reason

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number

>>3139688
>Legitimate
>Wikipedia
>Antrhopology

Lol okay

>>3138224
r u like sherlock holmes lol

But seriously the question wasn't "what's wrong with society and you"

>>3139697

It's more psychology and neuroscience than anthropology, really. Did you even read the article?

>>3139684

What a silly thing to say. If everyone was pathologically egalitarian we'd live in an utopia.

>>3139697
>logical fallacies

>>3139688
maybe you've read this, but I found it interesting and pretty funny worth sharing

>>3139728
forgot link

http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html

>>3139718

>Implying that anthro, psych, and neuroscience aren't all the same thing

>>3139724
Emplying utopia is everyone as worthless as each other, with all ideas equally relative, and no intellectuals being recognised as superior.

>>3139732
>http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html

>First, picture a monkey.

I stopped reading there.

Anti-intellectualism and the lack of respect for culture and philosophy

>>3139736

>I don't know what egalitarianism means

>>3139739
I know, I know, it's Cracked, etc. I encourage you to read it though. I assume you don't have anything better to do. It takes 5 minutes.

>>3139749

>But somebody slipped them a slightly larger brain and they estimated the ideal group or society for this particular animal was about 150.

>Famous news talking guy Tim Russert

>Because the trash guy exists outside the Monkeysphere

>It's the way our brains are built.

>I mean, they're not people. They're teachers

>Do you remember that surreal feeling you had when you saw these people actually had lives outside the classroom

Spot the fallacy/ retarded stupidity in each of the above statements. Then tell me that article was worth reading.

>>3139742
That's okay bro. Its a flawed idea of equality.

>>3139768

What are you talking about?

>>3139771
Who are you quoting?

>>3139779

Do you need glasses?

>>3138123
Debt is always currency. It's not a new scheme unique to modern banking. It's essential to mercantilism.
Debt isn't bad. Not being able to pay your debts is bad.

>>3139789

Get out of here Schlomo

>>3139797
go back to /pol/ you utter cunt,.

>>3139786
Do you need to google egalitarianism and equality?

I would argue that the single most effective critique one could sustain against modern society would include something about inequality and developing nations/extreme (obscene) capitalism

>>3139761
I know. He's writing for Cracked so it's not exactly airtight, they don't hold authors to the highest standards. But some parts of it are interesting to consider is all I'm saying.

>>3139804

Did you misunderstand >>3139742 ? I was implying you don't know what egalitarianism means.

>and no intellectuals being recognised as superior

This has nothing to do with egalitarianism you silly fuck.

It consists of humans

>>3139732
>>3139809
In the future can you just post something better than Cracked? There's a vast difference between being "airtight", which practically nothing is, and the level of inteptitude and stupidity regularly shown in Cracked articles.

>>3139813
>and no intellectuals being recognised as superior
>This has nothing to do with egalitarianism you silly fuck.

Are you trolling? How can everyone be equal while still maintaining a structural hierarchy based on intellect?

Either the most intelligent are allowed to reap the rewards of being intelligent, thus maintaining a status that doesn't treat everyone as equal, or they are hobbled in the interest of balance. The argument that everyone being equally allowed to prosper and rise above the masses based on intellect is a meritocracy and not egalitarian at all.

>>3139813
It's not fair if some people are born smart.

>>3139724
>if everyone was mediocre we would live in a utopia

>>3139825

Recognizing intellectuals as superior != giving intellectually superior people more rewards than intellectually inferior people

They would still be recognized as "superior" in terms of intellect. It wouldn't mean they'd get a better life than anyone else though.

>>3139826
>>3139827

If everyone was pathologically egalitarian it would mean everyone believed all humans deserved an equal economic standing, it wouldn't magically change anyone's capabilities or achievements and wouldn't make them "mediocre". You aren't making any sense.

>>3139829
>It wouldn't mean they'd get a better life than anyone else though.

Pig disgusting. Kill yourself. There are great individuals and there are herd animals. You shouldn't break the legs of the strong so that they kneel with the weak.

>>3139834
>If everyone was pathologically egalitarian it would mean everyone believed all humans deserved an equal economic standing

But failures don't deserve an equal economic standing. They are lesser.

>>3139836

Why would they deserve a better life than any other person? What possible agency do they have over their greatness, or the herd animals over theirs?

>>3139839

Why not?

>>3138186
culture and tradition are different things, ding-bat.

>>3139841
>>3139842
Why should they receive equal treatment when people aren't equal?

>>3139829
>It wouldn't mean they'd get a better life than anyone else though.

This is what I am saying. Hypothetically, the more intelligent should be capable of attaining a 'better life.' They would be more industrious, resourceful and could asses a situation to ascertain the best course of action. The people at the bottom of the ladder cant. Person A doesn't care about education and is happy to fry burgers. Person B wants to ubermench and advance his intellect as far as he can, yet in the interest of 'equality' we have to treat them as equal and let them reap equal social benefit. You are depriving person B, and removing incentives to want intelligence in the first place.

>people should be equal
>Why?
>because I say

>People shouldn't be equal.
>The individual should put himself first before society.

Sure is Rand in here.

>>3139853
Egalitarianism is a religion. People aren't equal and therefore there is no reason to treat them as equals. The burden of proof is on you to prove why people should be treated as equals despite vast differences in ability.

I'm waiting.

>>3139845

Because they have no control over what kind of people they are.

>>3139846

People who do science for the money or higher economic standing shouldn't be doing science in the first place. I don't give a shit if 'incentives' are removed, slightly faster progress in technology is not an excuse to have inequality.

>>3139849

Because they have no control over what kind of people they are.

>>3139864
What's wrong with inequality? Why make a lion equal to a mouse?

>>3139859
Because it is a product of an initially unequal state.

The guy born in the ghetto has less chance of advancing than the guy with millionaire parents who can afford an expensive education.

the confinement and craft of individuality by our institutions.

>>3139871

Can you read?

>Because they have no control over what kind of people they are.

>>3139872
>The guy born in the ghetto has less chance of advancing than the guy with millionaire parents who can afford an expensive education.

And? What's wrong with that?

>>3139876
>Because they have no control over what kind of people they are.

So what? That means nothing. You say people should be equal without proving why equality is desirable.

Not enough deserved ass-beatings.

>>3139880

>So what? That means nothing. You say people should be equal without proving why equality is desirable.

If people have no control over what they do then the whole concept of "deserve" stops making much sense.

>>3139871
Man, somebody never had aesop's fables read to them as a child.

>>3139890
>If people have no control over what they do then the whole concept of "deserve" stops making much sense.

That's irrelevant. Why do you consider equality to be superior to inequality? Based on what?

>>3139893

Because I think each human is of equal value.

>>3139898
>child-man

>>3139898
Define "value".

>>3139905
Define "define"

Lots of the problem is evolution vs. society.


They have extremely different, or perhaps even explicitly antonymous goals. The Social Contract/Compact is not an evolutionary idea at all. You're bound to run into problems when nature is A and nurture is ~A.


Also, to people who say that it is because we are too privileged, I understand what you mean, but is there really a solution besides simply lowering living standards? That hardly seems utilitarian.

>>3139893
>Why do you consider equality to be superior to inequality? Based on what?

Based on what will maximise the collective flourishing of our species via empirically established evidence. Forcing the majority to stay enslaved to benefit the elite minority is not in the interests of society as a group. If you really value you subjective ideas over all others, why don't you go on a killing spree Anders Brevik style, as socially constructed ideals, and the interest of the majority, is of no relevance to you.

>>3139908
I guess this is just your way of admitting that your personal philosophy is based on nonsense and that you can't prove why people with different levels of ability should be equal aside from "b-but muh feelings".

>>3139905

That was the wrong word, what I meant was "has an equal right to a good life".

>>3139910
>evolution vs. society
>nature vs nurture
>privilege vs equality
How many more false binaries can you name?

>>3139910

>They have extremely different, or perhaps even explicitly antonymous goals

Evolution doesn't have "goals".

>>3139912
>Forcing the majority to stay enslaved to benefit the elite minority is not in the interests of society as a group

Why are the interests of the collective superior to the interests of an elite group?

>>3139914
Where does this right come from?

>>3139920

>Where does this right come from?

What? I said I think they have the equal right, it doesn't come from anywhere except my ontological beliefs.

>>3139913
I'm someone else with a totally different agenda. Asking people to "define" terms adds nothing to a debate or discussion, it's a total waste of time.

>>3139924
There's a difference between asking someone to define something extremely vague like "value", and "hurrr define define, prove words exist, prove I exist!!!! YOU CANT!".

>>3139922
As long as you admit that your belief system is based on nothing.

>>3139929
>There's a difference between asking someone to define something extremely vague like "value", and "hurrr define define, prove words exist, prove I exist!!!! YOU CANT!".
Let me humour you, what exactly is that difference? Can you define it?

>>3139929

>As long as you admit that your belief system is based on nothing.

It's based on my ontological beliefs, just like yours and everyone else's beliefs are, kiddo.

>>3139821
Yeah I should have posted something better, I didn't do much searching. I'm sure you understand the overall argument, though, that we are biologically incapable of registering more than a certain number of other people as actually "human," so we are innately incapable of the empathy needed to function well on such a large scale.

Perhaps this can be overcome with conscious thought, as Buddhists seem to be able to dissolve the self and accept everyone's humanity.

>>3139933
>Let me humour you, what exactly is that difference?

humor*

He used to word value, so I was asking what exactly he considered "value" to be. There are a large variety of things that someone could value. The conversation couldn't continue until this was clarified.

>>3139935
>It's based on my ontological beliefs

Which are based on nothing and therefore making blanket statements like "people should be equal" without evidence is stupid. Start sentences with "In my opinion" next time.

>kiddo

These kinds of childish terms are a textbook way of telling when someone has lost the argument.

A question for those discussing Egalitarianism: If you say egalitarianism is flawed and that some people are better than others, on what criteria do you judge? Intelligence? Money? Capacity to better humanity? Curious

>>3139952
You still haven't defined this difference, you've just described your view of what happened above. You want an exact discussion, yet you are floundering in this respect, you are very inexact.

>>3139959

>Which are based on nothing

What are your ontological beliefs based on?

>and therefore making blanket statements like "people should be equal" without evidence is stupid

The fuck? Their ethical principles, sport. I have no clue what kind of "evidence" you're looking for.

>Start sentences with "In my opinion" next time.

It's not my fault you misunderstand what we're talking about. Saying "in my opinion" before every sentence in a philosophical debate would be absolutely ridiculous.

>These kinds of childish terms are a textbook way of telling when someone has lost the argument.

Don't worry, I only used the word because I got the feeling that it would annoy you. And me insulting you isn't indicative of anything in relation to the argument, you dumb cunt.

>>3139982
>The fuck? Their ethical principles, sport. I have no clue what kind of "evidence" you're looking for.

You make statements like "people should be equal" as if you consider equality to be objectively superior to inequality. Your opinions are based only on your feelings and nothing else.

>And me insulting you isn't indicative of anything in relation to the argument

The argument is over because you've been reduced to a stammering idiot who can't even defend his own belief system.

Come back when you're better read.

Nihilistic techno-fetishists.

>>3139991
fuck you

>>3139988

>as if you consider equality to be objectively superior to inequality.

Who said anything about objectivity? Stop with the strawmans.

>Your opinions are based only on your feelings and nothing else.

They're based on my ontological beliefs, not feelings.

>The argument is over because you've been reduced to a stammering idiot who can't even defend his own belief system.

Where have I not been able to "defend" my belief system?

>>3139988
>mfw that guy is probably ignorant of the is-ought problem
>mfw he's telling others to become better read

>>3139993
>ontological beliefs
>not feelings

Good one.

>>3139952
>humor*

LeClappingYank.jpg

>>3139991
In all sincerity technology, specifically excessive technological industrialization and technofetishism is the greatest threat to humanity.

Trans-humanism, which should have been focused on the advancement of medicine, has become focused on technology and its ability to "further" or "improve" human life (I use quotes because it's dramatically de-humanizing human life, not improving it). Apple has been the worst at pushing this, with trying to sneak technology into every aspect of life. I don't have any phones that can use "apps" but as far as I've heard there's an "app" for every aspect of life, to the point where if technology is taken away, life can almost no longer be sustained. This is terrifying to me.

>>3140052
>In all sincerity technology, specifically excessive technological industrialization and technofetishism is the greatest threat to humanity.

Correct.

>>3140055
a neo-luddite brother?

: - )

>Capitalism

Sure seems like edgy Marxist in here.

Fuck, even Proudhorn for all his leftist faggotry offered a better alternative to pure communism and its economic incompatibility with the real world.

>>3140052

Why is that terrifying?

>>3138047
fef

>>3140052
Have you read the unabomber's manifesto?

>>3140065
>Marx
>communist

someone's never read pre-1845 Marx.

>Sure seems like edgy Marxist in here.

Because Marx is the only anti-capitalist philosopher. Oh, wait, nearly every other philosopher aside from Hayek and Smith was in some sense anti-capitalistic, forgot about that.

>>3140070
Reliance on physical objects (outside of absolute necessities) is bad. The more you rely on, the harder it gets to live without these objects. This generation has been so nurtured on technology that if you take away their cell phone, laptop, or "pad" they're lost and don't know what to do with themselves. They use their cell phones as their SOLE means for communication and social interaction; take it away and they're social invalids. They use their computers as their sole source of entertainment; you take it away and they don't know how to spend their time. As oil and other finite resources are our current major source of the electricity that allows for the use of these it's common sense that these will eventually run out. I'm not saying once the oil and coal runs out there will be a global blackout, but there'll be a drawback on how much technology will be usable by the general populations. With less technology available, the generations that have known NOTHING but a technologically dependent society will be lost and useless.


>>3140082
nah, haven't found time. just heard it's an aggressive walden, anyway. is it worth checking out?

>>3140082
>reading books written by kikes

shig

>>3140052
>it's dramatically de-humanizing human life, not improving it
It's a glorious thing. Stop opposing the technological revolution. Every time you use a tech device you are temporarily outsourcing you conciousness to a more efficient device; a phone becomes an extension of your hearing, a word document allows you to store thoughts. There is nothing wrong with the inevitable merger with technology, even it it does diminish your definition of humanity. Look at Steve Mann, who walks around with a laser beamed into his retina so he can read his emails and scan things as he goes about his day. It wont be long before we really start transcending our biological limitations and transform our species into a magnificent one.

Kevin Warwick can walk around in pitch black and navigate his way via an implant in his arm, plugged directly into his nervous system to allow him to 'feel' proximity to objects; he has given himself an extra sense. I cant wait until binocular vision, synthetic organs and a host of other things that will raise us above our lowly primate origin, becoming denizens of a technological kingdom that we have created and are in control of. We can and will decommission natural selection and I don't see why this is a bad thing.

>>3138035
The lack of purpose the younger generations seem to be feeling in the United States. The sort of feeling we had in the late 1950's is beginning to resurface again. That same restlessness is going to resurface again, and I have no idea what our response will be.

>>3140087

>The more you rely on, the harder it gets to live without these objects.

That's not a problem if those objects aren't going anywhere.

>I'm not saying once the oil and coal runs out there will be a global blackout, but there'll be a drawback on how much technology will be usable by the general populations.

Not if we replace those energy sources with more sensible ones like liquid fluoride thorium reactors and solar panels.

>>3140096
>Kevin Warwick can walk around in pitch black and navigate his way via an implant in his arm
I can do that without an implant in my arm. The problem with a lot of these technologies, and also some of the high tech in other areas like agriculture, is they're technologies that are trying to find solutions for things that aren't problems.

>>3140096
>you are temporarily outsourcing you conciousness to a more efficient device; a phone becomes an extension of your hearing, a word document allows you to store thoughts

That is by definition dehumanizing. What happens when it gets to the point where individuality and difference of thought and opinion becomes useless. What happens when all our minds are dumped into the same datastream because it's more efficient. That's my hell. But one man's folly...

>Kevin Warwick can walk around in pitch black and navigate his way via an implant in his arm, plugged directly into his nervous system to allow him to 'feel' proximity to objects

Talk about absolutely convoluted superfluities. I guess that's just a matter of opinions. To me, a flashlight would do just as well.

>>3140112

>What happens when it gets to the point where individuality and difference of thought and opinion becomes useless. What happens when all our minds are dumped into the same datastream because it's more efficient.

That sounds like heaven.

>>3140115

>>3140115
Well then we have a massive disagreement there. I thought that Technofascism would never get popular, but I guess I'm wrong.

>>3140121
it already is popular

>>3140133
I don't think in the degree that >>3140115 expresses. I don't think people are as willing to surrender every aspect of their being to be a machine. Maybe in the USA, but definitely not globally.

>>3140105
>The problem with a lot of these technologies, and also some of the high tech in other areas like agriculture, is they're technologies that are trying to find solutions for things that aren't problems.
Inneficiency is always a problem. If there is a way to do something better why not explore it? With regard to agriculture and food. We will soon be able to grow GM crops in aeroponic skyscrapers. We have almost perfected in vitro meat, and in a world where 1/3 of the population is starving, andvances in these ares is not a bad thing.

>>3140112
>What happens when all our minds are dumped into the same datastream because it's more efficient.
Whoa, who's talking about uploading minds? The Idea is advancement in creativity not restriction, mankind will be able to apply the intentions of his mind to influence the unfolding of biological processes.

>To me, a flashlight would do just as well.
Sure, I get it. Why use a PC when a typewriter will suffice? But some of us are eager to explore the potential things we can do, not only for curiosity, but for the benefit of the whole species. I'm sure you will be allowed to stay in your candle-lit cave while "a new generation of artists are writing genomes with the fluency that Blake and Byron wrote verses." Alexander Bell predicted that at some point in the future every city in America would have a telephone, and he was opposed as a decadent technophile. I'm sure you can appreciate the pertinent comparison.

>>3140135
What if it was not a traditional machine, but instead a hyper-intelligent, self-aware orgy.

Like, a bunch of people were fucking in a tent, just doing whatever, fuck fuck fuck etc., and from this system turned into a hyper-intelligent, self-improving, self-aware being.

Would you join the orgy?

>>3140136
Addressing the first part of your post, with technologies we have now and even in the 90s world hunger could easily have been solved, but hasn't because of capitalism (it's financially inefficient to feed the hungry after all).

>Whoa, who's talking about uploading minds?

With the computer came the internet. With the virtual "mind-computer" comes the virtual "mind-internet". It's only logically.

>The Idea is advancement in creativity not restriction

Ideals never dictate policy, history shows that time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. With the replacement of thought with processing there'll be global hegemony with regards to "thought".

>Why use a PC when a typewriter will suffice?

That's a fallacious argument and you know it. The PC allows for things that a typewriter cannot. In the example you gave, the ability to sense things in the dark allows for no new advancements that the flashlight or any other light-giving object doesn't.

>>3140140
But technology isn't organic in the sense that a sexual orgy would be. Technology aims for perfection, while sexuality just strives for expression.

>>3140146
>It's only logically.

i was going to write a full sentence there, but forgot, sorry about that. if only i had a computer that would complete my thoughts for me.

>>3140136
>If there is a way to do something better why not explore it?
>We will soon be able to grow GM crops in aeroponic skyscrapers.
It's not a better solution to anything, it's really just about a power struggle. GM is really only popular because it gives the possibility to gain patents where there were no patents before, it doesn't solve problems of infrastructure, growth medium quality, water availability, nor can it give a stable solution to pest or disease issues. We can already build aeroponic skyscrapers without GM, but we don't because they're completely inappropriate to nearly every instance of agriculture in the world, requiring very different infrastructure to what most farmers have available, and highly prohibitive startup costs and overheads. We already have relatively low tech solutions that work considerably better and are more accessible, like high density crops, companion planting, crop rotation, salt resistant strains etc etc.

I am going to go with addiction. The fact that there are so many people who are overweight that want to be healthy, yet can't find the motivation to quit soda, and stop eating all the time. That so many smart people are addicted to the internet. That so many people spend all there time tied into only one source of instant feedback, and they can't untie themselves. There are people addicted to online pornogrophy at astounding levels.
/lit/ when was the last time most of you picked up a book? I bet many of you here want to read, but you just can't find the time. You waste it on on sites like this.
In high school I could of gone to a much better school but I was addicted to the internet and wasn't abel to stop. Still today I will try to stay off the internet for a week or two then go on an internet binge of 15 hours.
We tie that in with the addiction to caffein and all the other shit in energy drinks.
Americans are slowly stopping smoking, but the rate of addiction to other things keeps getting higher.
Drugs are the least of our problems, but the hypocrisy of a society imposing draconian penalties on drug users when the non drug users of society are just as big of addicts.

>>3140146
>With the virtual "mind-computer" comes the virtual "mind-internet". It's only logically.
We are still uncertain of any thing in this regard. Self-aware technological organisms, additional neurologically compatible 'lobes,' are still a distant notion, if possible at all. I think a true integration of biological mind with technology has implications we cannot yet see. Nobody predicted twitter from the first IBM computer.

>Ideals never dictate policy
True. But the aesthetic advancement is already being realised. I may be a STEM student, but I still appreciate well written prose. I also appreciate the RNA and DNA structures that are being emailed between biochem students around the world, then 'printed' into real multi cell organisms for purely aesthetic purposes. When you see a holographic fractal organism that is alive and designed just because it looks cool, you realize that art has shifted into a new epoch.

>the ability to sense things in the dark allows for no new advancements that the flashlight or any other light-giving object doesn't.
So bulbs can't experience a surge when you drop the light in water? Batteries don't die? I'm sure Prof. Warwick appreciates being able to walk to the bathroom at 4am, while being able to form a mental image of the room. There are so many possibilities (Like artificial fibres can now be grafted into skin to stop a bullet) that to oppose them on the grounds that "it might go bad" is to stand in the way of progress out of fear.

>>3138386
>Buddhas idea of desire being the root of all evil is quite good, but enlightenment is impossible, even for him. Need is the origin of desire, and it's built into our DNA. You can't escape it. People just handing you food doesn't solve the problem.
That's a pretty simplistic interpretation of Buddhism. Also, it's the root of suffering, not evil.

>>3140169
>We are still uncertain of any thing in this regard. Self-aware technological organisms, additional neurologically compatible 'lobes,' are still a distant notion, if possible at all. I think a true integration of biological mind with technology has implications we cannot yet see. Nobody predicted twitter from the first IBM computer.
Well that sense of uncertainty should be an argument against over technological saturation. Uncertainty isn't a good thing.

>So bulbs can't experience a surge when you drop the light in water? Batteries don't die?
Again, an argument against technological saturation. What happens when we rely on technology for our lives and the power goes out, ect.

>that to oppose them on the grounds that "it might go bad" is to stand in the way of progress out of fear.
Well when it's dealing with life and death and dehumanization I believe question is okay, in fact necessary.

Suffering = Pain x Resistance

we can't control pain, but we can control how much we resist it and how we perceive it

the best you can do is to minimize resistance, so in the end you simply experience pain

that is the buddhist ideal

well i'm going to lunch

i'll be back in like an hour if you still want to continue.

>>3140180
I don't see why you readily embrace the screaming electrons of whatever computer you are using, and presumably a phone, transport, and all the benefits afforded to todays people, when you could go and live on a self-sustained farm without having to see the offensive technology. We are now part of a technological snowball that started when man manipulated nature buy starting a fire and isn't going to stop. To draw a line and say no more progression is one of the most horrific things I can think of. Imagine if you had proposed it back in the 40's.

>>3140200
god, caught me right as i was about to leave.

I'm not an absolute luddite. I use my computer, I have a Zune that I constantly am listening to when out of the house, and I drive a car. I am ludditic(and unpopular) enough to not have a phone, though. I believe in technology to a point, but when it starts to completely dominate aspects of life I see danger.

alright, gonna drive my car to eat lunch off something made on using electricity and pay for it using a debit card that connects to my bank account. "brb" as the youths say

Short-sighted ecological policies, over-population, and nuclear weapons are the problems that keep me up at night. They're the main things we have power over that have the potential to wipe us out as a race or cause massive infrastructural collapse. Besides that are mega-disasters such as meter strikes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes. Also, disease.

Culturally speaking, I'm a little uneasy about globalization and the commodification of culture. Also a marxist sort of consumer goods as opium of the people thing.

>>3140181
if you don't resist pain, it wounds or kills you.

Selfishness.
By that I mean no one is willing to give up something of their own for the greater good. See social security and the United States' budget as a whole. No one is willing to raise taxes, and no one wants to give up their entitlements. Yet everyone complains about the deficit. Same with a variety of future problems like gas prices, global warming, poverty, etc. By the time we start to feel the effects itll be too late.

People who use force to control others.

>>3140228
>if you don't resist pain, it wounds or kills you.

that's the wrong way to interpret "resistance"

try again.

>>3140228

Buddhas example:
you get shot with a poisoned arrow

bad response in this situation would be to question why you got shot, who shot you, what his motivations are, dwell on your misfortune, cry about it, dwell on the injustice of life and the cruelty of others...worry about the poison, worry about infections...etc.

proper response would be: pull the arrow out immediately.

Resistance is basically a bad/negative response to a problem that amplifies your suffering instead of minimizing it. We do it all the time and don't even notice.

>>3140264
>implying anything else maintains order in a society full of moronic idiots

stupidity is the problem, a passionate and intentional stupidity.

The most important problem with society today is all these fucking leftists, especially the ones in this thread.

>>3138144
The fuck is wrong with you?
I've been to Bosnia. Beautiful country, retarded people - like the most of the world.

>>3138047
Edgy. You're right, but you're putting it in the wrong way. Too malicious. I think people are a lot more analytical than usual and there is an idea of a renaissance man which really doesn't exist in today's world.

>>3138134
>Working is shown as the meaning/purpose of life
It seems people either think this or the exact opposite.

>>3138218
I don't think narcissism is a bad thing.

>>3138224
I agree.

>>3138230
>>3138230
I don't think this would be communism. More likely, it is a type of capitalist soceity based on the idea that you must produce to the highest quality possible. Money is still interchanged between parties and in fact money's status rises higher than before due to it symbolising that you think whatever product is being bought is made to the best of its ability. The only issue I see in this type of society is the degeneration of things like the assembly line due to quality checks being more important than quantity produced. It sounds very voluntaristic,

>>3138382
>>3138429
>communism
>altrusim
>implying Im not head of the party and get the best shit.

>>3140523
>stupidity is the problem, a passionate and intentional stupidity.
/lit/. Actually, this is where humility comes in.
If people on 4chan had more humility, would it be a better or worse place?

This is one of the most aggressively retarded threads with respect to its understanding of political economy I've seen here yet.

Capitalism isn't a meritocracy. Meritocracy is even more impossible than your utopian socialism strawman argument you fucking retards. LEAVE THE FUCKING BURBS YOU SHELTERED LITTLE SHITS.

>>3140787
Couldn't meritocracy exist in a technocratic setting?

>>3140797
If you mean in the sense of capital-T Technocracy -- Maybe, but people always have an agenda. There will be people who just don't like you personally (or your skin color or the fact that you're XYZ) and won't promote you based on merit. There's also the cognitive biases induced through scientific paradigms (and god forbid we're talking about something in the liberal arts or related to economic policy) that people will just inherently favor people who share their views.

>>3140802
Fair enough. Honestly, any political ideology will succumb to those pitfalls though. Until some day when a weird transhumanism sort of event happens where "people" have "evolved" to a point where they don't feel any different from their neighbor or any other person is the day ANY ideological principle could take place. But that in itself presents very problems.

>>3140797
In other words, there is no way to reliably measure "merit" that currently exists now. It would have to be tailored to the field in question and under constant revision. You're really only going to replace one form of politics with what amounts to the type of office politics that go on in academia or whatever. Also the criteria with which we judge merit would be nearly impossible -- would it just be something akin to the utility in utilitarianism? It's a concept that really does fall apart under all critical scrutiny.

The biggest problem today is the birthrate among less intelligent groups of people.

The second biggest problem is that there are so many retards who deny that this is a problem.

>>3140812
Well I was comparing capitalism's faux-meritocracy to socialism, which would just give everyone the same standard of living. Honestly it's deeply insulting to people who are actually good at what they do to 1. not be paid what they're worth (the vast majority of the workforce) and 2. presume that they're only in it for the money. The only people who think that are either particularly dumb or only lived around people who care solely about material rewards. People who live outside the bubble loathe those people.

>>3140817
You're so white it hurts.

>>3140827

It maybe hurts you, but for me being white feels amazing.

>>3140817
All pumpkins are racist, I just admit it!

Did you know, racists are statistically likely to have low IQs?

>>3140817
I say we start with forced sterilization of all the people who sincerely believe dysgenics is a legitimate problem and call it a day.

>>3140832
That polar bear is adorable.

>>3140834

That's because more intelligent people are more likely to emulate evolutionary novel beliefs and behaviors; being vegetarian for instance. That does not negate the empirical set of data that validates long-held racist beliefs.

>>3140839
There isn't any.

>>3140842

>>3140849
Ah so the lack of performance in the public school system proves that the black is effete, pliant and naturally servile? Like what set of racist beliefs are we going for here, since you can't possibly be stupid enough to think GPA in a public school has anything to do with IQ, let alone intelligence.

>>3140849
>IQ age 7: 120
>IQ age 17: 115
wut

>>3140817
>>3140817

I'm the guy who wrote this; just checking back in to say that I am pleased with how I have derailed the thread so far.

Carry on as you were, untermenschen.

>>3140862

Obviously it's relative to their peers.

>268 posts and 23 image replies omitted. Click here to view.

this.

>>3140860

Do you not see the IQ's listed?

>>3140865
What have you derailed? 12 posts in a 275 posts thread. This is probably your best accomplishment for today, write it in your diary.

Pervasive indifference to the welfare of humanity as a whole.

>>3140874
>This is probably your best accomplishment for today
Nuh-uh, I found a biscuit that looked like David Gilmour too.

>>3138305
>People who think that they see the fundamental problem with society in others (and somehow, mysteriously, not themselves) are the problem with society
>implying perfection is an absolute term that does not require a definition

>In a capitalist society, man exploits man!
>In a socialist society, the system is reversed!

Jesus Christ, /lit/. All of you fucking conformist, fashionable anti-capitalists make me sick.

You used Google to find your information, read papers published by private education institutions to back up your claims, and browse a website run and owned by a private businessman.

You aren't fooling anyone you privileged goons.

>>3140960

>>3140997
Ah yes the old chestnut of criticizing anti-capitalists from being the beneficiaries of capitalism. Sort of like the southerners that just couldn't understand why blacks no longer wanted to be enslaved. I mean, we gave them everything!

Probably the way we think, we are not critical of society, and especially politicians. We could fix all of our problems tomorrow if people were more critical of the shit that is going on. The answer to human happiness is not science, not eternal life or colonizing space. It's being able to live with the people around us.

We could solve world hunger tomorrow if everyone stopped being so fucking selfish. I'm so fucking tired of everyone thinking science is the answer, NO, we already have the technology to make everyone on this fucking planet happy. We just have to fucking think critically about how we distribute resources and how we treat each other.

>>3141009
The difference here is that you actively engage in capitalism and enjoy it without being forced to. You're no slave, you've never known hardship. Your argument is empty.

How many times per week do you visit a franchise, give or take?

>>3141020
I have no choice but to actively engage in capitalism shithead. So yes, that is a form of slavery. I never claimed any sort of hardship, but it's obvious things could be better. Also capitalism inflicts hardships on millions of other people you stupid cracker.

>>3141026
Yes you do, you're just too lazy and stupid to realize it.

Go live in the woods and work for yourself if our hideous capitalist society is so abhorrent.

There's no slavery in plenty and no enforcement to partake in it. No one makes you buy expensive coffee, post on privately run image boards, or buy clothes you happen to like.

You want all the benefits with none of the work.

Also,

>stupid cracker

0/1,000,000,000

Apply yourself nigger.

Anyone who thinks capitalism is voluntary hasn't read about the history of enclosure. Agreed with all the people in this thread, capitalism is by far the biggest problem with humanity, and if you've read any history or economics its pretty obvious.

Life is too easy for those of us who live in 1st world nations, our generation could change the world a million times over but we lack the spark and drive needed to feel actual care for the world.

>>3141050
I've read plenty of economics and most if not all recognize that capitalism has done more to improve the lot of the common man than any economic system in human history.

You, and other anti-capitalists, support the slavery brought on by socialism because you don't understand value theory or human discourse.

Your empty appeal to popular stereotype is cute.

>>3141093

Then you haven't read any real scientific economics, but merely the ideological tools of the financial elite.

>>3141093

You don't understand what socialism even is if you are arguing that it in any way entails slavery.

I think what we need is direct democracy, mixed with some syndicalism, and you could easily do this in a capitalist framework. Most of what Anarchists and Socialists advocate is exactly that, direct democracy and syndicalism.

If you don't understand the theories you are arguing against, don't bother arguing.

>>3141111
But it does, and I wasn't arguing against syndicalism or direct democracy. It denies the livelihood of the common man for flighty principles of universal betterment to be decided by a faraway and all-powerful third party.

>>3141107
If you only read books that coincide with your preconceptions then you learn nothing. You're spouting gibberish hammered into your psyche by your own ignorance.

Expand your horizons.

>Vain and conceited know-it alls, anti-intellectuals
>Somehow worse than global warming and impeding nuclear warfare

Well, if OP means our culture yeah you might be right.

>>3141107
>Then you haven't read any real scientific economics, but merely the ideological tools of the financial elite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SwKxUz7osM

>>3141124

>argues in favour of the capitalist status-quo
>implies other people need to expand their horizons

lmao

>>3140767
C'mon, it's pretty shitty.

>http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/108186/generation-whine

>>3141124

Read Marx, Bakunin, Kropotkin, or any other original anarchist/communist text, they are basically all nothing but mild syndicalism, direct democracy, and mutualism.

Actually read the texts, just because dictators invoked Marx and communism in their speeches doesn't change what they actually said.

This is the great Public relations problem of Marxist/Communist ideas, they have been dragged through the mud by dictatorships continuously until the party, whose slogans include destruction of the state, (destroying the representative system is all he means) and bureaucracy reduction/demolition, somehow = totalitarianism.

Explain that to me, how is a stateless, classless( in the sense that everyone works for what they have, and nobody gets the free bourgeoisie ride unless you are old or disabled), and bureaucracy-less society equal to a society where the state controls every aspect of human life, enslaves the masses, and murders all who stand in its path.

How is it that these two ideas are equal to one another? Could it be that they fucking aren't?

People have a say about anything and everything so often in the public eye that nobody is taken seriously unless they have a mountain of credentials under their belt. In fact I would chalk it up to the fact that mass media and the mass availability of information has caused a lot of people to stop thinking for themselves in a lot of ways as its faster just to read an established person's work and just bash people's heads in with it. I'm not saying it hasn't ever happened before, but these days its seems to be affecting a much greater amount of people than previously seen.

A: "I think X is wrong"
B: "Well Y person said it was right and he's an accomplished author/scientist/political analyst"
A: "But I still think its wrong and you haven't given me any solid evidence despite what Y said"
B: "Wow you disagree with what Y said? Who the fuck are you to disagree with someone like him?"

>>3141273
Commoner critiques tend to come down to appeal to ridicule and no true scotsman; it never fails.

>>3141124
>It denies the livelihood of the common man for flighty principles of universal betterment to be decided by a faraway and all-powerful third party.

>denies the livelihood

Wage slavery only fulfills the livelihood of the ruling class you dumb fuck.

>I've read plenty of economics and most if not all recognize that capitalism has done more to improve the lot of the common man than any economic system in human history.

Dude even Marx didn't deny that capitalism was a necessary step in the economic development of human kind. No one is going to deny it has upsides you fucking downie.

>>3141033
>love it or leave it

Seriously? Fox News wants their argument back.

Julius Evola

>>3141584
It was being argued that Capitalism is slavery because there is no alternative to it. The rebuttal made sense.