/lit/ - Literature

>Life is good

any sort of fallacy

>happiness is illusion

>People are greedy by nature

>What's the point of reading when you can learn anything on the internet?

People say that? You need to be around some more intellectually stimulating people who understand what Darwinism even is.

>things people say

>i don't own a tv

Any utilitarist argument against literature, History, or philosophy.

>I don't read, I only watch the film version.
>fuckyourmoter.exe

Basically any garden variety ignorant atheism, scientism or neo-conservatism makes me rage.

>love is just chemicals in your brain bro.
>beethoven's 9th symphony is not genius.. it's only applied maths LOL
>it's just chemicals brah... do you not know how reductionism works?
>neuroscience will give us all the answers breh!! ethics and aesthetics are meaningless mental masterbations XD
>bro.. consciousness is local... it is an algorithm.
>singularity is near brah!!!
>*link to a pubmed study*

>>3296190

I've mostly heard it online but I've met a couple mouth-breathers in real-life who've said something along those lines.

>>3296196
>the book was better

>>3296202
>neuroscience will give us all the answers breh!! ethics and aesthetics are meaningless mental masterbations XD
thats true brah

>evolution is progressive and teleological
>human beings are the most evolved species
>survival of the fittest

this is the new theodicy

>>3296196
But, what if they're too poor to own one? Or they have a computer and they watch all their shows from there?

>DRUG (x) REALLY OPENED MY MIND BRO YOU SHOULD TRY IT

People dismissing modern art, or art in general, because it does not fit into their tiny and idiotic worldview. Especially when they are self assured and self righteous about it and dismiss art as pointless and pretentious because they don't understand it.
>I could have done that.
>It takes no skill to do that.
>It makes no sense
>Paintings used to be so much prettier
>Modern art is a fraud

I also get really mad when people act like jobs are the most important things in life and can't comprehend the idea that people might do something because they love it. The worst ones are those who feel like they are special or edgy and still are part of the system without ever questioning it. Most engineering/business students types do this.
>Why are you studying English, what jobs can you even get with that?

I hate utilitarianism as a whole, I guess.

>>3296235
>>3296198

ITT: people who don't know what "utilitarian" means.

>>3296238
>utilitarian |juˌtJləˈtɛriən|
>adjective
>1 designed to be useful or practical rather than attractive.

ITT: self-fulfilling prophecies
I'm aware the philosophical take is different.

>>3296238
Yeah, I just realised that, sorry.

>>3296235
know that feel bro.

i hate those who shit on art and have no grasp of aesthetics at all, but you've got to admit that postpostmodernism is degenerative and art as a whole has gone downhill a long, long time ago

>>3296235
>>3296235
>>3296235
You seem young, how old are you? The harsh truth usually hit people after college. I was like you once, but these days I can't stand modern art because it is a fraud. This I know after spending some time in the art scene. It's all about your heritage and who you know and your image, not what you create. It's an elitist scene that doesn't favor new creative ideas but rather enforce a stale and old cultural hierarchy

>>3296257

>some time in the art scene

Which scene? Which media?

>>3296260

Portland, painting

>>3296257
I'm 20. I see your point though I meant something slightly different. The people that annoy me think it is a fraud because it does not conform to old and tired aesthetic values. They don't get even have a grasp on what art is about. They think art is about painting pretty pictures.

>>3296263

>Portland

There's your problem.
Move somewhere where the dream of the nineties isn't still alive.
Art in the northwest has been shit for a long time

>>3296257
This is totally true. It's hugely centered around 'gimmick'. The only reason I pay attention to it is to see if something actually interesting emerges despite all the bullshit. It does happen, rarely. I can't even think of an example right now.
That and it's hilarious to watch the art world defend horrible art because they've already invested in the artist as an innovator and can't go back on it - because all the richies have bought their art.

>>3296188
But they are. Greediness is self-preservation at it's core, you filthy communist

>>3296267
>The dream of the nineties is alive in Portland

>>3296269

>reductionist behavioralism

we /sci/ now

>>3296178
>>>/pol/

>>3296267
That wasn't I. Some other fella. Contemporary art in London i was an assistant under a major art gallery. I worked for free but spent enough long time there to see what it really was. Rich people buying stuff with money and time they could be without

>>3296272
What's your point? People horde tons of stuff, be it the frugal rich with their money or the insane doomsday preppers with their food and guns, under the false belief that they *need* it. I never said it's logical, but they believe they need it because they are under the impression there will be harder times ahead, and history has shown us time and time again that hard times are always nearby

>>3296247
>>3296257
i doubt you people even know what's happening in the wider art world. the only reason people come to the conclusion "modern art is garbage and incomprehensible" is because they haven't done any research. art museums have done all the curation for the guest with the added benefit of hindsight, whereas sorting through the thousands of paintings, sculptures, etc. being produced today takes a huge investment of time and energy.

there's really so much being produced right now you can find pretty much anyone working in a style you like. hyperrealism? it's out there in spades. impressionist, classical, romantic, or surrealist revival? people still paint like that, you just don't know their names.

name an auction that isn't soethby's

name 5 galleries that aren't also museums in major metropolitan areas. name a gallery that you were sad to see closed. name a new gallery that has opened in the last 5 years that shows promise.

give me your shortlist of at least 5 artists alive today who work primarily with paint and canvas whose works sell for 5-10k$ that you like

yeah, with some harried googling you could reply to my post, but not off the top of your head.

>>3296196
I don't own a TV. I never watched TV as a kid, or in college.

I go to friends house, bar, or online stream to watch sports.

>>3296210
Explain yourself

>>3296235
>People dismissing modern art, or art in general, because it does not fit into their tiny and idiotic worldview.
There is so much people like this at my university's Economics School

>>3296290
I think for a lot of people the problem isn't that groups are railing against contemporary art, but that they're railing against a modern art establishment that has existed since the nineteenth century. I could be wrong, but when I see people complaining about modern art, it is not in response to a work that was made in the last five years, but works by Pollock, Warhol, Duchamp, Mondrian, etc. What upsets me personally is that acquaintances that speak out against art do so from a positionality that is utterly bereft of an understanding of art history.

>>3296235
What about when people dismiss modern (as in contemporary and fashionable) architecture?

>socialism is good

>you gain any identity by the things you know

>be yourself

>>3296264
>They think art is about painting pretty pictures.
Which it was until post-Dadaists decided to jerk off to just about anything new that was thrown their way.
Most actual artists/painters despise modern art and the politicals who worship it.

I CAUGHT NIHILISM GUYS, WHAT DO?

You fucking grow up is what you do, you ridiculous faggot.

Anarchy is a valid system of social governance


kiiiiillllllllll youuuuurrrrseeeeeelffff you faaaaakkkiiiiinnnggggg retard

Nationalism is inherently evil and as bad as Nazi Germany.
Globalism will bring forth peace and understanding as we are all equal and everyone will understand that once they're forced together.
Communists like Guevara, Trotsky, Stalin etc aren't as bad as we make them out to be.

Basically the most politically naivé yet dangerous shit imaginable.

>>3297366
>not being a nihilist
>2013
lel stay delusional
i bet you have 'values' you actually believe in.

>>3297389
nice

>>3297357
Your understanding of art history is terrible and you make an appeal to authority. What a joke.

>Why are you learning/doing x? How is that useful?

Maybe because I like it?

>suffering some fool as they rant about capitalism
>5 minutes later, see them check their iPhone

>>3297502
A girl in one of my classes does this.

She's constantly going about corporations and how we're sheep for giving into materialism etc etc, and that anyone who owns any money should be taken out behind the woodshed and shot.

Which is fine in itself.

But she comes from a wealthy Jewish family, and when she isn't tweeting about capitalism and whatever, she's tweeting about some fancy bullshit her dad bought her for no reason.

It's hilarious really.

>>3296235
>Paintings used to be so much prettier
>Modern art is a fraud
It's not good to generalize, but there IS some modern art that is grossly overrated and overpriced. Like pic related.

>>3296202
Genuine question, not an attack (cause your post is about stuff I think about all the time) -- if consciousness isn't local, what is it? If each consciousness isn't the product of each individual brain, then what?

>>3297356
You're either a pseudo edgy teenager or an angsty one

>>3296285
Lol.

History shows that people horde simply because of a fear that they will have nothing as they're continously robbed and exploited. Monks in the British Isles built towers with a door you had to climb a retractable ladder up to get into. That wasn't greed, that was protection against Vikings.

Oink oink, Slomo Libfag.

>>3297532
In all fairness, the idea of 'being yourself' is absolutely ridiculous. Given that what you are is an ephemeral cluster of memories and experiences, constantly defined and redefined by the things you do and see, the idea of being yourself is just kind of fucking retarded.

>>3297539
Addendum: It's on a par with 'destiny'.

>>3297356
Better yet

>Be yourself
>Treat others as you would like to be treated

But how do I self orientated AND community orientated?

>>3297506
How should she act to be "coherent", then?

>>3297547
Not to be so fucking materialistic.

I have no particular qualms with materialism (god knows its pretty much essential these days) but it just seems ludicrous for someone who acts like she does to spout the nonsense she does.

>>3297547
>>3297506

She's totaly coherent. Petty bourgeoise.

The middle class are the only ones talking about Marxism. But they happily use Western Individualism to say "WELL MY FAMILY ARENT THE PROBLEM". Oh yeah? The Bush family will tell you the same thing!

Almost as bad as those people who say Occupy in one sentence and Welfare Queen in the other. Do they even get how muddled their values are?

>>3297539
>>3297542
It's just a matter of making a solid base out of that cluster to have a starting point. Some people just get lost in what they should do and be based on what other say they should do and be. They don't realize they have a choice to say fuck to that, so instead they just keep making a huge pile of "tasks" which are often contradictory, breaking the person apart in dissonance. So wait a fucking second, "be yourself", what the fuck do you really want to do? And if that thing the person wants to do is a consequence of this ephemeral cluster of memories and experiences, then so be it. It's ephemeral and ever changing, yes, but that is exactly what we call "ourselves".

>>3297539
Like, it refers to act and be the way it's natural for you, in spite of what others may think or say

>>3297545
Take care of yourself and others at the same time, while having well defined priorities (whether it's yourself or the community or both depending on the situation, you choose). I really don't know how that's impossible or even "hard" to do.

>>3297562
You're a pretty cool guy

>>3297573
Fuck, are you guys being ironic or something? Following my IP? Really, I'm getting scared of this shit.

>>3297576
You must be new

>>3297576
What? What's going on?

>>3296182
>living it wrong
shiggypiggy

>>3296227
Fucking this.

>people bashing on science whilst using technology
this is just as bad as edgy idiots banging on about capitalism as they queue for their iphone 5

>>3297591
Because capitalism and mobile devices are inherently linked. Commies just use landlines. Or perhaps a cool unpretentious Chinese smartphone the rest of us probably haven't heard of, right?

>>3297591
How is it incoherent?

>>3297593
what?

>>3297591
>>3297502
>>3297506
>>3297554

hypocritical: an anti-capitalist camping out for hours to get the new iphone
not hypocritical: an anti-capitalist owning an iphone

This really is not difficult
You think Marx made his own fucking paper and pens? Jesus

>>3297606
similarly, you can be a radical feminist and still shop in your gender's department at the clothing store.
radical ideologies criticize structures -- capitalism, patriarchy, etc -- and call for their dismantling. individual action will not bring about this dismantling. retreating to the forest and living a self-sufficient lifestyle does nothing to further the cause of the proletarian revolution.

>>3297572
>You choose
>But here's the rules
>But they're vague and totaly loaded by other social values
>But no, really, you choose!

>>3297606
well, as apple produces a large amount of phones, and buy buying an iphone you contribute to the accumulation of capital by a private firm and thus the devaluation of the workers labor, it could be seen as hypocritical, especially when there are smaller cellphone manufacturers out there

ITT: things that people do that make you rage

>making off topic threads and treating 4chan like their personal blog

>>3297591
Scientism, not science.

The analogy would instead go:
>This is just as bad as idiots banging on about people who worship their iphones while using their iphones.

>>3297614
You start choosing from the start, whether focusing on yourself only or your country or commiting suicide or whatever. If you want to focus on yourself and the community, I think that the most reasonable thing to do would be to try to do both while choosing when it's just not possible.

>>3297537
But why did the Vikings raid and loot?

>>3297606

>equating financially supporting one of the largest companies on the planet to owning paper and pens

That "Jesus" at the end was just icing on the cake.

>>3297606
>You think Marx made his own fucking paper and pens? Jesus
Why would he need that?

>>3297606
>You think Marx made his own fucking paper and pens? Jesus

serious question, how old are you?

>>3297619

ITT: things that people do that make you rage

>Namefagging then complaining about others treating an anonymous board like a personal blog.

Fuck off you hypocritical retard.

>>3297647
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3OTgTyujtE

>>3297650

>b-b-but m-m-moot said

Pathetic.

>>3297617
>you contribute to the accumulation of capital by a private firm and thus the devaluation of the workers labor
lrn2economics please, otherwise, just stop posting

>people are X due to human nature

>>3297637
>implying smart phones haven't already proven themselves extraordinarily useful in world revolutions

>>3297637
So one must be capitalist to use google's services as well? Anticapitalists must have a shitty time online.

>>3297662
wondered when someone was gonna call me, almost finished the intro to capital and was wondering if I had any idea, please explain

>>3297650
>Argument from moothority.
>Not knowing the moothor is dead.

>>3297670
Seriously. This thread is full of people with their head so far up their ass they can't understand the basics of leftist politics. Or they're all liberals. Probably both.

>>3296178
How is Origin of Species? A good read or what?

>>3297680
first day on 4chan?

>>3297693
No Josh, not every anon who isn't a tripfag is new here.

>>3297707
You seem so perplexed by the ignorant throngs that dwell here.

>>3297356
>>3297545
>>3297532
This, saying "be yourself" isn't really advice. It just means to define yourself by everything you've ever done and act accordingly, and you'd probably act the same without someone telling you to "be yourself"

>>3297672
If the value of a company increases, then you have more money to pay every single worker. However, the extra value/new money isn't used like that, the owners just grab it, so the worker's labor isn't devaluated, it just stays the same.

>an "anti-capitalist" can't own an iPhone
>a poor cunt can't afford an iPhone

pretty simple really

>>3297721
No, because one's idea of self can be altered by society's mainstream view on your ideas or whatev and you could stop acting or thinking a certain way just because of that. Of course, that would set a new idea of what you are, but it would be a fake one.

I do think that change is good, but when you're aware of it and you're ok with it, not just because society thinks that you'd be better pursuing a career in something more profitable and thus you start thinking the same way too for the sake of it.

>>3297732
But isn't the value of the workers labor is determined by the value of commodities he produces, re-investment of capital into increasing production generally results in a devaluation of individual items e.g. iphones and hence devalues the workers labor

>>3297515
read tom campbell's trilogy "my big toe".

>Modern art totally has a purpose and works within the entire "Art Medium."

Bullshit. Art's purpose is to significantly influence the minds and attitudes of the audience, whether through emotion or mental thought. When you have an 'artist' that spends no true effort on their product, you have a plebian, pseudointellectual take on nothing. It is the enemy of art, to simply take the name of art and claim that a man's lazy splash on paper is the human condition.

Jesus, /lit/, you suprise me.

>>3297793

>Art's purpose is to significantly influence the minds and attitudes of the audience, whether through emotion or mental thought

I'm confused. Why do you need effort to do that?

>>3297760
Ok, now you got me. Up to what I know, workers' labor's value isn't determined that way. That'd imply that people who work making cars (or parts of it) earn more than people who make cheap watches, which isn't true. They happen to earn the same, because their bosses don't give a shit about they having some money for a decent life, they just want them to be paid as low as possible. Remember every penny that is paid to them, is a penny that the bosses don't get.

>>3297802
Because it takes some iota of respectability and ability to be taken seriously, as it should be. A three year old drooling isn't going to reveal the secrets of existence. A liberal arts student that parrots back what his teachers told him and has no true sense of artistic ability shouldn't be taken seriously in the realm of art because he is incapable of truly unique thought. Utilizing gravity and randomness in your 'art' with the absence of any other theme is shallow. Hence, modern art shouldn't be classified as art.

>>3297816

>Because it takes some iota of respectability and ability to be taken seriously, as it should be.

Therefore, if someone is taken seriously, they have some iota of respectability and ability? A lot of modern artists are/were taken seriously.

Also, what do liberal arts students have to do with anything? Do you understand the difference between a "liberal arts" student and an "art" student?

>>3297579
>>3297580
It's like the forth time someone compliments me here just today. There were more times this week and others before. Not something expected in 4chan. "This is why I come here", "you're a pretty cool guy", "wow, that's so elegantly put". My ego is inflated and I'm always anonymous. I don't know how to handle this, so I just turned full skeptic there. Sorry about that.

And thanks.

>>3296227

This.

>Socialism = liberal while capitalism = conservative.

NO.

>You hate it because it's popular
>"Hipster"

Modern Art actually started in the 19th century. There were lots of groundbreaking pieces: When Picasso came out with The Ladies of Avignon, people shit themselves.

The same thing happened when Rothko first did pic related

It's because both of these artists, along with all the masters of modern art, literally redefined the function of art. It made people grow and gain understanding of what art is supposed to do, and this in theory helped people gain a little understanding about humanity in general.

Modern art as it was died in the 60's, during the rise of postmodern art. this was basically an application of modern art to its extreme conclusion: modern art abstraction = post modern experimentalism, modern art repetition = post modern meaninglessness, modern art minimalism = postmodern nihilism, modern art experimentation = postmodern shock value. David Hirst is a postmodernist. His famous piece was putting a dead shark in a tank of formaldehyde.

my point is that the target is postmodern art, not modern art. there are no Modernists alive today.

>>3298606
Good post about modernism. I am currenly preparing my thesis about Japanese and Chinese modern art in the 20s.

>>3298606

Would you please elaborate a bit about the merit of that Rothko piece?

I say this as someone who doesn't see the value of Rothko's works, but am open to being educated.

>>3298614
You are correct to question Rothko's work, which can only have any 'impact' when coupled with a sentimental political backstory, which was provided by critics and Rothko himself. Sans this backstory, sans his 'justification' his abstract squares are actually less interesting than a shark in formaldehyde.

How people are still taken in by the Rothko scam is mindboggling

>lol do libraries still exist? who needs dat shit
when u got teh internets

Now listening to the Dean Blundell show is more ostensibly a guilty pleasure for me than before. They're kind of morons.

>politics
>on the internet

>>3297793
Modern art is fully comparable with apple products.

>>3297861
Why do you think we have tripfags?

>>3298606
>modern art abstraction = post modern experimentalism, modern art repetition = post modern meaninglessness, modern art minimalism = postmodern nihilism, modern art experimentation = postmodern shock value. David Hirst is a postmodernist. His famous piece was putting a dead shark in a tank of formaldehyde.

I don't understand. Are we just supposed to assume these things are bad? Why does this make postmodern art the "target"?

>>3297502
Stay mad poorfag because u can't afford a revolution

>>3298811
Good God.

>I believe you should try everything once.

READ: i want to indulge in drug laced narcissism.

>>3298623
>sans his 'justification' his abstract squares are actually less interesting than a shark in formaldehyde.
>How people are still taken in by the Rothko scam is mindboggling
Please bring your sorry ass over to /ic/. They agree on your assessment of modern/postmodern art, but Rothko still has a strong fanbase over there.

>>3297513
My favorite explanation for modern art is this:

>"I could have done that"
>"Yeah, but you didn't."

I used to dislike modern art, but now I'm a pretty big fan. Maybe I just like the idea behind modern art than the art itself.

>>3298819

I used to say this when I was addicted. Also in the list of pathetic excuses for narcissistic behavior;
>In for a penny in for a pound
>I'm only young once

>>3298842
Eh, it's just that there's no apparent rhyme or reason why one particular piece of abstract art gets popular and another doesn't (even if it's sufficiently different from what came before)

>>3296235
>>3296247
>modern art
>grasp of aesthetics
You should look up "the mona lisa fraud". About an hour long.

>>3298857
true, but the same could be said about all forms and genres of art.

>>3298842
Lake?

>>3298842
So reputation is an inherent determinant of the quality of art?

>"I could have done that
>"Yeah, but you didn't"
>"Even if I had it wouldn't get any recognition because I'm not an established artist."

>>3298794
Narcissism and circlejerk. I don't want this for me.

Besides, no one would listen in the same way if I had a name attached. I rather be Batman, if you know what I mean.

>>3298813
If Che knew how much money was being made off of his face, he'd spin so fast in his grave it'd catch on fire.

>>3299006

>tfw in 30 years time the children of che-wearers will have t-shirts and posters with Osama Bin Laden on them.

>>3298877
That's where people disagree.

The problem most people have with modern art is that the actual artwork is too simple.
The "I could've done that" just implies that it takes little to no skill to create the actual artwork.

It might be creative, but that doesn't make it inherently beautiful.
Most of the beauty in said art is in the thought and the abstract, and not in the physical world.

What I personally despise about the movement is that the divide between the elitist assholes and the uncultured swines grows larger because you have to "get in to" the art to appreciate it.

>>3299017

OH NO NOT THINKING, THINKING IS THE WORST

>>3299029
Well, people like to just perceive beauty.

Why is that wrong?

>>3299010
When you realize 9/11 was an inside job and Bin Laden didn't have nothing to do with it you'll wear his face in t-shirt too.

>>3299031

Think about the Jersey Shore.

That's why it's wrong.

>>3299006
Bringing us ever closer to post scarcity

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2429

>>3297645
serious question, how old are YOU?

i don't buy this kind of critique. i don't think ayn rand is hypocritical or somehow invalidated because she received state welfare/social security/whatever.

abolitionists certainly benefitted from slave labor, but nobody says the abolitionists were hypocrites who shouldn't be taken seriously

>>3296200
/lit/ in a sentence.

>>3296202
I am going to go find a philosophy thread to derail with science just for you.

>>3296292
Sounds boring.

>>3298797
no, I was saying that when people say they dont like modern art they are usually referring to postmodern art.

As for what I personally think: most of whats out there sucks, but thats just because every one thinks it's as easy as blotting a canvas. Art used to be a small sub culture of wealthy elites. now it includes anyone who was too lazy for trig (myself included).

>>3299159
Go ahead, sonny

>>3298989
no. fuck. why.

>>3296202
>love is just chemicals in your brain bro.
>beethoven's 9th symphony is not genius.. it's only applied maths LOL
This is correct though

>*link to a pubmed study*
...wait, what?

>>3299222
>This is correct though
Demonstrate it.

>>3296235
A couple maybe insights from a guy who worked in the art community for a few years:

Art isn't a fraud, but a lot of artists and art galleries and dealers/agents are. There's an element of talent and even genius that comes along every once in awhile, but a lot of people succeed by simply building a name, like in fashion.

Wierdly, a lot of the best actual artists tend to be on the fringes, and their stuff holds its value a lot better than some of the mainstream stuff. By fringes I mean professional illustrators, theme-sculptors and primitive-handicrafters. I know exactly one guy with a set of works in the Smithsonian. He cuts figures out of plywood, paints them and writes bible verses on them.

Now as to doing what you love, don't assume this conflicts with success: a whole lot of people doing what some would consider drudgery-jobs, accounting, legal, educational, or even manufacture, delivery, finance type jobs actually quite like their occupations and become sad and fidgety on vacations and lay-offs.

And you really can't help being part of some system or other, and they all have good and bad points.

The best actual artist I know personally carves fantastic deep relief wood carvings on old furniture. He reproduces stuff from tattoo magazines in relief on bedsteads and such. He's also mildly retarded and spends most of his substantial income on drugs

>>3299226
Do you want me to link you a pubmed study?

>>3299222
correction:
>it's only applied maths LOL
correct

>beethoven's 9th symphony is not genius..
This is a slightly retarded statement

>>3299236
>This is a slightly retarded statement
Are you sure you're not retarded yourself?

What if you're too retarded to realize your retardation?

>>3299242
>What if you're too retarded to realize your retardation?
For the sake of my mental health, lets hope I'll never realize it.

>>3299246
Ignorance is a bliss bro. You'll do just fine.

>What's a TV? Oh those rectangular moving paintings? I wouldn't know anything about that. I'm much too busy READING.

TV doesn't make you stupid. Reading doesn't make you smart. Please stop acting like you need to pick and choose.

>Communism is a solid theory, it just hasn't been implemented correctly

>>3299246
>you

>>3299280
>Communism has been implemented correctly.

really gets my goat.

>>3299292

>communism not implemented correctly

communism has no particular implementation method, it's just a critique of capitalism that suggests workers should share in the profits of their labor

which is a noble idea.

>>3299370
>communism
> it's just a critique of capitalism

>I want a socialist government.

whatdefagoodoitmeen

>>3299292
That's the point, shitdick, it's impossible to bring into reality because like all utopian theory it hinges on human nature being a sort of tabula rasa, which has been proven wrong 100 billion times.

>>3299420
holy tihs he missed the point and he dam like sage and kcuf

>>3299420

why is it utopian to say workers should share in the profits of their labor

>>3299612
It isn't.

>>3299612
Because human nature doesn't like equality.

>>3299671

I'd argue it tends more to equality than extreme inequality. Hunter-gatherer societies were communal and anarchistic

>>3296229
420 BLAZE IT FAGGOT!

>>3299674
hunter gather societies are anarchistic in the same way that extended families that live together are anarchistic, that is to say, hardly at all. groups of hunter gatherer societies may be anarchistic with respect to one another, but for the most part they're very patriarchal and traditionalist. This is also true of herding agriculturalists and peasant communes.

>>3299671

Human nature? Laughable mang. Some a posteriori bullshit there. Human nature is changeable. Learn to epigenetics.

>>3299775

Oh, here come the primitivists. Pierre Clastres was a belated romanticist.

>>3296196
I don't. Haven't for years. The free ones are huge and the nice ones that would be unobtrusive enough for my lifestyle are expensive. Sorry I spend my cash on books, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and pizza.

>>3296178
>human nature
Just a fancy way of saying "I don't even know that cultures besides my own even exists and I've certainly never read any anthropology."

>>3297369
People who assume anarchism is utopian are infuriating regardless of how they feel about it.

>>3299420
>it hinges on human nature being a sort of tabula rasa, which has been proven wrong 100 billion times.
Source?

>>3297614
I hate that one

>>3299934
Read >>3297624

>>3299912
How is it not utopian? When has it ever worked?

>>3299775
Hunter-gatheres have an order, yes. They work together, they have social standards, values, taboos, cultures, rules, hierarchy, just like every other society. Though I don't like the way the other guy popped up with hunter-gatherers in the conversation, you can't say they are far from anarchy based on what you argue, because an estabilished unwritten order is not like a state of any kind.

But anyway, on what the conversation went ("human nature", "equality"), one can hardly compare a commune of hunter-gatherers with a full blown country with large cities. One does not apply to the other. We may learn something from them, but it's different from our political scenario, our utopias and so on.

The scale makes all the difference here. If communism clashes with capitalism and anarchism clashes with states, I'd say a huge harm is done when you make a village into a big nation.

>>3299674
>Hunter-gatherer societies were communal and anarchistic

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

>>3299963
pls don't kill zerzan's last pipedream

>>3296178
Does anybody else find this more telling of the author's insecurities than it does his supposed subjects? The op is disenchanted by his unstable, or lack of a sex life. And so it comes to the fault of society as a whole that he should feel so rejected.

>>3299280
>>3299292
>State Capitalism is Communism
almost as bad
>Russia was Communist

>>3299947
>How is it not utopian?
It's not a movement towards a predefined ideal society. End of fucking story.

>>3299947
Oh and there have been numerous examples of groups successfully organized around anarchist principals. Show me one that collapsed because of it's own contradictions and not overwhelming military force.

>>3300027
Being able to withstand external force is one of the qualities of a successful social organisation.

>>3300027
>there have been numerous examples of groups successfully organized around anarchist principals

[citation needed]

>>3300047
That would be a legitimate critique if the force wasn't used against the society specifically because of how it was organized. It's just saying that anarchism will never work because states will gang up to destroy any anarchist society. It might be true but it's pure ad baculum.

>>3300060
Google it dipshit. I'm not playing that game. Maybe you shouldn't argue about something you've never read any books about. You're the one saying anarchism can't work, so please give me an example of it being attempted and not working. If no one has ever tried it then it hasn't been disproved and you can't say shit about it.

>>3300069
>making statements then getting rustled when asked for proof

>>3300063
Ad baculum is not a fallacy. It is a legitimate critique and it's precisely what make anarchism utopian. "It would work just fine without the baddies trying to hurt us."

>>3300069
>claims there are numerous examples of groups successfully organized around anarchist principals
>cannot provide any evidence to back up these claims
sure is 4chan in here

>>3300069
>Maybe you shouldn't argue about something you've never read any books about.
Implying one cannot have an opinion based on common sense despite their ignorance. You're intolerant and arrogant.

>>3300077
Jesus fuck. Catalonia and the Makhnovschina, would be good places to start.

>>3300078
>common sense
>steel can't float
>people can't fly
>the heavens are made of different matter than earth
>which is flat
Sorry if there's more to understanding things than scratching your ball and looking out the window. It's not my fault the world works that way.

ITT
>I don't believe in irrational numbers
>I can't into math beyond a 5th grade level
>please educate me despite my hostility.

>>3297606
Browsing on a iphone your dad bought you?

>>3300073
It's not utopian because it's not a movement towards a predefined ideal society. End of fucking story.

>>3299963

How do you think hunter-gatherers organized? Have you studied any of the hunter-gatherers of today? Have you looked into this matter AT ALL?

>>3300105
It is. Loosely perhaps, but it is. Also, you still haven't even hinted to a case where anarchism may be a lasting option of social organisation.

>you can't explain THAT with science!

Yes I fucking well can, you insipid trout.

>>3300479
>trout
Like the fish?

>>3297631
10/10 he stopped answering for a reason

>>3296196
I obviously own a monitor/tv but I don't use it for programs or cable or anything, haven't for a long time, the computer does everything you need. I'll never look back.

>>3298811
10/10 LOL'd

>>3300598
>I'll never look back.
That's what Orpheus said.