/lit/ - Literature

>>4174497
>theory
Praxis.

>>4174497
How to get people to read capitalist theory rather than most dismissing it offhand?

How to get people to read anarchist theory rather than most dismissing it offhand?

How to get people to read conservatist theory rather than most dismissing it offhand?

>>4174509
Well im guessing OP lives in America.

Besides the one in the middle those theories are already accepted, theyre not dismissed offhand. And even with the one in the middle, the tea party is "somewhat" libertarian, so its smidgin towards anarchists

>>4174497
To start with, make Socialist theory less retarded.

You're welcome.

>>4174497
OP

>>4174533
Disregard this smear.


What you have to do, what you always have to do to persuade someone, is act like youre the student and theyre the teacher, and eventually by asking the right questions youll make them feel doubtful. Then you off, as a curious young lad, your theory.

Socrates got it right, its a decent way to have a conversation, even though you are undermining the other the whole time. Best to keep an honest ear and actually wonder, what if they are right?

However beware of the just too stupid. Some are too fucking stupid to help.

>>4174540
Getting individuals into it is easy, the real problem is the classic problem of praxis, which is how to you get a sizable group to read or to listen?

>>4174497

I wouldn't know how to do it, I dismissed economy in general offhand.

>>4174497
1.- Make em working class.
2.- When they are fucked up in their jobs, listen to their problems.
3.- Try to explain things as Marx would do.
4.- ???????
5.- Teach.

Remove all the anti-/pseudo-scientific crap, the conspiracy theory crap, any association with feminists...that might work.

there won't be much left though

>>4174568
>Try to explain things as Marx would do.
Yeah, nah. Wasting years writing note books on German philosophy?

I'd rather take advice from Sergio Bologna or Mario Tronti on this front.

>5. Teach

Yeah, nah, praxis mate.

p.s.: You can't speak with workers unless you are one.

>>4174586

>Doesn't read point 1
>Doesn't realize one can teach by doing.

I sincerely hope you are trolling.

>>4174585
Would be reasonable to set aside those crap in order to find true "left", so says Monsieur Rene D.

>>4174608
You're establishing a hierarchy of command that's substitutionalist. Read Mao on To From To. Or the fucking Autonomists on the spontaneous composition.

The class knows more than a pissant little intellectual like you will ever know. And you're setting yourself up with the verb "teach." which is a disciplinary verb in English. Teaching is inflicted.

>>4174497
At gunpoint
the way it always has

What's the benefit of reading socialist theory for the average prole? They're already aware they're getting fucked. Motivation? Inspiration?

There's no organizations out there for the angry prole to join, to express his anger and work for change. Reading Marx is just intellectual masturbation.

>>4174497
Why would you want to? If it's for a debate, you should be able to do explain it yourself. If it's to concientize the masses, I'm sorry buddy, there are no objective conditions for a revolution in the US.

>>4174530
>the tea party is "somewhat" libertarian, so its smidgin towards anarchists
Anarcho-capitalism is very, very different from anarchism. They are not anarchist in the slightest.

>>4174645
To struggle for them?

Marxism is unprincipled. That's why it will always fail. It merely falls back on its supposed historicism, hoping to be propped up.

>>4174645
Cleaver suggests that Volume 1 was written as a tool kit of how to fuck up a boss. Some of Marx's commentary on, "The proletariat already know all this concretely" supports this claim.

Reading Marx's journalism is also pretty useful.

Marx suggests ways that capital can be overcome, based on research into workers overcoming capital, and goes on to plot the trajectory of workers self-liberation based on workers pre-existing actions.

So reading Marx for me is like having a tiny sickly German telling me, "YOU CAN DO IT MAN!" Also I find tactics I haven't encountered in person.

>>4174672
Principles are historically contingent and I bet you normalise and univeralise bourgeois morality. Fuck off blockhead.

>>4174683
Top kek.

You still didn't state a single first principle. How can you act without sentiment? Or is your prophecy enough? You're doomed to wallow. What does it all stem from? Tell me that, at least.

>>4174700
>idealism
My self-interest in my classes' historical position develops as a historically contingent structure from the very structure of production in capitalism. My ideology is one of a number of natural reaction to the factory system. It is distinguished from other reactions through its pure self-interest and historical awareness.

There are no first principles. Principles are the justification of a class' historical-material self-interest.

>still treating marx as a positive philosopher
go 2 bed kids

>>4174708
Holist rubbish.

If I tortured you in the most excruciating manner would you renounce Marxism? Why or why not?

>>4174712
This is the debating equivalent of "I pull out a gun"

Btw it is literally true, that Californian liberals support a larger government with more state power than Lenin;
is it not so?

>>4174787
It is not even close to true, you lunatic.

Fuck the working class. NEET life, fucking plebs.

>>4174762

So, it's safe to say you value your life more than your class conscious self-interest?

>>4174797
>2013
>this much false consciousness
Trust me, it's in your best interests to revolt instead so that when you do decide to work you won't be alienated from your labor.

>>4174712
You've got no way to determine what renunciation is.

Off past data I'd probably suicide / you'd kill me / I'd be one of that unlucky percentage who can resist.

>>4174803
Go read anything on revolutions in retreat and proletarian reactions. I'd suggest starting with Pirani.

propaganda of the deed comrade

just don't assassinate the president ok

>did you hear that NSA, I wrote DON'T

>>4174497
>How to get people to read Socialist theory rather than most dismissing it offhand?

Move out of the USA to a civilized country where the citizens aren't brainwashed gun-toting plebs.

>problem solved

>>4174497
I feel like I'm the only one who read socialist works and then rejected it.
Or maybe.... Many people are familiar with them, they just don't like it.

>>4174866
I think there are people who read The Communist Manifesto and think that they then know enough to dismiss any form of anti-capitalism. What's less common are people who've actually bothered to read socialist theory closely and carefully and know what it is they're rejecting.

Of course, the same arguably holds true for libertarianism.

Don't tell people it's socialist theory.

People love socialist ideas. They just hate the word socialism.

>>4174864
don't live in the USA but it's more or less the same here
Nobody really knows much besides what you get taught in Intermediate and conversational stuff so they'll repeat the same few things ("Communism works in theory but not in practice" "Capitalism is not a perfect system but it's the best one we have" "Even China and Vietnam are capitalist now" etc.) if the subject comes up

>>4174886
Idea: give somebody some of Marx's Civil War journalism without letting them know it was Marx who wrote it.

>>4174887
Oh, and they consider European countries Socialist "but like, good socialist"

One of the biggest problems is that so many people think that socialism means central planning or the (more or less still capitalist) welfare state.

>>4174797
>mfw /lit/ was lumpenproletariat near me

>>4174896
>anyone on /int/
>not lumpen

I always wondered...do socialists view the fact that a socialist economy never produced sustainable economic growth as problematic? Or do you just use NTS to get around that?

>>4174657
whats the difference?

>>4175110
That isn't true though. How are you even defining 'a socialist country'?

>>4175110
Maoist and other anticolonial socialist governments are incontrovertibly not socialist in any kind of meaningful or progressive sense.
Some dismiss the USSR and Yugoslavia as also having 'skipped' the capitalist phase and therefore not counting, but I think this is disingenuous; the USSR has to be honestly analysed as a real socialist state. Key is, what you mentioned, it wasn't sustainable- the USSR was an attempt to match the terms of capitalism and early on it was an unprecedented economic success despite all political problems, only to totally economically stagnate entering the Postmodern era. No meaningful economic reforms were put in place for about a quarter century until the collapse.
No country was really prepared for the postindustrial economy but capitalism was better able to adjust and break through the economic deadock through the Neoliberal revolution effectively totally changing economic structure. This, of course, is not sustainable either and has turned the developed world's workplace into a bloated, beaurocratic administration-heavy mess of 'virtual' productivity in which a few employees spend some of their time doing all actual production.
Obviously a new socialist government would take this into account; all things considered I don't consider it a huge hurdle. The excessive productivity of today's developed world is something capitalism can't really function with, something a new socialist state could translate into actual increased living standards or productivity, rather than the soviet "three men selling one piece of meat" model

>>4175172
What in the name of the lord is "excessive productivity"?

>>4175172
value persisted from 1917.

fuck off voluntarist.

>>4174497
>How to get people to read Socialist theory rather than most dismissing it offhand?

Show them successful communistic countries.

Latest success:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/21/world/americas/venezuela-toilet-paper/index.html

>>4174497

Make them read The Allegory of The Cave first or something to make them feel bad. Then once they're frail emancipate the fuckers from the shackles of the bourgeois.

Revolution Coming Soon™

>>4174626
>The class knows more

See, this is the sort of mystical shit that gives away communism's totalitarian agenda. It gives agency to the Class, an entity that does not exist in fact (either in the way you and I do or in the way the US or 4chan or Coca Cola do) and as such has to be represented by the Party (in the broad sense).

But since the Party is speaking and acting in the interests of the class, _by definition_, then it is free to do whatever it wants, since the only judge of its actions is the class of which itself is the sole representative.

Communism, as a movement, is totalitarian by definition, and in any sane democracy it wouldn't be a remotely acceptable viewpoint to have. That we discuss it like we discuss the raising of a tax just shows how leftward the cultural atmosphere currently is.

>>4175245
I also disagree with the poster you quoted but you sound ridiculous- communism is by no means discussed like the raising of a tax, it's totally removed from mainstream political discourse and a mild-to-moderate conversational taboo depending on the company you keep
The atmosphere is not at all leftward, except in totally superficial matters like Gay Marriage or Cannabis legalization. Economically the right dominates the discussion and their viewpoint is commonly treated as economic fact (anti-keynesian austerity logic, ideologically muddled ideas of low taxation)

>>4175255
You know how, when someone attempts to defend some other totalitarian ideology like nazism or fascism, nobody gives him attention? In fact, we often laugh them out of the room without much consideration for what they have to say, like we should, and they can only find consolation in shitholes like /pol/ or Stormfront.

This is how communism should be treated.

There aren't any Nazi or fascist professors in colleges or publishing. The same can't be said about communism.

>>4175266
In what way is Socialism, as defined as the abolishment of free enterprise and control of property by the state, equivalent to fundamentally injust, hierarchical and violent ideologies such as those you named?
What is totalitarianism and why is it bad?

>>4175273
He explained it literally 3 posts up, can you read?

>>4174497
If there was a way of doing this there would only be one ideology. The only thing you can do is try to convince people that being able to take different perspectives actually have pragmatic value. This value consists in making better solutions since you have a broader set of tools. The problem is that if your only tool is a hammer all problems will look like nails. Marxist theory also have applications outside the political sphere.

>>4175275
And capitalism doesn't tell anyone what is best for them?

>>4175275
If you mean him saying the party acts as the sole representative of the people, then I still ask, why is this bad? This allows them to act in the peoples interests more than democracy would. The members of the party have no motive but to act in service of the governed. The risk of corruption is less than under capitalism. Peoples voices can and still will be heard, moreso than now
Representative liberal democracy is a restrictive framework offering the illusion of choice and a totally artificial way of government, not the natural development it's portrayed as. It shouldn't be a sacrosanct part of policy

>>4175283
...no? That's kind of the whole point of capitalism, innit? I don't see how you could even compare an abstract system to the very not-abstract Party.

>>4175284
>The members of the party have no motive but to act in service of the governed

How so? Why would they act against their own self interest?

>>4175285
Err, no? Isnt the point of capitalism that the ones who won the competition designs the rules of the system?

>>4175285
'free choice' capitalism claims to offer is almost all illusory; decisions are of a superficial 'lifestyle' nature or strictly follow the interests of capital.
Your point is exactly capitalism's source of resiliency as ideology. In its decentralization it's 'just the way things are' whereas in socialism there's always the government to blame. In capitalism, systematic injustices are the result of an individuals choice or misfortune; systematic corruption is the result of a specific individual or corporation acting unethically

>>4175273
Socialism, "as defined as the abolishment of free enterprise and control of property by the state", is neither good or bad because it cannot exist, which is why this definition is only useful for rhetoric ends.

Socialism, in the sense I use the word, is better defined as a revolutionary movement driven by the view that history is the history of class struggle and that it is up to the politically organized "working class" to dethrone the "bourgeoisie."

It is equivalent to Nazism because of the driving principle behind all of them, which is the revolutionary mentality. The revolutionary mentality can be defined as such:

- global ambitions. The revolutionary movement isn't one that is expected to stay at home, it wants to affect the entire world. It's not a mere set of domestic policies.
- utopia that is being held back by a section of humanity. Crime and other social malladies are problems that are systemic, caused by The Oppressors' stranglehold on society. If only The Oppressors were wiped out and the political organization of The Oppressed were given power, everything would be solved.
- creation of a "new man": since this uprooting of the current social order will change everything, man's nature will also be changed radically. People will stop being egoistic, racist, intolerant, unpolite...
- judgment by the future. The promised utopia is so good that anything is justified in achieving it.

Totalitarianism is the practical consequence of the revolutionary mentality's final goal of reshaping society in its fundamentals. It differs from authoritarianism in that authoritarianism is concerned only with your objective conduct, while totalitarianism wants your soul as well. An authoritarian doesn't care about your intimacy as long as you do what you're told, a totalitarian gives you no such luxury. It invades your family and your personal relationships.

To put in perspective, Stalin and Hitler are totalitarians, Pinochet was authoritarian.

>>4175292
What competition? What system? What design? None of these things have anything to do with capitalism.

>>4175286
What self-interest would they act on, salary raises and government perks aside? These examples A. already occur and B. can be safeguarded against to an extent
What other motive do they have? They won't do bad things for no reason

>>4175305
Power?

>>4175305
Power for power's sake is actually quite the reason.

>>4175296
>It is equivalent to Nazism because of the driving principle behind all of them, which is the revolutionary mentality

>>4175307
>>4175312
Okay, how? Using a vague ideal of a western first world country socialist government, so things like naming a city after yourself are right out
This is not a dictatorship, just not a representative democracy

>>4175313
Yes, they should all be thrown into the trash. Communism and nazism were responsible for WWII and have the highest death counts of the 20th century (a death count that is unprecedented, by the way).

Particulars of their policy may have differences (focus on race x focus on class, etc), but it does not alter the driving force behind them.

>>4175296
Thats such a superficial view of Marxism as only a political project and only as the political project of the 20th century.

What you don't understand is what the left is today.

And your view that it should be a crime to believe anything other than capitalism is more nazi-like than what you are accusing the commies of.

>>4175316
How is communism even remotely responsible for World War II?
When people talk about communism, it's generally with the corollary that the particulars of Stalin's rule were a Bad Thing that you shouldn't kill lots of people for like no reason
>Particulars of their policy may have differences (focus on race x focus on class, etc), but it does not alter the driving force behind them.
I don't understand what you're saying

>>4175299
Are you retarded? Or are you a utopian capitalist Puritan, oh wait, that's also being retarded.

>>4175317
>Thats such a superficial view of Marxism as only a political project and only as the political project of the 20th century.

Marxism is only the justification of communism as a movement. And communism is a political project, but there are political projects and political projects. Projects like communism or nazism are far more sweeping in what they want to affect than most of what has been seen in history.

>And your view that it should be a crime to believe anything other than capitalism is more nazi-like than what you are accusing the commies of.

What the fuck? I'm not saying it should be a crime to believe "anything other than capitalism." I'm saying, however, that it is telling that we discuss communism as just another idea.

>>4175317
The left today is filled with people who look positively on the 20th century marxist political project.

The left today can't stop fellating bloodthirsty stalinist and maoist apologists ffs. The most hilarious recent example were all the glowing obits for Hobsbawm, a genuine fucking monster.

>>4175328
>How is communism even remotely responsible for World War II?

Stalin forged an alliance with Hitler that allowed him free pass to attack Poland.

>When people talk about communism, it's generally with the corollary that the particulars of Stalin's rule were a Bad Thing that you shouldn't kill lots of people for like no reason

What makes them think that they can separate the revolutionary process from the carnage of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim and on? You can't say "I believe this, except without the bad things historically associated with it that happened every time it was tried", just like that.

>I don't understand what you're saying

Nazism and communism are both motivated by the desire of radically altering society via political action.

>>4175329
are you touched in the head
>>4175331
Why shouldn't we discuss it? It's the only real alternative to capitalism, which is an unsustainable system responsible for many injustices as bad as socialism in the 20th century, but which are mostly normalised.
Capitalism is the predominant ideology but it's no more a 'natural' political idea
of course, it's massively taboo to be serious about it outside the intellectual community

>>4175331
Marx's contention that 'human nature' is conditioned by the society man finds himself in and that man is the animal that changes nature to fit him. Is what makes him so important, no matter how bad the USSR faired in their attempt at breaking with feudalism.

This opposition to that people are bound to suffering because that's the way things are and their emancipation is opposed by nature, is profound and worth saving.

We agree that it should be discussed in equal competition with other ideas. I just read it like you made it sound criminal.

>>4175346
We're still talking on different terms. "Communism" is not a different "system" or an "alternative" to "capitalism", communism is a self-conscious movement. There is no such thing as a "capitalist" movement, which is why they aren't equivalent.

Particular nations have committed crimes, but "capitalism" itself did no crimes, because "capitalism" isn't an organization or a movement or what. "Capitalism" is a pejorative term in an attempt to make social evils look systemic and as such need a systemic answer. It is simply shorthand for "everything bad" (or "everything good", if you ask a conservative person), that puts all aspects of society into the same basket.

>>4175343
Something totally opportunistic on the part of the Soviets and instigated by the Germans; this is not ideology but pure realpolitik
The USSR is the only group fit for comparison; ironically here the horror is that the violence was almost totally pointless, violence for its own sake and its own message. The revolution itself was famously very bloodless.
All revolutions are motivated by the desire of radically altering society by political action, how does this make them unjust? Many countries are the result of such revolutions. What should people do when the political situation is unjust and unworkable, nothing?

>>4175351
>"Capitalism" is a pejorative term in an attempt to make social evils look systemic and as such need a systemic answer.

So social ills aren't systemic? They are just random flukes?

Are you proposing willful ignorance instead because this is as good as it gets?

>>4175351
that's exactly what communism is, another form of government and society. Of course it's a movement because it does not exist; when it does, it's still goal oriented, but so is Capitalism, in which government and all action exists to facilitate the production of capital
Capitalism is exactly a system, an ideology and and way of government by which all life is organised; you have false consciousness. This is not any kind of natural order
Your point about 'social ills' is false historicizing; terrible things can and are done for profit and to facilitate capital; corporations will not self-regulate.

>>4175353
>Something totally opportunistic on the part of the Soviets and instigated by the Germans; this is not ideology but pure realpolitik

Realpolitik, yes. Communists often did lots of realpolitik, things that would seem crazy to anyone literally following what was written in their texts.

>All revolutions are motivated by the desire of radically altering society by political action, how does this make them unjust? Many countries are the result of such revolutions. What should people do when the political situation is unjust and unworkable, nothing?

I should add something to what I said: they are the desire of radically altering _civil_ society via political action. Revolutions, in the broad sense, are often restricted to institutions, and when they go over the top, they become authoritarian (in the sense described above).

But they don't have a desire of altering civil society, each individual's relationship with another and with themselves, the way the Nazis or the communists did. (marriages being celebrated under the blessings of Mein Kampf, biology being separated into "bourgeois" and "proletarian", family members spying on one another, youth wings of the Party to which youngsters are required to filiate, and so on)

>>4174657
B-b-but they really are.... Ever get into autonomedia? They are really more into markets than capitalism though.

>>4175351
You seem to miss that to propose an alternative, you have to propose a complete system, but that is done to replace an existing system in place, you are blind to the status quo because you are in the middle of it.

>>4175360
So all social evils are systemic and interconnected to each other? Do they all come from exactly the same place, from the exact same source, so all one needs to eradicate them is to give power to a sweeping political project?

Racism, misoginy (actual racism and misoginy, not the tumblr version) poverty, crime, are they all caused by the "system"?

Can humanity fix these evils by the magic wand of political action?

>>4175172
All I got out of that was
>capitalism is better at adapting to new circumstances.
And
>USSR failed because competition with capitalists is bad for communists :(

Sounds pretty superior to me.

>>4175373
>things that would seem crazy to anyone literally following what was written in their texts
refer to this

Describing the obviously dystopian qualities of Stalinist USSR (lumped in in an incredibly disingenuous way with Nazism) doesn't prove your point; there is nothing wrong with radically altering civil society, not to mention how totally our live in contemporary society are structured by the logic of capital

>>4175384
>So all social evils are systemic and interconnected to each other? Do they all come from exactly the same place, from the exact same source

Yes society, and society isn't a reflection of natural law, it's man-made by power relations of the past it's why you both have culture and counterculture simultaneously.

I don't believe in politics or top down solutions, but I do believe in fostering cognitive empathy (perspective taking) and individual thinking as opposed to groupthink (culture, identity think) and I believe it will solve itself Bottom-up over time.

>>4175366
>>4175379
"False consciousness" is an appeal to the mystical. It is saying, "but you do not TRULY SEE." How is it that the person with "true consciousness" managed to become so enlightened? Somehow.

Terrible things are done for profit, yes, but they are done by the ones seeking the profit. "Capitalism" doesn't do them because "capitalism" doesn't exist if it means anything more precise than "the general state of things in the world now."

The word itself is an attempt at interconnecting things that would not be able to be interconnected otherwise.

What exists, however, is The Economy, and it can be said with some certainity that it has laws and categories that applied both in the US and in the USSR. But there is no such thing as "socialist economics" and "capitalist economics", save for extreme particulars of each country.

>>4175402
>and I believe it will solve itself Bottom-up over time.

Cool. You're not afflicted with the revolutionary mentality.

>>4174545
Control of the popular media.

>>4175384
I don't understand your continued insistence on the point that any significant political change is bad
Poverty and Crime obviously are; the rest are more arguable. I don't think gender relations are as impacted, but absolutely racism is exacerbated by competition as labour

>>4175396
>there is nothing wrong with radically altering civil society

Via political action? Why do you think so?

>>4175409
I once did, but got disheartened by reading about historical revolutions. Then I read Marx and he wrote that the end product of capitalism will lead to socialism in a gradual change he just thought he could speed it up by inciting revolution. I'm betting on the gradual change.

>>4175402
This is the dominant liberal ideology of our times and I totally disagree; I think this is basically a list of 'things that sound nice'; it's a fake idealism that feeds into the existing system. Local organisation, as the USSR teaches us, basically doesn't work

>>4175420
Your just mad at us softcocks.

>>4175412
>I don't understand your continued insistence on the point that any significant political change is bad

Because most of these things can't be changed via political action. They can be ameliorated (the ways in which this amelioration can happen are another discussion), but you can't go on and say "crime is a product of X, we'll take power so we'll destroy X and end crime."

What will happen is that plenty of crime happens not because of X, your policies will fail at ending crime, this failure will be atributted to an external factor or enemy, and you will have justification to further increasing your power over the lives of people.

Change itself isn't the problem, when it is guided by the past experience of society; utopian, messianic proposals of change that will be practiced through any means necessary are the problem.

>>4175404
Capitalism is 'the general state of things in the world now' articulated, the underlying logic laid out. The way the world functions is not the result of "human nature", the specific logic that structures contemporary life is not all there is
I don't really know how to argue with you anymore, you're being willfully dense but demonstrating my point about false consciousness perfectly; there just is no other way for you to view the world but preexisting logic of capital

>>4175404

>"False consciousness" is an appeal to the mystical. It is saying, "but you do not TRULY SEE." How is it that the person with "true consciousness" managed to become so enlightened? Somehow.

Do you understand the theory of false consciousness? You seem to taking the words in there literal meaning and deriving your definition of the theory from those strict definitions.

>"...each of these events remains within the sphere of theology, philosophy or political science, represents a stage in the history of these particular spheres of thought and never passes outside the sphere of thought. And since the bourgeois illusion of the eternity and the finality of capitalist production has been added as well, even the victory of the physiocrats and Adam Smith over the mercantilists is accounted as a sheer victory of thought; not as the reflection in thought of changed economic facts but as the finally achieved correct understanding of actual conditions subsisting always and everywhere"

False consciousness does not lead to 'enlightenment', unless you count 'enlightenment' as thinking (or at least attempting to think) outside of present intellectual 'spheres' of thought.

>>4175435
This is, of course, another show of the revolutionary mentality: rational debate is unnecessary, because the other party simply _doesn't see_ that the path to revolution is perfect and gifted by historical inevitability.

All left for these little subhumans to do is to get out of our way when the revolutionary change starts -- or else.

The joys of enlightenment and mystical intuition inacessible to us poor mortals.

>>4175442
In practice, accusations of "false consciousness" are just another way of disregarding the opponents of the revolution without the need of actually engaging them and subjecting oneself to the rules of civil society -- since, after all, the only judge of the revolutionary is the perfect future he is building, the present be damned.

And what is more important for a marxist than practice?

>>4175447
This post reminded me of Pink Floyd's sheep

Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air
You better watch out
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Jordan and I have seen
Things are not what they seem.

What do you get for pretending the danger's not real
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel
What a surprise!
A look of terminal shock in your eyes
Now things are really what they seem
No, this is no bad dream.

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want
He makes me down to lie
Through pastures green he leadeth me the silent waters by
With bright knives he releaseth my soul
He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places
He converteth me to lamb cutlets
For lo,m he hath great power and great hunger
When cometh the day we lowly ones
Through quiet reflection and great dedication
Master the art of karate
Lo, we shall rise up
And then we'll make the bugger's eyes water.

Bleating and babbling we fell on his neck with a scream
Wave upon wave of demented avengers
March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

Have you heard the news?
The dogs are dead!
You better stay home
And do as you're told
Get out of the road if you want to grow old.

>>4174497
Why read it?
It's jewish nonsense.

>>4175462
please don't
>>4175447
In what way am I not the one engaging in rational debate? You refuse to engage with any of the ideas put forward, and your only points are fallacious, demonstrably wrong and confused. You're offering no real points, just referring to Mao and Stalinist horror and claiming this is representative of anything

>>4175475
It's already done I'm afraid.

>>4175475
All you are doing is saying "BUT THE NEXT TIME IT WILL WORK I SWEAR! (and if you don't agree it's because you have false consciousness)"

You haven't actually addressed any of my points. (that is literal false consciousness)

>>4175458

>>4175458

>In practice,

Not in my experience: though I've no idea who's shouted at you in the past.

>accusations of "false consciousness" are just another way of disregarding the opponents of the revolution without the need of actually engaging them

'False consciousness' is used to stimulate thinking (to get a person to recognize the inherent historical bias with which they will view any concept whether it be a socialist, fascist or capitalist concept), or it should be when used correctly. It's developed into a pretty decent critical tool.

>and subjecting oneself to the rules of civil society

I don't follow you on this. One doesn't lead to the other.

>since, after all, the only judge of the revolutionary is the perfect future he is building, the present be damned.

....

>>4175486
What is the criterion that you use to determine when an idea is sufficiently clean of "historical bias" in order to be debated? And how is it that you reach this criterion and conclude that itself is not influenced by any sort of bias?

In fact, how is it that one finds this perfect lens that lets one determine whether one's concept is "socialist, fascist or capitalist"? Is this lens neutral? And if this lens is neutral, then a neutral way of looking at society is possible, after all.

>>4175500

There isn't a 'criteria' or a 'perfect lens', its a critical tool, it actively reminds you of the very things you've just stated, that's why its such a useful critical tool and that's why I found it so odd when you equated it (albeit mockingly) to enlightenment.

>>4175420
Well, I don't disagree with you, I believe that pseudo-socialist capitalists like me are generally too dismissive of most of the good ideas that was actually practiced under communism in the 20th century.
Especially I liked their cultural emphasis on science and technology founded in praxis, but they lacked the maturation in the fields which the west had, which made them easy targets as bad guys in Hollywood propaganda depictions.


But from what I have read was that the actual praxis of these ideas became abominations. I don't blame the party and human nature for this. I blame that they reached for utopia too early and that, I think, is a common political problem of promising Utopias.

People would like to see them accomplished in their lifetime. I know it's cliche, but I believe that communism needs an advanced technological and praxis founded epistemological foundation to support it.

I don't believe we're there yet, but I see the pattern that that's the way we are moving. Small steps in the right direction.

>>4174497
Get them to watch Ma[t]r[i]x with you and make small Marxist remarks (remarx?) every now and then. At the end of the movie proceed to redpill them (there is a reason why the pill is red, comrades). Hopefully that will make them interested.

>>4175555
>dem repeating digits
Not that I'm implying that Matrix is Marxist, but it would be a nice tool to use in order to get someone into a whole new set of ideas.

And after arguing with strangers on the internet about how the man is keeping him down, anonymous took a break to watch some anime and smoke some weed before doing it all over again.

Rock on, you stupid faggots.

Get them to read Kropotkin instead, starting with Mutual Aid.

>>4175564
>nobody has argued this
>100% prejudice
>/lit/ not /pol/

GTFO you don't belong here.

If you want socialism, do it. Create a workers cooperative, communal farm, if socialism is truly the superior way it will spread like this. But when you want the state to adopt your views and letting you take part in your homicidal fantasies, then you are just a psycopath.

>>4174497
>dismissing it offhand
why shouldn't I dismiss it?

>>4175640
Why should you?

>>4175639
>>4175640
>I just love it when megacorporations ram their everpresent dicks in my ass and the asses of everyone and everything I know

>4175642
>The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
yeah no

>>4175639
Again this is a very superficial reading, and only [\spoiler]>implies the oughts of socialism and not it's critique of capitalism.

>>4175644
>I just love it when the government and/or dictators ram their everpresent dicks in my ass and the asses of everyone and everything I know

>>4175644
Please elaborate, how isn't this a valid lense to view history through?

>>4175655
Was a reply to
>>4175650

Sorry.

>>4175644
Neoliberalism is shitty, but communism is worse.

At least im not sent to a gulag for not drinking coca cola.

>>4175655
Its unfalseable.

>>4175642
because we live in a society with scarce resources (making things equal will trade off and make things inefficient), providing jobs (or the job that fulfills somebody) [altruism] is not and has never been a good incentive for people to do things, people are generally out for themselves [profit, or just to prove they are] which sounds bad but it makes everybody better off >>4175644 you sure hate using that internet and personal computer don't you? [apple, microsoft] you hate driving your car that's powered by petroleum based products [J D Rockefeller, Henry Ford] and international travel is so inconvenient with planes produced by Boeing and Bombardier (Wilbur and Orville Wright) and electricity and etc and etc and I could go on for days. and I will keep going.

Look at welfare states in the EU. Italy, Spain, the welfare that they are providing is literally crushing their governments. You want something more domestic to the US? Look at the rust belt cities, Cleveland, Detroit and etc. Large businesses were being crushed by the unions so they moved south, teachers unions crush education in big cities, just look at the way they run seniority and firing / hiring practices.

>>4175659
>says the guy who aren't a cola nut farmer and whose life isn't threatened by coca cola deathsquads.

>>4175644
Megacorporations are not the problem, but the banking interests. But wait, Marx never said too much about it since he was a happy merchant himself and a cousin to Rothschilds.

>>4175662
So is any view on history. You can't observe the past directly? Wtf

>>4175666
That only happens in third world countries without economic freedom, in communism, the whole economy is like that, just look what happened to ukrainian farmers.

>Not being a mixed economy wellfair state

When will they learn?

>>4175670
Thats why history is not a science, but historical materialism is bad even for the standards of history.

>>4175663
A pig taking credit for evolution. None of the things you've stated debunks any criticisms of capitalism. There were also well functioning organizations and wealth gained from the merchantilism from spices, gold and slave trade. The merchants will thrive under any system because any system needs to frame a distribution of commodities. It's not like there weren't industrial enterprise in Soviet Russia? And in each of these times the argument you just made, could be made in both these contexts and be equally valid.

You are just exposing your naive confirmation bias and dismiss every contradiction contained in capitalism.

>>4175680
I'll only accept this if I live in a homogeneous society.

>>4175677
Third world countries are mostly less regulated than the first world.

>>4175683
You don't know what science is, do you?
It's not your exclusive club of valid methods and subjects.

>>4175691
It depends, i live in one (Brazil) and overregulation and bureaucracy are ridiculous. Guess what, only companies close to the government can do business, and they can do everything, including hiring death squads.

>>4175707
Brasil não é terceiro mundo, seu tetudo de merda. E o resto do seu comentário é tão insosso que chega a dar nojo. E não, não estou defendendo o país.

Brazil is not a third world country, friend. And the rest of your post is just the usual mild complaint from the guy next door. And I'm not saying this to defend Brazil.

>>4175719
>Brazil is not a third world country

>>4175719
>Brazil is not a third world country

>>4174540
Where did Socrates say that?

>>4175707
This is capitalistic interest unchallenged not responsible regulation, it's more akin to protectionism.

Teach them that identity politics is wrong and they're everything wrong with the left

>>4175691
Many countries who are slow to adapt to globalization have notoriously authoritarian regimes and a very weak private sector. One reason they are poor is because companies are very reluctant to invest in the economy when the government is not transparent and gives insider info to only a few companies. Globalization brings capitalism and globalization also calls for a strong private sector with a transparent government, which is very threatening to a ruler wanting to keep a hold on power.

>>4175686
>those false analogies
look, capitalism has its faults, but nobody is a slave to anybody else, it's something that you socialists can't seem to grasp. there is a supply and demand for labor as there is for goods, you can't maintain a pool of unemployed, this is inefficiency and markets hate inefficiency, so people have the opportunity to change jobs or even learn new trades.

> It's not like there weren't industrial enterprise in Soviet Russia?

where's the industrial enterprise from NK? Vietnam? Why has China adopted a market based economy? Where is Soviet Russia today?

The ultimate question is stability and viability. Market capitalism, when property rights are guaranteed, excels in both categories. In places like the former Soviet Union the central planners couldn't predict what people would like and the forced equality opened up massive black markets: that's not stability, that's the opposite, there were shortages of needed supplies, and surpluses of junk and garbage (LETS BUILD 9000000000 ak's! THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE NEED! NOT DIAPERS OR CLOTHES OR FOOD!) People flee places like Cuba and Nk in droves: that's not stability. As for viability, I already answered that question above

Get James Franco to endorse it.

>>4175757
>In places like the former Soviet Union the central planners
Socialism != central planning. Go read up on market socialism to see how the market can be compatible with eliminating private ownership of the means of production.

>>4175772
>market socialism to see how the market can be compatible with eliminating private ownership of the means of production.
>eliminate private ownership of the means of production
>the market can be compatible with socialism

pretel, who runs the factories? who hires the programmers? who decides what software gets produced? who decides what clothes lines get green lit? Who decides what music gets produced? What incentive do people in this system have to not cheat the system and not create their own means of production? Who decides who has good enough ideas in this system to get access to means of production? What and who decides what a good idea is? What incentive do people have to not steal or barter for more than their share of the goods produced? Isn't the ultimate goal of socialism to become the most equal society?

>>4175784
>pretel, who runs the factories? who hires the programmers? who decides what software gets produced? who decides what clothes lines get green lit?
The workers. No, seriously. You democratize the workplace.

>>4175784
>Isn't the ultimate goal of socialism to become the most equal society?
Depends on who you ask. Some folks would say the goal is freedom, instead.

Look, I know you don't agree with any of these people, but they're not idiots and they've already anticipated most of your objections. I'm okay with you not agreeing with them, but you should at least be willing to take them seriously.

>>4175794
Why the fuck would workers decide what software gets produced?
Shouldn't the consumers do that by creating a demand for it?

>>4175784
No the ultimate goal is personal liberation where you are not reduced to a mean for making profits by a capitalist exploiter, and you actually see various answers to this out there in the world right now, some gives their workers stock in the company's market share others create various forms of cooperatives or more democratic organization.

Read socialist literature before you opine on it.

>>4175818
In a company, the management decides what software gets produced AND the consumers decide by creating a demand.

In a market socialist economy, the workers decide what software gets produced AND the consumers decide by creating a demand.

>>4175825
So... the managers don't actually work?
I thought the "workers", as you put it, were supposed to be creating the ideas that others think of.
What if.... bear with me.... What if we have a separate group of workers who think of awesome stuff that consumers would want to buy. Because let's face it, not all workers are idea machines. And some workers may be stupid and vote against really really good ideas.

>>4175846
So outside unions are better? And why does you imply that you vote against good ideas if you are stupid?

>>4175846
Take everything I say with a grain of salt, here, as I can't hope to speak for everybody and I can't claim to be a total expert on this matter, etc.

Anyway! I misspoke above, I suppose. The point isn't so much doing away with division of labor as it is doing away with ownership (IN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION; we're not talking about taking away your house or anything here). So one possible policy along these lines would be doing away with wage labor and instead directly giving all of the employees a share of the profits—nobody would get an extra amount of money simply by virtue of owning the company.

The other point relevant to your objections would be to point out that the folks at marketing and management are equally capable of making bad decisions; you might still have management, but they wouldn't have one-way control in decision making over the other workers. Managers could be temporarily elected, or management decisions could be decided through voting.

>>4175846
>And some workers may be stupid and vote against really really good ideas.
See, this just sounds elitist to me. There might be workers who don't KNOW a whole lot, but hopefully involving them in the decision-making process would help them learn. Extreme division of labor can be a bit of a problem. And managers can also be stupid and go against really good ideas.

But that undercurrent of elitism to a lot of capitalist apologetics really annoys me. (For what it's worth, I get annoyed at seeing that in socialists/communists/etc. too.)

>>4175864
Yea, but then you're playing politics with the workers and pandering for votes.... that sounds like a horrible way to manage employees if they are managing you!

>>4175863
Because marketers work specifically to create new items. That is what they do. Workers are paid to create products. That is what they do. To mix the two sounds incredibly idiotic.
At most, have a bi-annually idea fair where workers can propose ideas for the company. If their ideas translate to a product that brings profits, they get paid more.
But having workers control the idea machine? Idiotic.

>>4175867
If they were paid to learn then they would be paid to learn. Instead, they are paid to work.

>>4175874
>that sounds like a horrible way to manage employees if they are managing you!
I find it interesting that your sympathy immediately went to the management.

>>4175874
>Yea, but then you're playing politics with the workers and pandering for votes.... that sounds like a horrible way to manage employees if they are managing you!
Is it better than despotism?—I realize that sounds a little harsh, but look at it this way: would you rather your politicians have to pander for votes from you and your fellow citizens, or would you rather they simply get to decide without oversight? I'd say democracy sounds to me like the lesser of two evils.

But that doesn't quite put it the way I'm trying to put it here. I'm basically saying that the workers ought to know enough about their job that they can know more or less how to manage things; doing so isn't normally a part of their job description, but I think it ought to be. There's nothing that makes the management innately superior or less deserving of being managed.

>>4175874
>Because marketers work specifically to create new items. That is what they do. Workers are paid to create products. That is what they do. To mix the two sounds incredibly idiotic.

This should be the decision of the company in questions workers and not you or the gubmint.

>>4175874
If you have ever held an earnest job you would know that one of the most demotivating factors of a workplace is management.

>>4175878
>If they were paid to learn then they would be paid to learn. Instead, they are paid to work.

>The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations... has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life... But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which... the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.
—Adam Smith.
Excess division of labor is bad.

>>4175794
>but you should at least be willing to take them seriously
I just can't because they're defending something that's failed, over, and over, and over

>The workers. No, seriously. You democratize the workplace.
who wants to actually work? if you democratize a workplace production would fall because people are now taking liberties that they "deserve" like stealing supplies and etc, and generally doing nothing at all when they're supposed to be working.

>>4175819
>capitalist exploiter
this is what makes your argument flawed, nobody's exploiting anybody here, see my previous statement of supply and demand for labor and nobody being slaves. you sell your labor at the market demand for your skills. ie burger flippers and english majors get minimum wage (when they should get less) and doctors and programmers and engineers and investors get bank

how could anybody be free when nobody is allowed to exercise being better than anybody else?

>>4175962
>I just can't because they're defending something that's failed, over, and over, and over
And this is what we're protesting against—Mao, Stalin, &c. did not institute socialist programs of the right sort, and the programs they did institute do nothing to discredit the sorts of socialism we're talking about. It's like saying that the evils of imperialism and industrialism and monopoly show that all capitalism is bad, when capitalism by no means has to be synonymous with corporate plutocracy.

>>4175962
>burger flippers and english majors get minimum wage (when they should get less) and doctors and programmers and engineers and investors get bank
>how could anybody be free when nobody is allowed to exercise being better than anybody else?
>all dat elitism
>implying that the only measures of worth and value come from increasing production of material goods
Plz. It's things like this that make me think that maybe Marcuse was right about one-dimensional society.

>>4175962
>I just can't because they're defending something that's failed, over, and over, and over
This Fukayamaist "end of history" undertone in this sentence is something I kinda get tired of seeing when Communism is discussed. Marxism was invented 200 years ago, it's not exactly an ancient theory. Everyone gets that 20th century Communism didn't work but whenever anyone says something like "Communism has never worked/didn't work" the implication is that it will never be attempted again, because of the end of history. I just think it's naive to assume that neoliberal capitalist democracy will now exist forever.

>if you democratize a workplace production would fall because people are now taking liberties that they "deserve" like stealing supplies and etc, and generally doing nothing at all when they're supposed to be working.
Do you have any proof of that? If people only work because they're bossed around, how do you explain Stakhanovites? Why do you think everyone's a slacker?

>>4175962
>you sell your labor at the market demand for your skills. ie burger flippers and english majors get minimum wage (when they should get less) and doctors and programmers and engineers and investors get bank
>how could anybody be free when nobody is allowed to exercise being better than anybody else?

Oh god, why don't you come down out of your ivory tower and see that you minimum wage can be a demand by people faced by social reality too? Also that you are implying that the only incentive of doctors is seeing people suffer, what the fuck man?

Supply and demand isn't only bound to trade, many of people's actual demands can't be met by buying commodities go take a look at Maslows pyramid.

Also that no one is exploited 2 parts acting equally without outside pressures which employers exploit. Such outside pressures like hunger, needs to provide family to name a few gives the employer an obvious unfair advantage. Also when your work is valued only by your employer who has an interest in maximizing profit, again you are exploited especially when you are easily replaceable. This is actually why there was a demand for the welfare state it was created as a natural response to and development of capitalism.

>>4175973
in order for socialism to work you require a strong central government, following that people generally are out for their own well being, therefore the altruist idea of socialism CANNOT work. it is against human nature to submit your achievements to others as if you have not deserved them in the first place, even if it's for the greater good. so, until we solve the problem of scarce resources socialism WILL be synonymous with Mao and Stalin therefore discrediting the idea of socialism in the current period of scarcity.

>>4175982
see above about your first point

secondly: in just about every instance of modern unions (a semi democratization of the workplace) they demanded wages higher than the market equilibrium. Look at police unions and teachers unions of today, look at logging unions of the 70's and 80's. and steel workers unions of the 50's and 60's.

>>4176007
>especially when you are easily replaceable.
but that's not a valid argument, most workers AREN'T easily replaceable, and the ones that are have the ability to reeducate themselves to move on to different occupations.
>but capitalism can't provide as well for people!
>people in capitalist countries where private property is protected enjoy a higher standard of living (and are therefore higher up on maslows pyramid) than people in countries that dont

>>4176034
>in order for socialism to work you require a strong central government
Do you even libertarian socialism? I'm not a fan of central planning or of the capitalist welfare state either, bro.
>it is against human nature to submit your achievements to others as if you have not deserved them in the first place
So why should the largest fruit of a worker's labors go not to them, who did the actual work, but to the person who owns the machinery (etc.)?

I basically see modern corporatocracy as having all the problems of central planning, but just organized and arrived at in a slightly different way.

Also, I hate to have to respond to this...
>people in capitalist countries where private property is protected enjoy a higher standard of living
But this is why the traditional Marxist interpretation (I don't necessarily agree, here) is that capitalism was necessary for certain advances (and damn good at them, to boot!), but isn't the end of history—there's progress beyond capitalism.

>>4176058
>So why should the largest fruit of a worker's labors go not to them, who did the actual work, but to the person who owns the machinery (etc.)?
because they are building or manufacturing or coding something that the capital owner has contrived, he, not you owns the product of your labor.

>I basically see modern corporatocracy as having all the problems of central planning, but just organized and arrived at in a slightly different way.
you are going to have to define this more clearly, because in general large businesses are nothing like the extractive fiefs of old and I'd like to know how to attack your argument properly

>But this is why the traditional Marxist interpretation (I don't necessarily agree, here) is that capitalism was necessary for certain advances (and damn good at them, to boot!), but isn't the end of history—there's progress beyond capitalism.
understand that Marx saw everything through the same flawed lens that I mentioned above, he saw business owners as the new bourgeois, an extractive CLASS of aristocrats (capitalist class, the concept makes no sense when you understand the basics of market operations) as opposed to people fighting from the ground up to build things others are either too risk averse or stupid to do. generally I take Marx's ideas for a post scarcity society. Markets are the best we have for allocating resources accounting for that there's a limited amount to go around. Take away limits on goods and services... good bye markets.

Socialism for the bare necessities (roads, healthcare, police, firemen, food stamps, disease control, basic science...)
Capitalism for luxury goods (jewellery, French restaurant, sports cars, plastic surgery, ...)

Hint for Ameritards: communism != socialism, and it's thanks to the evils of unions that your life as "workaholic" slaves are less pathetic, though nothing compared to other civilized countries. But I see the rich and the republicans have been trying to convince you to vote against your interests, prop up corporate interests, believe in trickle down economics, that you will one day be in the cool club (because you're too dumb at maths to know the chance of that) and that unions are all lazy fat cats to be gotten rid of. You think basic healthcare will be the end of freedom even though it works out in many other countries,live your life based on fears of a sky fairy and evil atheistic kummunist gubmint one step away from Stalin, yet you continue to support wars and vote in blatantly corrupt , gerrymandering congress members and listen to those same fags about how the gubmint is punishing poor corporations and successful people, like Mitt Romney who got it so bad he had to sell his stocks that one time.
You will reap what you sow. Your income and social inequality (and a legal system favoring corps and the rich) will only get worse. You have intellectuals and universities and smart people. You just want to listen to Repubs, Wall Street and creationists instead.

>>4176115
>because they are building or manufacturing or coding something that the capital owner has contrived, he, not you owns the product of your labor.
And the point I'm trying to make is that I see no reason why this is is a good thing. If I were to say that the government or the poor really own the product of your labor, would you not say that nobody but you ought to own the product of your labor?

>>4176115
>you are going to have to define this more clearly, because in general large businesses are nothing like the extractive fiefs of old
Basically, see above: they deprive all but the few who are in charge of the rights to their labor.
(For what it's worth, I like voluntarism in theory, but don't think that anarcho-capitalist measures are the best way of freeing one to decide for oneself what sorts of social interactions one has.)

>>4176115
>generally I take Marx's ideas for a post scarcity society.
Not bad. The point is that with a lot of things, we are or could easily be post-scarcity, but consumer culture (advertising at the behest of large corporations and so on) works with the aim of creating more demand for things that aren't necessarily needed, or for needs that could be met in more efficient ways, thus ensuring that we remain in scarcity. (This, I realize, is a bit of an oversimplification.) Not to mention that the rich are more fond of stockpiling their wealth or of using it in luxurious ways than of using it to create more jobs or to produce more necessary goods—raw profit and growth aren't the best driving forces for a country's economy if you can't distribute well.

>>4176115
>because they are building or manufacturing or coding something that the capital owner has contrived, he, not you owns the product of your labor.

But that's just how it is, don't you see? We want that to change that. We demand that, so the free market better provide.

>>4176157
>We demand that, so the free market better provide.
This made me laugh. This, uh, was a joke, right? Not the part about wanting to change things—that was totally right.

>>4176164
It was a joke

But on a serious note ideas like autonomy, mastery and purpose should also have a value and not just that my work is a commodity for someone else to exploit to stay rich. I use the biggest portion of my time alive on my work and there's probably no afterlife, I can't afford my life's purpose to be merely a means for some guys competition about who owns most in a country club somewhere.

>>4176177
I figured it was a joke; I just wanted to clarify because conversations about capitalism and socialism on the internet are especially prone to pesky misunderstandings.

Anyway, what you said in a nutshell is where I'm coming from. Wish I could've said it as well as you.

>mfw anyone calls Marxism 'scientific' near me

Le Karl Popper face

>>4176144
>I see no reason why this is is a good thing
let me put it like this
>be painter / visual artist
>tells me to paint him a portrait for so much
>I paint it and he pays me
>he later goes to sell the painting I did of him
would the artist in this situation have the right to stop the sale and take the painting back? No, the man who paid for the piece owns the painting, it's his property and nobody else should have the right to arbitrarily take it away or make him do something with it. And if they or somebody can, what reason is there to go out and get the painting in the first place?

I guess the above takes care of your second point too.

>>4176153
>are more fond of stockpiling their wealth
>mfw this argument every time I see it
during times that aren't like these (the 2008 recession is bananas to economists) when somebody deposits money in a bank, the banks don't hold on to that money, they lend it out. people take loans, that rich person's money and they buy things and start businesses and invest in educating themselves. also
>implying luxury goods are a bad thing

>>4176157
gr8 b8 m8

>>4176194
>gr8 b8 m8

So my demands aren't real? Only demands in the interest of capitalists can be met? Such freedom. Aren't you the side who believe in the free market? Or is it only free if the rich and the bankers are in charge of our work life?

>>4176265
oh anon:
if you get what you want technological progress will stagnate, so:
they're real, they're just incredibly stupid.

>>4176277
Ok, oh wise seer of the future, and knower of all possible outcomes, it can in no way be you who have just insulted your own intelligence by blabbering such uneducated nonsense.

Your models are outdated Taylor you simpleton. You are already 3 steps behind.

>>4176277
Ok, oh knower of the future, seer of future consequence. How can't you see Taylor went obsolete 70 years ago though?

If your head wasn't so far up your ass you would know you are already 3 steps behind. As I told you earlier get out of that ebony tower of yours the future is already here.

>>4174497
>start socialist thread
>devolves into shitflinging within several posts
You won't because you commie fags are too busy yelling 'no true socialist' fallacies at each other to make a coherent argument.

>mfw most of my fellow Americans still take 'better dead than red' seriously

>>4176277
Please explain why. You seem to be arguing from ignorance.

>>4175663
>liberal shit
>in some way a critique of communism

>>4175680

>mfw basically every anti-socialist poster in this thread refers to how they don't lie Welfare states are bad as an argument

>>4176639
?
>>4176194

>>4174530
>tea party
>anarchist
lel

Who thought that the Communist revolutions during 1900 - 1970 would bring about post-scarcity?
Isn't that I fundamental thing about Marx?

>>4177369
minarchist

>>4174540
I've done this, though I think it doesn't work with some people (the Socratic method, I mean), because they'd rather be told what to believe than work it out for themselves.

>>4175227
>Reading CNN for news on Venezuela

Man, it is true there are shortages, but I have news for you, there are also hoarders.

Also

>Venezuela
>Communist

Maybe you're just a troll

>>4176639
Not true..

I need some help coming up with a topic for a paper I need to write for Chinese Philosophy class. I've been racking my brain trying to come up with a topic to write about and i've got nothing. I asked /adv/ but apparently they really dont know anything about philosophy.

>>4174657

>>4174497


for a brief evanescent period in history, technology had advanced to a point where powers of production increased exponentially, while humans themselves could function as a factor of production.

that time, however, has long since past.

>>4175232
>namedrops something he only read like an idiot in ancient philosophy
go to bed skyler you hopeless fucking idiot.

>>4178868
It's funny how the creator of the image had to put that patch there (with microsoft pain lol) because he couldn't find any image from real life that could correspond with his claim about how anarchists are.

>>4175172
/thread

everyone posting in this thread would literally be third against the wall right after the politicians and the rich

the disconnect between you people and the real working class is staggering