/lit/ - Literature

>>5053885

justify the means**

idk what happened

>>5053890
Don't worry noone cares

>be a collection of sensations and impressions which seem to combine into what can be called me.
>be aware of the superiority of modernism over all other literary movements.
>be in my local library awaiting the services of the checkout staff.
>clutching a copy of the selected poetry of T.S. Eliot, The Way by Swann's and the short prose of Samuel Beckett.
>girl in front is checking out great expectations.
>my face almost folds into itself with a bizarre combination of amusement, disgust and despair.
>She looks at my chiseled face and inquires into my selected reading.
>I reply that her impertinence in believing she can converse with me is offensive and insulting.
>she leaves quickly stifling her cries.
>I chuckle to myself but then distress as the checkout slave has to put her fingers on my books.
>mfw daily life truly is suffering

>>5053885
>lol I believe theories and practice are the same thing

If you are a communist you cannot believe in rights unless you are either not a practicing communist (you know the type, drinking $6 coffee with Apple products in his hand) or delusional. I suspect 99% of "communists" aren't practicing or else we would have had communes by now and lots of them.

>>5053963
lmao

>>5053963

>I suspect 99% of communists aren't practicing or else we would have had communes by now

>not knowing about barriers to entry
How can't communists believe in rights? Have you not read that Marx guy? He talks a lot about human freedom or something like that, idk personally his writing style was awkward and confusing, he probably should have worked on his english before publishing in that language.

>>5053963
>I suspect 99% of "communists" aren't practicing or else we would have had communes by now and lots of them.

This is an idea Marxism sets out to explicitly refute and accordingly distinguish itself from earlier utopian socialists.

>>5053949
I know this feel but I was checking out Bluebeard by Kurt Vonnegut

>>5054476

can you elaborate? i'm kinda familiar with Marx but not his views on the utopians

>>5053885
I'd be more sympathetic with the left if it wasn't so associated with the cancer that is liberalism. Because of that, I consider myself libertarian.

>>5054530
Whilst utopian socialists might be able to conceive workable societies and critiques of the current system their method of transition is too idealistic and ignorant to ever be successful. The main way these work is that first they would show a model to the leadership who out of an innate sense of justice and duty to human happiness would implement this from the top down. Naturally this didn’t work so the next idea (and the ones that are continuing to happen today ) was to start up small examples of this new lifestyle in the belief that once people saw how awesome it was would flock to it and allow for it to be put into the large scale and make the utopia a reality.

Of course this is doomed to failure not only because it assumes that the powers that be would willing give up their power out of some humanist duty but because these new societies can never be achieved on a small scale and hence never be sufficiently attractive.
This is because the benefits of collectivisation cannot be realised on the small scale and with small funds. Not only does this mean that commune lifestyle uses primitive and highly labour intensive methods of production but also because they cant produce everything they need, they are forced to either accept a vastly lower standard of living or produce goods at a profit so they can afford things like medicine, tools and anything you cant make yourself. This lifestyle is inimical to the who purpose of the commune and its why they almost all inevitably collapse and fail to catch on.

Marx and his lot were on the ball when they realised that collectivisation and the benefits that come from it could only be achieved via a working class revolution. “Real” communists work towards this goal, escapists and the hopelessly idealistic work towards communes.
Here is short work on the matter by engles http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/

>>5053963
Why is a Marxist who isn't actively bombing buildings a fake, while a capitalist who's unemployed and pirates movies and music is still a capitalist?

>>5053949

I hope you're joking about not liking Dickens

>>5053963
>you know the type, drinking $6 coffee with Apple products in his hand

wow he got you there op!!

>>5054532
>I'd be more sympathetic with the left if it was more like the right

>>5053963
You don't decide to be a communist on an individualistic level, you dunce. In a communist society you wouldn't be able decide to be a 'practicing capitalist'. It works both ways

>>5054974
>pirates movies
Isn't this a capitalist move, though? Saving your money and instead using alternatives that are free?

>>5053885
>Defending human rights by quoting Marx

Quite crafty, I applaud you sir.

>>5054994
Its a byproduct of capitalism I guess (not the guy you are responding to). Theft in order to keep your own capital so you can use it more efficiently and invest more.

>>5053885
>An end which requires unjustified means is no justifiable end

how does that make sense?

>>5054979


>implying OP is an individualist anarchist


You know, the whole "I as an individual can make a difference with my wallet!" is really a retarded libertarian notion, and not a marxist one

>Kantian
>leftist
Haha, no. Sometimes people can be used as means to an end as that is unavoidable, but it must be voluntary. Classical liberalism/Libertarianism is most compatible with Kantian ethics, while Marxism is fundamentally tyrannical.

>>5055030
I was just thinking that it was somewhat of a ballsy move, but if the story really did happen, the Marx quote was rather cunning.

>>5054964
Best /lit/ post I've seen in months.
>>5055048
If some good end necessitates doing some evil, it is, in fact, not a "good" end.

It has always seemed to me that the most logical way to think about this is simply to say that the means always justify the means, but that being good or moral is an end in itself.

So then it just comes down to a question of judging between differing ends, which is not an irresolvable problem.

>>5054532
>I'd be more sympathetic with the left if it wasn't associated with liberalism

And I'd be more sympathetic with libertarianism if it wasn't associated with white people trying to eliminate the welfare state

srsly fuck you

>>5055162
The welfare state is necessary because people are stupid. Libertarianism wouldn't assist that, no political system will. Politics as a means to solve problems is an illusion.

The problem is that a vast majority of individual human beings are internally conflicted. Psychologically they are a mess. What is true at the individual level becomes true at the societal level.

>>5054532
I'd be more sympathetic with libertarianism if it wasn't so associated with the cancer that is neoliberalism.

And for your information, libertarianism IS a form of liberalism, whereas leftism is not.

>>5055056
i was being sarcastic!

>>5055162
>Literally defending the welfare state

Holy shit get killed, you fucking piece of backwards trash.

>>5055174


a welfare state is deleterious precisely because stupid people exist. our contingent status as pair bonding self-replecating organisms results in civilization itself being dysgenic, it tends to cannibalize itself for itself. the processes that allow it to triumph over its fractionated competition and enjoy high life sow the seeds of its eventual ruin. there are basically three paths here, and the only exits out of cyclic history is self-conscious replacement/simulation of deep historical malthusian forces in the civilizational context as reaction, or conversion into a different form of organism as singularity (http://www.xenosystems.net/the-monkey-trap/).).

>>5055329
I don't think you know what "the welfare state" means in academic/philosophic terms.

I'm not talking about your racist idea of cartoon minorities living luxuriously in their apartment complexes and trailer parks while poor heroic white people have to work.

The welfare state refers to any state which actively seeks to improve the lives of its populace through taxable revenue. So any state with a public school system, consumer protection agency, environment protection agency, etc. is by definition a welfare state.

For reasons both inexplicable and poorly-thought out, some libertarians oppose this. But no libertarian would ever move to a country that isn't a welfare state because they would invariably live worse lives and/or be killed.

>>5054532
How many times do you have to be told what the difference between leftism and liberalism is? Go away, you don't belong here.

>rightists

>>5055425
Ah, so might makes right, right?

>>5055409
>But no libertarian would ever move to a country that isn't a welfare state because they would invariably live worse lives and/or be killed.

Because all democratic countries will become welfare states due to the lowest of society voting themselves benefits and the highest of society to agree with it because they get to skim off the top of the funnel. Don't pretend that everyone benefits from a welfare state, its purely for the lower class not to riot and cause more economic damage than just giving them some tax money.

>>5055444
Everyone outside of the highest of tax brackets benefits from a Socially Democratic welfare state.

Even without the abolition of exploitative Market forces, workers that have a social safety net and decent working conditions are happier and wont riot yes, but that makes up not just the lower class, it makes up everyone who isn't their own boss.

If you think unregulated market systems function better than Social Market systems you're hopeless.

>>5055444
>Don't pretend that everyone benefits from a welfare state, its purely for the lower class not to riot and cause more economic damage than just giving them some tax money.

Well ignoring the fact that peaceful stability IS a benefit, being guaranteed potable water, arsenic-free meals, well-maintained infrastructure, and a mostly literate citizenry is something that benefits everyone.

You're right that all democratic states will become welfare states, but not for the absurd reason you proposed. Pretty much every Western democracy was established by a wealthy ruling class, not some Randian nightmare rabble.

Everything you have is because you live in a welfare state that allows people to prosper individually while maintaining a basic standard of living for all. You can kick and scream now, but eventually you'll either grow up and learn to accept what almost every other civilized person has, or you'll remain a bitter teenager well into adulthood.

Either way you're not going to change anything.

>>5055487
>being guaranteed potable water, arsenic-free meals, well-maintained infrastructure, and a mostly literate citizenry is something that benefits everyone.
as though without government we would all die of thirst and accept poison in our food and crumbling bridges (your government is doing a great of that right now isn't it?) and leave children uneducated (ditto)

I can't tell if statists are willfully unimaginative or just retarded.

>>5055533
>as though without government we would all die of thirst and accept poison in our food and crumbling bridges (your government is doing a great of that right now isn't it?) and leave children uneducated (ditto)

Well that does seem to be the case in every country without a functioning government, yes.

>>5055462
>Everyone outside of the highest of tax brackets benefits from a Socially Democratic welfare state.

They benefit the most. They control both the capital, and the welfare state through its collection devices.

>Even without the abolition of exploitative Market forces, workers that have a social safety net and decent working conditions are happier and wont riot yes, but that makes up not just the lower class, it makes up everyone who isn't their own boss.

Can you tell me why businesses pay above the minimum wage? Can you tell me why 95% of employed people are paid above the minimum wage? You do realize "the market" is a lot more complicated than "evil capitalist" here "exploited worker" over there?

>If you think unregulated market systems function better than Social Market systems you're hopeless.
In what capacity? In the way that you get to claim government superiority for the massive increase in wealth generated by capitalism and used up by welfare schemes? That we can compare working conditions of 100 years ago (and your meat packing hazards weren't the norm at all, Lenin supporter) to those today purely on the hypothesis that any change must be due to intervention and not the generation of wealth that allows for the spending of money on safety and improved efficiency? The government cannot generate wealth, this is universally apparent. To even get started with your socialistic plans, you have to have a capitalist system to feed the machine because it can't feed itself. Venezuela experiencing a toilet paper shortage, in the middle of a rain forest, is perhaps a perfect example of why socialism doesn't work. But you can go ahead and tell me why Venezuela isn't actually socialist while also explaining that we would benefit for instituting their policies.

>>5055533
indoctrinated from birth that states are essential for people not to run amuck and kill each other. this includes the poor which, ironically, makes it so that when the state disappears temporarily many of them do run amuck and kill each other.

>>5055544
A brilliant argument. I say we cancel all businesses all together and just live off bureaucrats regulating their hands and feet.

>>5055559
>Venezuela experiencing a toilet paper shortage, in the middle of a rain forest, is perhaps a perfect example of why socialism doesn't work. But you can go ahead and tell me why Venezuela isn't actually socialist while also explaining that we would benefit for instituting their policies.
>shortage of a commodity indicates a failed economic system

You realize the United States, and every other capitalist country on Earth, has faced shortages, both severe and minor, at some point in its history?

Also your grossly simplified example ignores the storied history of US interference in Latin American economies, including the trade embargo its issued against Venezuela.

>>5055559
>The government cannot generate wealth

The CIA grows like all the heroin dude

>>5055567
That's not even kind of what I was saying.

If you refer here:>>5055487, I said:
>a welfare state ... allows people to prosper individually while maintaining a basic standard of living for all.

I'm not arguing for a communist revolution. I'm arguing for the basic existence of a welfare state. It's obvious that I'm right, and that I don't even need to argue for it because it's not going to stop existing no matter what you do. So the only thing you can do is create non-sequitor strawmen to fearless knock down.

Enjoy your life in the welfare state, knowing that you have a higher quality of life than more than 90% of people on the planet, idiot.

>>5053885
Read Althusser on the difference between young Marx and mature Marx and grow up.

>>5054062
Because rights are a bourgeois ideology.
Because the culture of the proletariat's self-negation arises at the struggle against the point of production.
Because praxis > ideology for liberation.

>>5054532
>I'd be more sympathetic with the left if it wasn't so associated with the cancer that is liberalism. Because of that, I consider myself libertarian.

Read some fucking Marx on class epistemology. "Liberalism" is capitalism mate. "The Left" starts with the struggle by the working class to abolish capital.

>>5056078
Rights are a spook.

Moralist: "You cannot take this. It's my right to have this property."

Me: "Why is that?"

Moralist: "It just is. It's mine because I said so. And rights are this thing I made up that says you can't do it."

Me: "So what if I just take it?"

Every moral system fails to be completely moral to all people. All it takes is one person choosing to violate the moral system, and then the constituents of the moral system have to violate their own morals to maintain the system. "Rights" is what we call the rules for the people who stay within the system and subjectivize themselves, and the agreement always is "you have the right to comply, and the right to not comply, both are your right, as long as you choose to comply".

>>5056080
There is no Utopia.

>>5055599
>It's obvious that I'm right, and that I don't even need to argue for it because it's not going to stop existing no matter what you do.

High quality debate going on here

>>5056088
That there is no utopia is precisely the point of _Socialism: Utopian and Scientific_

Can you faggots just read this: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secIcon.html

The debate is already over. This FAQ settled everything a refuted capitalism and anarcho-capitalism.

>get in debate with Marxist
>starts using 19th century economics unironically
>thinks these ideas are still valid
>school him with Chicago school
>he tries to argue against it
>it becomes clear he doesn't know economics
>he starts speaking louder and faster about equality
>I tell him to make like the Soviet Union and dissolve
>as his friends pull him away he screams, "NOT TROO COMMUNISM"

>>5056125

>chicago school
>hasnt even read up on argument against own position
>http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secCcon.html
>lel

>>5056140
>Chicago School
>anarchist

>>5056125
Rational agents
Perfect markets
FYAD

>>5056143

Come back to me when you realise that postKeynesianism and Joan Robinson has torn a giant bleeding rupture in your rectum.

>>5056168
>postKeynesianism and Joan Robinson

>>5056143
Mutualism to be more precise, friend.

>>5056178
Do you even know what Chicago School economics is?

>>5056140
Is there similar stuff that is closer to our days? I.e. not 60s? Because lots of economicsts criticize how far away 'fundamental' economics (that gets spanked oh so hard in your source) is from the real data. That is nothing new, really.

By the way, the text is, in general, of low quality. It basically says that, hey, a lot of assumptions from the 60s-70s econ. are unrealistic. Let us assume instead that capitalism is bad because I said so (because don't you see how NATURAL it is to say that capitalism is BAD?!). Seriously, what is this, a pamphlet for laymen?

>>5056088

Yeah wow you are an idiot for someone on /lit/, this was already discussed in this thread

Marxists annoy me the most on lit... they are just so stupid and arrogant in their stupidity. There are some intelligent Marxists, but really it's a very small minority.

>>5056178

...you realize that the Chicago School are what we call Monetarists, and they advocate that super-conspiracy that you retards rail against called "the Federal Reserve", right?


Absolutely hilarious. You guys need to come to /lit/ more often, you'll provide us with some good laughs

>>5055559

Good post, but why waste time making sense of an issue which Marxists only understand emotionally? You're entering into a futile fight with a bunch of complete morons like that guy who didn't understand your point about Venesuala at all.

>>5055544

>Doesn't understand the differece between causation and correlation

This is like... elementary logic bro

>>5058184

You realize that pretty much every country that has elected/installed a "Communist" or "Socialist" leader has, almost immediately, had an embargo placed on them, right?

It's like saying "Look at Western Europe! Communism can't compare!" while completely overlooking the Marshall Plan.

You are either dishonest, or a retard. Pick one.

>>5058200

>claiming to be using logic while displaying ignorance of basic informal logic

Yeah, all that straw-manning and your oblique "rebuttals" would make Stefan Molyneux proud.

>>5058202

Wow... see, this is what I mean. Marxists are stupid as fuck. This guy here is attributing Western Europes MASSIVE economic advantage over communist eastern europe entirely to The Marshall Plan. It takes a special kind of retard to be so ignorant on a subject and yet still choose to argue his stance on said topic.

Bit sad really, most people are like this.

>>5058219

Straw manning? All I said was that your logic wws unsound... how is that a straw man? You stated that because some countries without government are chaotic and undeveloped this state is directly caused by the absence of government.

>>5058202

for good reason

>>5053885
Fuck off with your spooks you hipster.

>>5058230

>Marxist
>entirely

When did I identify as a Marxist, and when did I say "entirely"?

Also, do you really not think that ~$104 billion (in today's amount) would have an impact on a continent's re-development? Serious question.

>>5058264

Sure it would have an impact after the war, but lol if you think the Marshall plan explains the massive disparity which continued up to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Uh 'entirely' was implied because your argument is that a comparison between the capitalist west and communist east is unfair due to the marshall plan. So either the entire disparity can be accounted for by the marshall plan or the actual economic productivity of western europe has to be ascribed to the superiority of the economic system.

>>5058264

Also lol that hundred billion dollars came from the u.s, a capitalist country. Mind explaining why a comparison between the u.s economy in the 40's to 70's and the soviet unions is unfair?

>>5058297

That's not what I was saying at all.

My point was that pointing out the failure of Venezuela without taking into account the fact that there is a massive embargo on Venezuela would be as stupid as pointing to Western Europe's success without taking into account the Marshall plan.

>so either the entire disparity can be accounted for by the marshall plan or the actual economic productivity of western europe has to be ascribed to the superiority of the economic system.

I literally don't know where you're getting that from.

>>5058323

Do you really not think that I know this? Also, when did I say that comparing to the Soviet Union was "unfair"? What I said was (since you obviously need to have this dumbed down):

"You cannot ascribe the success or failure of a country based on whether it is "capitalist" or "communist". Nor can you adequately get a picture of whether a system succeeds or fails on its own when they are unable to gain from trade."


I think I should probably say this again, because you polacks really have a hard time wrapping your head around someone trying to remain impartial, but I am not a communist.

>>5058264
>~$104 billion (in today's amount)
Indicating a time value of money without specifying your deflator is a worthless statement.

p.s.: I'm a marxist.

>be me
>browse 4chan to see proper literary discussion for once
>only utilitarian threads
>nope.jpg
>decide to try some of the other forums
>everyone keeps saying my name
>mfw

>>5058347

> massive embargo on Venesuala
> so obviously Venesualians can't manufacture their own toilet paper

Dumb.

"You can not ascribe the success or failure of a country based on whether it was capitalist or communist".

Maybe not entirely... but it's definitely the biggest factor.

Fuck me Marxists are dumb. And if you're not a Marxist you should become one, you're stupid enough.

>>5058549
nice evidence. Tell me more about the comparative GDP of East Germany and Italy to 1970. Your answer must include reference to piecework.

>>5055559
> Venezuela experiencing a toilet paper shortage, in the middle of a rain forest, is perhaps a perfect example of why socialism doesn't work. But you can go ahead and tell me why Venezuela isn't actually socialist while also explaining that we would benefit for instituting their policies.
80% of Venezuelan economy is private though, more than that of Finland's.

>>5055544
Belgium did not have a functioning goverment for eight months and they didn't starve or die.

This didn't happen.

>>5053963
>Hi I don't understand imperialism I don't see why all communists aren't just giving away everything for free.
You are cute.

>>5053894
>cared enough to replie

4chin is such shit

>>5055136
I guess violent revolution isn't something evil.

>>5056125
>Chicago School

>>5055444
>Don't pretend that everyone benefits from a welfare state, its purely for the lower class not to riot and cause more economic damage than just giving them some tax money.
What you just described are some serious fucking benefits.

>>5055559
>Can you tell me why businesses pay above the minimum wage? Can you tell me why 95% of employed people are paid above the minimum wage? You do realize "the market" is a lot more complicated than "evil capitalist" here "exploited worker" over there?

jesus christ you're horrible at this

>>5053885
I once was debating a self-described "anarchist-capitalist" who stormed off when I asked him to reconcile his belief in personal autonomy with the inherent power structures of capitalism. His closing argument was that I "didn't understand freedom".

>>5059142

But your argument was really stupid... someone being more powerful doesn't dispute autonomy... are you retarded?

>>5054964
you explained that so well, thank you