/lit/ - Literature

>>6359127
>The ruling classes in any society are almost never the warriors, it's the priests and intellectuals
Someone hasn't read Nietzsche

>>6359127
>People who work with their hands aren't likely to be intellectuals
that's your thesis, the real one, and I'd like to see you defend it in any way. maybe with some evidence even.

>Intellectuals rule society because they are the people who are the best at ordering, structuring and organizing reality.
This is /lit/ home of the in the planning stage novelist. We don't need you to know materialism and reality are wrong about us.

History is littered with military types who have seized power. Hitler, Franco, Pinochet, Gadaffi... I'm not going to go into an entire list but you get the idea.

>>6359127
>what are the best elements of the working class.

It's like you never even had a look at Bukharin or even Lenin, frick.

>>6359135
Monks, for example

>he thinks the doing of the intellectual is affirmative instead of descriptive

>>6359151
>Vanguard Party ceases power
>says only a fraction of the population can be in the party
And thus the intellectuals continue to reign

>>6359127
It doesn't really matter how smart the person in charge is. People will always seek out someone else to lead them. All you need is something resembling a plan, and an assertive disposition.

>>6359147
Of those only Franco and Gadaffi were real military men (the other two were failed academics turned politians posturing as part of the army without any real front line experience) and those two got in power because other forces left them there (Pinochet entered with the Doctrine of National Security that left many PhDs tied to the army in power as puppets of the US, while Gadaffi was the VP of a vaguely decent military lieder whose family escaped to europe after being part of a a dictatorship for 30 years and no one gives a fuck misteriously)

>>6359135

Supporting evidence for my claim:


> Doing good at school means you can get a non-Working Class job.

> Having the capacity to deal with complexity means you can do sophisticated things like invest money successfully.

> Most people like to be successful, not poor.

> Intellectuals have a greater ability to be successful.

> Billionaire financiers are almost all intellectuals.

> Silicon valley is made up of intellectuals.

> the priest class in catholic Europe hugely overlapped with the banker class; Medici, Fugger etc.

> Marxism, a movement that advocates for a revolution by the poor and working classes and antagonizes the bourgeois intelligentsia, is STILL dominated by the bourgeois intelligentsia even though it's supposedly not meant for them.

For the working classes to not be dumber than the rich on average requires too many people to not be following their incentives. I never said there aren't exceptions.

>>6359151
>Vanguard Party seizes power
>says only a fraction of the population can be in the party
And thus the intellectuals continue to reign

>>6359147

Yeah and their little Juntas lasted a few years at most. Meanwhile the catholic church has been going strong for 2000 years and Judaism, the most intellectual movement of all, for like 3500

>>6359166

> Doing good at school means you can get a non-Working Class job.

wat

>>6359166
>Billionaire financiers are almost all intellectuals
lolololololololololololololol

>>6359152
....

>>6359132

90% of Nietzsche's project in his later years is butthurt whining about how the priests and intellectuals conquered the warriors.

>>6359169
>Meanwhile the catholic church has been going strong
The Catholic Church nowadays is borderline irrelevant and can't even hold on to its own clay of Europa.
>Judaism, the most intellectual movement of all
Don't get your yarmulke in a twist, Chaim.

Besides, Franco, Gadaffi, and Pinochet lasted for decades.

>>6359174

Warren Buffett. George Soros. James Simons. John Paulson.

They all have masters' degrees at least.

>>6359167
Intellectuals aren't a class.

>>6359127
>People who work with their hands aren't likely to be intellectuals
Your assumption of what the proletariat is is incorrect. Read Marx on who wage labourers are (they're not your manual working class). Read Gramsci on the organic intellectuals.

There is no need for class collaboration: we produce our own intellectuality, and always have done so, from the handbill to the workers educational society.

>>6359127

You are assuming that power that comes from the money is because of being intellectual. It isn't, you can't be billionairie without being an intellectual. Managing money is a skill different from manipulating and create ideology or resentment

>>6359127
>The classes have to collaborate to a certain degree up until anarchism/communism is achieved.
you're correct and us communists recognize this, its just that there must be a dictatorship of the working class over the others within the socialist period.

>>6359186

you can* be billionairie without being an intellectual.

>>6359181
That doesn't make them intellectuals. George W. Bush went to Harvard and Yale.

Before the massive, egalitarian expansion of opportunity throughout the 20th century and a bit before, so many people were "lower class" that you could have easily found a group of poor working class people as intelligent as the combined intelligentsia of the middle and upper classes.

But throughout the 20th century the vast majority of intelligent people in the lower classes had opportunities to advance. The genetic potential for an intelligent revolutionary leadership has been removed from the lower classes into a greatly expanded upper middle class.

As the inequality widens and middle class people start to fall back into the working class and opportunities for intelligent working class people are curtailed, this might slowly start to reverse, but will take a very long time.

>>6359152
Trappist monks don't get money form the state or the church, they win their own money working. Muslims rented parts of the mosque to merchants to pay their expenses, they even payed taxes in a lot of places. Buddhists monks live in more or less self sufficient farms. Are you saying that all of them aren't gethered together specially to think about stuff?

>>6359166
in order
>how useful you are to the state isn't the same as how much you think in political and social terms, an autist that can solve the most challenging mathematical mysteries wouldn't be a particularly good party leader

>how well you invest money is tied to having that money, or being able to convince other to give it to you. no successful economy minister has come from wall street or any local version of it.

>so?

>if they're allowed to exercise their field, if you are a great scientist hated by all your peers you'll have a lot of troubles to get work done in your lab. this has nothing to do with big scale politics.

>That's plainly not true, they are trust fund owners and investors. As a country you can't do either of those things.

>Silicn valley has existed as a thing for less than 20 years, it hasn't proven anything besides being quite able to fuck it all up like they did in the 90's

>because priests were the only ones who could get an education before the minuscule system and other standardizations, you're taking facts backwards

>the ones in power should open the way for those who aren't, they obviously don't. that doesn't mean people wouldn't have the capacity to do it.

Now, think how much "succesful fields", like sillicon valley, exist thanks to people already in power opening doors to them: government contracts, tax exemptions, low interest loans. That says nothing about how smart or capable to govern they are.
You still haven't explained how you know workers wouldn't be able to understand complex economic variables when the people who study that for years and decades can't avoid having a market crash one a single country cuts their petroleum (70's crash) when a new field stagnates (80's technology crisis) when a cheap scam sounds too good to be true (90's dotcom crash) when the government allows a scam (housing bubble). For all we know some dude ina factory could do a much better work.

>>6359192

They're all extremely articulate, nerdy, compulsive readers and obsessed with ideas. Those are the marks of intellectualism. I mean Soros started a foundation to promote Karl Popper's philosophy for fuck's sake.

>>6359169
Actually, once you learn to read, you'll find out that, actually, Judah didn't start a religion. Judaism is a social-political elective, and it didn't begin until 200 B.C. A thousand dollars goes to the first man who can prove from the Torah that Judah founded a new religion. This is the greatest and most irritating indication of mass ignorance of the bible. Read a book.

>>6359186

I never said that you HAVE to be a billionaire to be an intellectual. But the top of the top billionaires are mostly intellectuals for the same reason that the Catholic Church and Orthodox Judaism produced so many bankers in Medieval Europe.

>>6359189
It isn't called "wage collaboration" you horrible substitutionalist class traitor. It is called wage slavery.

>>6359208
That bastard.

>>6359127
Dumb as fuck post OP

>>6359216

But you are resorting to the same idea as before, that power comes from money.

What would an intellectual do in their lifetime without money? he will certainly not shape the world, unless he is recognized post mortem, and even there he will only influence the ones capable of shaping the world through propaganda and ideology. You also accept that through books it is impossible to shape the lower classes because they don't read (because they aren't intellectual, which is the thing you assume at the start).

>>6359238
If you're an intelectual with access to money you can make both compelte works and cheap popular pieces. Marx did the manifesto for teens and masses while doing multiple, more serious, pieces from inside the academia. Lenin wrote theory books that would be studied for decades while also writing what basically amounted to pamphlets.

>>6359212

"Judaism" as distinct from the Israelites is just a technicality. The Jews have always been the same thing, pretty much. They're still the same "chosen people," still the same group of disproportionately influential merchants and traders who oppose the 'beasts of prey' (the warrior classes) as described all over in the bible, especially Deuteronomy. Jews and Gentiles are still as separate and utterly different as ever, and the differences, in every essential sense of the term, are still the same as they always were. Gentiles don't like Jews being seemingly spiritual elitists and "strivers" who introduce an unwanted challenge into the world; Jews don't like gentiles being, as they see it, superstitious, pretentious, idol worshippers who are prone to violence. It's the exact same cleavage, the exact same irreconcilable difference, we see over and over and over again in the bible.

>>6359127
>Power does not come from physical strength

Essentially, it does

>The ruling classes in any society are almost never the warriors

They don't have to be, this isn't feudalism anymore. They have army and police to protect the system they control.


>it's the priests and intellectuals. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and George Soros are all intellectuals; do you really think George Bush types run the world?

Wrong on so many levels.

>Why are the intellectual classes always so much more powerful than the warriors and military types who control all the guns?

They aren't. They are either the most loyal servants of the system, or its sworn enemies. There's no other way for them.

>It's because, materialism is false. Ideas structure reality, NOT the other way around

Ideas come from a human interaction with the material world. Most ideas are empirical.

>Intellectuals rule society because they are the people who are the best at ordering, structuring and organizing reality.

No they aren't. Also intellectual is a pretty broad term, they aren't some tip-top know-it-all geniuses. In fact, most specialists and experts have very little knowledge outside their field of research. If they do, it's mostly anecdotal.

>And given that, I fail to see how the proletariat can ever really oppose the ruling classes in the form of power-domination. People who work with their hands aren't likely to be intellectuals, and if you're not an intellectual, you're probably being controlled by intellectuals.

The whole point of class struggle is to take the means of production from the hands of the capitalists. That's it. It can be done both by revolution or a compromise. It isn't some competition game between lower and upper classes, it is a movement for a rightful share of means of production between owners and workers. An owner isn't more worthy than a worker just because he owns the stuff. What matters is the amount of work invested.

I think you're prone to believe that there's some kind of magic world of meritocracy and technocracy combined that controls everything and everyone. It's far, far more prosaic than that, believe me.

The Leisure Class is intellectual because they're the Leisure Class, they aren't the Leisure Class because they're intellectual.

>>6359295
i like you!

>>6359295
Althusser on ISA for you.

>>6359295
OP here.

This is the first post ITT that has actually made me think.

I'm not going to try a point by point refutation; I actually think your refutation of my refutation of materialism is probably true.

Let me just ask you this:

Do you think that opposing capitalism requires opposing business? What do you think of the idea of collectively owned businesses... Like, you go to work for a business and, after a probationary period, you get a share in the business equal to the full market value of your labor. In this system, all the profits go to the workers.

Would you be OK with something like this, or does your vision of communism HAVE to involve central planning and bureaucracy?

This is the thing I constantly wrestle with when considering Marxism. I *LOVE* the idea of anarchist communism, but I can't stand the socialist phase, which appears to be a highly statist phase from the little Marxist literature I've read.

>>6359302
Basically this.
It is nothing but the just-world hypothesis that makes right-wingers to assume otherwise.

>>6359330
>Do you think that opposing capitalism requires opposing business? What do you think of the idea of collectively owned businesses... Like, you go to work for a business and, after a probationary period, you get a share in the business equal to the full market value of your labor. In this system, all the profits go to the workers.

A profit equally divided, yes.
You have to understand that owners and workers aren't some kind of sworn enemies; in a perfect system they should be part of a same body working for the common goal.

>Would you be OK with something like this, or does your vision of communism HAVE to involve central planning and bureaucracy?

I think that a certain amount of centralism should be required in order to prevent corruption and wrongdoings. But it shouldn't interfere much with the basic ideas of collectivism.

Of course centralism is absolutely necessary in the initial period. In the latter stages it should fade off automatically.

>>6359330

This is a serious question /lit/. I have some knowledge on Philosophy but my knowledge on macroeconomics, marxism, liberalism and austrian school are non-existent.

What should I read so I understand most of economical and social viewpoints ? What are the fundamental books before starting to read more obscure stuff?

>>6359127
>Power does not come from physical strength.
Not fully true, it can and fluctuates between being and not being so.

>Ideas structure reality, NOT the other way around
Thought structures reality on a metaphysical level,
"Physical" phenomena structures reality if we are not being metaphysical,
as "physical" phenomena structure thought.

You seem to be mistaken,
Classical Liberal Capitalism is the correct organization of society,
in my humble opinion.

"Anarchism" is stupid and any application of it would be crypto-communist.
Communism has only one positive:
production,
and this is done worse than in Capitalism.
Capitalism allows for greatness in so far as the person wishes to take it.

>>6359330
>Like, you go to work for a business and, after a probationary period, you get a share in the business equal to the full market value of your labor.

That's still capitalism. Marx, Grundriesse, Chapter on Money.

>does… communism HAVE to involve central planning
Communism can't involve central planning and bureaucracy, because these are commands over other's labours.

>the socialist phase, which appears to be a highly statist phase

Read more council communism, autonomism, and actual proletarian revolutions. In particular read the very boring minutes from the Hungarian workers councils in Lomax's source book on them. Socialism looks like armed workplace councils, constantly in democratic session, not like a bourgeois state bureaucracy.

>>6359127
>do you really think George Bush types run the world?
No, Exxon, Mobil, BP, a bunch of other corporations and banks.
Intelligence=/=intellectual
Wealth=/=intellect
Intellectuals cower before power like the rest of us.

>>6359375
>Intelligence=/=intellectual
Not necessarily,
but it is more likely,
as in becoming an "intellectual",
the person has undergone some sort of criteria.

>Wealth=/=intellect
The same.

>Intellectuals cower before power like the rest of us.
1. Intellectuals fluctuate between cowering before "power" and not.
2. The "rest of us" do the same.
3. The statement seems irrelevant.

>>6359362

Smith - The Wealth Of Nations.

Marx - Theories of Surplus Value

Engels - Socialism Utopian And Scientific

Keynes - read the Wikipedia article, I have a copy of the General Theory in my library and its too technical and mathematical for a general reader.

Friedman - Capitalism and Freedom.

John Kenneth Galbraith - A Short History of Financial Euphoria.

>>6359362
>What should I read so I understand most of economical and social viewpoints ? What are the fundamental books before starting to read more obscure stuff?
Marx & Engels:

Theses on Feuerbach (pamph)
Critique of the Gotha Programme (pamph, read a commented version)
Socialism: Utopian & Scientific (pamph exerpt from Anti-Duhring)
Wages Price and Profit (the first real economic text)
Contribution to a critique of political economy
Capital volume 1 chapters on primitive accumulation and length of the working day.

DO NOT READ MANIFESTO. You will be unable to historically situate the radical nature of the demands. Demanding a central bank in 1848 was like demanding the compulsory abolition of gender and mandatory homosexuality.

>>6359385

I have already calc 3 and differential, and I'm doing a course on microeconomics so we are using Keynes. Macroeconomics is in the next season but still I'm sure that it will be biased as fuck.

>>6359387

Thanks anon

>>6359385
>>6359387

Thanks anon, i will read some of them

>>6359382
>Not necessarily,
I guess what I mean is that it is qualitative. The wealthy aren't always intelligent. Exhibit A. The looming climate change disaster.
Many of those people aren't evil, they're just terribly shortsighted.

>1.
>2.
>3.
Whence cometh the hero enough to turn yon tide?

>>6359127
>"dictatorship of the proletariat."

So everyone that has a job gets a vote.

What about the unemployed? So you've taken the power away from the rich, given it to everyone else. But the poor are still fucked.

>>6359295
>It isn't some competition game between lower and upper classes
Not entiriely correct. The primary basis of class struggle within capitalist society is the manifestation of the condtradiction between the social interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

>>6359167
Party activists don't have to be intellectuals. Lenin was actually infamous for his disdain for intellectualism.

read was marx and gramsci and lenin wrote about intellectuals and come back when you're done OP

>>6359650
Name the only worker on the CC in 1919 during the height of the leftcom factional scandal?

>>6359559
There is no practical unemployment in socialism, because the workdays are much shorter.

>>6359694
I don't see how this has to do with either that don't revolutionaries-by-trade have to be intellectuals or how Lenin held disdain towards petty-bourgeois intellectualism.

what the fuck is up with this argument though?

1. Intellectuals rule any society
2. They do this because, somehow, they are more powerful than the people with all the guns
ERGO
3. Materialism is false -- ideas structure reality

what?

the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise at all -- there's all sorts of potential reasons for why intellectuals are usually the ruling class; almost none of which make such wide-ranging metaphysical pronouncements.

maybe intellectuals are just better at manipulating people -- that's a much weaker claim than they have some power over reality itself, or whatever -- but it would also explain why they're at the top of the social ladder.

also a lot of your premises are ill-defined or just wrong, but whatever

>>6359132
>>6359176
No, Nietzsche doesn't think either of these things. He considers the natural order of man to be spiritually strong leader muscular classed and mediocre classes. This is in Antichrist, his most political work.

>>6359127
>There is no hope for revolution without the help of benevolent bourgeois intellectuals.

Clearly OP, which is why Lenin called them "useful idiots", because they didn't realize that once the revolution was over they would be executed along with all the other private property owners.

>2015
>Still thinking that social classes are more important than metaphysical classes

>>6360750

Lenin never used the phrase "useful idiot." And not everyone who were to be expropriated were executed.

>>6359457
>The wealthy aren't always intelligent.
My opinion is that they tend to be more "intelligent" than those who are not, and that they increased the number of their properties means they underwent some sort of change, which would produce intelligent people more so than not.

>Many of those people aren't evil, they're just terribly shortsighted.
Seems boorish and speculative.

>>6362219
I would like their numbers increased too. The wealth isn't really a factor. By "they're" I mean potentially intelligent people. That's roughly 95% of the world.

>Seems boorish and speculative.
My assessment?
Whence cometh the heroes? They're hopelessly self absorbed. Not all knowledge leads to usefulness.

>>6362654
>I would like their numbers increased too.
I find it irrelevant.
I only care for Enlightenment to occur with in me.
The others who appear sentient are irrelevant.

>The wealth isn't really a factor.
It does not define Intelligence,
but wealthy people tend to be more intelligent,
as opposed to what seems to be becoming the popular belief.
Some people consider contrarian opinions intelligent,
when in fact they fluctuate between being and not being so.

For every problem Communism has, Capitalism has ten more problems that justify Communism.

It's all about easing human suffering, and as far as Capitalism, it's hardly fit to do such a job.

That being said, I'm not a Leninist. More in line with insurrectionist anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho communism etc.

>>6362918
>For every problem Communism has, Capitalism has ten more problems that justify Communism.
I am not knowing this to be true and it seems to be hastily thrown out.

>It's all about easing human suffering, and as far as Capitalism, it's hardly fit to do such a job.
False, pleasure and pain are only vessels unto attaining greater goals, such as enlightenment.
Enlightenment is there for what it is "all about". Capitalism or Fascism then work in such a way in allowing the individual to attain such a feat, provided he works toward it.
Communism or Anarchism do not allow success. The greatness of the Roman, German or Italian Empires can never be realized under such governance.
Horrible people who spread this foul misunderstood tradition.

>>6362937

>False, pleasure and pain are only vessels unto attaining greater goals, such as enlightenment.

That is easy to say from someone who isn't the primary focus on the pain inflicted! The most notable group of people dominated by Capitalism are the disabled, especially the mentally handicapped. For the, Capitalism offers no real solution or way out. They are mostly restricted to the Janitorial. An ethical society would give them better ability, but this is not that.

Besides the fact, the way modern capitalism is structured is entirely unethical. Any facade of what Capitalism once promised it was capable of delivering is gone. Most of the economy is driven by war: weapons manufacture and oil. There is no time when we will not be in a permenant state of war. Someone has to buy weapons, someone has to die.

This is all easy to say, "But pain makes us human", wrong wrong wrong. There is nothing to say Pain makes us who we are. Sure, it is a sculpting force, but it's entirely conjecture constant agonizing pain leads to a better human being. More often than not, it has created monsters, revenge, vengeance, and violence.

>Communism or Anarchism do not allow success.

There is no need for it. Why do we need to build more towers and monuments to boost our ego on the backs of people in agony? What is the price of success? It's always a group of people subjugated.

If anything, worldwide poverty within the next century is going to grow, while people's value gets taken by others who have not been affected by pain whatsoever.

There is no reason to believe that we should use antiquated societies who used slave labor as examples for how to create a functional, ethical, good society, where all have ability to progress.

>>6362918
I would be an Anarchist if they were able to have any significant impact in Society. Capitalism did a swell job turning them into the punk-apolitical dispersed group they are today

>>6362966
>That is easy to say from someone who isn't the primary focus on the pain inflicted!
I have a notion of pains and I have had pains.
My opinion is that maintaining an absence of pain is a waste of time as an end.
It may serve a purpose to maintain pleasure,
but only as a vessel toward enlightenment.

>The most notable group of people dominated by Capitalism are the disabled, especially the mentally handicapped.
Do not have children if you are poor.

>For the, Capitalism offers no real solution or way out.
You find the way out in giving people some thing they want in exchange for money and then using money to buy products which will help you on the path to enlightenment.

>An ethical society would give them better ability, but this is not that.
An ethical society would teach them to strive.

>Any facade of what Capitalism once promised it was capable of delivering is gone
Because of democratic socialism.

>There is no time when we will not be in a permenant state of war
I am not knowing myself to be in a state of war.
The statement is false, as far as I can tell.

>Someone has to buy weapons, someone has to die.
False. They choose to of their own volition. Individuals appear to choose to of their own volition.

>More often than not, it has created monsters, revenge, vengeance, and violence.
I am not knowing that to be true.
Either way, it is irrelevant.
Pain should be overcome,
but only so that one may attain enlightenment.
It is not an end, just an obstacle.

>There is no need for it.
I prefer to do as opposed to not.
I prefer to enlighten myself as opposed to not.
Necessity does not exist, but I choose to do some thing as opposed to not.

>Why do we need to build more towers and monuments to boost our ego on the backs of people in agony?
In the building of said towers we may find enlightenment.
There is only number. To increase the number is paramount.
I do instead of not.

>What is the price of success?
I am not knowing until I have found it.

>It's always a group of people subjugated.
It may be. Why should it matter?

>If anything, worldwide poverty within the next century is going to grow, while people's value gets taken by others who have not been affected by pain whatsoever.
"Poverty" is re definable.

>slave labor
leftist jargon. Bullshit.

>>6363002
Anarchism is a paradox.
It is actually Communism.
There is no "Anarchism".

>>6363013

You mean, the communist done through the history is Anarchism?

top lel

>>6363002
Anon, the reason Anarchists, and Anarchism as a whole won't have any impact is because their entire system is set up to be opposed to everybody else.

It's hard to get somewhere in the world when everyone else is either:

a). an enemy
b). wrong
c.) all of the above

>>6363018
If there were ever a sustained "Anarchist" society,
it would be indistinguishable from communism.
Anarchy would have to be sustained by an institution,
which is supposedly not a governing state organization.
So it would only be anarchic in name,
but in reality,
communistic.

Basically,
what happens in Communism is that when some one is too successful, near enlightenment or great,
he is either killed or incarcerated.
How else would you sustain such an "anarchic" institution?

>>6363002

I have faith. Eventually. Anarchism is getting more popular today, anyways.

>>6363010

>I have a notion of pains and I have had pains.

Which doesn't mean you speak on behalf of everyone and every magnitude of pain.

>Do not have children if you are poor.

How the fuck is the birth of mentally handicapped people relating to income, in any way??

>You find the way out in giving people some thing they want in exchange for money and then using money to buy products which will help you on the path to enlightenment.

No it isn't.

>I am not knowing myself to be in a state of war.

What the fuck is this? What are you even suggesting?

>Because of democratic socialism.

I have no idea if you're Right Libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalist but everything you are suggesting just smells like shit.

Capitalism as it is now is preforming exactly as it was meant to develop. There is no problem with Capitalism as it is now. That is the problem, itself.

>
False. They choose to of their own volition. Individuals appear to choose to of their own volition

I'll just tell that to the victims of drone bombings who were mistargeted. I'm sure they'll be glad a First World Arm-Chair philosopher said their death was A) Their own Fault B) For the greater good or some shit.

Everything you say implies sacrificial logic for human life. It's destructive and it won't achieve anything.

There is no science to what you are saying.

>I am not knowing that to be true. Either way, it is irrelevant.

Lmao of course pain only creating torment only creating violence is irrelevant. I only have myself!

>I prefer to do as opposed to not.

Your problem, not ours.

>I prefer to enlighten myself as opposed to not.

Euphoric.

>In the building of said towers we may find enlightenment.

IF-WE-BUILD-ENOUGH-EMPIRE-STATE-BUILDINGS-THAN-THEY-WILL-TEACH-US-FREDOM

>I am not knowing until I have found it.

Stop speaking like you're 76 years old. Just because you have unwarranted self importance does not make you a wiseman.

>It may be. Why should it matter?

Are you serious.

>"Poverty" is re definable.

Are you serious

>>6363050

Do you even methods of production? and Personal and Private property?

>>6363018
Actually, some of it was, esp. in a certain southeast asian locale.

>>6363050

God shut up. Parroting Ayn Rand only proves how much of a fucking neckbeard you are

>>6363060
>Which doesn't mean you speak on behalf of everyone and every magnitude of pain.
Nor do I need to. I am not omnipotent,
nor are you, in so far as I know.

>How the fuck is the birth of mentally handicapped people relating to income, in any way?
If you are wealthy,
you can take care of said child.
I thought this was self evident.

>No it isn't.
Enlighten me as to the contrary instead of posting redundant three word rebuttals,
please. You are under no obligation to do so, but I would prefer if you did.

>What the fuck is this? What are you even suggesting?
War is not occurring in my surroundings.
That is what I am suggesting and I presume it is true as I see nor hear gunfire or explosion.

>I have no idea if you're Right Libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalist but everything you are suggesting just smells like shit.
Right Libertarian would most likely define me.

>Capitalism as it is now is preforming exactly as it was meant to develop.
False. It fluctuates.
We are undergoing democratic socialism in most countries,
not classical liberal Capitalism.
Japan, Singapore et cetera are safe.

>There is no problem with Capitalism as it is now.
There is too much public expenditure and not enough private investment.

>I'll just tell that to the victims of drone bombings who were mistargeted.
Then do. I am unaware as to why you are telling me this.
Your whole post is overly sentimental and dull.

>Everything you say implies sacrificial logic for human life.
False. I am simply indifferent to whichever death may be occurring yonder.

>It's destructive and it won't achieve anything.
False. Socialism is destructive in impeding those who are strong to become stronger.

>Your problem, not ours.
Precisely, that is why I am elucidating it here.

>>6363138
>Nor do I need to. I am not omnipotent,

That's not the problem.

>If you are wealthy, you can take care of said child

How wealthy is wealthy? Only wealthy people are allowed to breed? You claim creating a work force is draining the life out of others but frankly it sounds like you're far more effective at draining the life out of others.

>Enlighten me as to the contrary instead of posting redundant three word rebuttals,

Capitalism
Sucks
Dick

>Right Libertarian would most likely define me.

God

>False. It fluctuates.

False, Capitalism has no built in protection from "influence", it just moves for effective production. It is no different now in basic concept. Capitalism is Capitalism. There is nothing restricting it.

>There is too much public expenditure and not enough private investment.

And if that goes, then what? Your ideal world of poor people not having children because their lives are misreable and they should acknowledge they're useless? What the fuck are you doing.

>Then do. I am unaware as to why you are telling me this.

Are you a sociopath?

>False. I am simply indifferent to whichever death may be occurring yonder.

So you are a sociopath

>
False. Socialism is destructive in impeding those who are strong to become stronger.

Are you implying the wealthy as they are now, are not getting "stronger"? In terms of Social Capital and their own.

Fuck them, fuck what they represent, and fuck the states built to serve their own interest. Fuck Capitalism. Fuck it raw.

>Precisely, that is why I am elucidating it here.

I suppose I could point out the irony of the working class pointing out their problems under Capitalism, as irrelevant compared to the Capitalist Class complaining that the Working Class is complaining.

In reality in terms of production the wealthy offer nothing. They are a concept. They are weak worms benefiting from the labor of billions.

And frankly, they should all die.

>>6363191
>Only wealthy people are allowed to breed?
It is ethically incorrect to breed with out being wealthy.

>There is nothing restricting it.
The democratic process allows for changes in the constitution and law.
Most countries are socialist-capitalist hybrids.

>Your ideal world of poor people not having children because their lives are misreable and they should acknowledge they're useless?
They should attempt to attain enlightenment, while trading what ever they can, including their labour in order to maintain themselves.

>Are you implying the wealthy as they are now, are not getting "stronger"?
It fluctuates.
They could be getting stronger.

>In reality in terms of production the wealthy offer nothing.
False. They organise and invent the ideas which keep the wheels of production turning.
The state does not produce food.
The hospitals do not produce medicine and medicinal products,
private industry does.

That being said, the State is a institution like any business,
it simply has martial law and an army and is the only one that is allowed to with in one geographical boundary.

>They are weak worms benefiting from the labor of billions.
They fluctuate between working toward and not working toward enlightenment.
They organize the increased number of activities with in the world.
They are that which sets the world in motion as to opposed to letting it stagnate.

>And frankly, they should all die.
It seems superfluously violent.
Every one should be mediocre and if they are not they should be killed or incarcerated?
Well there we have it.

>>6363228

>It is ethically incorrect to breed with out being wealthy.

God damn at least you're honest.

>The democratic process allows for changes in the constitution and law.

Liberal democracies, especially as they are now, are hardly a hindrance to Capitalism are you serious.

>They should attempt to attain enlightenment, while trading what ever they can, including their labour in order to maintain themselves.

I'm gonna be honest, you're like, everything I hate in a human being.

>False. They organise and invent the ideas which keep the wheels of production turning.

In what world? To imply the working class has somehow less ability to think, or else they would be wealthy is the single most fucking naive five year old baby understanding of how the world works.

How can you be so fucking naive?

>They are that which sets the world in motion as to opposed to letting it stagnate.

They suck dick imo

>It seems superfluously violent.

Frankly, not violent enough.

>>6363241
>Liberal democracies, especially as they are now, are hardly a hindrance to Capitalism are you serious?
Yes, they are.
Taxation is too high, which is a result of marxist demagogues.
The EU, the Labour party, the Fabian society et cetera.

>>6363242

>mfw the landlords get what they deserve

>>6363255
The People's republic is similar to Fascist Italy in its current state,
in my opinion.
There is entrepreneurial freedom,
but only in so far as it serves the state.
There are no elections.
It seems strange that you would use the Chinese as an example.

>>6363228
>It's ethically incorrect to breed without being healthy
>False. I am simply indifferent to whichever death may be occurring yonder.
What kind of shitdickery is this?

>>6363254

If they're any hindrance, thank thank God for that (It isn't but I'm just taking you for your word :>) )

The problem is that liberal democracies are so incompetent at combating capitalism because they benefit from it just as much as anyone, especially now.

Liberalism is impotent, you're giving it far too much credit.

There is no reason for you to claim Capitalism in 2015 is under strict penalty in the world.

>>6363265

That was a joke, I'm not a Maoist, but regardless,

That was Maoist China, not Deng or Post-Deng. During the Land Lord Trials specifically.

>The People's republic is similar to Fascist Italy in its current state,

Do you have any idea how left and right work? How confused can you be?

>>6363274
It is ethically incorrect to do create some thing which can not be maintained.
It is not ethically incorrect to be indifferent to things which are happening in various places yonder.
Please enlighten me to the contrary.
You are under no obligation to do so,
although I would prefer if you did.

>>6363265
Deng Xiapeng transformed China from a state-socialist state to a corporatist one. Most Maoists nowadays despise Deng for what he did to China.

>>6363282
You seem to be playing really fast and loose with the term "ethical" bud.

>>6363282

Can you loan me $2000 please

>>6363278
>Liberalism is impotent, you're giving it far too much credit.
Liberalism leaves that which works working.
It is not wisdom, it is just logic.

>There is no reason for you to claim Capitalism in 2015 is under strict penalty in the world.
Unions, Marxism, Marxist thought, the Fabian Society, the Labour parties et cetera
Most people have neo marxist thought or some thing similar.
It is the first thing some one comes to the conclusion about after being apolitical.

>Do you have any idea how left and right work?
Fascism in its original conception was socialist. "Left" if I am not mistaken.
The People's Republic is "leftist", but it is essentially the same as fascism.
Where is the condemnation of ethnocentric or nationalistic thought?
China is the most ethnocentric/ nationalistic/ closed off country today.
Can you truly believe it is still "left"?
What "leftist" regime has actually not in fact been "right wing"?
Ridiculous.

>>6363305
Forgot my picture.

>>6363305

>Liberalism leaves that which works working. It is not wisdom, it is just logic.

>liberalism
>logic
>mfw

>Unions, Marxism, Marxist thought, the Fabian Society, the Labour parties et cetera

All liberals, all doing nothing. All are impotent, as I have said. If they were actually doing harm, you would tell. Since I think anyone with over a six figure income deserves the chopping block, I suppose it is hard to accept that you think liberalism is anything more than a hangnail.

>Fascism in its original conception was socialist.

Fucking Christ you are clueless

Socialism can be Right Wing, especially in its National forms, for example National Socialism.

Can you say a word with me

Reactionary.

One more time

Reactionary

That is what you have in common with Fascism.

>The People's Republic is "leftist", but it is essentially the same as fascism

Fucking Christ which period are you even referring to? Even right now it would be hard to call it Fascist. What the hell?

>What "leftist" regime has actually not in fact been "right wing"?

You're killing me stop

>>6363359
>That is what you have in common with Fascism.
I have no problem with having some thing in common with Fascism.
Actually, I think the beginnings of Fascist Italy were interesting.
The problem was it was forced to adopt the policies of the Third Reich because it was weak.

>>6363359
Leftism in itself is the redistribution of wealth at ever increasing levels,
which is more and more unsustainable.
There is no country that can be perpetually leftist.
It has to go right at some point,
so why not just do it straight away?
Equality is
1. Pointless and
2. Unsustainable.

Why do liberals like to conflate Left-Wing totallitarian regimes with Right-Wing ones and claim they are the one and the same? Liberals need to stop looking through the dichotic lens of Freedom vs Totallitarianism and see the real ideological differences.

>>6363373
>>I have no problem with having some thing in common with Fascism.

Well, I have some great news for you!

Communism has been the #1 effective eradicator and exterminator of people like you throughout time!

When we get in charge, there will be none of you left!

>Actually, I think the beginnings of Fascist Italy were interesting.

Wow.

>>6363380

It's because liberals are fuckin dumb.

>>6363380
Only Benito Mussolini was a communist and Fascism and National Socialism were born of socialist ideas.
Communism is anthropocentric and Fascism is ethnocentric.
That is one of the few differences.

>>6363378

>Leftism in itself is the redistribution of wealth at ever increasing levels

Good.

>which is more and more unsustainable.

I'm an anarcho-communist I live for the unsustainable, kind of hard to upset me there.

>It has to go right at some point,

That's why we're so effective at making examples of reactionaries and instilling fear into everyone of the capabilities of reactionaries.

Sure, you get some right wing coups, but without the aid from the United States, they wouldn't have gotten that far.

>equality is pointless and unsustainable

Fucking great, where's the problem? Let it all fall down. Jenga the whole fucking thing, it doesn't deserve to exist.

>>6363389

You are so, so dumb.

>>6363389
[[citations needed]]

>>6363416
"Infographics" aren't citations you horrible little shit. They're you restating your argument with an image.

>>6363402
His upbringing was socialist.
His father was socialist.
He was a member of a european communist group.
He began getting ethnocentric ideas.
He coined the term fascism in his manifesto,
fusing nationalist and socialist ideas.
"Race" did not mean any thing to Mussolini initially,
but a national identity did.
In that way the "Italian People" formed an ethnic group, regardless of race.

In communism no ethnic group or race holds precedence over the other.
It is anthropocentric,
meaning all humans are equal.
This is less sustainable.

>>6363420
Do you want articles from the internet,
quotes, the books I read them in?
Does it matter? Surely you can look up his biography yourself?

>>6363416

You're blowing my mind

>>6363424

How many times must it be said. Socialism is neither left nor right wing. It is for the most part used for the Left, but it can be used by the right in Nationalist or other Rightist ways.

I have no idea who told you Fascist Italy was leftist but they should be ashamed of themselves.

>>6363428

Sure. Link me these worthless books so I can laugh at them.

>>6363428
Well your claim that Mussolini is genealogically socialist and therefore that fascism is genealogically socialist is puerile. The NSDAP was set up by the junker-military and "Bismarkian socialism" wasn't.

You're playing shitty semantic games that involve bending words beyond breaking and the point of your game is an eisegesis that amounts, largely, to a whig theory of history in an unusually pure whiggish mould.

>>6359127
I think I'm way too late to make this a thread about literature, but OP, if you are interested in the idea that intellectuals run the world, or in thinking about the extent to which they do or do not, I recommend Neal Stephenson's Anathem.

>>6363435
Even in Britain,
Oswald Mosley had been a member of the Labour party.
The British Union of Fascists was mostly comprised of socialists.

>>6363440

>>6363444
Given that they're a tripfag from a special snowflake forum culture, all we have to do is wait until they inevitably break the rules. That or they'll commit suicide.

>>6359127
Wasn't there a fammous fag on twitter who used that pic as an avatar?

>>6363444
It's true, brah, the popular front was such a stuttering clusterfuck that it took a big penis like Stalin to clean up the mess.

>>6359135
this is a true but also not-very-nice observation. this also calls to mind a question though; where do we go when we've begun or even completed our novels?

>>6363444
I am aware you know that socialism can be right wing,
but the person to whom I was referring does not seem to believe this.
Aside from that,
you advocate the killing of any one who happens to be successful,
so I really do not know what you are criticizing over all.

>>6359166

well gosh! you're beginning to sound like a shitheaded genetic determinist!

>>6363452
How exactly is this whole thread,
no this whole board not a marxist hugbox?
And you dare with your failed political experiments call me a special snowflake.
You are the one that is not in the right mind.

>>6363532
I've never seen someone who is calmly making a reasonable argument use the phrase "how dare you."

Just an observation. I have no stake in this, nor do I even know what it is about.

>>6363538
"And you dare", specifically.

>>6363532

>no this whole board not a marxist hugbox?

Fear, the marxist hugbox has come to smash my riches.

>>6363482

No. I advocate for a better more organized society not structured by mad men and their dreams like you want. There's nothing for your world that attracts me. It's full of violence, and it lacks any purpose. There is no reason for the poor to not commit mass suicide, in your ideal, from what you've said.

Also yes, I think billionaires should die, sue me. Someone has to say it.

>>6363477

>Stalin helped anything

Please. Though to be fair, he wasn't fucking Khrushchev.

>>6363565
>It's full of violence
You said yourself you advocate the execution of wealthy people.

>There is no reason for the poor to not commit mass suicide, in your ideal, from what you've said.
False. They can gain enlightenment and sustain themselves through trade.

>Also yes, I think billionaires should die, sue me. Someone has to say it.
>It's full of violence
Cease to breathe.

>>6363602

Wealthy people make up a tiny demographic, whilst the workers of the world do not :v)

>False. They can gain enlightenment and sustain themselves through trade.

I don't know what the fuck type of enlightenment you're asking for, but if the cost of enlightenment is what you say, you can shove your enlightenment right up your ass.

>Cease to breathe.

My last breath is saved for when the affluent starve.

>>6363565
>I think billionaires should die
Reform through labour camps.

Yes I do know.

Yes I do know.

Yes, I do know. But some of them will be reformed. The Last Emperor was corrected as a human being through criticism self-criticism.

>he wasn't fucking Khrushchev.
If the anti-party block had been dealt with in 1955, a central European revolution was possible in 1956. While no Mikoyan, Khrushchev would have tailended the committee.

>>6363621
>Wealthy people make up a tiny demographic, whilst the workers of the world do not
Yes. For what reason are you stating this?

>>6363659
Forgot my picture.

>>6363656

I never understood why we got rid of the turtleneck

>>6363659

>Yes. For what reason are you stating this?

Their death is not at the same level as the death they enforce. It's justice, no more no less.

>>6363678
Wealthy people are wealthy because they produce some thing which is desired.
What you are advocating is the removal of desired products.

>>6363565
>>Stalin helped anything
>Please.
Seems like he did bretty gud considering his country spent every single day under the threat of complete destruction by multiple world powers.

>>6363687
I think you are avoiding the pretty obvious flaw of having an uneducated demagogue controlling the army, police and means of production of a vast area.

The initial idea of a marxist revolution is horrible.

>>6363687

From that angle, I suppose. But he had plenty of faults. He super charged the entire nation on par with that of the West, and for that he did a damn fine job.

But again, like it doesn't need to be said he hardly was the perfect leader. Maybe one needed, but not one anyone recalls fondly.

What is interesting, is Russia today admires the Soviet Union (especially the Lenin era) more than Post-USSR-Fall, for good reason.

>>6363681

>if there are no wealthy people, how will anything exist!!

Please

>>6363706

>The initial idea of a marxist revolution is horrible.

And yet Russia achieved a 100% literacy rate pretty fast.

>>6363710
>Please
Some thing will exist,
but it will be not what it was before and in that you open the doors to a lower quality of life.
This is an elementary idea,
I would think.

>And yet Russia achieved a 100% literacy rate pretty fast.
After destroying the private sector.
Not every one needs to be intelligent in a society, either.

>>6363718

>but it will be not what it was before and in that you open the doors to a lower quality of life.

Literally the rich do fuck shit in terms of manufacturing what are you saying

>After destroying the private sector.

Hell yes.

>Not every one needs to be intelligent in a society, either.

You're right? Not everyone has to be intelligent to live, thank you for speaking the truth for once.

>>6363721
>Literally the rich do fuck shit in terms of manufacturing what are you saying
They organize production.
The state does not produce food or luxury items.
We would not be having this discussion as we would not have the products.
We would have a bad quality bed to sleep in.

>>6363742
>They organize production.

There are people who's job it is to organize production, and let me tell you; it isn't the rich.

>The state does not produce food or luxury items.

On the contrary what's stopping anyone? If you're saying what the rich have access to in terms of quality is quality because of the price you're out of your fucking mind.

>We would not be having this discussion as we would not have the products.

Yet you wouldn't be having this discussion if someone didn't make the product in front of you.

>We would have a bad quality bed to sleep in.

The FUCKING HORROR and SHAME my mattress is hard at the expense of equal opportunity.

FATHER

WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME???

>>6363760
>There are people who's job it is to organize production, and let me tell you; it isn't the rich.
They do it because they are given money, which is provided by the rich.

>On the contrary what's stopping anyone?
Why have they not done it yet?
Why would you choose one business over many?
What would happen to competition?
I can tell you, there would be none. You would have low quality products and very few products.

>If you're saying what the rich have access to in terms of quality is quality because of the price you're out of your fucking mind.
Not necessarily,
but luxury items exist.
In general and contrary to popular belief,
if you pay more you will have better quality items.

>Yet you wouldn't be having this discussion if someone didn't make the product in front of you.
Yes, and let us be glad we live in a Capitalist country so they had the incentive to do so after being "exploited".
If that is so, then the "exploitation" spook is paramount.

You just do not believe in quality.
You have seen hard times and you want to see worse.
You want all others to see those hard times or death and when they turn on their own path you want them executed,
you contrarian luddite piece of shit.
How this board tends to agree with this sort of thought is beyond me.

>>6359208
He also invested in the Ukraine.

what a phucken idiot lmfao

>>6363718
>After destroying the private sector.
Which is... bad?

>>6363806

>They do it because they are given money, which is provided by the rich.

You're such a goofball deluxe

>Why have they not done it yet?

Are you fucking serious? Because they don't have access to the same resources as rich people you fuck

>if you pay more you will have better quality items.

Fuck that

>Yes, and let us be glad we live in a Capitalist country so they had the incentive to do so after being "exploited".

Oh go fuck yourself you illiterate false breadwinner

>>6363706
>an uneducated demagogue
Stalin? He received an education at a seminary and was a famous autodidact.

>>6363710
>But he had plenty of faults.
>But again, like it doesn't need to be said he hardly was the perfect leader.
I agree, but so would Stalin and every Leninist ever. (Except maybe Hoxhaists)

>>6363861

>Hoxhaists