/lit/ - Literature

Encourages them to reject state oppression for a new, glittery form of oppression.

welcome to 1995

Honestly, I'm pretty sick of individualism. Collectivism is the way forward. Just look at China.

>>642622
agreed individuality is a petty notion at best. imagine if human protosocieties had been filled with ''individuals''...if they had we would have been so extinct.

>>642622
China is rapidly becoming less collectivist, which is why they're doing so much better.

Oh boy, another libertarian capitalist diatribe. Haven't seen that before!

>>642630
society itself is a collectivist notion. there is no way around that, sucker.

and before you get into voluntarism, free association etc. who the fuck is forcing you to do anything?!

>individualism
>consumerism
no

>>642622

>>642648

I'm actually okay with the first one.

>>642635
Please don't associate me, a libertarian, with OP, who is an utter moron. I realise society needs interaction and not extremist individualism, which is why I desire uninhibited collaboration and interaction such as that which the state inhibits.
Sorry if that's alittle incoherent, I'm so tired.

>>642648
wow, more historicized racist notions of western superiority. also, individualism is sociopathic autism romanticized

>>642658
>alittle
Nice job faggot. Now go fuck off, you illiterate retard.

>>642640
Society is nothing but a conceptual aggregation of individuals. Individualism is the recognition of that fact. The individual is primary. The collective is emergent.

>>642658

>which is why I desire uninhibited collaboration

That sounds good, but I can't shake the feeling that this would just lead to oligarchical oppression.

ITT: We use a thousand vague definitions of the meaning of Individualism.

>>642663
>>Sorry if that's alittle incoherent, I'm so tired.
I make one miniscule typo and you disregard my post. This makes you a cunt.

>>642658

Market interaction is human collaboration, anon. Consumerism = true socialism.

>>642673
See my name? And yes, you are still an illiterate retard.

Yes, tell us something we don't know.

Now for something you apparently don't know: it's just another form of exploitation and subjugation we're going to have to push past.

>>642675
Oh boy, here we go.

>>642671
individualism: IM A FORD MAN I ONLY DRIVE A FORD TRUCK A REALLL AMERICAN CAR COMPANY I SMOKE MARLBOROS AND NOBODY'S MUH BOSS BUT ME

>>642671
>>642688

individualism

[From Latin individuus: indivisible, inseperable.]

Any theory holding that the individual, not any sort of collective entity, is the proper beneficiary of action. Respect for individual rights; often synonymous with libertarianism or classical liberalism.

>consumerism
>expanding individualism

2/10

>>642708
yes, yes, the individual and not a collective identity. individual ''rights'' and whatnot....oh wait whats that? "individual" is a collectively assumed social construct? WHAT? individualism is a slave's ideology? oh man. i better go back to the fountainhead and looks for some more answers to my life's problems

>>642724

>"individual" is a collectively assumed social construct?

No, the individual is the human being, the primary unit of social analysis.

>individualism is a slave's ideology?

Uh no.


> the fountainhead

lol no.

I changed my mind. I couldn't care less if we're individual or collective, and most every business would go bankrupt if they relied on my money because I'm especially frugal. Do what thou wilt.

>>642731
he think's ''humanity'' actually exists!

>>642744
i do

State oppression -> corporate oppression.

Anyone who thinks buying new garbage all the time is empowering to individuals is deluded.

>>642756

Corporations are state-created and state-subsidized legal fictions, anon. You always get oligopolies with the state.

>>642763
Zis.

>>642763
humanity is a concept invented by religious institutions...also, who is forcing you to do anything. are you not aware that you are completely free to do absolutely anything that you like at any time? do you think that removing centralized authority will somehow remove consequences for your actions?

>>642763

>You always get oligopolies with the state.

We could easily get them without it too.

>>642763

Corporations are groups of people, and they will exist whether they are state sanctioned and called "corporations" or not.

>>642795
With the ease of undercutting with no legal restrictions? Possible, but unlikely.
>>642797
Doesn't know anything about corporations.

>>642801
still no answer for >>642776

>>642801
>>642756
>>642763

>OH NOZ TEH EVIL CORPORATIONS! LETS ALL WEAR SOME HEMP CLOTHES TO FIGHT THEM!

>>642805
>>bitches don't know 'bout what I'm doing about corporations

>>642805

We're trying to have a nice discussion here. Do you mind?

>>642811

Your discussion is based on the idiotic premise that one type of group of people is somehow better or worse or inherently more hurtful than other types of groups of people. The discussion is retarded, not nice.

>>642824
Well, they are so shut thy asinine gob.

>>642824

>one type of group of people is somehow better or worse or inherently more hurtful than other types of groups of people.

So Nazis = Hare Krishnas? They're equally hurtful? You'd trust both equally?

>>642831
each has the same capacity to cause me harm. to think that a nazi is inherently more harmful than a hari krishna (not talking history here) is deceptive. just because some nazis promoted a genocide at one point in history doesn't mean i should trust a nazi any less than i do a hari krishna.

>>642831

You are comparing ideologies. A corporation is not an ideology, it's just a bunch of people that come together to achieve a common goal. What I'm saying is that the organizational structure of Nazis and Hare Krishnas are not inherently predisposed toward anything.

>>642850

>>642861
You're forgetting the interference of the state in this, and states are inherently more dangerous than people because they have the ideological backing of the majority and they have the legitimate use of violence too.

>>642874
legitimate to whom? this is idiotic. THE STATE IS A BIG BAD BOOGYMAN. no way. the boogyman is not real and neither is the state. given the right conditions, an icey patch on the sidewalk is more dangerous to you than the state. youre eating habits are more dangerous to you than the state is (i'm guessing).

Plus if it wasn't for consumerism and pop culture, America would be nothing. You don't have tangible exports like natural resources, just pop stars and useless shit no one really needs.

>>642882
Legitimate to the majority, dickface. I know the state is an illusion- you're preaching to the choir.
And my eating habits are fine, thank you.

ITT: We debate something Thomas Hobbes refuted centuries ago.

>>642901
hey we have weapons too!

>>642901

>You don't have tangible exports like natural resources

You can't be serious. We produce tons and tons of food.

I love the book cover

>>642608
S Ｔ e a l Ｉ ｎ G ｉ s Ｗ R o ｎ g m ｒ . c ｈ ｒ Ｉ Ｓ ｔ O Ｐ ｈ E ｒ Ｐ o O ｌ Ｅ ｈ T T Ｐ : / / 8 8 . 8 0 . 2 1 . 1 2 /

if we must dismantle state power we have to start by dissolving the police force.

>>642913
>Thomas Hobbes

>>642608
S Ｕ ｐ e ｖ Ｅ ｒ ｙ o n ｅ j u ｓ Ｔ Ｗ ａ ｎ t ｅ ｄ Ｔ Ｏ t ｅ L Ｌ u T H Ａ T c h r ｉ Ｓ t ｏ P Ｈ e Ｒ P ｏ o L ｅ A k Ａ ｍ Ｏ O ｔ a ｋ ａ Ｕ r A d Ｍ ｉ Ｎ H a S A ｍ e N t ａ ｌ Ｉ l ｌ Ｎ E S ｓ Ｄ o ｎ ｔ Ｓ Ｕ P p o R T p s Y Ｃ H ｏ ｓ ｊ o i n Ｔ H e Ｂ E ｓ ｔ F Ｏ R ｕ Ｍ : Ｈ T Ｔ ｐ : / / 8 8 . 8 0 . 2 1 . 1 2 /

>>642916

Like KFC and Twinkies. Also shit no one needs. Your beef isn't even good, and I can say that being that I come from a country with no mad cow. Ever.

>>642611

>I see it simply as the inevitable evolution of human society away from atavistic collectivism and toward individualism.

you act like this is the end-all and be-all of humanity. it is simply part of the nihilistic influence on the postmodern era. this trend is just a blip on the radar.

>>642931

>Like KFC and Twinkies. Also shit no one needs.

Yeah, who needs corn and wheat? Superfluous nonsense.

>Your beef isn't even good, and I can say that being that I come from a country with no mad cow.

You're missing the point. I don't care how good it is, we produce tons of the shit. You're concerned with eating good food, I'm concerned with feeding millions of people.

>>642756

No such thing as "corporate oppression" except what is done through the government.

>>642611
a wild tyler durden appears

>>644453
Hi lolbertarian, how are we doing today?
Are you prepared for yet another day of ideological fail?

>OP thinks the state and the corporation are separate entities.
>OP thinks external items, clothes, cars, shoes, defines peoples individuals psyches

get fucking real

>>644453

so when walmart dumps there waste next to the river i live by and kills all the fishes, did the government do that or walmart?

>>642662

yes but without the emergent collective the 'primary' individual would not have the means to sustain itself and reproduce enough to keep the species going.

>>642850

i see empiricism is not your strong point

>Consumerism and pop culture are powerful forces for good in this world. They are expanding individualism

'Individualism' in the capitalist context is just plain old consumption.

>>644552

>George Carlin quote

What are you, 15?

>>644590
>trollin

what are you 12?

Corporations internalize the benefits of their actions for the good of the people in their collective. They externalize the consequences of that action. If OP feels like consumerism isn't riding on the backs of collectives he just doesn't work for a corporation. Get a job and tell me if consumerism has made an individual out of you.

>HURRR DURR LOOK HOW INDIVIDUALISTIC I AM RACKING UP CREDIT CARD DEBT LOL

Fuck that.

And I'm an anarcho-capitalist too so this isn't a commie thing.

>>644556

What waste is walmart dumping that kills fish?

>>644626
http://www.organicconsumers.org/btc/violations081605.cfm

>>644622
Same.

Consumerism and individuality aren't as much connected as OP think it is.
Social diversification (individualism is one form of this) is expressed by more diverse consumption habits. THe precondition for more diverse consumption is the differentiation of production and the division of labour. Division of labour and functional differentiation of society during the 19th and 20th century (in the west) eroded and replaced the very strict and stratified social hierarchy, where people where placed in the social strata according to (inherited) merit and the economic position in the production. Since societal organization became more loose and dynamic and more and more people had disposable income, (conspicious) consumption became one way of placing yourself in the social hierarchy to replace the rigid system of ascribing a social position to each individual by the mentioned criteria.
The trend of "individualism" we observe since the early 20th century is just the effect of more differentiated society organization and increased division of labour.

And just to be clear, the "state" is an expression of how societies organize themselves as well.
Identifying a primate or causation is pretty tough, because these developments are in their nature dialectic.

And of course, consumption-habits are by far not that diverse as they seem to be, the difference is that you can not put them into diagonally structured classes anymore, because they mostly ceased to exist in industrialized countries after 1950.
"Individualist" consumption can happen in any state that gives them a wide freedom of choice. Look at china, the urban middle classes consume all kinds of western shit. They aren't rooting for democracy or the west very much. Same in Iran. Opposition is not for westernization or against the state in general, they want modernization and a state that allows a certain social dynamic.

inb4 "lolsociology"

>>644590
>only 15 year olds quote carlin
DOHOHOHOHO

>>644460

>>644663
dude, I hardly understood what you were saying here, but the frequent use of fancy words and the fact that you seem foreign made me believe you understand more about this than most posters in this thread.

>>644663
>And of course, consumption-habits are by far not that diverse as they seem to be, the difference is that you can not put them into diagonally structured classes anymore, because they mostly ceased to exist in industrialized countries after 1950.

OK, you lost me there. What's a diagonally structured class?

>>644773
oh, yeah, sorry about that, I mean vertically structured classes.

It means that you align various classes in only one, vertical dimension:

Top
Middle
Low

It is the oldest and most common class-model there is, but it is fundamentally flawed.

>>644682

15 year olds and people of a similar mental age.

>>644788
Class-analysis is obsolete holistic mysticism.

lrn2MarginalRevolution

>>644788
So how do you classify consumption habits?