/lit/ - Literature

>>6461406
Why do you feel the need of shitting up the board ?
What did we do to you ?
Why do you encourage the creation of poor quality content ?

>>6461406
>why dont you became a fedora tipper

>>6461406
Because it's objectively wrong

>>6461406
/lit/ - literature

>>6461430
You are currently shitposting

>>6461406
objectivism is not even philosophy, it's just pure autism. Unless you spent half your life drinking yourself to sleep in a soviet shithole which has resulted in massive neurotoxicity being an objectivist is embarrassing.

>>6461434
>implying the OP isn't

Because I Am Not An Evil Piece Of Shit. I Believe In Helping Others And Sharing Our Wealth. Rand Is A Classist Bitch With No Compassion.

>take economics course
>find out that employees contribute literally zero to anything
>find that all value is created by the employer's charge for their product, which is objectively worthless until then
>mfw butthurt liberals literally have economics backward

>>6461476
Rand wasn't a classist bitch, she just existed on a very basal intellectual level. If turkeys developed the ability to talk it would be nonstop randian drivel.

>>6461491
Um, No. At Least Turkeys Can Organise Themselves In A Decent Fucking Social Structure. Rand's World Would Be A Violent Mess Of Oppression And Bigotry. Turkeys Are Basically Marxists Next To Rand.

>>6461476
Hello Jaden. Welcome to /lit/

>>6461491
"Basal"? Auto-correct of "banal" maybe?

>>6461504
My Name Isn't Jaden.

>>6461482
>in an economics course

Of course they'd tell you that, they're coming from a global capitalist perspective, the dogma is irreversible now

>>6461504
You're killing me bf, obviously "base" would have been better but what they wrote was perfectly valid

>>6461526
Now we see why Marxist ideology is unfalsifiable.

>>6461526
You liberals are basically the creationists of economics. Muh Holy Marx said it

yoy have to admit it's pretty damn funny when Rand shits on subjective, metaphysical, psychological/economical babblers in AS.

>>6461528
Never seen it before.

>>6461508
Sure It Isn't. We Believe You.

>>6461584
Why The Fuck Would My Name Be Jaden? You Don't Even Fucking Know Me, You Dickweed.

>>6461635
Only Because You're Typing Like Him.

>>6461678
I Type Like That Because, As A Marxist, I Believe That All Words, As The Product Of Their Collective Praxis In the Formation Of The Sentence, Are Intrinsically Of Equal Value.

>>6461482
Then why even employ workers in the first place? Capitalists sure must be dumbfucks for investing into valueless assets. :^)

>>6461739
Labor has a value, it just doesn't ADD value to anything. Its value is drastically inflated by coercive state practices pandering to poor voters, increasing regulation, minimum wage, which inflates all other wages due to te factor of relative consideration, and, worst of all, the virtual abolition of company script.

>>6461535
The problem with that idea is that economic theory differs from scientific theory in the fashion that economic theory is based around mathematical axioms that create the foundations of a framework of analysis. A lot of times anti-Marxist economists forget this and attempt to critique Marxist economic theory while misunderstanding or outright rejecting certain axioms. Like a house built with without key pillars will collapse, so do many of these critiques.

Now this isn't to say that Marxists do not or cannot do something like this, but the point remains.


The idea of Marxism as unfalsifiable social science, from my understanding, came from a man named Karl Popper. A problem with his criticism of Marxism from his methodology is that, in it's application to his own social science.
A good article on that:
http://clogic.eserver.org/2007/Verikukis.pdf


>>6461482
Communists aren't liberals brah

>employees contribute literally zero to anything
Most physical commodities are manufactured by wage-workers, so uh, no.
Also, value in the LTV sense is different from exchange-value (ie prices).

>>6461831
>in it's application to his own social science, he logically contradicts himself.
woops. forgot to add this

>>6461751
I would argue that, since it frees up the master's time, it adds value to the product of the master's personal endeavours, since they would not have been achievable without the labour being taken care off by the workers (read: slaves)

>Yes I'm an Aristotelian

>>6461831
>LTV

>>6461869
meme response

Article, if you want to read it:
http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2010/03/19/is-the-marxian-labour-theory-of-value-correct/

>>6461900
>thoughcowardsflinch
I'll stick with actual economics, thanks. Go project your heterodox, ideology based, 'economics' elsewhere.

>>6461916
>implying that your school of economics doesn't have ideological basings.

>>6461922
Only the ideology of empirical observations and mathematical justification.

>>6461926
>implying that your school of economics doesn't have ideological basings, again
>implying Marxian economics isn't empirical

oh yeah, forgot
>refusing to read an article because muh ideology contradicts what they say!

>>6461980
>implying Marxian economics doesn't openly deny evidence
Seen any capital intensive industries lately?
>implying your 'article', more like blog, is even coherent economically.

Rational self-interest is a truism used to prop up an ideology, that's all. Ayn Rand, as a "philosopher" literally said nothing new or interesting. She was also a miserable human being.

>>6462119
>She was also a miserable human being.
Blame the Bolsheviks for that.

>>6462128
If it wasn't for the Bolsheviks, Ayn Rand wouldn't have been able to get a free education because she was both Jewish and a woman in a time when being one, let alone both, would have lead to incredible discrimination.

>>6461831
>Communists aren't liberals brah
They're extremely radical liberals.

>>6461406
WAHHHH here's hundreds of weird rapey rambling prose about how I'm only petit bourgeoisie instead of landed aristocracy because the Russians took money I could have inherited. Cry me a fucking river, bitch. She wrote long ass books on a shitload of stimulants and I honestly doubt she even took herself that seriously (assuming she had periods of sobriety). At least Sartre got some good ideas out while on speed. She's not even remotely trying to do anything but complain more than the Polish (oh wait, she's a jew and Ayn Rand is not her real name). At least her ideas about trains that don't seem to encounter the laws of thermodynamics bcuz they are just THAT FUCKING PROFITABLE, are lulzy as fuck, assuming you don't take her seriously.

>>6462488
well, they are authoritarian liberals basically.
Trying to think of a communist state with 1 million or more people that didn't devolve into corrupt ....hmm, nope nothing.

>>6462546
Are you retarded? An authoritarian liberal is an authoritarian liberal; what is a "communist" depends on whether you're talking about Marx and co. or whether you just mean an adherent of some Soviet or Soviet-esque system.

>Why aren't you an objectivist yet, /lit/?

Because I'm not 14 fucking years old.

>>6462488
>>6462546

>communists are liberals

Does anyone here actually read books?

>>6461424
Good-looking young man. Reminds me of myself a few years back. I should give Rand a chance.

>>6462587
>>6462575
good posts thanks for sharing boys

>listening to a woman's ideas
Ahahahahaha

>>6462587
communists or the stalinist flavor are leftists, yes, in the sense that they favor social liberty, at least in theory. I mean hell, even Stalin's regime had universal healthcare.

Just because someone considers something objective doesn't mean it is. Stirner didn't see property as based on use, he saw it as based on the power to take, consume and defend.

>>6461724
then don't capitalize anything you prick

and don't call butterfly a dickweed around me ill fuck you up, no matter what ideology you subscribe to

>>6461406
>No other philosophy considers things purely objectively
That's idiotic, every objective phenomenon is nothing more than the source of subjectivities.

>>6461482
>asocial = objective

>>6461406
>Stirner comes close, but he was still spooked by the idea of property having to be based strictly on use.

dare you to explain this sentence you spooky spook

>>6462601
your posts and op's posts were equally retarded trash as the ones you selected, go fuck yourself

>>6462667

You're not only a fucking retard, but pretty much all facists, nationalists, rightists, objectivists, are deluded liberals.

In fact, most liberals tend to become reactionaries.

>>6462667

>fascists aren't liberals
>objectivists aren't liberals
>reactionaries aren't a consequence of liberalism

>>6461724
This would be very funny if it wasn't that you're an annoying little cunt

Because it is false.... The opposite of objectivism is true. Capitalism, ego and materialism are the cause of suffering not happiness.

>ayn rand
I don't have any fedora images because I'm not in the practice of calling things "fedoracore"
But Ayn Rand is the epitome of fedoracore

>>6461406
Because I graduated from high school years ago.

good discussion guys

seeing this level of /lit/ commies butthurt triggered, from now on I declare myself an objectivist!

http://flavorwire.com/400084/the-all-time-greatest-ayn-rand-takedowns/

checkmate

http://www.buzzfeed.com/annals/when-annoying-ayn-rand-acolytes-invade-okcupid
checkmate

>>6461555
>You liberals are basically the creationists of economics. Muh Holy Marx said it

What? Liberalism is opposed to Marxism.

>>6462223
>Ayn Rands philosophy has provided the ideological underpinnings of the republican party.

I'm calling bullshit on that.

>>6462223
But can you get me a source on how she lived on medicare and SS at the end of your life. That would be hilarious.

If someone told me what the philosophy would be of someone who tried to completely define a government by free trade, I would call them insane, and that even Adam Smith would not go thus far. And that, if someone elaborated and told me that this person wrote thousand page books, and simply never allowed any of the supporters or detractors to take any variegated positions, but rather adopt conflicting dichotomies in their speech, each sticking to their own side, I would say that they are trying to turn a Thrasymachus vs. Socrates on us, and persuade the readers by using dialogue designed to serve a salient purpose. But not even that, whereas Thrasymachus has legitimate claims, Rands detractors seem to be a mockery of themselves.

If someone told me I had to trudge through 1000 pages of bullshit, and trudge through a 30 page speech by John Galt, who says absolutely everything without saying anything, I would almost think Rand is trying to induce neurosis in the masses, since that is reflective of the people in her book after all. Without examining oligarchic behavior in her ideal society, because of the limited means of expansion in innovation, and without even examining the causes and direction of industrial progression, she simply makes an a priori assumption that A = A and thus a free market denotes a free individual. What a marvelous idea, Rand, you have certainly given me a glimpse into the higher learning. You have elevated my mind to the divine powers within itself. You have single handedly written the dumbest fucking book in the world, Ayn Rand, And it really says something when there are political readers who worship it these days.

>>6461555
Liberals are pro capitalism you dolt.

>>6461482
>butthurt liberals literally have economics backward

You're right. Neoliberals don't know shit about economics.

I think that the mere fact that objectivists love to use liberal as a synonym for leftist is a perfect example of their knowledge of basic economics.

>>6465940
'Murricins can only see the slight progressivism they adopted since WWII.

I wonder just what it would take to get the word out to some of these poor nitwits just what their ideologies are. I wonder where we actually stand. I know a lot of them love their individualism and small government, but they don't know what they're voting for...

>>6462667
Yeah dumbass, so what's? Have you not considered the possibility that the USSR was just a shitty social democracy?