/lit/ - Literature

>>7996731
To you think the transition from current capitalism to socialism would be more dramatic than the change from turn-of-the-century Russian monarchy to socialsm? If so, why?

>>7996731
Socialism is used as a transition phase.

>communism sounds nice but doesn't work !
Why do people parrot this shit endlessly ? It doesn't even sound good. I believe people who spout this garbage have never read anything about communism.

>look at name

Oh. Sage.

>>7996753
cuz yes

>>7998577
>>Islam sounds nice but doesn't work !
>Why do people parrot this shit endlessly ? It doesn't even sound good. I believe people who spout this garbage have never read the Holy Quran.

>>7998577
this 100%

>>7996731
Marx didn't understand human nature.
I wish he hac srarted a British communist state himself. That way we'd know how much of a tyrant he would have been and we would have two less major problems in the world: commies and Brits.

>>7998590
>>7998577
Kek what the fuck does marxist theory have to do with how socialism works IRL u fucks

>>7998597
Capitalism doesn't understand human nature either. It ignores the family unit.

>>7998611
But it doesn't, anon.

>>7998613
>implying family is any other thing than a group of individuals living under the same roof
It seems like someone wants to protect his feeeeeeeeeeeeeelings m80s

>>7998611
Do we agree, then?

>>7998605

>>7998613
It clearly does. In a free market, the successful will hand their companies down to their children or relatives, undoing the meritocracy capitalism was designed to establish.

>>7998614
Cap has evolved into corporativism. It happened as naturally as Mao or Stylin' and it's even worse because it has more power and less self-aware enemies.
>inb4 hipsters and liberals
They're part of the problem.

>>7998635
>Stylin'

>>7998626
So what? That's their capital. If they do a wrong inversion, they will pay the prize by their own.
Also >implying there is not the same or more nepotism in statist economies

>>7998635
>Cap has evolved into corporativism
Nope, state cap and socialdemocracy have.

>>7998643
It has been state cap for at least 100 years. It didn't last long without being modified.

>>7998639
>they'll pay the price

There's no garuntee that they will, but that doesn't have anything to do with my point anyway. I pointed out that capitalism contradicts our nature; Whether that has positive or negative effects is irrelevant to the fact that it's just as unnatural to us as socialism is.

>>7998653
So?

>>7998639
Learn how to greentext Redditor

>>7998663
So it's as volatile as anarchy. Good in theory but in practice it's inevitably replaced.

>>7998660
>There's no garuntee that they will
Well, it's their capital.
>I pointed out that capitalism contradicts our nature
Nope, free hiring (and by extension free nepotism) is also capitalism and there's nothing wrong with that. It's part of human nature to make bad choices and it's part of nature having to pay the price for them. You're the one who's pointing the supposed contradiction between ideal meritocratic capitalism (which is pure ideology) as wrong and the free and natural human traits that are not intended to be corrected by anybody in a free market economy.

>>7998669
You can say that about literally any social system. If there are external motivations against it, it will eventually be replaced with whatever those motivations aim to. The thing is socialism collapses by its own, not only because of external pressures. Capitalism doesn't.

>>7996731
The communist manifesto was obviously directed at Germany in 1848 as a plan to rapidly industrialize to catch up with Britain, it's simply a historic propaganda document and should be read as that. It heavily deviates from the more mature thought of Marx in later life.

Most of it's goals have already been accomplished out of necessity by capital such as a central bank/free education/regulation of child labour, etc...

Take this letter from Marx to Engels:
https://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1858/letters/58_04_02.htm
>1. Capital falls into 4 sections. a) Capital en général (This is the substance of the first instalment) b) Competition or the interaction of many capitals. c) Credit where capital, as against individual capitals, is shown to be a universal element. d) Share capital as the most perfected form (turning into communism) together with all its contradictions. The transition from capital to landed property is also historical, since landed property in its modern form is a product of the action of capital on feudal, etc., landed property. In the same way, the transition of landed property to wage labour is not only dialectical but historical, since the last product of modern landed property is the general introduction of wage labour, which then appears as the basis of the whole business.

Share-capital is the basis of socialism and it's evolution is the slow evolution of capitalism to socialism.

>>7998696
Capitalism in its current form is going to destroy humanity as we know it. It's putting in charge not valuable members of society but those who "climb". It's literally evolution, but it's fucked up.

>>7998724
complaining about capitalism was p edgie like 100 years ago, but now u just look like a fucking loser

>>7998724
>destroy humanity as we know it
wew lad u tom cruise or something?

>>7998577

>if you don't believe in the possibility of a utopia, it's because you didn't read the books

That's not how it works.

>>7998724

"Just as planned. The Shoggoth will feast soon."
- Nick Land

still banned?

>>7998727
>I'm losing an argument so I'll resort to namecalling.
0/10 didn't even post an anime girl.

>>7998724
Right-libertarianism, when taken to the extreme, reveals itself as the ideology of the slave who loves and obeys the master because he earnestly views him as a superior being. ie. Hans Herman Hoppe's Democracy the God that Failed; which concludes that neo-Feudalism is not only the logical conclusion to 'libertarian' thought, but something desirable and good. The Neoreactionary movement originated in Austrian/libertarian circles, basically a rebranding of the Randian hero figure as 'natural aristocrat'. These sort of ideas are more influential than most people realise, Peter Thiel has long been Mencius Moldbug's associate, for example. It's not about your 'freedom'. In practice, hyper-capitalism will only further the interests of a few powerful people, allowing them to exercise unprecedented control over the masses.

>>7998794
Really good points.

>>7998794
>>7998808
Kek what points. Nigga only dropped names and came down to a clueless conclusion.

>>7998611
This, the supreme flaw of most (classically) liberal and marxist thinking

I'll never understand why Marks developed, let alone consciously cultivated, this evangelical, eschaton immanentizing veneer afront his philosophy of capital organization and evolution.

The fundamental assumption at the heart of his writing is that the course of a capital-based society's evolution is inevitable and immutable. The bourgeoisie will fall to the proletariat just as the aristocracy fell to the bourgeoisie. And in this new world of capital maths we no longer need abstract our ultimate redemption into the second coming, rather it is the worker's paradise which will provide man with his paradise on earth.

Orthodox Marksism is, at its heart, a very well-considered teleological theosophy of history mixing pleasantly the powers of deduction and observation with its grand tendency to mystical prophecy. All its orthodox heirs are well ensconced in the various academies and quite silent on matters of immanentization, all its heresiarchs and heterodox practitioners and on the battlefields and in the governing bodies managing their little fiascos.

>>7998854
Go to bed, Julius.

>>7998855
Hugh Firmin said in Under The Volcano that communism could have in the industrial age the same role that christianism had in the roman times. I just finished the novel, pretty good, will read again

>>7998855
dude Hegel, but Marx later largely abandoned metaphysical arguments and embraced Lewis Henry Morgan's and other early anthropological works on social evolution

>>7998861
I don't even like Evola tho. I'm a Christian democrat, not a neoreactionary

>>7998876
That doesn't mean his thought wasn't childishly teleological after that

>>7998611
Which is why it is failing just as would be communist regimes did.

>>7996731
>40 replies
>14 posters

gee i wonder who is behind this thread

why dont u turn ur trip back on

>>7998891

>>7998685
Capitalism actually has a very narrow view of freedom and human nature. Here's a good documentary on the subject.

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/145347/The_Trap_Fuck_You_Buddy_BBC/

This is your friendly reminder that no matter how hard someone works in a communist society they still get the same as everyone else. Also, the less you work, the greater the profit.

Marxists actually think that this is a good idea!

>>7998984
in america they already have all you can eat restaurants
its like that but mutual and for everything :^)

>>7998984
I was actually just talking to some friends about the concept of internalized work ethic. I'm definitely a novice in both the areas of philosophy and politics, but I feel that Marx based his success of Communism on the spookiest of all spooks - the belief of an internalized drive to do "work," whatever it may be. No people will unite over mediocrity, and all of them will eventually realize that the drive to "work" for the sake of work is a social construct.

>>7998984
Profit is only tangentially related to 'hard work' in a capitalist society. You can slave away your life working 14-hour days in an African coal mine and still won't earn what someone who inherited considerable wealth earns in a day from sitting on his ass and profiting off investment funds. Once you have capital it's rather easy to turn it into more capital. Are billionaires just extremely hard workers? Why do we think toil is inherently good and ennobling?

>>7998855

To expand on this:

So basically, like, what are the things we know that humans do, if given enough time and calories to survive? In no particular order: Reproduce (sex)
Search for Calories (hunt & gather, protection from elements)
Develop Survival-Based Moral ('kill my sex-object = bad thing, take my calories = bad thing)
Use Language (spoken, then most times written [in pursuit of logistical efficiency wrt caloric acquisition and consumption])
Spiritual Phenomenon (goes along with language, in terms of making meaning of the world, leads to art, among other things)
Expand Horizon (i.e., "go forth and prosper," in an effort to increase probability that genetic information survives)

So, basically no matter what, humans (on the whole) are gonna do these things. We have the odd clever-ape that recognizes its own being consciousness, or the facade of its moral system, or its spiritual desires, (e.g., Sartre, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Campbell, etc.) BUT ON THE WHOLE homo sapiens will do these things, because for the incremental progression of evolution, we cannot shut this fucking thing off, though we can constantly recognize (ha...re-cog...constantly!) its presence, sort of like a combination of the Heidegger & Nietzsche modes of existential realization of Dasein/Self (I know Nietzsche would shutter at this, and I know he's not abt metaphysics, but its his own fault he wrote poetically and locked himself into these possibilities, bc he didn't tell me explicitly not to...and yes, I know Martin starts with being and not consciousness, but the Dasein superstructure works here).

All things considered, this is why communism doesn't work. One can clearly see that there isn't some 'non-existential logic' that comes with the superstructure of being a homo sapien, it's just those things listed above (and perhaps some others that I didn't think to mention?). I won't except altruism as an argument here, simply for the fact that it only extends to the sort of 'Polis Is This' idea that Charles Olson acts out in his poetics (check his resume, studied archaeology of civilization at Harvard, or some shit like that).

This being said, I think it's fair to assert that Christianity is basically the best chance at getting some sort of true-communist system to work, and one might even go so far as to argue that it did, for a long time. To reference the ref'd post, I think the exact problem is that the workers will always rise up until they secure some amount of comfortable wealth, and then they will hoard (bc $$$ = calorie/sex points), bc they are human, simple as that.

The big problem with all this is that if you're smart enough to enact this system, you can't rly do it in good conscious, bc if more than a handful of philsopher-kings are behind this, then the cycle repeats itself and the hoarding happens (or they recognize the banality of power and life and become the Nietzsche ascetic).

Thoughts?

>>7999066
Read Marx's 1844 Manuscripts, he kinda goes into the basis as he sees it of the psychological drive towards creativity/labour. He had kinda similar views to Stirner but after reading Stirner he went autistic and full positive sociology

>>7999067
Who mentioned billionaires? That is always the first thing that Marxists shoot at.

This represents work-value in a communist society.

Look at the picture I made. At point "A" is the amount of resources that everyone is given. Point "A" is the average. This is based on everyone's "needs" and the amount of labor that is expected of them. Let's say that "A" is the equivalent of working at $50,000 a year. Everyone who works still gets the same amount.

Now let's consider point "B." The person working at the capacity of be is producing labor at the capacity of $100,000. So, by working at this rate, a person working at "B" level is making a net of -$50,000. Meanwhile those at "A" are making a net of 0.

Then we have those a "C" who are producing LESS than the average earning. They are producing $25,000. Those at "C" are making a net of +$25,000.

Moral of communism: Work less, earn more.

>inb4 "U CANT USE MONEY TO SIGNIFY LABOR"
>inb4 "U ARE MISREPRESENTING MUH COMMUNISM"
>inb4 "WORKERS WILL WORK BECAUSE THEY LIKE TO WORK FOR MORE WORKING"

Communists on suicide watch.

>>7996731
Look at the anarchist revolution in Spain, or the French Commune. Shit can happen, but capitalism is a hegemonic ideology the has a death grip on every facet of thought and major institutions, economic, financial, academic, media, etc.

It's like being a kid, and everyone is wearing red baseball caps, but you really love Fedoras and each time you put one on the bully bears your ass for being a fag, and all the other kids laugh nervously but also enjoy their red hats. That's what it is like for a country to try something different.

The socialist revolution has to be global as Marx said. And I think given our present state of environmental unsustainability and technological automation, with the growth and sharing of leftist ideology, we are slowly starting to make a larger socialist movement a real possibility.

It's not guraunteed, but it is possible in the next 50 years, but I fear if t is to fail, society itself will fail as capitalsim consumes ecology. Where a fiction like the economy is given precedence over the real life giving qualities of nature. The fiction can only be maintained for so long.

>>7999161
There are too many points here to refute, so I'll leave you with this: human nature will not be augmented by a societal construct. Under no circumstances will communism work because of the human drive for personal success with the lowest amount of effort - no amount of national or human pride will save you from the reality that, no matter how hard you work, you will never be personally successful under Marxist ideology. Communism is just so absurdly unrealistic that you need to bring up specific arguments if you want me to refute them.

>>7999125
This connects back to the reductive notion of humans as merely being profit maximising machines. Why are we driven to accumulate money? does it have any inherent value, or is it because It can be exchanged for commodities, which have come to represent various human emotions, social status, self-realisation etc.? A non-capitalist system would simply cut out the middleman implied by money and commodity fetishism, which is in fact a relatively recent innovation.

>>7998892
>thinking butters would ever frogpost

>>7999253
Ok, I don't think you have a good idea of what Marxism is or communism.

Nothing in it precludes greatness or achievement, in fact it's literally trying to ensure everyone can achieve and be free to do so. I think you're operating under misinformation.

What do you think it actually is?

Example of one part of it, the people theough collectie civic participation decide the laws (democracy). Or leisure is the primary goal with advanced automation, given people all the time they want for art, love, creation ,etc. Education would be geared towards helping a person understand life, themselves, art, science, rater tan geared towards becoming a cog in a machine.

>>7999125
You have actually misrepresented communism and replaced it with corporatism.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is central to Marxist communism. This screws up your abc thing.

As far as people liking to work, the whole thing is to better connect workers to their work product. The current version of this is "nobody likes to pay more tax", with the labour movement answer being "people don't mind paying more tax if it actually does something beneficial".

Any ideology, whether marxism, libertarianism, liberalism, conservativism, etc. has no chance of being absolutely realized.

All that can be done by someone who is fond of any ideology is to tip the scales a tiny bit in their direction.