/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12257697]

Literally what is wrong with Capitalism? Are postmodern neomarxists just autistic? Why do they hate freedom, social mobility, and free markets? Are they just too lazy to put in tge hard work or are they just pure evil? Why do they want to destroy the western cilvilization? Capitalism has been around and working since the beginning.

[Anonymous No.12257701]

>>12257697
>Literally what is wrong with Capitalism?
It is cheaper to produce everything overseas.

[Anonymous No.12257707]

I'm convinced this board is filled with 15 year olds. Imagine thinking that Capitalism has been around since the beginning and believing in things like objective morality. Holy shit.

[Anonymous No.12257714]

cringe bait

[Anonymous No.12257721]

Capitalism has the core contradiction that production is collectivized while distribution is individual, thus there is class conflict between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. That's not ever going to go away.

[Anonymous No.12257722]

>>12257697
Because they confused think that materialism is a purely capitalist phenomenon - which is only a useful thing when capitalism is the only system - which it somewhat is in their Eurocentric view.

[Anonymous No.12257729]

>post modern neo Marxist
>everyone who belongs to an ideology is out to destroy western civilization / selfish/ inherently evil, and not just misguided
Jordan Peterson is the death of political philosophy

[Anonymous No.12257735]

>>12257697

It has destroyed society and the human condition

[Anonymous No.12257736]

>>12257697
>Literally what is wrong with Capitalism?
The principles behind it are fine, competition and struggle are perfectly healthy.

>Capitalism has been around and working since the beginning.
Not really, no. In small communities it simply could never work. There is no possibility for competition there

[Anonymous No.12257744]

Capitalism is the economic system that caused the breakdown of feudalism in the west, just fyi.

[Anonymous No.12257752]

>>12257697
In general there's nothing much wrong with capitalism. There are certain markets/industries that don't/can't work in a free market system e.g. trains (impossible to compete since the tracks are the monopoly themselves), but overall it's very good at what it does.

The problem with capitalism is the current trend of neoliberalism infesting capital.

[Anonymous No.12257766]

They think smartphones and running toilets corrupt our souls and we should repent at le epic feet of Marx

[Anonymous No.12257767]

>>12257729

It's ok Hannah Arendt's legacy will endure

[Anonymous No.12257768]

>>12257697
>Are postmodern neomarxists just autistic?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.12257772]

>>12257767
thats even worse

[Anonymous No.12257779]

>>12257697
>Are postmodern neomarxists just autistic
Yeh they don't exist. it's a pure buzzword. Does not exist. Capitalism has exist for less than 1% of humanity. The rest has been primitive communism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism

[Anonymous No.12257784]

>>12257697
>>>/his/
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.12257785]

>>12257729
Look how mad they are that society has diagnosed and named the cause of its social disease. Yes terms like “cultural Marxism” are silly buzzwords but we have a new emerging vocabulary and social consciousness against the scum and they despise it.

Actually imagine being a young man In today’s world where your schoolmates constantly tease you and call you privileged and all these politicsxsre filtered through the thoughts of terrible children. Then one day people around you start to fight back and make their own memes, arguments, and culture. Zyklon is coming for you.

[Anonymous No.12257791]

>this shitty bait is going to get 100s of replies

[Anonymous No.12257793]

>>12257766
>running toilets
>an effect of capitalism

[Anonymous No.12257809]

>>12257785
Again
> disease
>the scum
If this how you envision your political opponents you will allwaye be incapable of engaging their ideas and refuting them on a real level

[Anonymous No.12257818]

>>12257791
>low quality low barrier to entry bait about capitalism becomes more popular than sincere thought through posts that require having read something
f o r m r e f l e c t i n g c o n t e n t

[Anonymous No.12257834]

>>12257707
>Imagine thinking that Capitalism has been around since the beginning and believing in things like objective morality. Holy shit.

Then what was the precursor to capitalism? As for objective morality I've read parts of Molyneux's UPB and I can't think of any objections to his arguments. However I still feel ancapism sounds unrealistically idealistic in its core.

[Anonymous No.12257836]

>>12257697

>>> /r/jordanpeterson

[Anonymous No.12257839]

>>12257697
stop posting jordan

[Anonymous No.12257845]

>>12257779
What about Deluze?

[Anonymous No.12257852]

>>12257697
ikr!!? literally what is wrong with capitalism.. I can't even

[Anonymous No.12257860]

>>12257818
lmao perfect

>>12257852
this i saw someone with iphone say society isnt good and im like baka fml lmao wat is u doing so dumb baka

[Anonymous No.12257864]

>>12257834
See
>>12257779

[Anonymous No.12257878]

>>12257834
>As for objective morality I've read parts of Molyneux's UPB
>I've read parts of Molyneux's
>I've Molyneux
Access to every genius's book in history and you choose a youtuber. Don't breed.

[Anonymous No.12257884]

>>12257864
The Roman empire was one of the most advanced societies but it fits closer to capitalism than socialism.
>>12257878
Not even memeing but that's not an argument.

[Anonymous No.12257903]

>>12257697

Just like Marxism, it reduces the complexity of human life to the mechanics of obtaining and distributing material goods. Capitalism thinks the approach should be top-down (rich people enriching society) and marxism believe it should be bottom up (society enriching itself). You don't need to be a phenomenologist to figure out that there is more to life than the practical problem of distributing material goods. Claiming individual desires, aims, and societal organization in general solely depend on this problem is the equivalent of reversing back to being monkeys.

[Anonymous No.12257910]

>>12257834
>As for objective morality I've read parts of Molyneux's UPB and I can't think of any objections to his arguments.
I’ve never read Molyneux and Im of the prejudice that it’s probably a waste of time compared to actual moral philosophers. What is the argument of UPB so I can dismantle it for you in one or two sentences?

Btw, failure to produce an explanation would be proof of either the fact your dont actually know what you’re talking about or fear on your part and if you respond with a meme you forfeit any right to be taken seriously and tis thread becomes nothing but bait.

[Anonymous No.12257912]

>>12257707

This is unironically true. Most people in here are edgy teenagers or teenage minded twenty-year olds - hence the endless virginity meme.
Five or six are grown up people who like to discuss books and actually know how to read

[Anonymous No.12257920]

>>12257884
>Not even memeing but that's not an argument.
It really is. You're reading the work of an idiot instead of literally anyone else. Reading contemporary works before the classic is being a brainlet

[Anonymous No.12257924]

>freedom
>social mobility
>free markets

[Anonymous No.12257937]

>>12257910
>What is the argument of UPB so I can dismantle it for you in one or two sentences?

I haven't read the whole book because Molymeme started sounding like bullshit but it's basically the non aggression principle with added layers: don't violate anybody's person or property unless threatened or transgressed.

>Btw, failure to produce an explanation would be proof of either the fact your dont actually know what you’re talking about or fear on your part and if you respond with a meme you forfeit any right to be taken seriously and tis thread becomes nothing but bait.

I never claimed I knew what I was talking about. Molyneux was my introduction to philosophy but I don't agree with a lot of what he says. Just that I don't have any arguments against what he proclaims to be UPB from what he's said in his videos and was curious as to what a rational argument would be and what people have against him on this board.

[Anonymous No.12257938]

If commies hate capitalism so much why do they use iPhones and why don't they move to North Korea lmao

[Anonymous No.12257946]

>>12257938
This is a bad argument and I cringe so hard whenever it gets thrown around

[Anonymous No.12257947]

>>12257938
>why don't they move to North Korea
it's so racist :(

[Anonymous No.12257957]

>>12257937
>Molyneux was my introduction to philosophy
FUCKING KILL ME SENPAI. MY EYES HURT. DELTE THIS BOARD. AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>12257938
Based and retard pilled

[Anonymous No.12257965]

>>12257834
>Molyneux

[Anonymous No.12257973]

>>12257937
>don't violate anybody's person or property unless threatened or transgressed.
The simple dismantling here is by pointing out that this isn’t by any means an objective criterion for morality. One could easily sidestep this by stipulating that inaslong as one can suppress violations of one’s rights and continue to violate other’s, there’s no necessity to hold the nonaggression pronciple. But that should be obvious. Also, where does property come from? Without an authority to uphold your “rights”, what claim to you have to any of them? None. All he is guving you is a legal ethics that is useless, and lacks any objectivity without a legal institution to defend it.

>Just that I don't have any arguments against what he proclaims to be UPB from what he's said in his videos and was curious as to what a rational argument would be and what people have against him on this board.
The fact his a complete dilettante in topics of such ancient heritage as moral and political philosophy. You need years upon years of studying to get anywhere meaningful in this kind of field and Molymeme is nothing bur a pseud spouting common platitudes that are easy to dismantle as i did above.

[Anonymous No.12257976]

>>12257946
I've heard it many times but I've never seen it refuted because the usual response to it is that it's a bad argument. Would you care to explain to me its fallacious nature? I'm genuinely curious; not trying to antagonize you.

[Anonymous No.12257977]

>>12257793
I’ll wait for you to tell me a place with advanced plumping that isn’t run by capitalism lmao

[Anonymous No.12257993]

>>12257977
>I’ll wait for you to tell me a place with advanced plumping that isn’t run by capitalism lmao
Do americans legitimately not get taught about the USSR?

[Anonymous No.12257995]

>>12257993
obsessed

[Anonymous No.12257998]

>>12257976
practicality should always be put above your ideology and just because you engage in day to day activities doesnt mean you accept the system. also it implies that such products would not be able to be created under socialism

[Anonymous No.12257999]

>>12257976
That’s because you willfully refuse to look at the arguments. Pic related is a common reduction ad absurdum usually made against that argument. The fact, said a communist wanted to go NK, he CANT! You can’t just move to another country. There are due proceedings that have to happen. You can’t disengage with society you’re in, it’s not your choice. If you want to not die of starvation and live a meaningful life you have to “play the game” as it were. This doesn’t mean you can point our problems in them and promote change.

[Anonymous No.12258003]

>>12257999
This doesn’t mean you cant* point our problems in them and promote change.

[Anonymous No.12258014]

>>12257998
>>12257999
I understand. However, is it not somehow hypocritical still to benefit from a product procured by a system you either don't support or outright despise? Not to say that you can't do it or that you shouldn't do it, but it does still seem somehow contradictory to me, even if your opinions and convictions are sound. You could argue that that's the system forcing you into hypocrisy, but it still would be hypocrisy, wouldn't it?

[Anonymous No.12258016]

>>12257993
In most states "world history" high school classes cover almost exclusively American involvement in the World Wars, maybe some European history before that like the French Revolution (which is taught as a failed, worse version of the American Revolution lol). Closest you'll get to learning about the USSR is reading Animal Farm and doing a unit on how the evil Bolsheviks killed the innocent sweet royalty. In my senior year of high school AP History class we watched the Disney movie Anastasia to fill in the gap between World War 1 and 2.

[Anonymous No.12258020]

>>12257995
with the ussr? Thats a new one

[Anonymous No.12258022]

>>12258020
with americans

[Anonymous No.12258030]

What are some books that can help me to fully comprehend socialist philosophy? From a fairly ignorant standpoint, I find socialism to be somewhat attainable and perhaps beneficial to the majority, but I'd need more information before I can form a proper opinion.

[Anonymous No.12258038]

>>12258014
>I understand. However, is it not somehow hypocritical still to benefit from a product procured by a system you either don't support or outright despise?
No, because you need it to survive in the very system. Without phone or computer how is the commie suppose to contact his parents or loved one? Also, you presupposed that these products are entirely the outcome of capitalism and if you studied USSR history you would know they had all the same techy crap the US did (phones, cars, plumbing, rocketships) and some times they had better stuff.

>Not to say that you can't do it or that you shouldn't do it, but it does still seem somehow contradictory to me, even if your opinions and convictions are sound. You could argue that that's the system forcing you into hypocrisy, but it still would be hypocrisy, wouldn't it?
It’s not hypocrisy because the criticism of the system isnt a criticism of its constituent parts. The commie doesnt hate technology or cereal or pop culture, he hates wealth inequality, class distinctions, etc. One can envision a world with tony the tiger and Spongebob, but not Jeff Bezos or Warren Buffet.

[Anonymous No.12258075]

It's just a scapegoat to distract themselves from their depressing lives. They're the same as /pol/ who scapegoat Jews.

[Anonymous No.12258077]

>>12257697
>Capitalism
>Free Market

try again

[Anonymous No.12258081]

>>12258014
>is it not somehow hypocritical still to benefit from a product procured by a system you either don't support or outright despise?

No, because what is being despised isn't the existence or production of the cell phone, but the (supposedly) exploitative process in which it comes about. Cell phones aren't personally produced by people who own the company and make most of the profit off of their production, they're made overwhelmingly by third world low wage workers and distributed by first world middle class workers who have been given some concessions but are still alienated and in a tenuous position they can be knocked from at the first sign of market trouble. In the Marxist view, since the entire process is accomplished by labor, the only thing the capitalists are providing is overhead and initial investment -- and at this point it doesnt seem like much of a jump to say there should be some way to organize society so that overhead and initial investment are brought under the purview of labor, seeing as the domination of those who currently provide them leads to massive inefficiency, exploitation, redundancy, etc.

[Anonymous No.12258087]

>>12257993
We only learn about places that are important

[Anonymous No.12258097]

Commies love capitalism more than anyone else in society. I can’t think of a group of people more ornate or eccentric.

[Anonymous No.12258098]

>>12258038
>No, because you need it to survive in the very system. Without phone or computer how is the commie suppose to contact his parents or loved one? Also, you presupposed that these products are entirely the outcome of capitalism and if you studied USSR history you would know they had all the same techy crap the US did (phones, cars, plumbing, rocketships) and some times they had better stuff.
I do not deny the capabilities of a communist society to produce technological goods. I however cannot help but question the morality of it. I feel the same way about an anarchist who votes an anarchist party for the elections; while I'd rather have that than have them burning dumpsters, it defies their entire view, does it not?
I'm not trying to discredit those who support communism within a capitalist society, I just perceive their actions, while necessary, to be hypocritical. Hypocrisy is not necessarily a flaw meant to be pointed at as a disarmament technique in a debate; it could also be made a strong argument in support of your views, say, "capitalism has created a world in which it is indispensable and tyrannical", for example.
>It’s not hypocrisy because the criticism of the system isnt a criticism of its constituent parts. The commie doesnt hate technology or cereal or pop culture, he hates wealth inequality, class distinctions, etc
I hadn't thought of it that way, good point. The thought that those parts are an inseparable part of the machine still lingers in my mind, though.

[Anonymous No.12258100]

>>12257697
Capitalism only becomes problematic at the point it becomes a hindrance to future developments. More specifically take for example the conceptualization of "freedom"... within classical republican theory freedom was very much premised upon the necessity of slavery to underwrite the leisure necessary for citizens to participate within the political community. The notion of freedom you're uncritically, precognitively, deploying here was actually developed and won within actual historical struggles that occurred mostly in the 17th century and most particularly articulated by various ideological factions during the English Civil War. Already within that struggle the notions of social mobility, which presupposes a class society, was being critically examined obviously and most particularly amongst the Diggers. Any conceptual "free" market as you would conceive of it, at any point historically you could find such a thing, has been the result of an institution (and as it appears most often, the state) which can guarantee it its "freedom" and ideological legitimacy.
Capitalism wasn't always around... a society of universally "free" individuals totally interdependent upon, and relations being mediated by, markets is a historically novel arraignment. As you see today with the low levels of real investment in fixed-capital and growing "inequality", as "capital" in mainstream terms has been reconceptualized into what in classical terms would have been more so understood as mere rentier overhead, as more return is being demanded by state granted intellectual property or land or whatever else it becomes more of a hindrance to the actual development of societies productive resources... capital must be abolished and freedom reconceptualized anew or else a new totalitarianism will develop organically.

[Anonymous No.12258112]

>>12258081
I see. However, isn't the purchase of a product you are certain has been manufactured and shipped through means you find morally objectionable somewhat hypocritical?
For example, I would respect a communist who wore a symbol of the sickle that he had painted himself more than I would the one who bought it on a store which received it from a factory on a third world country.
The shirt itself isn't the problem, rather, it's the means of its production that are to be opposed.
Of course, making a shirt of your own, or buying locally made shoes, food or such is far easier than phones or computer, devices so complex that their distribution is only profitable in large quantities.

[Anonymous No.12258136]

>>12258030
these papers are worth readin
https://ideas.repec.org/p/new/wpaper/1705.html
https://ideas.repec.org/p/new/wpaper/1706.html

[Anonymous No.12258138]

>>12258136
Thanks a lot, anon; will do!