>Where do you get this that Marxism strives for an egalitarian utopia, Marx explicitly rejecta egalitarianism in the thesis on the Gotha project. I knew it was over when Žižek said that, but honestly why didn't he press more on this fact?

File: 62 KB, 768x512, IMG_0644.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 08:36:17 2019 No.12969389 [Reply] [Original]

>Where do you get this that Marxism strives for an egalitarian utopia, Marx explicitly rejecta egalitarianism in the thesis on the Gotha project.

I knew it was over when Žižek said that, but honestly why didn't he press more on this fact?

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 08:45:20 2019 No.12969411

>>12969389
Because Zizek is actually a really nice and non-antagonistic guy in conversation. He realized beforehand that Peterson would never be able to produce an answer, yet still felt it necessary to adress this fundamental problem in Peterson's (and so many other's) strawman of postmodern cultural neo marxism. Zizek felt forced to ask the question, knowing that he would embarrass Peterson but without the intention of rubbing it in for cheap effect.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 08:46:04 2019 No.12969413 >>12969389 But's not Marx that's the problem, its his moronic followers, no?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 08:47:23 2019 No.12969419 >>12969389 Engels rejects equality as well as an abstract principle. peterson is what you get when your only source of info are mises institute hit pieces

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 08:48:24 2019 No.12969421

>>12969389
More people need to realize that Anglo-leftism (Progressivism) and Marxism are (slightly) different things. When you're talking to someone who goes on about egalitarianism, muh social justice, muh bigotry and hate, especially in an English-speaking country, you are talking to someone operating in the Anglo-American left-wing Protestant tradition, even though they've largely denounced God as a misogynist nowadays. They arrive at similar beliefs because they are outgrowths of liberalism, but aren't quite the same thing. Of course Peterson would have a rough time admitting that British philosophy has been errors piled upon errors for the last few hundred years.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 08:48:27 2019 No.12969422 >>12969389 oh and >but honestly why didn't he press more on this fact? zizek is extremely polite and non-confrontational

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 08:48:32 2019 No.12969423 Why do proponents of egalitarianism prop up pictures of Karl Marx? "He didn't actually mean it and nobody understands him" is very disingenuous.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 08:49:58 2019 No.12969428 >>12969389 >>12969423 Yeah, this. It's like saying Islam is a religion of peace and that all the terrorists aren't real Muslims.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 08:50:58 2019 No.12969430 Than wtf is the point of communism and getting rid of classes if not for egalitatianism? Doesnt this imply inherent inequality?

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 08:51:50 2019 No.12969435

>>12969423
what the fuck are you talking about? Equality is a liberal value, not a leftist one. And marx directly went after it. So again, what is disingenuous about talking about the plain truth? You know what is disingenuous? pulling shit straight from your ass about "le communists being about absolute equality" etc.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 08:53:21 2019 No.12969443 >>12969435 >equality is not a leftist value Now hold the fuck on Anon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 08:54:06 2019 No.12969447 >>12969443 Nope, it's a liberal value

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 08:54:40 2019 No.12969449 >>12969435 I'm explaining why Peterson is saying that Marxism is egalitarian, are you illiterate? You're literally saying the same thing as OP.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 08:54:54 2019 No.12969451 >>12969430 It means liberating humanity from economic antagonisms to more personalized antagonisms/"smaller dominance hierarchies". Engels and Marx weren't retarded, they knew about fundemental innate differences in human beans.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 08:57:18 2019 No.12969460 >>12969447 this is retarded lol, equality is indeed a leftist value.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 08:57:27 2019 No.12969461 >>12969389 Because 95% of those calling themselves marxists today are radical egalitarians. Zizek's minority interpretation of the true faith is completely irrelevant to the overall character of the movement.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 08:57:42 2019 No.12969463

>>12969443

Economic justice comes first for Marxists - any conceptions of equality are tainted by the bourgeois capitalist mode of production - which will use a concept like equality to drive profit and scatter the opposition.

Hence identity politics being the distraction for the liberal left that it is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 08:59:48 2019 No.12969477 File: 1.14 MB, 250x250, 1548018788250.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12969461 Ah, so because Zizek btfo your Lobster Sage, you're saying he's... ...not true leftism???

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 08:59:53 2019 No.12969478 >>12969461 Name one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:00:44 2019 No.12969481 >>12969428 No, there it is the opposite way around where the Salafis are actually more in adherence to scripture. The liberal muslims are the fake ones.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:02:10 2019 No.12969486

>>12969430
Getting rid of class distinctions won't suddenly make us equal in our abilities nor in our needs.
When Peterson speaks of egalitarianism that is exactly the meme level of understanding he has of Marx, just some dude who want everyone to be equal in all aspects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzQZ_NDEzVo

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:02:18 2019 No.12969487 >>12969389 starting to listen to this debate now holy shit i hate peterson

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:03:12 2019 No.12969497 >>12969461 Literally name a single Marxist who believes Marx was an egalitarian.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:07:31 2019 No.12969511 >>12969486 I always kept on getting that video on my recommendation list and thought it was just another nu-right channel because of the name, glad I gave it a try though

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:13:14 2019 No.12969528 >>12969487 I thought Peterson was well spoken in the debate, but not well prepared.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:13:29 2019 No.12969530 this was so stupid and gay. Yeah Zizek had better stuff but that isn't saying much, Peterson has been saying word for word the exact same things for almost 3 years now

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:17:03 2019 No.12969549 >>12969389 You would think such an intellect would read Marx before debating Marxism with a Marxist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:18:10 2019 No.12969557 >>12969477 >>12969478 >>12969497 subhuman-iq-tier goalpost moving

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:19:02 2019 No.12969563 >>12969557 they're right tho

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:19:17 2019 No.12969566

>>12969497
>>12969478
>>12969477
Again you do not understand. We're talking about the mainstream bourgeois ideology in the university, in culture and in media. Those who call themselves 'unironic communists' or 'democratic socialists' or 'progressive' or even 'marxists'. They're the left and they're intersectional. You know this, I know this, everyone knows this. Marxism as Zizek understands it does not exist which is what he himself laid out. Now why should we ignore that 95% of people who derive inspiration and ideological justification from Marx and even call themselves marxists/socialists/communist are radical egalitarians? Because Marx commented on the Gotha program? I mean I get it, you're the internal opposition and you're fighting for the terminology - but your defeat has been total.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:20:06 2019 No.12969569 >>12969461 100% bullshit post

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:20:26 2019 No.12969575 File: 156 KB, 884x1200, 0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12969566 You are an idiot

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:20:48 2019 No.12969578 >>12969528 >rereads the communist manifesto >is an expert on why marxism is bad i think he's stupid but i guess he's playing his role

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:21:00 2019 No.12969579 >>12969569 Nope

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:22:07 2019 No.12969583 >>12969579 Star by explaining your 95% figure, then.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:23:01 2019 No.12969589 Orthodox Marxism-Leninism : modern Left as sedevacantism : Catholicism

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:24:48 2019 No.12969598

>>12969566
It's not one remark in the essay, there is tons of critique of equality and egalitarianism going on in Engels' writing as well. Marxism is fundamentally looking to abolish class distinctions thereby spreading inequality to more specific areas, and they fully embrace it from the start.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:25:05 2019 No.12969601

>>12969566
>We're talking about the mainstream bourgeois ideology in the university, in culture and in media.
Ah yes, the Marxists that control every aspect of your culture, or are you referring to liberals by any chance?
Those who call themselves democratic socialists such as Sanders are just social democrats who like the socialist label since Americans are braindead when it comes to politics either way. and none of those are Marxists.
You really seem to think Marxists are somehow currently the dominant wing on the left

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:26:32 2019 No.12969611 >>12969566 holy waste of dubs

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:27:05 2019 No.12969616 >>12969389 Why was Peterson so unprepared?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:28:21 2019 No.12969620 >>12969616 He couldn't have prepared enough.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:28:50 2019 No.12969627 >>12969566 the bourgeois ideology of marxists? ummmmm, wtf

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:29:30 2019 No.12969631

Petersons lack of preparation or knowledge about the subjects reminds of the people who debate Chomsky and fail miserably
Buckley, Perle, Dershowitz
They have a lot of hubris and pompousness but when it comes to the crunch they are exposed to be very shallow and just repeating commonly accepted opinions of those in power. They never bothered to check anything partly because it would contradict their views, but more to point they are incapable of such doubt and critical self assessment thanks to operating on the effects of the dunning kruger syndrome.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:30:38 2019 No.12969638

>>12969616
>>12969620
https://twitter.com/HOSTAGEKlLLER/status/1119367322379202562

Because he's an absolute faux intellectual fraud who only got famous for harping on trannies but being a college professor rather than just a basement dwelling youtuber while doing so, that's his entire claim to fame.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:33:52 2019 No.12969657

>>12969616
Arrogance, ignorance, and a belief that Zizek would be one of the "postmodern neo-Marxists" he's invented, rather than an actual thinker with his own ideas. He's had so many people telling him he's God's gift to the world he probably thought he could afford to read the Communist Manifesto and leave it at that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:35:26 2019 No.12969668 >>12969627 Ideological marxism has always been rooted in the bourgeoisie. That's not even debatable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:36:37 2019 No.12969675 >>12969668 t. can't debate

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:37:26 2019 No.12969680 >>12969575 >>12969598 >>12969601 >>12969611 >>12969627 You're all like Copts yelling that Catholicism isn't true Christianity.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:37:39 2019 No.12969684

>>12969447
Depends on the definition of the word. The classical liberals were the most famous proponents of equality before the law.

But over time as marxists and socialists in particular subverted the liberal movement, the term was warped to refer to various kinds of wealth redistribution tactics and equalization of economic outcomes. And recently thanks to intersectionality, also equal outcomes in social interactions for identity groups. Distinctly illiberal ideas.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:38:06 2019 No.12969689

>>12969638
>https://twitter.com/HOSTAGEKlLLER/status/1119367322379202562
holy fucking shit lmao

i honestly think this was extremely humanizing for peterson and i ended up liking him more even though ive been zizek's nr1 buttboy since highschool half a decade ago

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:38:41 2019 No.12969694 >>12969668 Sure buddy, keep believing that the ruling class somehow embraced the most antagonistic ideology to them that exists

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:39:14 2019 No.12969696 >>12969675 Yeah, I'm sure all those nerdy Jews were the sons of coalminers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:39:16 2019 No.12969697 >>12969680 you're like a guy not making an argument

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:40:09 2019 No.12969704 >>12969680 >Marx critiques Egalitarianism >Let me tell you why Marxism is about egalitarianism You are braindead, anon

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:40:39 2019 No.12969712 >>12969696 95% were.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:43:08 2019 No.12969726 >>12969430 "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" Does that sound to you as equality of outcome?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:46:59 2019 No.12969750 >even a highly educated man is this ignorant on politics How can people think democracy is a good idea when the average person is even more retarded than this?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:47:01 2019 No.12969751 >>12969726 Yes?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:47:23 2019 No.12969753 >>12969451 >liberating humanity from economic antagonisms >Engels and Marx weren't retarded, they're utopian retards

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:51:40 2019 No.12969777

>>12969694
It doesn't work like you think. There's no such thing as a ruling class - the liberal system has built a meritocracy, we can measure that obejctively. If there is something we can call a ruling class it is dynamic and the entry qualification is ideology and IQ. The propagation of leftism is an expression of the synthesis of state and capital, this system isn't directed by an establishment it reflects the spontaneous movement of soulless capital and the interest of the state. Leftism as we see today has developed to justify the expansion of the state by facilitating the dillution of the taxpayer base, the capital/state compromise here is the mass importation of non-taxpayer consumers into the society. What you perceive as orthodox marxism is not compatible with this process as such it has been transformed, but you're not looking at liberalism at the culture war level, it is leftism. Obviously the economic type is barred from the higher ranks,

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 09:58:31 2019 No.12969825 >>12969751 well then ironically you inherently have to believe everyone has the same ability and needs which makes you an sjw retard

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:02:53 2019 No.12969862 File: 63 KB, 602x603, 1544594300500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12969777 >built a meritocracy stopped reading there lmao

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:03:25 2019 No.12969867

>>12969777
>There's no such thing as a ruling class - the liberal system has built a meritocracy, we can measure that obejctively.
Just look at the rich families that rule the US. Maybe you would have a case if there wasn't inherited wealth, huge disparities in education quality and so many rich kids who get groomed into becoming politicians, heads of NGO, think tank members or professional political activists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:08:04 2019 No.12969894 >>12969411 /thread Peterson was there to make money, Zizek was there to propagandise and have a good time basically.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:08:35 2019 No.12969897

>>12969777
>the liberal system has built a meritocracy, we can measure that obejctively.
We can objectively measure that there isn't a meritocracy as the same ruling class from the middle ages still occupy the highest positions in society. We can see this in University admissions. In American Universities there are legacy admission in which applicants are preferred because of their family status. That's not very meritocratic is it? And in the UK those with Norman aristocratic surnames still have a high persistence in Oxbridge. In fact it's been measured that wealth is as inheritable ,if not more than, as height.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/social-class/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/universities-and-colleges/10413798/Same-names-have-attended-Oxbridge-since-the-Norman-Conquest.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/florence-rich-families-social-mobility-same-as-1427-a7056141.html
>inb4 you say that these aristocrats have a higher IQ than everyone else

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:11:11 2019 No.12969914 >>12969549 >You would think such an intellect would read Marx before debating Marxism with a Marxist. If he had read and understood even basic marxism, he wouldn't say half as much as the stupid shit he does on a daily basis.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:11:58 2019 No.12969917

>>12969825
>from each according to their abilities...
This means it doesn't matter what your abilities or more specifically how valuable your contribution is to society.

>...to each according to their needs
Means everyone get what they need (as defined by society), which will be basically the same for everyone. Food, water, housing. Some medical treatments.

If someone contributes a lot of value and still doesn't get a better reward than someone who adds very little or nothing then that is what people mean when they talk about equal outcomes.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:13:00 2019 No.12969923

>>12969751
A surgeon who works 10 hour shifts while holding lives in the palm of his hands has the same ability and needs as a janitor who can get his job done in like 6 hours if he puts his back into it and at most runs the risk of having to work an hour overtime.
It is pretty clear that the doctor both has more ability and 'utility' (in the sense in which their abilities are specialised of course) than the janitor and will of course have bigger needs considering the stresses that come from their job.
This of course doesn't devalue the needs and labour that the janitor provides nor does it create a class distinction like we see under capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:13:05 2019 No.12969926 >>12969680 It's not Christianity at all.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:13:51 2019 No.12969931

>>12969867
Of course people try to entrech themselves in the system but in overall mass they are irrelevant. They are mere administrators and enforcers of a system they have no control over and if they threaten the capital/state created ideology they will be ejected. It's not the Jews or the capitalists or the Wasps or the reptilians, It is human rapacity in the form of soulless capital and the insatiable interest in growth of an out of control state. In fact those thinking themselves the establishment are not even in control of their own thought. The entire system is so subverted by the aforementioned synthesis that they confuse its cancerous desires for their own morality. Everyone's a useful idiot these days.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:15:30 2019 No.12969940 >>12969917 How can you misunderstand such a simple quote which was basically just written as a piece of propaganda to simplify communism for the, mostly, uneducated masses? Is this the fabled power of /lit/?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:16:30 2019 No.12969947 >>12969923 What needs does the surgeon have that the janitor doesn't have? Got an example?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:17:29 2019 No.12969954 >>12969704 Where can I read where Marx critiques egalitarianism?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:17:32 2019 No.12969956 >>12969940 Explain it then

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:17:38 2019 No.12969958 File: 18 KB, 310x387, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12969389 >let's debate the bible. >guys, first I have to tell you that I've only read the book of revelation when I was 18

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:18:38 2019 No.12969967 >>12969897 good post

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:18:40 2019 No.12969968 >>12969616 He thought he was going to debate Nicolas Maduro

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:19:56 2019 No.12969977

>>12969566
The dominant ideology is always nameless and contingent. Things change fast, what is yesterday unimaginable becomes the new norm tomorrow. Do you want to explain "intersectionalism" as conspiracy or structurally? You had conservatives supporting the Khmer Rouge and Mujahideen throughout the 1980s. Weird.

>>12969777
You're not looking at liberalism historically or structurally or you would see terms like meritocracy or pluralism have no substance in actuality. No one has ever actually been a liberal, even as an ideal type it fails as an ideology. The general political economy of all modern states are variations of state capitalism which definitionally reflects organized interest groups, they just differ. Maximizing a state by minimizing its revenue is a weird strategy and it seems more like something the right has embraced since the 1980s.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:20:01 2019 No.12969980 >>12969897 >>inb4 you say that these aristocrats have a higher IQ than everyone else And if they do?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:22:03 2019 No.12969991 >>12969954 Fucking critique of the gotha program or this simple, short text by Lenin https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:23:39 2019 No.12970006

>>12969897
Well, IQ is indeed heritable. But you don't have to look into small scale studies check those looking at the relation of conscientiousness/IQ and wealth. They will demonstrate the meritocracy. Concerning Ivy league schools you can go to the classic Bell Curve by Charles Murray who observed this IQ stratification closely. At the beginning of the 20th century these schools were almost in total establishment factories, that completely changed. Now IQ reigns supreme. Funny exception here are Jews whose strong ingroup preference allowed them to reverse this trend. This of course doesn't mean that some rich assholes will not get their retarded kids into good schools, we're talking about the overall character which is decidely IQ oriented.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:23:47 2019 No.12970007 >>12969897 Well they're certainly not dumber than everyone else.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:24:04 2019 No.12970010 >>12969947 Stripper blowjobs

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:35:28 2019 No.12970073

>>12970006
If you want to play that game socioeconomic status (SES) is a totally different metric then IQ and it correlates much better with how you will do in life which disproves what you call meritocracy. Having a high IQ isn't the best strategy in life.
>the classic Bell Curve by Charles Murray who observed this IQ stratification closely.
Are you trolling? Murray study is highly flawed. His claims on the IQs of disadvantaged children leaves out the most important data point. Adoption from a poor families into better-off ones is associated with IQ gains of over 15 points. The heritability of intelligence is demonstrably much much lower among children raised in poverty.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:36:27 2019 No.12970082 >>12970010 I know it from reliable sources that there is also a great need for stripper blowjobs among the janitors

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:42:25 2019 No.12970118 >>12969461 This debate was good for exposing how much of a brainlet your benison fag on the street is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:49:33 2019 No.12970161 File: 21 KB, 369x363, 1511702836532.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12969481 Salafi are not "literalists" (which most Islamic thought is), they are autists. They consider chess "gambling" and coffee an "intoxicant"

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:50:23 2019 No.12970163 >>12969389 >no state >no family >no class distinction >no religion >no culture How are people supposed to be unequal this this scenario? I'm not being facetious, I've never studied Marxism, so I'm curious.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:51:37 2019 No.12970172

>>12970073
>15 points
A kid that went from 90 to 105 still can't compete with a 130 IQ STEM M.Sc graduate. There is a lot of malleability when it comes to IQ based on education and living standards, but genetic predisposition is undeniable.

There are other predictors of success such as social intelligence and creativity, but IQ is the most accurate and reproducible predictor of success.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:52:43 2019 No.12970185 >>12970073 Good post

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:57:45 2019 No.12970221

>>12970172
>A kid that went from 90 to 105 still can't compete with a 130 IQ STEM M.Sc graduate.
point is
Compete on what? STEMfags don't rule the world and the higher up on the IQ scale the more problems you will encounter
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/47403

>but IQ is the most accurate and reproducible predictor of success.
No it's not. That's demonstrably false. Socioeconomic status (SES) in every study correlates better with life outcomes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 10:58:08 2019 No.12970223 >>12970073 >15 point gain That's still pretty low.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 11:05:32 2019 No.12970274
File: 1.76 MB, 2160x2160, SatIvy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12970073
You're ignoring the transient charachter of early IQ gains and I was talking about Murray's study of the ivy league system. IQ heritability is well establihed. SES findings are inconsistent and IQ up to 130 or so is the main determinant of 'life success' + I did mention conscientiousness. But let's not talk so broadly about an issue which is easily resolveable by looking at sat scores over time at the ivy level. Your proper level of critique would be establishing that at the establishment level IQ becomes less relevant, although of course I already affirmed that by pointing to ideology.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 11:15:59 2019 No.12970339 >>12970163 I guess it comes down to how much each individual puts in? And then everyone decides what they get? But how exactly do you formally get all these people to make these decisions? Idk maybe im just retarded

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 11:26:23 2019 No.12970410

>>12970221
>Compete on what? STEMfags don't rule the world
Financial success. And STEM was just an example of a highly profitable field filled with high IQ people. Political elites also tend to have high IQ, just like people in business and economics.

I can only really think of the very small group of cream of the crop professional athletes and artists who gain a lot of wealth without requiring a high IQ. Though I have no idea how the IQ distribution is among NBA players. Maybe they are smarter than I think.

>the higher up on the IQ scale the more problems you will encounter
>180 IQ
Extremes don't make the rule. I obviously haven't had time to read it, but the first thing I notice is that this book (1942 ?) predates autism being popularized and studied properly.

>Socioeconomic status (SES) in every study correlates better with life outcomes.
Not doubting you, but can you post some of these studies for me to look at?

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 11:28:13 2019 No.12970419

>>12969389
>now you argue that Marx wasn't a believer in equality of outcome and I'm not so sure about that because his notion of the eventual utopia that would constitute genuine communism was a place where all class divisions were eradicated

>but those arent hierarchies

>look the most important of the hierarchies had disappeared and so maybe he had sophistication to talk about other forms of hierarchies but if that's the case then I can't imagine why he thought that the utopia that would emerge as a consequence of the elimination of economic hierarchies would be a utopia because if there are other forms of hierarchies that still existed people would be just as contentious about them as they are now like we have hierarchies of attractiveness for example that have very little to do with economics and there's no shortage of contention around that or any other form of ability and so that's why I associate the social justice types who are basically postmodernist with Marxism it's the insistence that you view the world through the narrative of oppressed versus oppressor and I think it's a catastrophe

how does this not totally btfo Zizek?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 11:32:35 2019 No.12970448 >>12969421 Name a single online self-declared marxist space where I could go and call trannies men without being banned.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 11:34:18 2019 No.12970463 >>12970448 There's probably a community of Marxists TERFS out there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 11:35:50 2019 No.12970468 >>12970463 yeah there must be. I wonder if there is a patriarchal Marxist group out there

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 11:36:06 2019 No.12970471

>>12970163
Lenin said everyone would need to do a certain minimum amount of "socially necessary labor", in exchange for which they'd get certificates to access a publically-owned stockpile of supplies. Above that minimum, you'd just get the full value of however much work you did. (So, you get what you work for, unlike the capitalist system, where a CEO gets what you work for). Though keep in mind not everyone on the Left agrees with Lenin, his was just the most widespread version.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 11:36:34 2019 No.12970476

>>12970419
>now you argue that Marx wasn't a believer in equality of outcome and I'm not so sure about that because his notion of the eventual utopia that would constitute genuine communism was a place where all class divisions were eradicated
because it's not true. abolishment of classes is not the same as equality of outcome. it's equality of opportunity, unironically.

Here's Lenin BTFOing a LIBERAL academic making this same argument in 1914: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 11:37:09 2019 No.12970480 >>12970468 Nazbols

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 11:39:24 2019 No.12970493 >>12970480 are they actually patriarchal? I mean like Old Testament or Sharia tier patriarchy. Seems like Marxists would be very opposed to the entire idea of men subjugating women

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 11:40:57 2019 No.12970506

>>12970476
>it's equality of opportunity, unironically.
It's like throwing the bread in the fire and padding yourself on the back because everyone gets the same amount of bread.

If you can do whatever you want but it doesn't change the outcome then your equality of opportunity is worthless.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 11:41:54 2019 No.12970517 >>12970493 Eh, not 100%, but they tend to believe one of the big problems with Capitalism is how it forces women into the workforce, rather than letting them occupy their "true" role as pastoral mother figures standing in a wheat field somewhere.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 11:41:54 2019 No.12970518 >>12970468 Stalinism

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 11:46:47 2019 No.12970552 >>12969897 >We can objectively measure that there isn't a meritocracy as the same ruling class from the middle ages still occupy the highest positions in society. goddamnit the French forgot to finish the job

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 11:50:22 2019 No.12970569

>>12970517
>rather than letting them occupy their "true" role as pastoral mother figures standing in a wheat field somewhere.
It amuses me when tradcons(for lack of a better term) view women this way. As if women haven't been scheming and playing men since we first evolved, as if they were helpless retards. They should read actual accounts of men living in patriarchies complaining about how their women control them.

It is a mystery to me why men are so clueless about women, it is so widespread that it feels like there must be some reason men evolved that way, that being clueless is actually a benefit to them somehow.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 11:54:09 2019 No.12970589 File: 137 KB, 960x918, IMG_20190412_114830_872.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12970493 Pretty socially and politically reactionary. Strasserites in denial imo.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 11:54:40 2019 No.12970592

>>12970476
Abolishement of classes is EXACTLY the same thing as equality of opportunity. Differences classes emerges because of differents capacity and interest the only way to suppress that is to turn everyone into a grey asexuel humanoid.

Why are Marxist so dishonests?

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 11:59:27 2019 No.12970633

>>12970493
dugin's takes on western gender roles as an anglo-bourgeois construct is very interesting and nuanced; he rejects anglo progressivism partially on the basis that its primary subject that it pathologically forces everything to progress towards is the 18th-19th century bourgeois white male. he rejects such axioms as undesirable in themselves, not because such a position should only be attainable to some, but because they are products of toxic materialist liberalism and should be attainable to no one.
dugin seems to believe in something like organic hierarchy that does not even need to be made explicit in writing, because the person making such an insistence that such a hierarchy must exist is reacting to the breakdown of such a hierarchy by his own inability to maintain it. a hierarchy defended by letter of the law only is not a true hierarchy. this view is not anti-hierarchical and is perfectly commensurate with patriarchy; evola makes similar claims many times throughout his career "feminism is the result of mens' femininity" and so on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 12:04:40 2019 No.12970663 >>12970476 Peterson has a picture of this guy in his house yet probably has not read anything by him.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 12:13:16 2019 No.12970713

>>12970476
>The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.
this logically leads to "postmodern neomarxism" as identified by Peterson once you start conflating unsatisfactory outcomes with alleged inequalities of opportunity, starting with "u racis" and eventually arriving at "u transphobic"

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 12:27:09 2019 No.12970779 >>12969777 >he liberal system has built a meritocracy Micheal Young is spinning in his grave coz of retards like you

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 12:31:12 2019 No.12970801

>>12970476
>Even the most dull-witted and ignorant person can grasp the fact that individual members of the nobility are not equal in physical and mental abilities any more than are people belonging to the “tax-paying”, “base”, ‘low-born” or “non-privileged” peasant class. But in rights all nobles are equal, just as all the peasants are equal in their lack of rights. Does our learned liberal Professor Tugan now under stand the difference between equality in the sense of equal rights, and equality in the sense of equal strength and abilities?

Define rights. As if all the elites were just feeding off of the lower classes without producing, directly or indirectly, anything themselves in contemporary Western societies (I’m aware that this was written a hundred years ago, but you posted this as a counter-argument to Peterson’s point). Since IQ and conscientiousness correlate heavily with socio-economical status, it could well be argued, that the higher classes, in fact, contribute more to the well-being of a society than the “non-privileged”, because they are capable of solving tasks faster.

>In the United States of America there is no aristocracy, and the bourgeoisie and the proletariat enjoy equal political rights. But they are not equal in class status: one class, the capitalists, own the means of production and live on the unpaid labour of the workers. The other class, the wage-workers, the proletariat, own no means of production and live by selling their labour-power in the market. The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.

https://youtu.be/WGRC5AA1wF0?t=3808
How does this not btfo Lenin’s essay?

>In brief, when socialists speak of equality they always mean social equality, equality of social status, and not by any means the physical and mental equality of individuals.

Impossible to achieve. See Peterson’s argument about the lobsters.

>This explanation of socialism has been necessary to enlighten our learned liberal professor, Mr. Tugan, who may, if he tries hard, now grasp the fact that it is absurd to expect equality of strength and abilities in socialist society.

Also, nice seething resentment.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 12:32:06 2019 No.12970804 >>12969389 I knew it was over when Zizek said something along the lines of "I"m not saying you are an illiterate idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about! NOOOO!" It just made me think he was calling Peterson that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 12:40:21 2019 No.12970846 >>12970448 Something related to Russian communist party or Venezuela if they know how to use internet.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 12:49:57 2019 No.12970908 >>12970779 I actually in essence if not in prescription agree with Michael Young so I doubt that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 12:50:46 2019 No.12970911 >>12970448 >>12970463 /leftypol/

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 12:51:52 2019 No.12970916 File: 548 KB, 943x639, 1543424047693.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12970908 >I agree with the man who mocked the concept of meritocracy who thought it was fucking retarded in a society that already has class

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 12:54:09 2019 No.12970926 >>12969825 that would be equality of income you idiot. if we give people what they need and take from people the surplus that they have then the outcome is more equal ffs

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 12:55:04 2019 No.12970934 >>12969411 this lefties are mad he didn't dunk on him but its clear he didn't want to alienate peterson fans by publicly crucifying their dad

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 12:56:45 2019 No.12970947 Remember when Peterson said we shouldn't worry about ecological disaster because someone will fix it one day? And he calls commies "utopians" KEK

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 12:57:16 2019 No.12970950

>>12969423
>>12969428
>>12969430
>>12969435
>>12969443
>>12969447

>This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

just fucking read marx zizek literally brought up this passage during the debate

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 12:57:16 2019 No.12970951 >>12970916 Well, you consider my statements as in support of this meritocracy? I'm describing it as a meritocracy for the implementation of the will of soulless capital and a total state.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 12:58:14 2019 No.12970958 >>12970517 Engels wrote about women's oppression wrt domestic labour so nah

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 12:59:58 2019 No.12970974

>>12970950
That passage doesn't really contradict the statement 'marxism is pro equality'. I mean look at that bit that says 'Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard'. This is very different than a theory of rights grounded in the absolute authority of a monarch, which would have no equality of application at all.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:00:00 2019 No.12970975

>>12970951
>Well, you consider my statements as in support of this meritocracy?
The fact that you even claim there is one is retarded enough

>I'm describing it as a meritocracy for the implementation of the will of soulless capital and a total state.
Literally who does that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:05:05 2019 No.12971007 >>12970975 Of course there is one, it's measurable. Not accepting that is just denying empirical reality and off you go to the commie la la land of self-referential theory. Your second statement is too unclear to answer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:05:16 2019 No.12971008 >>12970950 >no you see if we consider everyone to be the same class then we reach equality That's stupid. Differents subclasses will simply form inside that class and we'll be back at the beggining.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:05:39 2019 No.12971010 >>12969389 >I knew it was over when Žižek said that, why

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:06:53 2019 No.12971019

>>12969917
>This means it doesn't matter what your abilities
Yes, this is called political equality and this demand ironically was first advanced, not by the socialists, not by the proletariat, but by the bourgeoisie. The well-known historical experience of all the countries in the world proves this.

>Means everyone get what they need (as defined by society), which will be basically the same for everyone. Food, water, housing. Some medical treatments.
Now you are referring to a wrong interpretation of a marxist's idea of economic equality. Economic equality simply means abolishment of classes. This does NOT correspond to equal outcomes, rather equal opportunities. The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole.

>>12970926
>if we give people what they need and take from people the surplus that they have then the outcome is more equal ffs
That's not what I'm saying. Read above.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:07:38 2019 No.12971022

>>12971007
I am saying that the 'meritocracy' that you are talking is not anyway near the meaning of the word.

I mean if you put it like there is a system that optimizes implementation of the will of soulless capital and a total state then yea it exist but nobody calls it a meritocracy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:08:52 2019 No.12971029 >>12969413 this

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:09:11 2019 No.12971031 >>12971019 That's not ironic at all, the bourgeoisie were trying to wrest power from the royal class.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:09:46 2019 No.12971035
File: 238 KB, 1848x962, Black-Francis-01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12969389
So let me get this straight, Peterson thinks that capitalism is the way out of the social problems we're facing, as opposed to the "marxist" tendency of externalizing responsability.
Zizek tries to dispell the notion that "marxism" and "liberalism" are the same and denounces that liberals have become a tool of capitalism itself.
Is that it? Just the lack of proper names for things?

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:10:12 2019 No.12971038

>>12970974
Rights is referring to political equality which was put in place by the ruling class across every country where it currently exists on this planet

>That passage doesn't really contradict the statement 'marxism is pro equality'
Yes it does, where does that passage endorse economic equality? It endorses political equality, and the abolishment of classes. This means that everyone has equal opportunity aka
>The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:11:26 2019 No.12971041 >>12971031 >That's not ironic at all It is when you have retarded conservatives running around crying about political equality on one hand while jerking off the rich with the other

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:12:21 2019 No.12971042 >>12971038 That was my point, that it endorses political equality, which is not the only conception of right

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:12:49 2019 No.12971045 File: 42 KB, 916x640, 251459cc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] What's Peterson thinking here?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:13:57 2019 No.12971052 >>12969487 link?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:14:04 2019 No.12971053 >>12969461 Yes but are they really true Marxist ? Like its saying of those who calling themselves these terms are like fans of a football team who don't know who are the wide receivers are.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:14:17 2019 No.12971055 >>12971022 what is so bad about the "will of soulless capital". we live in incredible abundance thanks to it and soon enough so will the rest of the world.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:20:22 2019 No.12971082 >>12969389 Can we just take a moment to mention how awful the moderator was though? They may as well have gotten any random dude to do it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:21:22 2019 No.12971084 File: 99 KB, 916x640, 1555780369684.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12971045

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:21:22 2019 No.12971085

>>12971022
Meritocracy can be defined as a hierarchical system which rewards according to productive capacity. That can be in soccer or business, The goal is irrelevant. We're having a meritocracy which works for the goals of a subverted system is all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:23:08 2019 No.12971101 >>12971082 giving a shit about debate moderators is some small brain shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:24:07 2019 No.12971108 >>12969461 >Because 95% of those calling themselves marxists today are radical egalitarians. Chinese are calling themselves what?

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:24:08 2019 No.12971109

>>12971042
>That was my point, that it endorses political equality, which is not the only conception of right
The quote is clear as day in pointing out that political equality does not mean economic equality (in the equal outcomes sense) and thus completely contradicts the idea that "marx is pro equality". Unless you seriously want to say that you didn't mean equality of outcomes, in which case I have no idea what you are talking about

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:25:21 2019 No.12971118 >>12971042 >>12971109 in pointing out that, for Marx, political equality does not logically mean economic equality*

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:31:03 2019 No.12971141 No one honestly thinks a classless society wont divide based on merit right?

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:31:49 2019 No.12971142

>>12969461
>Because 95% of those calling themselves marxists today are radical egalitarians
this weird phenomena where radlib feminists and anarchist larping antifa have become in the right's eyes the "Marxists" still fucking baffles me. Read Exiting the Vampire Castle

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:33:41 2019 No.12971152 >>12969566 >Name one >Well, here is the bloody thing you know... Peterson you lost, go to bed

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:36:45 2019 No.12971167 >>12971008 this

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:37:00 2019 No.12971171 >>12969954 reminder if you can't answer this question (like Peterson couldn't) you are in no position to be considered anything CLOSE to an expert in Marx or Marxist theory. Peterson out of his depth by miles.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:37:24 2019 No.12971172

>>12971053
That's a matter of definition. Freudians shit on Freud all day long these terms are malleable and the discussion about it largely semantic. The intersectionalists have an identifiable lineage to marxism and their oppressed oppresser narrative suffices for outsiders to accept their allegiance to this corpus. It's just not a relevant topic for the non-left opposition. They're shit if they're marxists and they're shit if they're not.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:39:25 2019 No.12971183

The problem with Zizek is the same with leftism in general, they offer either no actual solutions or something thats worse than the current system.
I really appreciate him for admitting he actually has no idea how to fix the problem we have to today as opposed to people who actually represent the left.
Zizek is a true intellectual with huge amount of knowledge but little solutions the real life problems while Peterson is less knowledgeable but he offers solutions for people living in first and second world countries.
In the end the result of this debate is pretty expected, the difference between a philosopher and a psychologists way of seeing things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:39:32 2019 No.12971185 >>12970163 Some people are born smarter than others. Some are born stronger. Some will work harder than others. These are natural inequities Marx is fine with and wanted to provide space for

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:41:20 2019 No.12971199

>>12969777
>If there is something we can call a ruling class it is dynamic and the entry qualification is ideology and IQ

ok, you are correct to say that the modern day ruling class is more open to outsiders than before, but it is absolutely wrong to think of it as a meritocracy. Family, money, connections are the main factors still why people enter the ruling class and remain there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:41:57 2019 No.12971204 >>12970592 >Abolishement of classes is EXACTLY the same thing as equality of opportunity t-that's what anon said though....

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:43:03 2019 No.12971211 >>12969411 >strawman of postmodern cultural neo marxism. Indeed, the correct assessment is jewish owned and programmed golems.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:43:20 2019 No.12971214 >>12970804 you could see Peterson reeling at that moment from some form of extreme vertigo

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:43:35 2019 No.12971215 File: 19 KB, 210x240, sako-sako-rk95-upotte-48.9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12970476 And twenty years later, Stalin personally owns Russia. I guess he wasn't wrong.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:44:00 2019 No.12971219
File: 534 KB, 1800x1322, 1555764554330.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Did you notice how happy Žižek was when he was talking? I think he finds his happiness and purpose in debating, he even donated all money he got from this event to charities. He's truely an old fashioned philosopher, a thinking man.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:44:09 2019 No.12971220 >>12970163 Jews would own the world and be the closest approximation to people in it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:44:32 2019 No.12971222 >>12970592 >Abolishement of classes is EXACTLY the same thing as equality of opportunity. thats what i said.. wat

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:45:05 2019 No.12971223 >>12970974 you literally couldn't even make it to the end could you? >To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:45:23 2019 No.12971226 >>12969862 >>12969867 >>12970779 >>12971199 Until you focus on the average Joe's problems no one is going to take you seriously. Screeching about billionaires is pointless

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:45:42 2019 No.12971230 >>12971222 >Abolishement of classes is EXACTLY the same thing as equality of opportunity. It's not, actually. People are highly specialized, even on genetic level. They are the most free when they are born to the class they were bred into.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:46:29 2019 No.12971234 >>12971219 he hates debates but loves writings, if he laughed it was because of all the dirty jokes he has in his mind at all times

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:46:46 2019 No.12971237 File: 57 KB, 907x638, giantziz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The true snapshot of this debate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:47:51 2019 No.12971241 >>12971223 I was just pointing out that Marxism desires political equality, unlike absolute monarchy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:47:54 2019 No.12971242 >>12971219 >he even donated all money he got from this event to charities Peterson "won't do anything without 50k in fees" btfo yet again

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:48:29 2019 No.12971244 >>12971241 >desires Advertises itself with the claim*

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:49:07 2019 No.12971246 >>12971230 equality of opportunities doesn't assume everyone will be as good as everyone else at everything, that's equality of outcome

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:51:33 2019 No.12971253

Zizek is truly blackpilled. This is the thing about life guys, if you’re blackpilled you’re always right about everything. Nothing is perfect, no ideas or systems or even nature itself. What Peterson is saying and offering is a meaningful life that’s not blackpilled. The truth is, is that to be happy you need a certain amount of arrogance to the world. Religion is the perfect example of this but in modern times it could be politics, art, social justice. Some higher means will always make people happier and stronger and the masses of Peterson’s audience are proof of that. It’s no coincidence that the stupidest people ride to the top of society while intellectuals and philosophers are unhappy and at the bottom. In this way Peterson is indeed selling snake oil. But it’s ALL snake oil and Zizek offers no answers or meaning but rather morbid criticism. This is the fundamental orbit these two have been floating around. Zizek symbolizes truth and death, which are mutually exclusive. Peterson symbolizes lies and life.

Choose your path.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:53:44 2019 No.12971266 >>12971204 Fuck i meant equity or outcome whatever. Point is, Marx is a lying cunt.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:54:04 2019 No.12971269

>>12970506
>If you can do whatever you want but it doesn't change the outcome then your equality of opportunity is worthless.
because the point isn't to change the outcome, it's to give everyone the same opportunity

>>12970713
so your definition of postmodern neomarxism is just
>conflating unsatisfactoryr outcomes with alleged inequalities of opportunity
if that's the case, what's the big deal?

>>12970801
>define rights
He did. Political rights; everyone being equal under the law. I really don't understand the rest of what you are trying to say there or how it relates at all

>how does this not btfo lenin's essay
Peterson thinks marxism means equality of outcomes, and it doesn't. The link isn't taking me to 3808s which corresponds to 63 minutes 28 seconds but when I go there, I'm not seeing at all how it BTFOs Lenin's essay. Could you explain further?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:55:25 2019 No.12971275 >>12971246 Opportunities are never equal, they can't be. It's absurd that you think that gimping a portion of the population in favor of another gives opportunities rather than takes them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:55:41 2019 No.12971278 >>12971234 Is that so. He seemed to me enthusiastic and very lively compared to Peterson whom I found extremely monotone and boring. But I didn't know much about Žižek before this debate so that's just my observation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:56:19 2019 No.12971285 >>12971222 >>12971266

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:57:45 2019 No.12971291

>>12971199
It's not, IQ has superseded class a long time ago. In vast majority the elite in every enterprise now consists of high IQ individuals and the elite isn't in control of capital, the capital controls and regulates access to the elite. You will rise by serving the needs of the capital, not some actual old white guy with a monocle. In significant part this capital is even owned by the working class. It doesn't matter. The whole class analysis is just primitive.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:58:13 2019 No.12971294

>>12971055
Just that it is not really what meritocracy means

>>12971085
Even the ability to find, groom and reward capacity of the current system is debatable. But meritocracy Micheal Young is talking about is the education or allocation of opportunities or resources as rewards for capacity.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 13:58:54 2019 No.12971299

>>12971230
It literally is. The Marxist definition of economic equality is the abolishment of classes which means equality of outcomes in an economic sense.
>They are the most free when they are born to the class they were bred into.
Lenin points this out when he discusses political equality. The issue with your argument is that people being politically equal in spite of being biological different is precisely a bourgeois invention.

>>12971241
>marxism desires political equality
did you read the essay? political equality is not a marxist invention. political equality exists across all of the west precisely as an invention of the bourgeois

>>12970592
Differences classes emerges because of differents capacity and interest the only way to suppress that is to turn everyone into a grey asexuel humanoid.
you are referring to political equality here which exists with or without marx. the big businesses you get on your knees and jerk off are the ones giving political equality to the masses

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:00:21 2019 No.12971303

>>12971275
>Opportunities are never equal, they can't be. It's absurd that you think that gimping a portion of the population in favor of another gives opportunities rather than takes them
That portion of the population is inherently gimping other portions of the population by virtue of literally just being born. That's the exact opposite of equality of opportunity

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:02:04 2019 No.12971315 >>12971226 The idea of a society that is a genuine meritocracy is an insane impossibility

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:02:42 2019 No.12971323 >>12971299 >? political equality is not a marxist invention I didnt say it was. I compared it to absolute monarchy.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:03:28 2019 No.12971326

>>12969389
Peterson hasn't read Marx and bases his dislike for Marxism off modern Marxists who just want to use namedrop Marx in a way to support their woke agenda.

Modern Marxists also haven't read Marx so normally this wouldn't be a problem, but that's not what Zizek is.

Zizek doesn't want to make Peterson look bad because all he cares about is 'freeing' Marxist ideology from its current use in the sjw vs. the right argument where its either used to justify hatred and violence against 'nazis' or used as a right wing boogeyman.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:05:30 2019 No.12971334 Why was the representative of the right this milquetoast centrist self-help guru? Zizek/Eric Striker dialogue when?

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:06:43 2019 No.12971341

>>12969389
ALRIGHT I'm out guys. I can't argue with 25 people at once that refuse to read or comprehend an essay that a child could understand. Maybe if you guys were at least responding with analyses as to why "equality of opportunity necessarily implies equality of outcomes" rather than just spewing it over and over or reading more than two sentences without spewing false nonsense I would have stayed.
>big win for the petersonfags

In summary, political equality is not a marxist invention. Economic equality doesn't mean equality of outcomes, no matter how much you cry about it. Goodbye.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:07:54 2019 No.12971350

>>12971303
>That portion of the population is inherently gimping other portions of the population by virtue of literally just being born.
Why would you apply this thought only to wealth? Some people born smarter, more talented, better looking, etc.
As long as people aren't the same, inequality will exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:09:42 2019 No.12971363 Is there going to be a second debate? It was very popular, both of them were trending on twitter globally and all, pretty rare I say.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:10:14 2019 No.12971367 >>12971341 oh ffs calm down

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:10:39 2019 No.12971375

>>12971183
>The problem with Zizek is the same with leftism in general, they offer either no actual solutions or something thats worse than the current system.
Stop with this utilitarianistic stupidity. Žižek has no solutions, because it´s not his job to find them. If you want leftists with solutions look for people like Varoufakis.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:10:50 2019 No.12971376 >>12971219 Maybe the real happiness were the friends we made along the way

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:11:28 2019 No.12971378 File: 193 KB, 444x325, 1444570419186.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12971363 I want Zizek to have a talk with a fascist instead of a gay-ass right-liberal who doesn't know shit. Don't even make it a debate. Just talk.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:11:52 2019 No.12971381 >>12971226 I can care about average Joe's problems and bitch about meritocracy. It is not a zero-sum game

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:12:40 2019 No.12971382 >>12971378 there are not a lot of self-proclaimed Fascists. Better to get someone like Moldbug, though he wouldn't do it and nobody knows who he is

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:14:05 2019 No.12971397

>>12971323
>I didn't say it was
>I was just pointing out that Marxism desires political equality
Sure, you didn't, but you weren't saying anything. Political equality exists with or without Marxism. The people have always desired a social contract, and the ruling class desires it.

>I compared it to absolute monarchy.
Ok, that's cool but
>That passage doesn't really contradict the statement 'marxism is pro equality'.
Yes it does, again, unless you are don't mean "equality of outcomes" by "pro equality" here in which case.. ok? Then what's your point?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:14:10 2019 No.12971398 >>12971375 I did not blame him for a moment. But real life problems require real life solutions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:14:12 2019 No.12971399 >>12969389 >spits all over himself

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:16:30 2019 No.12971409 >>12971303 >That portion of the population is inherently gimping other portions of the population by virtue of literally just being born. I just love advertisements, journalists and oligarchs! Monarchies were good for humans.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:16:41 2019 No.12971411 >>12969389 Because Jordan Peterson is a retar d

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:16:49 2019 No.12971413

>>12971397
My point is that it is part of the ideologies that promote equality, as opposed to an ideology with a Monarch and nobles who mete out rights at their discretion. There are other similar forms like the authority of a husband over wife in lots of religious texts is not an equal conception of right

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:17:06 2019 No.12971416 >>12969389 There's a reason why nobody takes JP seriously, Zizek just wanted to reach out to a younger audience and cash the check.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:17:11 2019 No.12971417 >>12971183 >>12971398 >they offer either no actual solutions or something thats worse than the current system. Then why don't you join the club and come up with your own solution instead of being another critic like Zizek

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:17:35 2019 No.12971419 >>12971183 >they offer either no actual solutions or something thats worse than the current system. read bookchin

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:17:53 2019 No.12971422 >>12971398 Philosophy isn´t there to solve your problems.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:18:23 2019 No.12971426 >>12971411 is this bait?

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:19:09 2019 No.12971434

People who actually want to change the world should study economy. Currently, anyone who makes money out of economic knowledge will use it for its own merits (obviously)
If you want to influence the rules, first you need to win the game within the current set of rules. Zizek knows this exactly, he is a philosopher. The problem is with the mobs on twitter who expect a revolution. it's not gonna happen and seeing them constantly got super tiresome at this point

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:19:09 2019 No.12971435 >>12970448 >>12970911

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:19:41 2019 No.12971439 >>12971419 ok radlib

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:22:59 2019 No.12971462 File: 248 KB, 1407x1080, 1543545772760.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] HAHAHA FUCKING LOSER PETERSON? MORE LIKE PENIS SON

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:29:48 2019 No.12971499 >>12971439 how the fuck is bookchin's municipal liberatarianism radlib?

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:41:33 2019 No.12971564

>>12971055
Capital (+state) sees the world through a binary, profit/no profit and it always goes for profit. It is not capable of long term planning as its component parts usually fall apart and reorganize after a short time. If profit means that the west ought to be drowned in migrants then that happens. If a rainforest has to be chopped down then it's gone. If the structure of the family has to be disintegrated to get the female into the production process then that will happen if it creates society wide infertility or not.

Capital is just hunger, it is the hunger of every individual human interacting in the marketplace. You are correct in pointing out that you cannot just condemn this hunger, especially since people are still starving. And it is not deplorable to want a better life for your child. But do you want it to be the end of all philosophy in human society - do you want its ideology to remove all competing ideas from our minds until we're nothing more than zombies? Because that is what's happening. You could also make a very fundamental reactionary critique about what kind of a dystopia awaits us at the end of this process even if it succeeds on its own terms.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:48:39 2019 No.12971609

>>12969421
But why haven't marxists told them to go fuck themselves already? I do agree than all those retards often sound like neoliberals (the reverse is also true), but why are marxists letting them phagocyting most of their groups? Why do most of them take the trouble of defending them still? To me it sounds like the progs are their biggest opponents right now because they are disemboweling marxism so they can wear its skin, effectively supplanting it

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:54:27 2019 No.12971648

>>12971609
What Marxists? There was a part of the debate that people misunderstood as Zizek calling out Perterson for not being able to name any actual marxist, but that wasn't what happened. Zizek was making a point that real marxists are gone, those like David harvey are relics and outliers. These days most online marxists are chapo listeners who literally do only care about wearing its skin to provide an excuse to punch 'nazis'. Marxism is now just a way to make hate cool and there's nothing that can really be done about that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:55:03 2019 No.12971652 >>12971609 Marxists as Zizek understands it are a handful of people. Marxism as understood by SWJs is a mass produced corporate movement whose members/symphatizers are churned out in the tens of thousands by the university system.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:55:27 2019 No.12971657

>>12969478
Not him but if I had to go with my country (France), then we have
>the communist party
>the new anti-capitalist party
>France insoumise (jacobins rather than socialist/marxists)
> Worker's struggle
Absolutely all of them put issues like open borders, thirld worldism, no criticism on islam allowed, tranny stuff, egalitarian shit on the forefont. People who dares go against the line get shafted every time.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 14:59:28 2019 No.12971683

>>12969991
that lenin piece is hilarious
>The puzzled reader may ask: how could a learned liberal professor have forgotten these elementary axioms familiar to anybody who has read any exposition of the views of socialism? The answer is simple: the personal qualities of present-day professors are such that we may find among them even exceptionally stupid people like Tugan. But the social status of professors in bourgeois society is such that only those are allowed to hold such posts who sell science to serve the interests of capital, and agree to utter the most fatuous nonsense, the most unscrupulous drivel and twaddle against the socialists. The bourgeoisie will forgive the professors all this as long as they go on “abolishing” socialism.
>>t. jordan peterson

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:04:34 2019 No.12971711

>>12971038
>Yes it does, where does that passage endorse economic equality? It endorses political equality, and the abolishment of classes.
As if getting rid of class distinctions was even remotely possible. They're indistinguishable from status hierarchies, which are a permanent feature of human social organisation.
>This means that everyone has equal opportunity aka: “The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole.”
How would production be efficient if everyone had an equal amount of control over the means of production? There would be no selection according to competency and no investments for future developments because no-one is allowed to profit from risk, since profit is conceived to be theft of surplus value.
The more stuff is produced, the better off everyone is.
>”It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.”
All citizens already have equal opportunities for working since private enterprises hire people mostly based on competency. No one is suffering from privation to such an extent that they would be unable to begin working and acquiring competency over time. Support for those who are incapable of properly participating in the labour market already exists and it would be ridiculous to demand that they have “equal footing with regard to the means of production”.
Capitalism in the west makes the most of people’s abilities and practically everyone’s basic needs are met by the (limited) public sector. Marxists are idiots.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:06:24 2019 No.12971720
File: 77 KB, 900x900, unnamed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12969461
This
Which makes it all the more confusing why politically correct sjws are celebrating because the only reason Zizek was even able to win is because he rejected the connection Peterson made with sjws and marxists

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:06:45 2019 No.12971723

>>12971019
>This does NOT correspond to equal outcomes, rather equal opportunities.
Equal opportunities in the current paradigm is valuable because it means everyone can utilize their skills and abilities to achieve success and wealth, assuming they are successful in producing things of value. This maximizes the productive power of society because every citizen who can contribute something of value is encouraged and not inhibited from doing so. If you remove this aspect then having equal opportunities becomes worthless.

If the outcome (wealth) is not influenced by the amount of your success, then what is the value of having opportunities?

>the abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole.
But why would you care about this equal footing if your achievements don't result in any benefit for you personally? And don't tell me that's a misinterpretation. Marx thought this state of society would only be possible in this utopic state of society where most resources are abundant and people only work for personal fulfillment. This assumes everyone already has everything they would ever want. He definitely did not talk about some people getting more than others.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:09:30 2019 No.12971741

>>12971720
>rejected the connection
aka literally no connection. marx explicitly rejected this egalitarian notion. the implication here is that you are admitting peterson knows nothing about marx, and neither does the rest of academia, which just makes this all the more embarrassing for everyone involved

Also, still ironic I made an entire thread asking for the name of a single postmodern neomarxist and it died without a single name being mentioned

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:12:14 2019 No.12971755 >>12971723 >some people getting more than others *based on their contribution

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:13:10 2019 No.12971761

>>12971723
>But why would you care about this equal footing if your achievements don't result in any benefit for you personally?
What are you talking about? It does result in benefit for you personally. There is no equality of outcomes in marxism, you simply get equal opportunity.

>If the outcome (wealth) is not influenced by the amount of your success, then what is the value of having opportunities?
Again, I have no idea what you are saying here. Outcome isn't equal in marxism. If you do more, you get more money, it's just that classes are abolished so you aren't going to be born into a special caste of society having done no work at all to deserve it

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:17:18 2019 No.12971783 >>12971741 I'm not disagreeing. My point is Chapo fags shouldn't take this as a win cause Zizek was trashing them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:20:39 2019 No.12971803 >>12971761 That would be Socialism, not Communism. "To each according to his contribution" Or as Marx called it "lower phase communism", later called "Socialism" by Marxists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:33:28 2019 No.12971891 >>12971741 >marx explicitly rejected this egalitarian notion. That just show that he was either retarded or lying. Egality of class is impossible without equality of outcome.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:44:09 2019 No.12971963 >>12969423 Because it's about equal opportunity not saying everyone is exactly the same at everything

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:47:55 2019 No.12971984 File: 125 KB, 500x382, 1545432478557.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12971891 >equality of outcome is impossible >yes, Marx wasn't arguing for that >then he's retarded

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:49:53 2019 No.12972000 >>12969389 It's true Marxism was about abolishing capital it wasn't about egalitarianism originally. Now it's degraded into something different though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:51:37 2019 No.12972016 i dont understand why chapo autists and retards on twitter are celebrating this debate

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:51:51 2019 No.12972019
File: 335 KB, 900x900, 1542136036509.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

yo what if the debate got interrupted with steve austin's entrance theme and the camera cutting to greg sadler in a bane mask running down the aisle shirtless and stone cold stunning both JPB and zizek

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrJLsNo9sCU

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:52:09 2019 No.12972025 >>12971891 >Egality of class is impossible without equality of outcome. as long as you accept this confused useless notion of "equality" you'll be stuck saying dumb shit like this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:52:22 2019 No.12972028 >>12971984 No I mean you can't achieve a classeless society without equality of outcome, which prove that Marx is stupid since he reject equality of outcome.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:52:56 2019 No.12972032 >>12971183 He does give an actual solution but the problem is you have to somehow get society to actually act on it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:54:19 2019 No.12972041 >>12972016 Same as with everything, its about controlling the narrative. Get enough people to spread a lie and no one will care about the truth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:54:46 2019 No.12972044 >>12971741 >marx explicitly rejected this egalitarian notion. He rejected the liberal idea of egalitarianism. The term did not have the same meaning as it has today.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:55:28 2019 No.12972049 >>12970448 r/stupidpol

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:55:55 2019 No.12972053 >>12972032 A solution like that is not a real solution. Even a 5 year old can design a perfect utopia in theory. Solutions have to start from an individual level

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:56:21 2019 No.12972055

>>12972028
Okay, then you are not using the term classless society the way Marx did, you have created a new non-Marxist term coincidentally called classless society. If Marx though a classless society must have equality of outcome, why would he have written the exact opposite?

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:57:25 2019 No.12972069

>>12972044
>But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:57:46 2019 No.12972071 >>12972019 he would have unironically made a better argument than either of them

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:57:47 2019 No.12972072

>>12972025
People want their childs to live a good life. Therefore they'll make them inherit stuff they absolutly don't deserve. This will create people who "own the means of production" or whatever rich boogeyman you want.

The only way to avoid that is to either break people will or to create a great machine capable of equalising everything in a manner that make inheritance equal for everyone. Of course this would mean either genetically modifying the entire human race or creating a reality warping robot that could account for thing like dumb luck.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 15:58:53 2019 No.12972079 >>12972055 Because he's either dumb or lying to get intellectual on his side (so that he can better murder them when the time of the revolution comes).

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:00:30 2019 No.12972091

>>12972072
>People want their childs to live a good life. Therefore they'll make them inherit stuff they absolutly don't deserve. This will create people who "own the means of production" or whatever rich boogeyman you want.
How can you make your children inherit something that is owned by the society as a whole?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:02:23 2019 No.12972104 HOW CAM LIFE? am i deep yet guys?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:02:57 2019 No.12972106 >>12972091 Because you get ressources for working which you use to acquire (or lose) more ressources, which you pass on to your childrens.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:03:04 2019 No.12972108 >>12972053 It's not about the individual level, that's like the whole point of Hegel. The society is reflected in the individual

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:05:47 2019 No.12972127 >>12972108 did he actually say that? What a dumbass

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:05:56 2019 No.12972129 >>12972106 And? How much can a single person produce? You can never outcompete a society on your own. Which resources would you even get?

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:05:58 2019 No.12972130

>>12972079
>Be Marx
>Be a brilliant scholar
>Dazzle everyone with your philosophical brilliance
>Make a deep and nuanced case for the advancement of human society towards a place which maximizes equality of outcome
>Be anon on 4channel
>think Marx wants vulgar socialism
>cast Marx as a dirty utopian
>people point out Marx didn't mean that at all and he wasn't a utopian in the slightest
>somehow thinks this mean Marx is must be wrong
is this the power of America?

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:06:07 2019 No.12972133

>>12972069
"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:07:19 2019 No.12972142 >>12972127 A healthy society can create grand individuals like Napoleon who could be those people who change the world.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:07:59 2019 No.12972147 >>12972133 >From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! literally the biggest Marxist meme ever, and somehow people manage to read this as >From each the same and to each the same!

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:08:27 2019 No.12972155 >>12972130 marx made a widget which is in architecture lingo for a great blueprint that when built does not actually work. Marx is a nice guy but he watched too much Star Trek

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:09:27 2019 No.12972168 >>12972142 did he ever say that really? what a dumbass

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:17:50 2019 No.12972233 >>12971269 No, my definition of "postmodern neomarxism" is American Progressivism, I'm saying that Stalin and Roosevelt are not so far off from one another. Definitely not diametrically opposed.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:18:14 2019 No.12972236

>>12972130
Well he was a dirty utopian, please tell me how you can reach equality of class.

>>12972129
You could set yourself as a trader of ressources between peoples who want more of X and don't mind exchanging Y for that. Of course, you'll take a cut in every transaction. Now, since we live in the modern age, you could also set up a website to do so for you, and therefore get an increasing amount of ressources delivered to you.

>Which resources would you even get?
It doesn't matter. Objects of arts, car, books. The important thing is that you have things of value, which will inherently increase your sexual values for female, birth ressentement or admiration toward your success and make life easier for your children.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:20:26 2019 No.12972251 >>12972147 >From each the same and to each the same! It doesn't mean this, in practice it means that the Party decides how to distribute the product of society's labor.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:20:43 2019 No.12972255

>>12972236
by asking him to describe the perfect society you are demanding him to be a utopian
>Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
-Marx, The German Ideology

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:21:22 2019 No.12972261 >>12971084 >lefty memes jesus christ

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:21:45 2019 No.12972265 >>12972251 >somehow people manage to read this as

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:23:20 2019 No.12972278 >>12972255 >We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. And litteraly all of those movements aimed at utopia.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:25:46 2019 No.12972295

>>12972236
>You could set yourself as a trader of ressources between peoples who want more of X and don't mind exchanging Y for that. Of course, you'll take a cut in every transaction.
But first you won't take a cut since Marxist want to replace markets with planning and second why would you even have a cut? It isn't only you who trades, there's no private property so you can't really do that much for yourself. Third communism is to be achieved when there is post scarcity when it comes to needs.
>It doesn't matter. Objects of arts, car, books. The important thing is that you have things of value, which will inherently increase your sexual values for female, birth ressentement or admiration toward your success and make life easier for your children.
>Sexual values
Lol.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:26:29 2019 No.12972300 >>12972147 How is "to each whatever the fuck he wants as long as it is available" better?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:27:51 2019 No.12972306 >>12972265 Who else is going to determine from each/ to each?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:28:03 2019 No.12972309 >>12969411 You can say Marx rejected egalitarianism but the whole universe of Marxist thought definitely does not reject egalitarianism.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:29:25 2019 No.12972313

>>12969413
Marxism is a universe of ideologies some do and some do not reject egalitarianism. This idea though that some of his 'followers' are 'moronic' is ridiculous. There are many very intelligent Marxists, and to say they aren't just because you don't agree with them is pretty wild.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:30:58 2019 No.12972322

>>12972306
Not him, but there wouldn't be a state, it's decentralized communism, so whomever you take the stuff from would decide if you need it.

If you now have a million reasons why this wouldn't work, then you are right, it's fucking ridiculous and wouldn't work.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:31:04 2019 No.12972326 >>12972278 Bismark implemented a bunch of socialist ideas and he was the definition of realpolitik. You are historically ignorant and it shows.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:32:28 2019 No.12972333 >>12972326 Did he implement social programs or did he implement socialist programs?

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:32:39 2019 No.12972335

>>12972295
>first you won't take a cut since Marxist want to replace markets with planning

I will because people will want thing that the Red AI will not have planned for and will ressort to trading or stealing.

>why would you even have a cut?

Because I'm the one who's helping create this transaction therefore I deserve to be rewarded.

>there's no private property
But I get ressources for my works right? So I do have things that are my own.

>communism is to be achieved when there is post scarcity when it comes to needs.

Irrelevents, things like alcoohool, sex and drugs will still be desired.

>Sexual values
That's a thing yes, that's why you have birds with incredibly beautiful feather or wonderful songs.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:34:04 2019 No.12972348

>>12972300
>>12972306
>>12972322
you are still operating under the assumption there is someone who owns it in order to decide, it must be decided democratically. Marx literally never formulated what he though Communism would look like, and deeply criticized the people who tried to formulate loose future societies like this. Communism can only arise from the material conditions in existence, not an ideal or theory.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:34:09 2019 No.12972350 >>12972326 Ah yes I'm sure he brough an end to the cosmic duality of exploited/exploitant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:34:09 2019 No.12972351 >>12972333 woaaaahhhhhhhhh, you really NAILED that fucking guy there, hahahahahaha

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:35:56 2019 No.12972356

>>12972333
At the time there was literally no difference between the two, social programs were those crazy ideas about labour rights and pensions being pushed by the socialists. The reason he did it was specifically to undercut the Communist movement in Germany.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:36:19 2019 No.12972360 >>12972313 The fact that there are intelligent Marxists doesn't mean there aren't also moronic Marxists. If you need proof of how many retarded Marxists there are just check out /r/chapotraphouse.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:36:58 2019 No.12972364 >>12972350 No he did it to kill the Communist movement in Germany

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:37:13 2019 No.12972365

>>12972348
There is always someone who takes care of the thing, maintains the thing, holds on to the thing. Someone whose job is handing out the thing. Assuming there is no endless supply of the thing he needs to make decisions on whether you need the thing.

>it must be decided democratically
Didn't you just say Marx didn't formulate how things would be decided?

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:37:54 2019 No.12972370

>>12972348
I'm operating under the assumption that the Party owns society, which is how Communism has played out thus far.

>>12972322
How does this not just revert into anarchism? All existing forms of public ownership existing thus far involve a power center possessing the thing in question as opposed to delegating ownership of it to someone. If the Party isn't going to enforce public ownership it would appear that you're going to devolve into state capitalism, warlordism, feudalism, or something along those lines.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:39:50 2019 No.12972378 >>12972364 Which failed. I don't see whay was your original point anyway. What bismark did wasn't a movement to "abolishes the present state of things."

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:40:09 2019 No.12972384

>>12972360
I don't need 'convinced' that there are moronic Marxists, there are a lot of fucking stupid people, that's pretty obvious. Moronic followers aren't the problem of any ideology ever, the intellectual followers are leading the moronic followers by definition, it really doesn't matter what they think and they never are the people you have to worry about unless you're literally worried about some asshole smashing your window.

In reality you should be more worried about the guy convincing people to smash windows.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:41:09 2019 No.12972391

>>12972335
>I will because people will want thing that the Red AI will not have planned for and will ressort to trading or stealing.
Like? If there is a thing you personally can make, than it will have no need to be mass produced. Everything else you need a factory for, which will simply be connected to redAI.
>>why would you even have a cut?
>Because I'm the one who's helping create this transaction therefore I deserve to be rewarded.
Sure, but you won't be able to own the trade company or whatever you have in mind. You get your labor vouchers and be told to fuck off.
>But I get ressources for my works right? So I do have things that are my own.
Of course imbecil, but there is a great leap from your toothbrush to a factory. One is personal property while other is private property.
>Irrelevents, things like alcoohool, sex and drugs will still be desired.
And? You will work for them and buy them. Needs are things like food and medical care, not a new IPhone for some Instagram hoe.
>That's a thing yes, that's why you have birds with incredibly beautiful feather or wonderful songs.
Too bad private property will never make you a giga chad.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:41:52 2019 No.12972396

>>12972378
You're a fucking idiotic ideologue. Maybe the Bismark agreed with some of their principles and ideas. Maybe he really thought he could implement some in a way that was agreeable to the entirety of his society. Maybe he felt morally compelled as a Christian to care for the poor or something in a meaningful way while maintaining a cohesive society that didn't descend into Chaos of revolution.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:42:11 2019 No.12972401 >>12972365 Do you think there is only one way to set up democracy? >>12972370 There cannot be a party which owns society under communism by the very definition of communism, you are thinking of socialism.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:42:34 2019 No.12972406

>>12972356
There were welfare programs way before socialists came along and argued for them because of horseshit marxism. Usually the arguments for them were pragmatic or humantiarian/liberal. And they weren't called socialist. Socialists don't own the concept of social programs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:44:10 2019 No.12972419 >>12972370 >How does this not just revert into anarchism? It would. There is a reason why communism is called utopian.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:44:40 2019 No.12972424

>>12972378
I never once said Bismark was implementing communism, what the fuck? My point was not all implementations of socialist though was a movement towards Utopia, because even Bismark could so it. You people really need to brush up on syllogistic logic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:46:04 2019 No.12972434 >>12972406 not him but please point me to the labour rights groups that existed before the Socialist movement, I'm very interested.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:46:04 2019 No.12972436 >>12972401 Is there any actual support for "stages" theory that identifies Communism as distinct from socialism in Marx's writings, or this just revisionism out of China/USSR?

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:46:09 2019 No.12972437

>>12972424
You were arguing with a fucking ideologue he had no intentions of interpreting your logic or understanding your argument. You're like assuming good faith, but you're sitting here having political debates. Cut these faggots loose you'll never be able to 'talk' to them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:46:32 2019 No.12972438 >>12972384 If moronic followers are the sole meaningful voice of your ideology (the thing that normal people see and interact with), then maybe they are the problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:46:47 2019 No.12972444 >>12972419 Why would people want things like state capitalism or feudalism? If someone tried to take public property for himself he simply would get gunned down. Easy as that

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:47:09 2019 No.12972447 >>12970448 anywere that isn't western europe or america

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:47:25 2019 No.12972449 >>12972434 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_for_the_Relief_of_the_Poor_1601

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:49:00 2019 No.12972462 >>12972436 Yes, read critique of the gotha program. The distinction between lower and higher stage communism is from marx. Socialism is the poor man communism, which is a revision from the USSR.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:49:20 2019 No.12972465 >>12972434 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cura_Annonae He said welfare programs, and these have certainly existed.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:49:43 2019 No.12972469

>>12972438
I completely disagree with you, they act as a strategic smokescreen, it's actually quite a good thing from their perspective, you're chasing a ghost meanwhile the intelligentsia are reading different things. Like in college they redefine white supremacy and racism so you can speak bombastically to the proles but in commune with the other educated people you're merely discussing power frameworks that structured themselves around race almost as a convenience.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:50:13 2019 No.12972474 >>12971963 >it's about equal opportunity there's no such thing

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:51:07 2019 No.12972482 >>12969566 Shhh...let them continue to addle on about idea purity and how its complete divorce from the phenomenological world doesn't matter. it's literally why Marxism always fails

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:51:38 2019 No.12972484

>>12972449
>The idle poor and vagrants were to be sent to a House of Correction or even prison.
wow this is some labor rights. remind me how they got to shoving 8 years old down Chimneys under this act? Oh yeah, it literally gives orphans to companies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:52:40 2019 No.12972496 >>12972465 Communism is about labour rights, not welfare.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:52:40 2019 No.12972498

>>12972444
Personal enrichment. And you (small group) can't gun down a militia (bigger group). You would require an organized institution (state) to organize a resistance of the majority. Any warlord with a small organized army could take over any such hypothetical communist society in the matter of a year.

Also you assume the majority would agree with your ideology indefinitely.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:54:06 2019 No.12972507

>>12972391
>Like?
Maybe drugs or alcohol who may be limited, prostitutions, or shiny items which you want to decorate your bunker with. Or maybe someone really just want food which I'll be able to provide with my labor voucher.

>or whatever you have in mind.
I'll trade in the middle of Siberia, far from the restless Red Eyes, where I'll become the Food Baron.

>You will work for them and buy them
But the Red AI stop Ivan from drinking three bottles of vodka per day and he really wishes to do that. I have the bottles which I exchanged against his rations of chocolats, he'll buy them from me and I'll get some vodka and some chocolats which will be used in the securing of further ressources.

>Too bad private property will never make you a giga chad.

Large amount of private property actually make you sexy among severals species, including humans.

>Maybe the Bismark agreed with some of their principles and ideas. Maybe he really thought he could implement some in a way that was agreeable to the entirety of his society. Maybe he felt morally compelled as a Christian to care for the poor or something in a meaningful way while maintaining a cohesive society that didn't descend into Chaos of revolution.

Right, so that would make him hostage of those utopians communists, not an utopian himself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:54:09 2019 No.12972509 >>12972484 Sounds like socialism to me

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:54:15 2019 No.12972510

>>12972498
What we would need is a highly complex social AI to manipulate people into meaningless political banter endlessly to prevent them from ever compromising the power structures that we'd set up that uh don't uh exist anymore because... advanced.... communism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:55:09 2019 No.12972516 >>12972424 >My point was not all implementations of socialist though was a movement towards Utopia I agree, but I was mostly talking about communists desu >>12972278

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:57:28 2019 No.12972529

>>12971269
How does Marxism allow for investments to happen if the investor is not allowed to profit from the risk that investing entails through surplus-labour?

How can an entire economy be under public ownership without becoming crippled?

How can we get rid of classes when social hierarchies are an inextricable part of social life. How does class status equality differ from mental equality, since the attribution of status is a mental phenomenon?

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 16:59:18 2019 No.12972544

>>12972484
>let's judge history by modern standards
It was designed to give welfare to those unable to work. You can whine that it doesn't agree with your shitty 21st century sensibilities, but it was a social program where there wasn't one before, and it predates any crappy marxism by hundreds of years.
And there were other such social programs in the past. Socialists don't own the concept.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 17:04:04 2019 No.12972573

>>12972516
you are missing the second point:
>The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
you cannot talk about Communism as a movement discounted from the material premises like which socialist policies are implemented and which are not. Ultimately, as someone who considers myself a communist and a Marxist, I think we should give up on socialism, it's only served as a crutch for capitalism, not an attack on it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 17:06:02 2019 No.12972586 >>12972544 It was designed to placate a rapidly deteriorating working class for the benefit of the Capitalists. That was a bill pushed by the Bourgeois to their direct benefit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 17:07:08 2019 No.12972595 >>12972573 >Bismark was a secret communist because he gave a few advantages to the poor OK

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 17:07:59 2019 No.12972604

>>12972498
>Personal enrichment. And you (small group) can't gun down a militia (bigger group).
So you think a militia of want-to-be-capitalist would take over a countless militias of proles?

>You would require an organized institution (state) to organize a resistance of the majority.

Not really, even today you could organize a thing on Facebook for instance to tell a large group of people about any criminal activity.

>Any warlord with a small organized army could take over any such hypothetical communist society in the matter of a year.
Doubt

>Also you assume the majority would agree with your ideology indefinitely.

I mean under communism being a communist is meaningless. This is something like if someone wanted a return to monarchy and he gave an argument like "you think people will agree with capitalism indefinitely". It's stupid.

>>12972507
>Maybe drugs or alcohol who may be limited, prostitutions, or shiny items which you want to decorate your bunker with. Or maybe someone really just want food which I'll be able to provide with my labor voucher.

You can read my previous response to you to see why this is wrong.

>But the Red AI stop Ivan from drinking three bottles of vodka per day and he really wishes to do that. I have the bottles which I exchanged against his rations of chocolats, he'll buy them from me and I'll get some vodka and some chocolats which will be used in the securing of further ressources.

You simply exchanged two things without profit. You don't have private property to create vodka on mass scale. If vodka for some unknown reason is banned in the community you will be simply be seen as a criminal since it's so bad it needed to be banned in the first place.

>Large amount of private property actually make you sexy among severals species, including humans.
Today I learned parrots own factories.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 17:08:25 2019 No.12972609 >>12972586 The reasoning behind it doesn't matter, it wasn't socialist. >it was pushed by the bourgois to their direct benefit So not socialist, then? I guess you agree by your own reasoning after all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 17:10:50 2019 No.12972632 >>12972595 based retard see >>12972424 >>12972609 I never once argued that the Poor Law Act 1601 was socialist.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 17:21:35 2019 No.12972710

>>12972632
Ok, you're too stuck in your red way, please die for the good of the world.

>You simply exchanged two things without profit.

I take a cut so no.
>You don't have private property to create vodka on mass scale.

But I do have vodka voucher and people who don't care about drinking vodka. Maybe I can also convince the factory gard to let me snap some vodka bottles for bigger exchanges.

>If vodka for some unknown reason is banned in the community
Not banned, limited.

>Today I learned parrots own factories.
Why do you think some birds make huge shiny nests?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 17:23:08 2019 No.12972720 >>12972710 >>12972604

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 17:27:49 2019 No.12972758

>>12972604
>So you think a militia of want-to-be-capitalist would take over a countless militias of proles?
I did not say anything about capitalism. Maybe he would set up some autocratic society or maybe socialism even. Or anything else that is appealing to some people.

>Not really, even today you could organize a thing on Facebook for instance to tell a large group of people about any criminal activity.
So they would organize their efforts? Under one leader or a small group of leaders? And that/those leader(s) would afterwards give up his powers? lol

Also such organization is slow. A warlord can act fast and overwhelm smaller groups before the slow democratic process comes to a decision. That is why all contemporary democracies dispense with democratic processes when it comes to exercising war.

>his is something like if someone wanted a return to monarchy and he gave an argument like "you think people will agree with capitalism indefinitely". It's stupid.
People sometimes "return" to monarchy. Your misconception is that there is some hierarchy of systems like evolution where the more superior system follows necessarily after a more inferior system. Which is false.

For instance an autocratic system is more efficient than a democratic system as long as the leader has the right priorities and is good at his job. The argument for democracy is that you can't guarantee that the next supreme leader isn't inadequate or that the current supreme leader doesn't become corrupted. But as long as the leader is adequate the system outperforms all others when it comes to power supremacy.

Once the warlord is in power he could raise a new generation that doesn't agree with former communist ideals. And he would have pragmatic arguments for it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 17:29:40 2019 No.12972770 >>12972632 The original argument was that social programs are socialist

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 17:36:10 2019 No.12972812 >>12972770 If you read carefully, the argument was that the social programs being being advocated in Bismark's Germany were socialist programs, there was no difference between the two until Bismark cooped them.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 17:36:12 2019 No.12972813

>>12972710
First of all i'm not >>12972632. You responded to wrong person.

>Ok, you're too stuck in your red way, please die for the good of the world.
Getting Peterson's debate flashbacks here.

>I take a cut so no.
What cut? You exchanged bottles of vodka for chocolate and a bottle of vodka. This means you either you abuse disabled people who can't see that they give you a chocolate for free. Which is something I think will get you a bad name in the community, or his vodka is worth as much as your bottle - the chocolate, which means you got nothing.

>But I do have vodka voucher and people who don't care about drinking vodka. Maybe I can also convince the factory gard to let me snap some vodka bottles for bigger exchanges.
And why would they do that? They give vodka for free? Pretty based. Also what the fuck is vodka vouchers?

>Why do you think some birds make huge shiny nests?
Muh hierarchies. You see it's natural to have hierarchies so communism is debunked. Also private property = nests.

>>12972758
You can figure yourself why you are wrong. It's 23:30 where I live and I'm getting tired. Also writing on the phone is painful.

>>12972710 can still reply since I'm going to read his response in the morning for laughs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 17:37:35 2019 No.12972818 >>12972813 >You can figure yourself why you are wrong. It's 23:30 where I live and I'm getting tired. Also writing on the phone is painful. Okay I will just ignore your post though because you have no argument

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 17:42:13 2019 No.12972844

>>12972813
I responded to two peoples actually.

>You exchanged bottles of vodka for chocolate and a bottle of vodka.
Yes and I took a bit of vodka and a bit of chocolate during the exchange.

>And why would they do that
Because I bribed them with hentais (banned by the Red AI) which I had drawn by the resident chinks for the low prices of two chocolate bars and half of a drink of vodka.

>Also what the fuck is vodka vouchers?
A voucher given to me at the end of the month which allow me to get two bottles of vodka, or one of wine.

>Muh hierarchie
No because it increases their sexual values.
>Also private property = nests.
For bird yes.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 17:47:28 2019 No.12972872

>>12972812
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschichte_der_Sozialversicherung_in_Deutschland

Use google translate. The ideas already existed and were implemented before Socialists became popular and forced Bismarcks hand.

The statement I have a problem with is that the ideas of Socialism and social programs used to be synonymous and Bismarck just did some handwaving to make them non-socialist. No, social programs existed way before that.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 17:51:41 2019 No.12972899

>>12972872
This list the begining of social programs in Germany at 1845, long after Marx started writing. How does this prove that the implementation of "social programs" in Germany wasn't an explicit attempt to put Socialist polices in action to kill the power of the Socialist movement?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:01:06 2019 No.12972967 >>12972899 The communist manifesto did not even come out until 3 years later. You think an unknown philosopher living in Paris influenced prussian legislation?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:02:11 2019 No.12972978 >>12972967 Do you think that was the only book he wrote or something? You cannot be this stupid. Also, socialism even predates Marx.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:08:25 2019 No.12973017 >>12971564 nice answer thanks

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:11:46 2019 No.12973033 >>12972978 Look at his bibliography before 1845. Also even if he had written something popular that was advocating for this exact policy, politics don't move that fast. >socialism predates marx And was irrelevant until 1870ies

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:18:39 2019 No.12973065

>>12973033
No it wasn't, that's blatantly false. In 1845 Marx published both the German Ideology and the Theses on Feuerbach, he was in an incredibly influential period of his Career. He was considered so dangerous by this point Germany had already revoked his citizenship. You should take a history class on Europe in the 19th century (you would know the year of revolutions was in 1848)

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:19:53 2019 No.12973070 >>12971382 Moldbug v Zizek would be a very, very interesting debate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:24:58 2019 No.12973102 >>12973065 Prussian law in question 17. January 1845 The German Ideology March 1846, not published until 1932 (lol) Theses on Feuerbach written in 1845, never published in Marx' life time (double lol)

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:28:48 2019 No.12973127 >>12973070 No it wouldn't. A psychoanalyst philosopher vs a computer science philosopher is guaranteed to be nothing but talking past each other.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:28:52 2019 No.12973128

>>12973102
look, if you don't have an argument that's fine, but pretending no one knew what socialism was 3 years before the year of revolutions is literally brainlet tier retarded. Why did Germany revoke his citizenship? You know he has very well known for his journalism at this time, right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:30:53 2019 No.12973140 >>12973128 Dude you just gave two examples of his writing that were so blatantly wrong that you should be too ashamed to still post on this board

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:35:12 2019 No.12973159

>>12973140
My point was that he was writing his most influential work on communism at that point, not that those works were the ones that made him famous. I shouldn't need to convince you that he was famous at that point, he was considered one of the most dangerous people in Europe at the time; the only European country that would even let him within their borders was England. You are a literal moron who cannot follow the most simple of examples let alone fucking google the history of socialism.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 18:55:03 2019 No.12973281

>>12969616
Do you mean why didn't he read volumes of incestuous continental philosophy which he could name drop? Presumably he doesn't believe Hegelian metaphysics and the like have any relation to the real world, similar to how people don't feel the need to familiarize themselves with flat earther's writings before they dispute their theories.

Anonymous Sat Apr 20 19:00:54 2019 No.12973321

>>12973159
>the only European country that would even let him within their borders was England
How come he was living in France when that law was enacted? Afterwards he moved to Brussels. Maybe you are talking horseshit again?

Also Marx was just one writer of Vorwärts! primarily he did editing for it. You can read some of his articles in it online, not as influential or specific as you would want them to be. The paper (not Marx specifically) got banned for criticizing the Prussian king. The top editor was imprisoned, the publisher made a deal with the government. Marx being expelled from the country was just some minor side effect, he wasn't some big mastermind.

You are retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 20 19:14:29 2019 No.12973399 >>12970448 If you have a time travel machine you can go to literally any Communist country and say all this and more. North Korea might still be good for this too.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature