/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14033769]

one of the worst anti-socialism books i have ever read

he's arguing aganst strawmen the entire book

[Anonymous No.14033794]

One of the best anti-socialism books i have ever read
he's destroy it with facts and logic

[Anonymous No.14033798]

I remember when I was a kid on the deviantart forums everyone was really into Ron Paul.

[Anonymous No.14033817]

Just read the blurb and it looks as if it's comprised of copy-pasted Turning Point USA talking points. There's a chapter in the book called 'Why the Poor Are Better Off Under Capitalism' which I can't access without buying the book, unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.14033879]

>>14033817
It's on libgen lad

[Anonymous No.14034650]

>>14033769
no one is surprised

the Trump-style reactionaries really did a number on libertarianism

they're all corporate fascists now

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14034657]

>>14033794

[Anonymous No.14034679]

>>14033769
Saw his talk at Columbia. It was terrible. He called Notes from Underground the first dystopian novel

[Anonymous No.14034732]

>>14034650
>they're all corporate fascists now
>now
Milton Friedman worshiped an actual fascist because he adopted market liberalization, and that was back in the 80s.

[Anonymous No.14034749]

>>14034732
the practical consequence of their ideology has always been corporate hegemony, but not their outspoken goal in the same way as it is now

they used to have a decent alibi in refusing government intervention in the market, a practice which arguably have created many of the corporate behemoths we see today, but any such implementation would be too late in a world where some companies already passed a certain threshold. basically libertarianism has been outdated since the start of the industrial era

[Anonymous No.14035521]

>>14033769
What were you expecting? Don't read obvious shit if you don't want shit. If you're desperate for stuff against socialism not written by retards I'm sure there's plenty of avenues.

[Anonymous No.14035529]

>>14033769
You really thought Rand Paul would be capable of writing a convincing anti-socialist book? He doesn't even know what socialism is.

[Anonymous No.14036228]

>>14033769
>he's arguing aganst strawmen the entire book
but that's the only kind of explicitly anti-socialist books that exist

[Anonymous No.14036244]

Well, yes, it's Rand Paul.

Americas entire disdain with socialism is due to conflating it with stalinism.

[Anonymous No.14036256]

>>14033798
it was mostly because of his support for legal weed.

[Anonymous No.14036264]

How would you know, given that you haven't read it?

[Anonymous No.14036336]

>>14036244
>Americas entire disdain with socialism is due to conflating it with stalinism.
>entire
not so sure about that one, pal
I think it has more to do with productive white Americans not wanting to share their hard-earned wealth with ungrateful minority groups.

[Anonymous No.14036393]

>>14036244
>Stalinism
Has there ever existed a socialist society of any kind according your standards though mate?

[Anonymous No.14036490]

>>14036336
Obviously that's the real reason, but rather than admit to that they say its because of muh freedoms.
>hard earned wealth
Gave me a giggle

[Anonymous No.14036537]

>>14036393
Well it's not really my standards. S

I guess the closest example today would be the Rojava, but that's about to be wiped out by Erdogan.

[Anonymous No.14036550]

>>14036244
>Americas entire disdain with socialism is due to conflating it with stalinism.

I think it's more to do with giving the govt. increasing control over peoples' lives, i.e. it becoming the de facto parent for the populace.

Along with the fact the govt. is probably the most inefficient and inept entity to give money to; giving it more money doesn't make it turn around suddenly -- coupled with increasing its power doesn't paint a pretty picture.

[Anonymous No.14036566]

>>14034650
the real struggle today is no longer about economics but about identity and culture, the old divisions between left and right have collapsed. You have leftists stanning for the CIA the FBI, sillicon valley and corporate america and rightists denouncing the deep state. Autistic marxists and libertarians still exist, but nobody takes them seriously any longer. Abstract economic theories lack the raw emotional appeal of identity politics

[Anonymous No.14036569]

>>14036550
You might be right.

I wonder what their opinion would be if Lyndon B hadn't so effectively destroyed the peoples trust.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14036578]

>>14036537
>but that's about to be wiped out by Erdogan.
No it isn’t

[Anonymous No.14036587]

>>14036550
>Along with the fact the govt. is probably the most inefficient and inept entity to give money to
American healthcare system is empirical proof that you are probably wrong.

[Anonymous No.14036590]

>>14033769

You should have read this instead.

[Anonymous No.14036618]

>>14036537
I mean the standards of whatever ideological school of thought governs your actions but whatever. My point is that, assuming you're some sort of anarcho-leftcom with trannyist characteristics, you'll never see socialism, no matter how long you wait, no matter what you do. Because the real dynamics of a revolutionary situation force certain constraints and necessitate certain processes. Rojava ended up doing most of the same things the 'Stalinists' did, same as the Catalonians. So take the redpill and reconcile yourself to the socialist societies that have lasted longer than 2-3 years, because clarity is our best chance.
https://libcom.org/library/grim-reality-rojava-revolution-anarchist-eyewitness
https://libcom.org/forums/general/myth-rojava-revolution-reading-list-24032018

[Anonymous No.14036633]

>>14036578
>No it isn't
Delusional.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/pullout-syria-kurds-costly-deal-assad-191015122222288.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/22/erdogan-threatens-ramp-up-assault-kurds-syria-safe-zone-ceasefire

[Anonymous No.14036642]

>>14036578
hopefully it will, the land is not theirs and they're endangering Turkey

[Anonymous No.14036720]

>>14036550
Then they don't have a problem with military spending

[Anonymous No.14036776]

>>14036618
A single anonymous source wrote all this which means its true!

[Anonymous No.14036779]

>>14036633
who cares kurds helped israel

[Anonymous No.14036790]

>itt people arguing against their strawman conception of Rand Paul

[Anonymous No.14036801]

>>14036590
Based. Gommies will only ever go for low-hanging fruit though.

[Anonymous No.14036804]

>>14036790
This. Rand Paul is based. Incels can suck a dick.

[Anonymous No.14036819]

>>14036776
My point stands even if we assume that your precious Rojava 'Revolution' is libertarian socialist or democratic faggotist or whatever you call it. You do remember it's being dismantled as we speak? Or is that just my biased 'anonymous sources' as well? Their choice was 'authoritarianism', 'state socialism', and various other terms that earn the pigheaded hatred of utopians, or destruction.

>>14036779
I don't particularly care. I knew from the beginning they'd either morph into something that earned them the ire of the West (both leftists and governments), or that it was less than the anarchists said it was from the very beginning. And that's not some flash of genius insight on my part. Many knew that to be the case.

[Anonymous No.14036858]

to be honest, socialists are literally little strawmen.

[Anonymous No.14037093]

>>14036819
>My point stands even if we assume that your precious Rojava 'Revolution' is libertarian socialist or democratic faggotist or whatever you call it. You do remember it's being dismantled as we speak?
Yes whats the argument
> Their choice was 'authoritarianism', 'state socialism', and various other terms that earn the pigheaded hatred of utopians, or destruction.
How would being an authoritarian state help them?

[Anonymous No.14037172]

>>14037093
>Their choice was 'authoritarianism', 'state socialism', and various other terms that earn the pigheaded hatred of utopians, or destruction.
I'm trying to explain why I think anarchism is gay and shit and doomed to failure and even tends to romanticise the 'noble failure' as preferable to the 'dirty victory' as a cope.
>How would being an authoritarian state help them?
I'm inclined to believe they already somewhat were, but let's say of sake of argument they weren't. How would it help? Economic coordination. Suppression of dissent. Ideological legitimacy in the eyes of both opponents and 'allies'. I don't even need to explain this. Why does the current ruling class need a state? Take those reasons and apply them to Rojava. You're of course free to think Rojava would've failed even with those things. It remains true regardless that every socialist state that achieved any success whatsoever did. The overarching point being that if your conception of socialism is Rojava, and NOTHING ELSE, you're doomed. You're better served by studying socialist states that have had some longevity. USSR. China. etc. Instead of blaming 'Stalinism' for everything and assuming you'll win next time for sure.

[Anonymous No.14037214]

>>14037172
>Economic coordination.
Economic calculation problem
>Suppression of dissent
Who counts as dissent?
>Ideological legitimacy in the eyes of both opponents and 'allies'.
This is for pussies who are scared
>Why does the current ruling class need a state?
To control others, keep the power and wealth etc. Being a state socialist is a contradiction you might as well just be a capitalist.
>It remains true regardless that every socialist state that achieved any success whatsoever did.
You mean state capitalist societies. Tell me brother how having bourgeoisie change to "government official" and still you what to do, how much your gonna get paid, and control all aspects of your life is different to capitalism?

[Anonymous No.14037221]

>>14033769

has he grown yet?

[Anonymous No.14037232]

>>14036566
>the real struggle today is no longer about economics but about identity and culture

[Anonymous No.14037394]

>>14037214
>Economic calculation problem
You don't even know what I mean by 'economic coordination', I might mean anything from Soviet command economy to a China style socialist market economy, or even just a fucking wartime economy. Or did WW2 UK France and USA collapse because they didn't heed your gay '''problem'''. Shit cope.
>Who counts as dissent?
I've never participated in a revolution. Why don't you just study those that happened? Theoretically, counter-revolutionary forces. We all know that realistically you can only gauge this so accurately, sometimes people are maliciously abusing power or just plain mistaken, and thus, the chance to wrongfully repress is always there. Boo hoo statism owned - oh wait it didn't stop capitalists from doing the same in their revolution, guess that's just life. Either that or enjoy your failed anarchist would-be utopias til we all drown.
>This is for pussies who are scared
I'm not bothered in the least about your pathetic primary school-tier 'insults'. Your Kurdish friends seem pretty scared to be caving to Assad.
>Cliffism
Even Trotsky didn't agree lmao. regardless, read Szymanski. Or are you going to attempt to claim that the bourgeoisie in USSR or China not only survived the revolution that enacted the dissent-purging you're so scared of, but orchestrated them and took control of the government THROUGH the revolutions? In other words, why do you think the bourgeoisie controlled USSR or China but not Rojava? Ridiculous. Learn the difference between social and productive class, power-elite/'caste', different strata of class society, etc. A bureaucracy that manages things and is in turn controlled by, or acts in response to, another class is not itself a class.
>still you what to do, how much your gonna get paid, and control all aspects of your life is different to capitalism?
I don't speak ESL mate, reword/elaborate.
The fact is that 'state socialism', if that's what we're calling it, is the only kind that's DONE anything. Anarchism has never achieved anything besides failed quasi-states that collapse after 2-3 years max. The ONLY possible exception I can even think of is Chiapas, and the truth is they're utterly stagnant, irrelevant, minute. Besides the fact that aren't even anarchist - at least according to their own estimate - that is.

[Anonymous No.14037462]

>>14037394
>You don't even know what I mean by 'economic coordination', I might mean anything from Soviet command economy to a China style socialist market economy, or even just a fucking wartime economy. Or did WW2 UK France and USA collapse because they didn't heed your gay '''problem'''. Shit cope.
Economic calculation problem if you read it doesn't say it can't work but that it's not efficient which it obviously isn't.
>I've never participated in a revolution. Why don't you just study those that happened? Theoretically, counter-revolutionary forces. We all know that realistically you can only gauge this so accurately, sometimes people are maliciously abusing power or just plain mistaken, and thus, the chance to wrongfully repress is always there. Boo hoo statism owned - oh wait it didn't stop capitalists from doing the same in their revolution, guess that's just life. Either that or enjoy your failed anarchist would-be utopias til we all drown.
What counts as counter revolutionary forces? If someone goes hey maybe we shouldn't slaughter that innocent group of people do they count as dissent?
>why do you think the bourgeoisie controlled USSR or China but not Rojava?
If the working people can change the structure of society through democratic means than it's not bourgeoisie controlled. Are you suggesting there was some authoritarian bourgeoisie in Rojava who actually ran things and the democracy wasn't real?
>The fact is that 'state socialism', if that's what we're calling it, is the only kind that's DONE anything.
State socialism is a worse alternative than capitalism. It literally has all the negatives and none of the positives. At least under capitalism you have some degree of freedom. You never answered why how it's socialist or different to capitalism when it has all the same negatives?
>Anarchism has never achieved anything besides failed quasi-states that collapse after 2-3 years max.
Maybe it's because it's an actual alternative that bourgeoisie are scared of and not the state socialist regimes that buddy up to them.

[Anonymous No.14037477]

>>14037232
When the man with the swastika tattoo says "fuck jews" he is directly calling out the "bourgeoisie convention".

[Anonymous No.14037478]

>>14037394
>I don't speak ESL mate, reword/elaborate.
Didn't see this.

Under capitalism the bourgeoisie tells you what to do in your job, he takes the surplus value of your labor, he tells you how many hours your going to work, and you have no control in the workplace/production. Under state socialism it's literally the same exact thing but bourgeoisie is changed to "government official".

[Anonymous No.14037481]

>>14037232
>'I want to help create a world of love and tolerance between races'
>Capitalist scared
wtf is this shit lmao

[Anonymous No.14037523]

>>14034732
>an actual fascist
>adopting market liberalization
Where do you retards come from?

[Anonymous No.14037553]

>>14037232
bringing class consciousness to the culture war is like bringing a knife to a gun fight

[Anonymous No.14037572]

>>14037462
China is the second biggest economy lol, or does the Chinese state not partake in 'economic coordination' - a phrase deliberately chosen for its broadness jfc
>What counts as counter revolutionary forces?
Ask your Kurdish revolutionary friends, they seemed to find it necessary. Shit bait.
>Are you suggesting there was some authoritarian bourgeoisie in Rojava who actually ran things and the democracy wasn't real
If they existed in the USSR, they existed in Rojava, yes. So pick one.
https://libcom.org/history/stalinist-caterpillar-libertarian-butterfly-evolving-ideology-pkk-alex-de-jong
>all the same negatives etc etc
Socialism means that China is a leading green tech investor that's lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty specifically thanks to the planned economy, which also has meant it hasn't suffered from cyclical crises(!) - and importantly, EXISTS. But instead of drowning this thread in boring shit about what China does that makes it socialist (to take a single example of a socialist state), I'll provide you some material. A short article:
https://monthlyreview.org/2018/10/01/on-the-nature-of-the-chinese-economic-system/
And a book length article, by a Trot who lived in China and East Germany:
http://chinareporting.blogspot.com/2009/11/class-nature-of-chinese-state-critique_26.html
I'm sure you'll enjoy ignoring those.
>failing everytime you appear is an actual alternative
You need to exist to be an actual alternative.

[Anonymous No.14037597]

>>14037572
>China is the second biggest economy lol, or does the Chinese state not partake in 'economic coordination' - a phrase deliberately chosen for its broadness jfc
Thanks to capitalist reforms.
>https://libcom.org/history/stalinist-caterpillar-libertarian-butterfly-evolving-ideology-pkk-alex-de-jong
PKK and YPG are different.
>Socialism means that China is a leading green tech investor that's lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty specifically thanks to the planned economy, what China does that makes it socialist (to take a single example of a socialist state), I'll provide you some material. A short article:
You mean capitalism lol. You literally can't argue against me. You just support an authoritarian form of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.14037664]

>>14037597
>capitalist reforms
https://monthlyreview.org/2018/10/01/on-the-nature-of-the-chinese-economic-system/
>PKK and YPG
The article's about the 'NEW PKK' i.e. the PYD. Jesus.
>You mean blah blah
I don't elaborate because you don't know the terminology. But fine here's the characterisation of China offered by the links, and that I agree with:
A social formation (read Mandel) with a core of socialist, planned sectors that are operated by a state ran by a bureaucratic caste (not class) that works to blunt the law of value and allow development and consolidation, and a periphery of market sectors that is (so far) utterly subordinate to the centre, and ran by a nascent bourgeoisie that, for several reasons, cedes the lead of the economy to the state and elects to obey their instructions (for the most part). In this sense China is thus somewhat 'mixed', in that there are competing modes in the formation. But it's clear to anyone with a brain which mode predominates (again, read Szymanski). Hence the Western reaction - and the Chinese self-designation as the 'primary stage of socialism':
https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/268-273-Forum%20Pelkmans.pdf
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Cover-Story/Xi-doctrine-comes-before-profit-for-China-s-state-owned-companies
https://www.ft.com/content/3e37af94-17f8-11e9-b191-175523b59d1d

[Anonymous No.14037698]

>>14037664
I'm not reading any of your articles. Have you ever debated someone before? Make an argument. Posting an article shows you have no argument. I don't care about China. I care about socialism. I just want you to answer this.

>>14037478

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14037703]

>>14036633
Russia hates Kurds? Assad hates the Syrian Kurds? I donno.

>>14036642
They live there. Erd doesn’t have any legit claims to Syria anymore than Obama or Trump

>>14036779
By killing ISIS? They helped the US make the invasion looks legit and muddy.

[Anonymous No.14037737]

>>14037232
Huh seems like the bougies understand... Human nature better

[Anonymous No.14037753]

>>14037232
identity politics are just an easier way to connect to fundamental human needs and aspirations than meaningless 'dialectical' rhetoric which can only be ironically understood by middle class people who went to college

[Anonymous No.14037772]

>>14037698
I made plenty of arguments. Don't ask why China is socialist and not expect some references you filthy pleb. Couldn't even respond to the definition I gave in the post. The thing you call 'government official', is not a member of the bourgeoisie, and workers enjoy a growing control of the things you list. Labour disputes overwhelmingly decided in labour's favour, workplace councils, obsessive state polling/referenda, etc. I look forward to another century of total irrelevance for anarchism. Feel free to prove me wrong and do something. I have shit to do. Take care nigger.

[Anonymous No.14037792]

>>14033817
>There's a chapter in the book called 'Why the Poor Are Better Off Under Capitalism' which I can't access without buying the book, unfortunately.

Now that's pottery

[Anonymous No.14037830]

>>14037772
Just posting a reference and not an argument is meaningless. If I go China is not socialist here look read this 400 page book it's not argument.

>, is not a member of the bourgeoisie,
I didn't say they were I'm saying it makes no different to the worker. The official still has the power. The quality of his life is no different and sometimes worse depending on the situation.

> and workers enjoy a growing control of the things you list.
No they don't? You literally can't deny that the surplus value is taken, the majority workers can't change something if the person in power says no, they have no say in pay/hours worked. This sounds fucking terrible. Can you explain to what positives there are? How do you convince a capitalist worker today this is a society worth switching to?

>workplace councils,
These were not democracies. The workers in the workplace had no actual control. They were at the whim of those in power.

>obsessive state polling/referenda
I don't think this is a positive thing but I'm just curious if you have any evidence to suggest any of these changed policies in favor of the what the workers asked for due to polling?

[Anonymous No.14037958]

>>14037830
Last post bro I genuinely have shit to do.
>it makes no different to the worker
I'm saying the gov officials you refer to ARE workers dude, though of a differentiated and potentially divergent stratum than, say, farmers, although the CPC is approx 40% worker-peasant anyway, and MASSIVELY supported by the population for that matter.
>Workers and peasants remain the majority, or 35.3 percent, of the CPC, data from the report shows. Among the Party members, 14 million are professional and technical personnel and 9.8 million business and management personnel, making up 15.5 percent and 10.8 percent of the total respectively.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201906/30/WS5d1825c6a3103dbf1432b08f.html
>surplus value
This exists to an extent, again, they're in the primary stage of socialism. But they get a majority of it back in other forms, and this percentage is growing yearly. It's affected by whether they work in SOE's, 'private' firms, TVE's etc.
>no say in labour conditions
>in the 2012 Chinese Labor Dynamics Survey, nearly half of employees mentioned that they had at least one labor dispute in the past two years. In the 2004 Legal Survey, only 6 percent of the respondents chose to do nothing when they were involved in legal disputes, and the rest would try to resolve them by various channels, including the court, the labor mediation bureau, the news media, the internet, petition, and protests. These findings are consistent with the media reports of the increasing number of mass protests in recent years, particularly at the local level. For example, the New York Times reported that there were 180,000 mass incidents in 2010, compared to only 10,000 in 1994
Also
>gov responsiveness
>n a multivariate regression analysis when other factors such as age, education, gender, income, religiosity, and geographic location are taken into consideration, government responsiveness played the single most significant role in promoting regime support in China
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/02/surprise-authoritarian-resilience-china/
That's a Western source surveying Chinese polling.
>How do you convince a capitalist worker today this is a society worth switching to
'We'll all burn to death and be swamped by refugees unless we plan the economy more. China does it and benefits massively. We don't have to look like China, but planned economy of some sort is necessary'. easy. Anyway, there's some arguments supported with sources so please don't sperg about links. Later.