/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14415989]

it finally clicked

[Anonymous No.14415996]

>>14415989
so you believe capitalism hasn't produced enough ipads yet and we need even more technology for real communism?

[Anonymous No.14416068]

>>14415989
I'm so sorry for your loss

[Anonymous No.14416115]

>>14415989
do you mean it finally clicked that you have searched in vain for a perfect socioeconomic system, that capitalism and socialism are both guises of the same technoindustrial system that has become bigger than life and has gained autonomy and that Marxism/Fascism/any radicalism that upholds values already implicit in the technoindustrial system serves to merely allow oversocialized people to excercise their power process through """radical""" political action that leaves the technoindustrial system unaltered and furthermore that the only meaningful rebellion must be against the technoindustrial system itself?

[Anonymous No.14416143]

>>14416115
no I synthesized marx with ted

[Anonymous No.14416152]

>>14415989
What "clicked"? What does that even mean?

>>14416115
His logic does not make sense, because his ideology which constitutes itself through the denial of the former mentioned is itself part of the "system". Because of this his argumentation loses any form of validity.

[Anonymous No.14416164]

>>14416143
are you fucking retarded? how do you synthesize Marx - who was a technooptimist - with Kaczynski? Marx thought that technological progress would lead to a collapse of capitalism because you cannot maintain a system of wage labor with a technology that makes human labor obsolete and redundant, Kaczynski refuted Marx by noting that no matter the system technological society will always trump individual freedoms

[Anonymous No.14416204]

>>14416164
>Marx thought that technological progress would lead to a collapse of capitalism
yes, and once the system that perpetuates technology is destroyed, the constituents of the post-capitalism society are free to do away with technology, a "self-imposed" doing away; and since Marx does not outline what this post-capitalist society should look like and operate, this view is completely in line with the tenets of Marxism
and if the post-capitalist society clings to technology? anti-tech revolution.

[Anonymous No.14416229]

>>14416164
>technology that makes human labor obsolete and redundant
crazies thing is that there's people that still believe this

[Anonymous No.14416267]

>>14416229
it will make a lot of labor obsolete. obviously not every human task. and what's not to believe? it's happening in front of you: self check out, automated ordering, and, in the future, automated trucking. this topic has even made it to mainstream political discussion.

[Anonymous No.14416302]

>>14416204
>Marx does not outline what this post-capitalist society should look like and operate
Marx did outline briefly the sketch of how a post-capitalist society must function, he had a favorable view of Paris Commune which of course was far from what Kaczynski proposes. Marx also leaves us with tools of historical materialism which allow us to understand how the next dialectical step should look like.
medieval European cities: individual ownership of means of production and therefore individual gains from production + individual production process (every craftsman works only for his own subsistence)
capitalism: individual ownership of means of production (profit) + social production process (massive factories, division of labor) this is the capitalist contradiction
socialism: social ownership of the means of production + social production process
it is clear that the view of the next dialectical step which is the only possible resolution of the capitalist contradiction differs vastly from the ideal of Kaczynskian society since factories, workshops etc. remain in existence they merely change their owners
>es, and once the system that perpetuates technology is destroyed, the constituents of the post-capitalism society are free to do away with technology
yes but then why call it Marxism? in this part of your postulate there is nothing discernably Marxist, also the phrase "post-capitalist" is redundant since Kaczynskian society is post-technological and thus it disposes of both capitalism and socialism
>>14416229
care to explain what work will remain to be done for human laborers once machines will be more competitive than us in every domain of life?

[Anonymous No.14416368]

and we'll have more interior decorators, buzzfeed writers and marketing consultants. People will make up useless jobs to fill in the gap. This cyber utopia pipe dream is utterly ridiculous and it's one of the things Ted was wrong about. Work will never be eradicated, being hopeful or fearful of it is useless and steers the discussion of automation in the wrong direction.

[Anonymous No.14416397]

>>14416302
>Marx also leaves us with tools of historical materialism which allow us to understand how the next dialectical step should look like.
fair point, then I suppose in order for the synthesis to work we would have to accept the concept of negative dialectics, i.e. a return to the primitive
>yes but then why call it Marxism? in this part of your postulate there is nothing discernably Marxist
because Sir Ted K. did not formulate a critique of capitalism based on its inherent economic and material contradictions, he merely critiqued technology and hence every technological society/system. is this a good enough critique? maybe, but there is no harm in utilizing a different critique to ultimately come to the same conclusion

[Anonymous No.14416404]

Apparently it wasn't loaded, though, because you made this thread.

I guess we both know the next step :3

[Anonymous No.14416407]

>>14416368
"people" don't make jobs in capitalism, capitalists do that and they won't choose a worker who is relatively dearer in terms of the cost of keeping him functional than a robot/machine.
>interior decorators
easily disposable and replaceable
>marketing consultants
same
>buzzfeed writers
that's literally the only chance for capitalism - a society of artists where everyone just produces art which is deemed to be somehow exceptional. problem is this system would not sustain many lives as most people are incapable of serious acts of creativity and artistic genius and contrary to what midwit leftists who believe that they showed promise and are exceptional but were unfavorably treated by the educational system actual creativity is a very rare trait

[Anonymous No.14416417]

I suppose it did.

[Anonymous No.14416431]

>>14416368
>People will make up useless jobs to fill in the gap.
With minimum wage laws, if these "useless jobs" deliver labor that is worth less than the wage they are receiving, the people who are paying the workers will ultimately lose money. Corporations won't let this happen and will find a way around it. Labor is getting more and more specialised as history progresses.

[Anonymous No.14416446]

>>14416115
Cringe

[Anonymous No.14416464]

>>14416397
reread Ted's "Psychology of Modern Leftism" and compare it to Marx's "opiat of the people" description of religion. Notice any difference? That's right, Marx criticizes religion because he sees it as a competitor in a struggle for people's hearts and souls (and rightly so). Similarily, Kaczynski criticizes leftism because it fulfills people's needs for power process and rebellion but ultimately achieves nothing - to Ted the so-called "radical" leftism means waste of human recources and energy that could instead be directed towards actual anti-technological revolutionary struggle. Mixing Kaczynski and Marx ultimately achieves nothing - neither does it strenghten Kaczynski's case since his arguments are not economic ones nor does it strenghten Marx's case (in fact, one could make an argument that association of a schizo murderer with Marx further weakens Marxism as was the case with Stalin) but there is a danger that people will be tempted by Marxism and will throw away actual revolutionary principles outlined in "Industrial Society And Its Future"

[Anonymous No.14416853]

>>14416164
Marx was vehemently opposed to the idea of "individual freedoms" you fucking brainlet. I mean, you might not be genetically retarded, but you clearly haven't read enough of Marx.

>>14416229
Marx didn't believe this btw.

[Anonymous No.14416982]

>>14415989
Congrats
now read the Frankfurt school and the postmodernists for the real picture

[Anonymous No.14417927]

>>14416853
at least I can read. if you could do that, you'd surely notice that I nowhere implied that Marx believed in the idea of individual freedoms. still it was Kaczynski's great achievement to show how both capitalism and Marxist socialism would necessarily trump those.
>you clearly haven't read enough of Marx
nice projection, now neck yourself brainlet
>Marx didn't believe this btw.
[citation needed], rising organic composition of labor and automation are literally the two main reasons behind a tendency of the rate of profit to decline. It's clear to me that you're just another 1 point above average IQ midwit who gets perverse satisfaction from posting things like "ackshually marx did not believe that" basing all his knowledge of Marx on a fucking jacobin mag article.

[Anonymous No.14419268]

>>14417927
>you'd surely notice that I nowhere implied that Marx believed in the idea of individual freedoms
You literally wrote that Kaczynski refuted Marx by noting that individual freedoms will still be trumped in socialism.
>rising organic composition of labor and automation
What you wrote wasn't the correct way of expressing that at all. The labour isn't made obsolete, it's just that it takes more constant capital to employ one worker.

[Anonymous No.14419284]

>>14419268
>You literally wrote that Kaczynski refuted Marx by noting that individual freedoms will still be trumped in socialism
that's still consistent with the thesis that Marx did not regard individual freedoms as important, illiterate midwit. Marx wanted to maintain the economic efficiency of capitalist production and resolve the capitalist contradiction between individual ownership of means of production and social production process, he wanted the system to serve the people. Considerations of individual freedoms don't enter the discussion, Kaczynski refuted Marx because he understood that any system that uses highly advanced technology will inevitably subject human beings to indignities and take away their freedoms and is thus undesirable because Kaczynski cares most about human freedoms unlike Marx who is primarily an economist.

[Anonymous No.14419376]

>>14419284
>Marx wanted the system to serve the people
How many of those vague, meaningless, retarded little clichés which perfectly reveal that you haven't read about this enough and haven't properly thought this through can you fit in half a dozen of 4chan comments? Apparently a fuckton.

If the refutation of Marx is in the fact that he doesn't give a shit about preserving personal freedoms, then there's no need to bring Kaczynski in this, because in that case Marx himself completely refutes Marx. But of course you're not interested in a proper inquiry or a proper refutation of Marx, but only in shoving this retarded terrorist faggot into adult conversations and pretending he had anything worthwhile to add to them.

As for freedom, communism IS the realization of human freedom. It's just that the realization of human freedom requires the expulsion of the individual subject, perfected by liberalism, from history. Human freedom can only be achieved once our species is no longer being torn apart by antagonistic class interests of its members; interests that express themselves as individual conflicting wills of individual persons; the containment of those conflicts taking the form of political enforcement of individual "freedoms" and "human rights".
But to properly understand that as well as some other related things, even if only in order to criticize them, you need to do you-already-know-what.

[Anonymous No.14419730]

>>14415989
>and then i told him "das capital yo"

[Anonymous No.14421571]

>>14415989
marx is outdated
he failed to realize the postmodern condition that man would find himself in. it's time to ditch him and go along with the deleuzean accelerationist trannies

[Anonymous No.14421615]

>>14416853
>Marx was vehemently opposed to the idea of "individual freedoms
Exactly, dumb fuck.
Kaczynski believed in it, which is why the two are incompatible

[Anonymous No.14421788]

>>14416115
based

[Anonymous No.14422042]

>>14421615
I completely agree, you fucktard.