/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16822036]

How do we prevent the state from becoming a tool of capitalism?

[Anonymous No.16822056]

They're basically the same thing. Capital is private property, and which is a determination of law, enforced by the state. This is more or less why Marx insists that a post-capitalist world would be a post-state world.

[Anonymous No.16822108]

Literally just banish women to subordinated positions. Exalt trannies to above women but also gas light them into submission and force them to baby sit. Then we have unlimited free time while still having men to keep the whores in line.

[Anonymous No.16822117]

>>16822056
Private property isn't determined by law, it's determined by who has the resources and strength to keep their property.

[Anonymous No.16822135]

>>16822117
Wrong

[Anonymous No.16822158]

>>16822117
grug stronger than ugg
grug take ugg's club
grug say "now grug's, it law"

and thus we see that the thing which makes the law is in fact, the thing with the resources and strength, and therefore, private property is a determination of law, which is a determination of the state, because the state is the thing with the power.

[Anonymous No.16822173]

>>16822036
In our case? Paganism

[Anonymous No.16822216]

>>16822036
Capitalism is not a thing you can be a tool, instrument, or impediment of or to, it is only a thing that you can exist in, or else not exist at all.

What Marx and others have, very foolishly, tried to isolate as a system physical and philosophic is in fact nature itself. We are alive, we have to eat, therefore we must either strive to acquire food, or else enjoy food which we already have. There is no functional distinction between capitalism and reality. There is no moral element to the subject either. It simply is true.

The complaint of the Communist boils down to the complaint that some people have apples already and some people don't. Like most complaints it is meaningless, because it is simply being irate about something that is true. That doesn't make it more true or less true. Even if you rectified a specific instance of it, it does not change anything about the essential nature of being a living person in an environment. You cannot escape Capitalism because it doesn't exist in reality, it IS reality, the very most basic of principles obey its laws, even you by dividing your time and calories thinking about it is conformity to its laws.

There is no escape except death, and that only switches off your perception of the thing, which still totally and ineffably dominates every aspect of your existence. Your only rebellion is a simple redistribution of brain matter to your apartment wall, and a few grains of gunpowder and mercury fulminate.

And this too shall be counted, and processed, and impact the economy of reality. That reality is what the caved-in-head wojack communist impotently strives to conquer instead of focusing on literally anything else that might actually matter.

[Anonymous No.16822242]

>>16822036
In the US? You're fucked.
You could at laws to prevent money into politics

[Anonymous No.16822259]

>>16822216
>anime poster is also retarded

[Anonymous No.16822261]

>>16822158
All you're really saying is that stateless societies cannot exist by definition. Which I suppose is true, but it's sort of a roundabout way of getting there.

[Anonymous No.16822262]

>>16822259
He's not wrong, all you've done is insult him without providing a counter argument.

[Anonymous No.16822287]

>>16822036
>prevent
Lmao idk travel to the past

[Anonymous No.16822311]

>>16822036
You go back some hundred years.

[Anonymous No.16822334]

A republic doesn't exist without bankers

bankers can exist without public servants though.

[Anonymous No.16822422]

>>16822117
An absolutely retarded, smoothbrain. Read up on property law, you massive dullard.

[Anonymous No.16822438]

>>16822216
>peepeepoopoo is reality
>you can't escape it
>you're in it

[Anonymous No.16822466]

>>16822216
my favorite pseuds are the ones who think that because apes trade leaves or whatever, the economic system of most of the entire western world is "not a system". Just instantly invalidate themselves like this guy does.

[Anonymous No.16822475]

>>16822216
I keep re reading this post to find new things that are fundamentally wrong.
>the complaint of communism boils down to some people have apples and some don't
Not even close, read Marx before pretending to be capable of criticizing him.

[Anonymous No.16822480]

>>16822216
I have never seen better evidence that he was 100% correct

[Anonymous No.16822484]

>>16822117
Even if this was true, now you have a situation where one person is in power and another person is not. And what do humans like to do in that situation? Make laws. That is why capital and the state are the same (under capitalism).

[Anonymous No.16822490]

>>16822261
You can't really be this cucked by the state to think that humans just can't exist without one right? You realize almost all of human history is stateless right? And that for most of human history within a state, they didn't even know or care what state it was? Do you think without the threat of dudes with guns, everyone would just be running around killing each other or something? You can't actually be that smoothbrained.

[Anonymous No.16822751]

>>16822117
this is objectively true, the law is only valid because its backed by extreme force

[Anonymous No.16822768]

>>16822480
>dude facebook marxism is so based
>let's post cat videos and complain about der kkkultur

[Anonymous No.16822777]

make government impossible to commodify

[Anonymous No.16822808]

>>16822117
Wrong

One major correction

Private property isn't determined by law, it's determined by who has <access to the > resources and strength <of the State> to keep their property.

[Anonymous No.16822829]

>ITT: edgelords who have never read Marx and don't understand the difference between a bourgeois democracy and dictatorship of the proletariat

The answer, OP, is to finally bring human civilization beyond capitalism. As we have seen in almost every actual socialist state, they are islands in a capitalist ocean and so they must adjust their ideals to this reality.

If you want to learn more about actual marxist tactics and dialectical materialism check out Luna Oi on youtube. She's a pretty good theoretician of marxism and makes the ideas simple to understand. >And she is an azn qt

[Anonymous No.16822917]

>>16822490
No, I think that inventing a word for something does not mean that it did not exist before. If private property is enforced by law, and the law is enforced by the state, then the "state" is just any social organization that employs force to bring its constituency into compliance, or if you work backwards and say that the state is any social organization that employs force its constituency to respect private property with some or no provisions or exceptions.

And that is literally every, SINGLE society that has ever existed outside of total prehistoric anarchy, which frankly isn't a society at all. Societies are defined by exclusivity.

[Anonymous No.16822929]

>>16822768

[Anonymous No.16822989]

>>16822216
>capitalism is when some people have apples and some people don't

[Anonymous No.16822997]

>>16822036
The state is the oldest form of capital

[Anonymous No.16822999]

Make humanity unmalleable

[Anonymous No.16823024]

>>16822999
Checked

[Anonymous No.16823122]

>>16822056
Absolutely no. The state puts major constraints on capital.

[Anonymous No.16823146]

>>16822036
Anon...always has been

[Anonymous No.16823326]

>>16822036
It already is, Marxists would say it's ideology or at least mistaken to think there is this disjunct or conflict between state and capital. That view is the sort of liberalism that Marx was explicitly criticizing in works like On the Jewish Question. The state is not some locus of vicarious communitarianism or communism against the dog-eat-dog forces of capitalism or whatever. It's an expression of it. This is why "progressive" policies are in some or another way doomed to failure in actually bringing about historical progress. A sophisticated communist would accept economic concepts like "crony capitalism" or regulatory capture as simply expressing that there is a "current way things are" that obviously isn't lassiez-faire but also doesn't need to be.
The state can only appropriate capital or move it around. It can redistribute from Peter to Paul, making Paul the capitalist and Peter the prole. It can say that Paul must pay Peter this much if he is to employ Peter. It can say that Paul can order Peter to produce this, but bar him and Peter from producing that. It is incapable of changing the actual material relationship, but it can manage it in various ways. Even in nationalization, there would be managers and so on who are agents of a principal that is supposedly the people but it would still fail to actually abolish the relationship.
A Marxist would say that the only abolition of this relationship is the outcome of an actual proletarian revolution under sufficient material conditions. I'm not a Marxist myself, just someone who is trying to "get it." I'm skeptical to this approach just because I don't know what possible configuration on a base level would actually radically transform the human condition in this way. Post-scarcity (scarcity being the condition which makes any form of private property--personal or capital, necessary) isn't just there being so much of anything it would have to be so much of anything that no amount of mistakes or misallocations could matter AND that people would be satisfied, which no one ever has been.