whats some good non-socialist critiques of landlordship?

[Anonymous No.19905919]

particularly absentee landlording and outsourcing of jobs?

[Anonymous No.19905955]

>>19905919
Should have specified ones that addressed labor concerns in general. But non-socialist

[Anonymous No.19905983]

>>19905919
That doesn't exist. The socialist-capitalist split is, in part, about private property and rentierism.

If you really hate Mary that much just read up on Georgism. Realistically though, if you think about these issues too much you always end up reading Marx, Engels and Lenin.

[Anonymous No.19906034]

>>19905983
>Mary
lol

I have Progress and Poverty I probably could go for that.

[Anonymous No.19906107]

>>19905919
Henry George

[Anonymous No.19907085]

>>19905919
Mill and most all 19th century liberals (before marginalism anyways) didn't like the idea of unearned income.

>>19905955
Taking "labour concerns" into question and avoiding socialism takes you down the route of syndicalism/corporatism/technocracy/etc

>>19905983
>>19906107
George was a big proponent of free trade and the imperative for business to aim at getting the biggest return possible like all liberals so if OP is butthurt about "outsourcing" he's obviously not a liberal

[Anonymous No.19908078]

>>19905919
didn't Adam Smith write about how landlords are useless since they don't create anything?

[Anonymous No.19908109]

>>19907085
>Taking "labour concerns" into question and avoiding socialism takes you down the route of syndicalism/corporatism/technocracy/etc

hmm maybe I really am fascist and never changed. though I'm not really big on the state to be quite honest, I like all the trappings of corporatism but not the whole bootlicker state-worship nonsense that goes with it.

[Anonymous No.19908117]

>>19908078
https://www.reddit.com/r/adamsmith/comments/zche7/ysk_adam_smith_spoke_of_landlords_as_cruel/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

There’s not a lot of ambiguity there.

Also, sorry for le reddit, but I didn’t immediately see it neatly compiled elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.19908127]

If we are getting rid of landlords, isn't that basically anarchism? What argument against landlords does not apply to rent-seeking governments? Also where is all the free housing going to come from once you get rid of ownership? Will the government levy property taxes on itself to maintain and build housing? Or do we just shift the burden over to income and gains? At least rent you could negotiate with your landlord. You can't negotiate taxes. You will pay the 25% housing tax, you will own nothing, and you'll be happy! Also the government will just subcontract a lot of the housing to a totally-not-an-REIT, who will now be responsible for the property, and have little incentive to improve it since they just live off the paycheck from the state for making sure you didn't freeze to death or have too much mold

[Anonymous No.19908135]

>>19905919
Try Rerum Novarum

[Anonymous No.19908191]

You should read Proudhon's What is Property? It talks about the distinction between "ownership" in the sense of fungible, alienable property ownership and ownership in the sense of TENURE.

The early anarchist and socialist critiques of bourgeois "property" were not critiques of property tout court, or arguments in favour of tribal communism, they were arguments against the unproven bourgeois definition of property that was simply grandfathered in from the feudal era.

If you think about it, property is not a self-evident concept. We obviously want to be careful before we go around nationalising things and depriving people of land their family has lived on for 500 years, but we also need to philosophically examine what we mean by ownership. Does a guy whose family has farmed these 5 acres for 500 years probably have some claim to it? I think most people would say yes. But what about a guy who has a piece of paper from 1350 saying he has perpetual right of ownership over the entire southern half of Italy? Why should he get to "own" half of Italy, which he obviously can't use in any way OTHER THAN renting it out to people who ACTUALLY use it, maintain it, and improve it?

That is what alienability means: the right to have an abstract, non-"use"-based form of "ownership" over something, even though you theoretically might not be interacting with it for a thousand years. Instead, someone else is using it, maintaining it, improving it, and you have merely "alienated" it to them. In the case of land, they are your tenants, you are the landlord.

This is obviously a nice relationship for you, since it generates wealth and value for you while you do literally nothing. The accidental fact of some bygone political system and some bygone ancestor having acquired a writ to the land, a writ that only makes sense in that bygone political system anyway, has somehow made it so you have infinite leisure and your tenant doesn't. And of course, with your infinite leisure you can devote a lot of time to acquiring MORE such lands. For example, you can accumulate them from smaller holders (like the aforementioned guy who only has 5 ancestral acres), because they are more susceptible to bad harvests and there is an intergenerational tendency for them to sell their land during tough times and move to a city - this is what "proletariat" actually and originally means, landless rabble, someone who has been deprived of his patrimony because he went broke during a bad harvest and had to sell the one thing he had left, his ancestral plot, or was otherwise forced off it.

[Anonymous No.19908199]

>>19908191

Over time, the size of the proletariat tends to increase as the large landholders consolidate and aggressively pursue the lands of smaller holders, leading to the phenomenon of capitalist farming (in ancient Rome, latifundia - "wide farms," worked by massive slave gangs).

There is no need to endorse a radical or primitive communism in order to resist this tendency. It's only necessary to have a running philosophical dialogue on what constitutes legitimate ownership of property in one's state, how the property rights of big feudal and oligarchical owners of land from previous eras are to be treated, etc.

Tldr rent-seekers are inherently an internationalist class of parasites who have no necessary existence and you are no more bound to respect their "right" to ill-gotten property than they are bound to respect you. They see you as a slave, they want you in the cities working for bare minimum wages while they convert your family's farm into a slave farm for mass producing commercial crops. Right wing socialists should hate landlords even more than left wingers do, especially since left wingers are so pathetically ineffective at doing anything to stop them. Read Hitler's Green Party, about Walther Darre. Don't be tricked into false dichotomies between lolbertarian laissez faire vs. naive communism by oligarchic propagandists.

[Anonymous No.19908211]

>>19908191
Honestly tried that. The fedora tipping was unbearable that I had to drop the book. Sorry anon.

>>19908127
I'm not real big on taxes either

[Anonymous No.19908232]

>>19908199
>rent-seekers are inherently an internationalist class of parasites
This has been democratized now. You can own shares of the evil empire of capital and have your own personal tendrils in everything from Walgreens-Boots Alliance to Chinese ecommerce and use them to fund your retirement. Everyone who earns more than they need to consume can participate. You won't motivate anyone to kill the goose if losing the golden eggs is part of the deal. Also your emphasize on feudalism is quite accurate; Bataille pointed out the revolutions really only succeeded against such governments. No communists have overthrown an advanced bourgeois state.

[Anonymous No.19908239]

>>19908232
geez I guess that leaves me out. I'm unemployed currently. because they're forcing mask mandates and I have aspergers and don't enjoy things covering my face.

[Anonymous No.19908243]

>>19908127
A state should try its best to maintain a YEOMAN farming population. Pic related talks about it extensively.

Many post-classical economists of the 19th century, before the 20th century neo-classical resurgence based on a cartoonified version of capitalism, also took this into account because they were first and foremost concerned with relating wealth to VALUE. Modern university economics conflates the two, and relegates value to a "subjective" margin, when it's the opposite of subjective: it's what human beings in a given society find objectively valuable. Most people do not find being an atomised consumer-unit in a generic megacity with a good "GDP" to be "valuable." Most people find having a family and building their family's wealth intergenerationally to be valuable, but that is now impossible.

A fetishised and reified image of what "property" is has been a major contributor to this. Locke did NOT mean property in the sense of legal ownership over alienable, fungible crap. He meant the rights of a robust yeomanry to the means of supporting itself and maintaining its independence.

He PRESUMED such a yeomanry because the level of nightmare dystopia we have reached today, where true land ownership is incredibly rare and most people are in 15 different kinds of mutually relating debt just to """buy""" a house, was literally inconceivable to him. Property no longer even exists, we are all renting temporary "services" from a giant usury complex made up of hedge funds and central banking speculators, with Blackrock at the top.

[Anonymous No.19908253]

>>19908243
>YEOMAN farming population
It's not 1780. Opinion discarded. You don't roll back to an earlier stage of development and preserve it forever. Sooner or later you will get... this... again. Your grandchildren will not want to farm if your children are too successful at it.

[Anonymous No.19908263]

>>19908243
I own that book (thanks for the spoilers, actually makes me want to read it more) I don't like how he gets compared to Gaypunk, since Gaypunk likes to relegate his solution to merely copying a spectacle of communism though acid abuse and within a capitalist framework, which is pure pseud.

[Anonymous No.19908275]

>>19908253
>It's not 1780. Opinion discarded. You don't roll back to an earlier stage of development and preserve it forever. Sooner or later you will get... this... again. Your grandchildren will not want to farm if your children are too successful at it.

this seems like a backhanded advocacy for the protestant work ethic, which Max Weber criticized.

[Anonymous No.19908287]

>>19908253
You're making the mistake of conflating wealth and value. The problem is that "wealth" doesn't exist, wealth is parasitic on value. To hypostatise wealth, to think it is an ontological thing independent of value, is to presuppose (not prove) a usurious, capitalist way of looking at the world, which sees ALL things as meaningless fungible number-values to be exchanged. No one is saying to go back to the scratch plow. Walther Darre and Jorian Jenks didn't want to go back to the scratch plow, and Darre revitalised European farming so powerfully that even though he was a Nazi he became the model for the entire 20th century.

You can create a society where wealth is continuously related to value, and value is rooted in real production of real goods that people actually need. Land and healthy food are always needed, and people having basic autonomy is always necessary. Achille Loria for example talked about how a state's economic constitution should always be basically relating wealth-creation (by its producers) back into concrete rewards in the form of autonomy-promoting land tenure. Louis de Bonald said similar things about promoting families and family patrimonies. This is the opposite of BOTH capitalist and communist schemes.

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

>How then did Germany “break the bondage of interest”? Few now know. Rearmament is not a sufficient explanation. Prof. A. J. P. Taylor, the eminent British historian, and hardly a Nazi sympathizer, writes:

>"Fascism, it was claimed, represented the last aggressive stage of capitalism in decline, and its momentum could be sustained only by war. There was an element of truth in this, but not much. The full employment which Nazi Germany was the first European country to possess, depended in large part on the production of armaments; but it could have been provided equally well (and was to some extent) by other forms of public works from roads to great buildings. The Nazi secret was not armament production; it was freedom from the then orthodox principles of economics . . . the argument for war did not work even if the Nazi system had relied on armaments production alone. Nazi Germany was not choking in a flood of arms. On the contrary, the German Generals insists unanimously in 1939 that they were not equipped for war and that many years must pass before “rearmament in depth” had been completed."

>Answering predictions of ruin by orthodox economists throughout the world, Hitler explained that Germany had not withdrawn from world trade but had bypassed the international financial system by means of barter, stating:

>"If certain countries combat the German system this is done in the first instance because through the German method of trading their tricks of international currency and Bourse speculations have been abolished in favor of honest business transactions. . . . We are buyers of good foodstuff and raw materials and suppliers of equally good commodities!"

[Anonymous No.19908321]

>>19908232
By making everybody "shareholders" in one giant ponzi scheme, they are also completing the transformation of humanity into what Renaud Camus calls "undifferentiated human matter." It's the completion of what Burnham called the managerial revolution, except instead of the shareholders being the descendants of industrial capitalists who no longer manage their own wealth, now everybody is the "shareholder," and wealth is managed by a tiny elite of technocrats at the top, and "management" is so pervasive that they literally do think of things like culling 80% of the earth's excess population.

I highly recommend this book, even just the first chapter on what happened to the Roman peasantry.

>The evolution of this centralized society was as logical as every other work of nature. When force reached the stage where it expressed itself exclusively through money, the governing class ceased to be chosen because they were valiant or eloquent, artistic, learned, or devout, and were selected solely because they had the faculty of acquiring and keeping wealth. As long as the weak retained enough vitality to produce something which could be absorbed, this oligarchy was invincible; and for very many years after the native peasantry of Gaul and Italy had perished under the load, new blood injected from more tenacious races kept the dying civilization alive.

>The weakness of the monied class lay in their very power, for they not only killed the producer, but in the strength of their acquisitiveness they failed to propagate themselves. The State feigned to regard marriage as a debt, and yet the opulent families died out. In the reign of Augustus all but fifty of the patrician houses had become extinct, and subsequently the emperor seemed destined to remain the universal heir through bequests of the childless.

>With the peasantry the case was worse. By the second century barbarian labour had to be imported to till the fields, and even the barbarians lacked the tenacity of life necessary to endure the strain. They ceased to breed, and the population dwindled. Then, somewhat suddenly, the collapse came. With shrinking numbers, the sources of wealth ran dry, the revenue failed to pay the police, and on the efficiency of the police the life of this unwarlike civilization hung.

>In early ages every Roman had been a land-owner, and every land-owner had been a soldier, serving without pay. To fight had been as essential a part of life as to plough. But by the fourth century military service had become commercial; the legions were as purely an expression of money as the bureaucracy itself.

>>19908263
It's a great book, I just ignore the idiot podcast listening class who have for some reason chosen him as one of their LARP totems.

[Anonymous No.19908329]

>>19908321
Forgot to post the book.

[Anonymous No.19908332]

>>19908287
>"Fascism, it was claimed, represented the last aggressive stage
>capitalism in decline

Why are Marxists like this?

[Anonymous No.19908336]

>>19908287
>ALL things as meaningless fungible number-values to be exchanged
It is from this you will be unable to revert without commiting to a monastic life of poverty. Whatever systems you are imagining in historical Germany as plausible alternatives were destroyed by this very system. Something new will replace it, not something old. Or if it is something old, it will be a transitory period of sharp and intense poverty and starvation wherein needs cannot be met because the delivery and procurement of them has collapsed from increasing complexity or something similar. And past that point, of course, something new could emerge. But don't bet the farm on the apocalypse.

[Anonymous No.19908354]

>>19908321
>By making everybody "shareholders" in one giant ponzi scheme, they are also completing the transformation of humanity into what Renaud Camus calls "undifferentiated human matter." It's the completion of what Burnham called the managerial revolution
I don't necessarily disagree with the diagnosis, but the idiosyncratic political theorizing in the earlier posts is just auto-therapeutic. Like a schizo being his own psychologist. Doesn't change 'the way things are.' They are that way because the non-schizos want their reward food pellets

[Anonymous No.19908361]

>>19908275
There are too many opportunities to be committed to subsistence farming or small-scale commerce. You'd need some compelling reason to stop yourself from increasing your assets and operations, like that it is a crime to do so, or you have a fear of retaliation by a god, community, etc. These attitudes have largely died in any case.

[Anonymous No.19908389]

>>19908332
>reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.19908398]

>>19908332
It was propaganda, in the '20s when non-Marxist socialisms were clearly winning and the USSR was clearly not spreading to an international revolution they had to go into giga-cope mode. Gregor talks about it in the beginning of The Ideology of Fascism. It's a notoriously stupid viewpoint but diehard Marxists love it because it makes sense within their religion, and as usual all they care about is preaching to their tiny choir while alienating everybody else, which is why they lost the monopoly on representing socialism in the first place.

>>19908336
You are hypostatising a "dialectical" conception where every stage is a development of the previous stage, and no previous stage can appear again. It's just as easy to posit that there are certain quasi-natural laws underlying basically functional societies and to say that oligarchies that view human attunement to these natural laws as optional and disposable, as long as the oligarchy is profiting, should be extirpated.

You could also just substitute a different dialectic. Maybe the previous age was the age of unreflective feudalism, this age is the age of excessive technical rationality and alienation, and the next age will be a sublation or dialectical synthesis of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Proudhon was a Hegelian too. There are agrarian Marxists.

[Anonymous No.19908485]

>>19908398
>You are hypostatising a "dialectical" conception where every stage is a development of the previous stage, and no previous stage can appear again
Yes it's a basic law of identity/change etc. You cannot reproduce something, only attempt make copies, which are unto themselves originals as they are not the original. But that's besides the point. Feel free to dispense of all of the products of the alienating economic system if you so wish, this has been called monasticism for two thousand years, and it has existed under oligarchies and autocracies and monarchies and republics and democracies and managerial states. It is renunciation. Or you can larp as an "agrarian marxist" a kind of theologian who doesn't have a church attached to him.

[Anonymous No.19908508]

>>19908127
>Also where is all the free housing going to come from once you get rid of ownership
You can have both. Social housing can exist and you can own if you want.

[Anonymous No.19908532]

>>19908243
Fuck you kulak retard, thank god for monsanto. No I won't pay for your artisanal organic bullshit and hope you starve

>>19908287
Or you could mechanize and industrialize agriculture

>>19908398
>There are agrarian Marxists
Retards like Mao and Pol Pot were just populists, "agrarian Marxism" is a contradiction in terms and anarcho-fascist in spirit

[Anonymous No.19908540]

It is funny how much space out there is unexplored while we witness a completely bankrupt transnational regime and completely helpless 20th century traditions of "opposition" to it (effectively one-sided conservatisms and one-sided marxisms). The way the regime works is fairly transparent in the 21st century. But everyone thinks they know all the options already. Or they want to fuck off to their homestead and watch everyone else burn.

>>19908485
Applying "basic laws of identity/change" to human society tends to produce different answers each time. Rejecting certain actualities in favor of other or untried possibilities is not reducible to "monasticism". Though it does give an idea of the kind of energy and spirit that actually rejects what has been and works for something else. There's some of the irony of left Hegelian ironizing of religion.

[Anonymous No.19908579]

>>19908540
>Rejecting certain actualities in favor of other or untried possibilities is not reducible to "monasticism"
If you intend to practice the moralized economic positions you preach, I hope you don't have any investments. If you can't eat it or physically store it for barter at a fair value, would seem it is out of the question. Or does your holy order make exemptions for the welfare of the marxist?

[Anonymous No.19908590]

>>19908532
I have a soft spot for Pol Pot
also
>simping for Megacorps
so this is the secret of Marxism...

[Anonymous No.19908599]

>>19905919
>what’s a non-socialist critique of owning things

[Anonymous No.19908614]

>>19908590
Remember, "Marxists" (trust fund kids at college) think simultaneously that techno-rationalization of all aspects of life is leading inexorably to their perfect communist revolution, AND that the revolution can happen in a backward peasant nation at any time, AND that we can't have a revolution now though because we should focus on slowly "raising class consciousness" for another 50 years by sending more trust fund kids to college to study Marxism.

Also remember, literally something like 1/3 Marxists is now a tranny. This is not a joke. They have completely colonized it because of overlapping demographics.

[Anonymous No.19908619]

>>19908135
Distibutism is decent but unsure how much they felliate the state

[Anonymous No.19908630]

>>19908599
Good god fuck off

[Anonymous No.19908636]

>>19908614
I've heard literal Marxists praise Klaus Schwab. I don't know if they're trying to be humorous but that aint funny

[Anonymous No.19908651]

>>19908630
If I own something, I should be able to let other people use it for a fee.

[Anonymous No.19908674]

>>19908579
I'm not the guy who made the long posts nor am I a marxist. I'm not even against industry or investment. I'm against the absurd rube goldberg version of it which is more than ninety percent for the benefit of rentiers. You're still too quick to talk of "reverting" as if we're in a physics experiment instead of human society.

[Anonymous No.19908675]

>>19908651
Through historical accident, I own 95% of the land and goods in a country

They're not allowed to rebel against this condition because the golden law of Property floats above the sky deciding what is Property and what isn't

>people crash land on desert island
>one guy finds the sole source of food first
>"this is all mine, i claim it, i found it first"

[Anonymous No.19908678]

>>19908674
Buy a house and start renting if it’s so great

[Anonymous No.19908682]

>>19908651
Only if the government gets a share of that fee so it can spend it on hiring people to tell people to hire people to tell people to hire people to provide the services you already provide

[Anonymous No.19908684]

>>19908675
Yes. You’d be a feudal king in essence. Sounds cool.

[Anonymous No.19908693]

>>19905919
Literally no critique means anything. Landlords make bank doing nothing using money they worked for. Get your money up not your funny up. Your just mad because your a poorfag rentoid LOL

[Anonymous No.19908696]

>>19908684
Modern definitions of property emerged contra feudal definitions. Feudalism is mutually exclusive with the property rights philosophy of the 17th-18th century.

When two regimes of justification conflict, they call it a war. When the oligarchs try to own everything and reduce everyone else to slaves, the slaves don't have a "right" to kill the oligarchs, they just kill them. Rights exist within normative frameworks. When discussing what normative framework to adopt as the basis of a social contract, you can't just appeal to an existing normative framework.

[Anonymous No.19908697]

>>19908678
What? I'm saying it's not great. And I would prefer simply buying any property and investing in improving it and in productive businesses.

[Anonymous No.19908707]

>>19908674
What society was not run for the benefit of those who overwhelmingly own or control it? The problem is distribution, not a matter of adjusting the legalese by which one is allowed to govern. So by all means, propose some defeated system and ask that the powerful accept this curb on their power. They will be quick to point out that you will lose too by reverting to a lower standard of living, as I have been saying. So it becomes a question of how much you are willing to spite those with more—how much can you afford to relinquish in order to bring them to heel? If this be a solitary act, it is monastic and it will not impact them. And it will be so, because you cannot convince hundreds of millions of people to stop consuming. It has never happened.

[Anonymous No.19908713]

>>19908696
>Feudalism is mutually exclusive with the property rights philosophy of the 17th-18th century.
No it isn’t lol. A feudal lord owns his land as property, including the game and the serfs on it, which he inherited from his parents, bought from another feudal lord, or won in conquest, and if you live on it, you pay him taxes.

>When the oligarchs try to own everything and reduce everyone else to slaves, the slaves don't have a "right" to kill the oligarchs, they just kill them.
Lemme know how that works out for you.

[Anonymous No.19908720]

>>19908697
Renting is less trouble. I bought a house several years ago and now a family of Mexicans live in it. I use the income to eat salmon fillets.

[Anonymous No.19908723]

>>19908693
well if this isn't the most useless statement I've read all year. go jerk off to NFTs nigger

[Anonymous No.19908727]

>>19908723
Get rich or be a bitch

[Anonymous No.19908734]

>>19908707
>So it becomes a question of how much you are willing to spite those with more—how much can you afford to relinquish in order to bring them to heel?
Doesn't require much. Hitler and Mussolini did it, and Codreanu and Primo de Rivera came close, among others. You just have to fight these guys to do it:
https://thirdworldtraveler.com/Banks/Tragedy_Hope_excerpt.html

And fighting those guys is fun. Who wants to live in a world administered by coastal elites and designed for the philistine pleasures of coastal elites?

>>19908713
My mistake, I didn't know 150 years of historical and sociological scholarship and 150 years before that of original explicitly anti-feudal philosophy had been invalidated by you saying "No lol." Can we hear more of your spitball, shot from the hip takes to share with me, the man who does not care and thinks you're stupid?

[Anonymous No.19908744]

Don't know if this topic is relevant for the thread, but has anyone read The National System of Political Economy by Friedrich List, and if so, what were your thoughts on it? I'm going back to basics with economics by starting with Smith, and I want to read up on both List and Marx' opinions on economy as well to try to form my own opinion.

[Anonymous No.19908754]

>>19908734
>Muh academic bullshit

[Anonymous No.19908755]

>>19908734
>let's just roll back to this defeated system that lasted ten years
sure any day now

[Anonymous No.19908763]

>>19908720
>I bought a house several years ago and now a family of Mexicans live in it.
I'm ok, thanks.

>>19908707
The point is who owns or controls it and what they recognize as good. Who ever said anything about proposing and asking? Again with "reverting" to "a lower standard of living". You have no ideas, nothing even "to propose". Also, monks live in a society unless they dwell in the desert, so others are also affected. But I will not try to convince you "to stop consuming", since apparently the categories you recognize are "consuming" and "not consuming". Don't worry, I'm sure nothing will change.

[Anonymous No.19908771]

>>19908744
I have been interested in reading it lately, where did you hear about it? I wish there were better resources for pre-neoclassical economics. Economists only force themselves to learn a few soundbites about Walras and Jevons.

>>19908755
Yes, exactly my thoughts. Let's also learn about other systems it had a lot in common with, like social credit (the greenshirts).
https://counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

Let's also continue the efforts of the post-WW2 fascist diaspora to reconstitute a "third world" (Arab nationalists, after the fall of Europe) to fight Anglo-Jewish world finance.

[Anonymous No.19908794]

>>19908755
You really do think contingency plays no role in these events. Read MacIntyre. I think actual history would make your brain start leaking.

[Anonymous No.19908800]

>>19908771
On /lit/, ironically enough. One of those TP-Econ charts. I also just noticed that Imperium Press is gonna make a release of it in march.

[Anonymous No.19908805]

>>19908771
Don't forget Huey Long
https://counter-currents.com/2011/11/huey-p-long-bayou-fascism/

And pic related for the actual ideology of the Founding Fathers, classical republicanism on a Christian European basis.

>>19908794
What would you recommend by MacIntyre? Does he do any social criticism on this scale? I keep meaning to read After Virtue.

[Anonymous No.19908807]

>>19908763
>the categories you recognize are "consuming" and "not consuming".
Yes, this is the source of power and control of the entire system you cannot stop seething about. Any time you buy something, pay your taxes, work for another person, invest in a retirement or trading account, etc. you advance the interests of not only the top of the pyramid but everyone who relies on them for food, employment, shelter, entertainment, etc. So will you become a monastic or will you glow in the dark? Or will you just vent your impotent political fantasies on the outlet which has been reserved for you?
>>19908771
the Arabs are an integral part of global finance. you should watch a film called Network, if you haven't heard of it.

[Anonymous No.19908818]

>>19908807
He is right, you are not saying anything. You sound like you really want to be saying something, so you're trying to act like you're very "above it all" and superior, but when asked straightforwardly what you think then, you never say anything concrete.

The position you are advocating dissolves into retarded Randianism or some other variant of libertarianism, or into moral nihilism in which case might makes right and Nazis are equally valid anyway. That's why you're being pushed, because you're being evasive and refusing to acknowledge that your stance leads nowhere.

[Anonymous No.19908835]

>>19908727
>hustle culture

[Anonymous No.19908838]

>>19908818
>refusing to acknowledge that your stance leads nowhere.
On the contrary, I am affirming that there is no stance which leads anywhere. Whatever you pick out of the catalog of "things to believe in" it is not going to fundamentally change anything about the distribution of resources and power in society. Do you know why your neo-fascism is never going to happen? It's because if you do anything to organize neo-fascism the system will guarantee your poverty. There's no need to kill your enemies when you can threaten them with subsistence living. You could only defeat such a system by outspending it, it knows this, and if you had the capital to do it you wouldn't be interested in destroying it anymore. You'd be marrying your daughters off.

[Anonymous No.19908840]

>>19908818
Moral nihilism is true. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a retard who hasn’t thought about the topic.

[Anonymous No.19908842]

>>19908840
Lead by example

[Anonymous No.19908848]

>>19908842
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.19908858]

>>19908838
>>19908840
>Nothing means anything.... The world is my oyster... I am a GOD!
>Must spend Friday convincing others of this on the internet

[Anonymous No.19908864]

>>19908858
>Must spend Friday convincing others of this on the internet
And you're not?

[Anonymous No.19908871]

>>19908864
Do I really need to explain why your response makes no sense

Are we defending the same thing? But then we wouldn't be convincing eachother, we'd already believe the same thing. So I must be.. defending something different.. from what you're defending.. But then, unlike you, I wouldn't be contradicting myself by defending it.

Do you need more help?

[Anonymous No.19908880]

>>19908805
Very interested in pic related. I'm still going through After Virtue. I also kept meaning to read it. I already basically agreed with him for a long time, metaphysically and then ethical-socially. A lot comes out of following through materialism dialectically. Strauss and Stanley Rosen are good for this, Philip Rieff whom MacIntyre quotes approvingly is another, who is more frank in his skepticism. Three Jews, who stoke the reason/faith dichotomy to a high pitch while dismantling the confusion and the indifference that fancies itself Enlightenment, as Coleridge said.

[Anonymous No.19908892]

>>19908871
You are dense. Regardless of your position, you are spending your Friday arguing on the internet. You ought to stop if you think it is a poor use of downtime. Unless of course, you think you're some sort of revolutionary for linking to Counter Currents on 4channel in 2022.

[Anonymous No.19908906]

>>19908892
What does any of this have to do with the fact that it makes no sense to say "um sweetie, you're on 4chan trying to convince people of your moral positions too!" when you're the only one with the position that there are no moral positions? Of course I'm trying to convince people of my moral positions, I believe in morality. The question was why you would bother convincing others of your worldview that there is no point in convincing anyone of anything.

Your attempt to make me look like a retarded fag is irrelevant, just makes you look like you're desperate to distract from your failure to be consequent. In the ancap utopia of your dreams, I would use this moment of weakness on your part to invade your land and claim your harem.

[Anonymous No.19908922]

>>19908807
I don't believe it's an inherently efficient machine, though. It's not a simply "moral" crusade. I enjoy to some extent watching the chinks in the armor and the absurd contradictions and exposés. To see their profound thoughtlessness and aimlessness and public self-satisfaction is satisfying in itself.

[Anonymous No.19908933]

>>19908906
>to distract from your failure to be consequent
Ok give me a call when you capture the state and I'll apologize. I suppose it would be illegal at that point not to

[Anonymous No.19908938]

>>19908675
>Historical accident
Ishydtt

[Anonymous No.19909171]

>>19908858
All I did was type a sentence and post it. Took like 30 seconds

[Anonymous No.19909175]

>>19908906
>The question was why you would bother convincing others of your worldview that there is no point in convincing anyone of anything.
It’s a more accurate one and I enjoy illuminating people.

[Anonymous No.19909237]

>>19905919
They are a middleman who don't need to exist.

[Anonymous No.19909241]

>>19908848
do it

[Anonymous No.19909248]

>>19909241
What?

[Anonymous No.19909683]

>>19905919
Just read Michael Hudson.

>Well the real existential threat isn’t a trade rivalry; it’s not one of technology at all. The existential threat is to the idea of an economy based on completely a rentier system. In today’s world, the banks play the role that landlords played from the feudal epoch through the 19th century.

>And all the classical economics, the whole concept of free markets, from the physiocrats, with their laissez faire to Adam Smith, through John Stuart Mill, the whole of classical economics was to free industrial capitalism from the rentier class, from the landlords, and from banking and the monopolies that banks created in organizing trusts.

>So the US realizes that the economy has been transformed in the last 40 years, since the 1980s, since Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, when Margaret Thatcher said, “There is no alternative.” Of course, there were many alternatives.

>But the United States says, if we can create, if we can turn the “rules-based order” of free markets and classical economics upside down, and say our rules-based order means no government power to regulate, no government progressive taxation, but a flat tax – like we convinced Russia to have, that they still have, by the way – if we can have a rules-based order that backs the rentier class – a hereditary, financial, wealthy 1% of the population – holding the rest of the economy in debt peonage, or reducing them to other forms of dependency in a patron-client relation, then we’ve restored essentially the feudal economy.

https://youtu.be/S-ZGdAi8Ji0?t=955

[Anonymous No.19909693]

>>19909248
It. Do.

[Anonymous No.19909717]

>>19909683
>So you can expect a wishy washy sort of slow decline with a few rapid spikes in decline as the Covid crisis ends. And you’re having almost a preparation for this by – I think Biden and the government people realize that the economy cannot regain its former industrial position, because it’s a rentier economy now.

>Money is not made by companies investing in industry and factories and means of production. When companies do make profits, they are largely monopoly rents, or resource rents, or other forms of rent extraction.

>And 90% of corporate income in the United States is spent on share buybacks and dividend payouts, not on investing in new production. So nobody’s really expecting new private investment to occur in the United States, that is private capital investment in means of production.

>So Biden says, well, if the private sector won’t do it, then the government can do it. But his idea of the government doing it is to give government money to private companies that will build industrialization. And he wants to essentially replicate the military-industrial complex into an enormous public-private partnership, to build very, very high-cost infrastructure that will make it almost impossible for Americans to have any trade competitiveness with other countries.

>Well if you’re going to create a high-cost rentier economy, that is post-industrialized like that, what do you do? You say it’s not our fault, foreigners are doing it to us; it’s all China’s fault – as if China had something to do with American de-industrialization.

>China’s trying to avoid the rentier policies, avoid the financialization, avoid the privatization that has made America so high cost and so ineffective. And the [US] government is trying to sort of blame it.

[Anonymous No.19909722]

>>19909717
>Now what Prestowitz calls state-owned enterprises used to be called public utilities in the United States. And in Europe, most public utilities were government owned, like the National Health System.

>In the United States, it broke away from that government direct ownership and management of many public utilities, but the electric utilities, the gas utilities, almost all public utilities providing natural monopoly services were regulated. Now they have been deregulated. In the last 40 years, you have almost no regulation at all.

>So China is, by keeping public utilities in the public domain, that means that these are not vehicles for rent extraction, that is for charging monopoly rents such as we pay in New York for cable services, such as Americans pay for the internet, such as Americans pay for public health, such as Americans pay for education.

>China provides free education. China provides, and Russia basically, free public health. Unfortunately, Russian public health means giving you an aspirin if you have a problem, but at least it is not privatized.

>So the United States is a rentier economy. And when left-wingers – or people who call themselves left-wingers, they’re really not left-wingers at all; they’re, I don’t know what, post-left – very few people who call themselves left-wingers distinguish between industrial capitalism and finance capitalism. Well, that’s the distinguishing feature of the last century.

>Ever since World War One, there has been a movement away from industrial capitalism, towards financialization of the economies, towards finance capitalism, based on a merger between the financial sector and the rent extraction sector, mainly the FIRE sector – finance, insurance, and real estate – and also the natural monopolies where the banks have taken the lead in organizing trusts and organizing monopolies.

>And so the basis of most bank credit in the United States is to provide the ownership of companies or monopoly rights. Now, China doesn’t make loans for these things. The People’s Bank of China is the central bank. And the central bank doesn’t create credit for corporate takeovers; it doesn’t create credit for speculation; it doesn’t provide an economy that enriches itself off economic rents and exploitation.

>But, obviously, there are many successful billionaires in China, many successful entrepreneurs, but these are largely industrial entrepreneurs who have actually created something.

[Anonymous No.19909744]

>>19908275
Weber's assessment is inaccurate. Read Barzun.

[Anonymous No.19909877]

>>19905983
>The socialist-capitalist split is, in part, about private property and rentierism.
Where did you draw this conclusion from?