/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20399982]

>Mill, Berlin, etc.
>obviously, true liberals. but the former distinguished between higher and lower ends, and the latter distinguished between negative liberty and positive liberty
>Marx
>was a true liberal. criticized the bourgeoisie for pursuing only limited emancipation. Marx wanted true freedom: naturally, economically, and socially.
>Gentile
>was a true liberal. criticized Western democracies for not promoting positive liberty. sought to unite all elements of the community through the state.
So, what is liberty, then? What are we supposed to direct our freedom towards? Is all expression of freedom good? What if I become too free, i.e. too powerful?

Is this the open secret of secular political philosophy, that it seeks to make life meaningless (Marxism), has an unstable end (fascism), or that it tries to take the best of both worlds but it only works if we lower our expectations and soften our horizons (liberalism)?

[Anonymous No.20400094]

>>20399982
Liberty is a nebulous term and can mean different things to different people. For example, Marx’s idea of liberty was equal opportunity in the economy, the ability for the proletariat to govern their workplaces, and the abolition of the ability for the government to impose their will on the people. A liberal’s idea of liberty though would probably be a free market with maybe some government oversight and fairly progressive social policies.

[Anonymous No.20400248]

>>20400094
Why choose between any of those ways of life?

[Anonymous No.20400253]

The world spirit
Marxism and Fascism are both Hegelian
What you are describing is the dialectic

[Anonymous No.20400343]

>>20400248
For the same reason people make any sort of moral choice. They believe it’s the right choice so they adhere to it.

[Anonymous No.20400466]

>>20400343
What makes them choiceworthy, then? Is that a claim about which life is the best life?

[Anonymous No.20400477]

>>20400094
>Marx’s idea of liberty was equal opportunity in the economy, the ability for the proletariat to govern their workplaces, and the abolition of the ability for the government to impose their will on the people. A liberal’s idea of liberty though would probably be a free market with maybe some government oversight and fairly progressive social policies.
These are tautologies unless you're stupid enough to believe liberals want a "free market" while having government oversight.

[Anonymous No.20400491]

>>20400477
It is within the self interest of any entity to have legal control. If you want "freedom" you have to have oversight, the purpose of which is to disallow mechanisms of control. It amazes me that libertarians are still too stupid to understand this.

[Anonymous No.20400495]

>>20400477
>>20400094
So, do liberals and communists ultimately have the same goal, only differing in the means to get there?

[Anonymous No.20400500]

>>20399982
Liberty is simply your ability to accomplish your life goals. Your goals are encoded into your genetics, are intuitive (most all species its simply survival), and those goals are inherently limited by your biological endowments. Marxists tend to be people who's genetic endowments limit their goals, and acts as great alibi for their resentful behavior. It gives them a great way to blame anyone other than themselves for their problems, and to take responsibility for their flaws and lack of abilities.

[Anonymous No.20400506]

>>20400491
Actually, no, see >>20400500
Freedom is your ability to accomplish things. Government is just one of things that you can use, but its not necessarily. Liberals, and communist, use the government because their can not be widely adopted without violence since most of the populace would never voluntarily surrender their wealth or rights. You also love government because welfare is a great way for you to bribe people into following your shitty beliefs.

[Anonymous No.20400510]

Djilas' The New Class is a great read alongside Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism.

[Anonymous No.20400520]

>>20400506
>t. just finished reading ayn rand
My point stands. So long as there are people, a government will arise. They don't fall out of the sky. Your "naturalistic" conceptions about what you think man does left to his own devices are meaningless, for argumentative purposes only.

[Anonymous No.20400532]

>>20400520
Communism always been a movement for the petty bourgeois to larp as oppressed to receive government subsides to avoid proletariatization. You identitfy freedom with your ability to consume, and Marxists are people who want the government ensure they can consume as much as they desire. Its the result of your economic philosophy that is highly atheist and materialistic. Governments simply arise out of convenient, however, type of government that is possible is largely dependent on the genetic range of the human population. Marxists are hopeless idealists who just ignore that, and focus on surface sociological analysis just amounts to victimhood and sophistry.

[Anonymous No.20400541]

Liberty means promoting the optimal conditions to allow individuals to do as they wish with minimal interference or artificial barriers placed upon their desired activities or goals by the state

[Anonymous No.20400546]

>>20400520
A government will rise but it will never be socialist or communism because it goes against human nature and reality. Scarcity in time and natural resources makes it impossible for humans to have enough to ensure everyone has the ability to have the life they desire. Only stupid college kids push socialism because don't understand how the world actually works, and think just because they are alive they are owed shelter, food and water.

[Anonymous No.20400564]

>>20400532
I'm talking about the nature of organizational entities and how legal precepts arise naturally. I don't know what the fuck you're on about communism and consumption and genetic essentialism. You've got me all wrong, you've been reading too much alt right nonsense.

[Anonymous No.20400573]

>>20399982
Negative rights are bullshit because it allows atheists to roam around society unmolested

[Anonymous No.20400586]

>>20400541
>promoting the optimal conditions
What conditions are optimal?
>with minimal interference
What if the "minimal" amount of interference required for optimal conditions still requires significant involvement?
>or artificial barriers upon their desired activities or goals by the state
What if their desired activities are bad, dangerous, or at the very least mediocre and underwhelming? It's hard to say that the state doesn't have a vested interest in cultivating wisdom in its citizenry.

[Anonymous No.20400587]

>>20400564
You seemingly don't understand that regulations aren't what matter, but your ability to enforce them. The Soviet Union made dozens of attempts to create regulations and laws to limit the score of private property. It completely failed because regulations can always be side stepped , and government oversight does not necessarily translate to what actually happens. That's why gun control doesn't work; that's why minimum wage laws don't stop wage theft, that's why poverty still exists even with all the large scale leftist handout policies. Really the ability for live in healthy societies is determined by what their genes allow. Your genes will determine your societies ability to be virtuous enough to follow laws which are simply gentleman's agreements and social norms at the end of day. Not all governments are equal, retard.
>Alt right
Its alt right to acknowledge the fact genetics play a primary role in life? You leftists are so behind the science. Genetics can explain one's class in life, one's wealth, and survival rate better than metric, but you want to tell me its alt-right non-sense, you can't be this retarded.

[Anonymous No.20400604]

>>20400587
My whole point was simply that a powerful entities in a free market will make peremptory legal arrangements to benefit themselves unless you have a counterweight. You're making up this argument in your head and following through with some programmed position of "laws don't do anything," "it's just national character," "genetics determine everything." You're actually mindbroken. But since you insist, yes, laws matter. Regulations have impacts. Genetic determiners are percentages for a reason, they're not pure substance. You've been led to believe that policy does nothing (so you won't pay attention to it) and the only thing that matters is nebulous "culture" (which you cannot control.) Absolutely cucked.

[Anonymous No.20400624]

>>20400604
You switched your argument from "government intervention is necessary to" "governments will just naturally arise." Our welfare state was just a consequence of widespread immigration and the diluting of the white populace that largely votes against government handouts more so than minority groups. People who are not white lack the intelligence to generate wealth without government assistance that heavily comes from races with higher intelligence. Its just a fact. It has nothing to do with freedom, its just that the freedom of genetically stunted isn't possible without massive subsidization, and you ignore these things for moral reasons and not reality based ones. Freedom has always just been a function of your genetic endowments. People who are genetically gifted will have the innate abilities to achieve their goals in life. Its not a universal trait; only people particular genetic gifts can acquire as much as freedom as they want where as others are doomed without massive help from society. Marxists tend to be the people who are doomed, and are more so going to be doomed because their type of politics are outdated. The rise of the service-based economy, and decentralized currency is making that kind of massive wealth redistribution impossible because people will now have the ability to hide and make wealth in ways Marxists can't acquire. The decentralization of the media makes it impossible for Marxists to have unified movement because no longer there isn't going a way for you to push a central narrative without skepticism. The service based economy moves workers away from unions because wealth will be determined by individual skill instead of collective bargaining. 3d printing, encryption, decentralized information and warfare are doing away with government coercion. You're losing and you're losing bad. No amount of regulation, socially engineering humanity for your goals will possible anymore because your forms of social control being eroded by technological advancement. You are going to have to come to terms with these facts.

[Anonymous No.20400632]

>>20400604
>a free market will make peremptory legal arrangements to benefit themselves
Governments made from the same people who make up markets. All humans are guided by self interest. Your problem seems to be your envious of the fact that there are people within markets who are more intelligent than you at acquiring wealth, and you need a way to steal it from them. To act like government is a counter-weight is just you gaslighting robbery.

[Anonymous No.20400634]

>>20400532
>Communism always been a movement for the petty bourgeois
>>20400587
>The Soviet Union...
Was there much of a petty bourgeoisie in Russia? You seem to be projecting dynamics in your society onto very different societies at different periods. Even in Germany the KPD had most of its support among unemployed workers which made it a true "outsider's party" at the time compared to the social democrats (the true "insider's party" of Weimar) and that made cooperation... difficult.

[Anonymous No.20400636]

>>20400624
You need to log off man I haven't said shit about welfare states. You're arguing with voices in your head.

[Anonymous No.20400642]

>>20400632
Government oversight != taxation or welfare

[Anonymous No.20400652]

>>20400586
Allowing for free enterprise and the opportunity to achieve your individual desires to the extent that they do not cause harm upon others. A government should have a solid structure of legal codes, institutions, culture, rules in place to prevent monopolies from arising or exploitation, in order to help ensure that each individual is allowed an opportunity to pursue their desires, needs, and goals provided they put in the effort necessary to acquire them. The minimal level of interference should be to the extent that it does not lead to impeding the pursuit of positive individual human development that does not rely upon exploiting or harming others.

[Anonymous No.20400656]

>>20400624
>The rise of the service-based economy, and decentralized currency is making that kind of massive wealth redistribution impossible because people will now have the ability to hide and make wealth in ways Marxists can't acquire.
That's like saying Andy Warhol paintings and other bad art is going to make wealth redistribution impossible becaues people will have the ability to hide their wealth by buying paintings. Cryptocurrencies don't have any intrinsic value other than as an asset to store your liquid money which you think otehr people will buy, so it's all based on expectations. It's quite literally the "fictitious capital" that Marx talks about.

If everybody put their money in cryptocurrencies, or Warhol paintings, or monkey pictures, it wouldn't have any effect at all on the dollar, international trade, international investment, or any actual payments among states. It's like money held in a Caribbean offshore banking center.

>The decentralization of the media makes it impossible for Marxists to have unified movement because no longer there isn't going a way for you to push a central narrative without skepticism.
On the contrary, I think the media has become much more centralized compared to the past. It's just corporate-capitalist centralization.

[Anonymous No.20400663]

It is the very sense of a so called ideal “free market” which often causes many Americans to view socialism as some sort of dystopian authoritarian nightmare. To be sure, there have always been criticisms of society becoming an economic oligarchy under feudalistic economic arrangements, and the modern day state has proven an ineffective vehicle for economic regulation and redistribution of wealth. But that does not mean that the state should not be active in ensuring that individuals are free to pursue their desires and needs provided they are willing to comply with and participate in the regulations and laws of society. It is important that those within a society be free to pursue their interests without coercion, but it is equally important that they are allowed to pursue them in a manner that does not harm others. The idea that such an ideal cannot exist is a form of the fallacy of composition, where an instance is made to be true because all or most instances in the past had been true, without taking into account the environmental conditions and circumstance of the present age.

[Anonymous No.20400664]

>>20400604
Government isn't a counterweight to the market. The market is a representation of the interactions and actions of consumers and competitors. When the market goes in a direction that isn't beneficial to the losers; government arises to socially engineer outcomes that are beneficial to the losers. Your argument is completely stupid because you think capitalists are the only people with agency within in an economy, and that their goals are nefarious and not rational. Government is filled with self-interested individuals looking to use the losers as a bargaining chip to push market outcomes for political power.
>>20400642
How the fuck does government oversight the market without taxes on so called market "inefficiencies" without taxing people to incentivize behavior or to use welfare to protect people who fail at competing within the economy? There are government oversights because they protect individuals from perceived bad outcomes within the economy. Its literally government looking out for the downtrodden

[Anonymous No.20400687]

>>20400656
Your argument is refuted by the fact governments are trying so hard to regulate crypto, and the fact that Hillary Clinton herself said crypto is one the biggest threats to the establishment. But surely you know more than Clinton, government officials, and the globalists who constantly talk about the dangers of it. I'll take their word for it instead of a retard like yours. You aren't going to be able to use central currencies and inflation to loot the public anymore.

[Anonymous No.20400688]

>>20400664
>Your argument is completely stupid because you think capitalists are the only people with agency within in an economy, and that their goals are nefarious and not rational.
"Agency" is the dumbest argument, especially since it's always used in a binary way. It's the same logic that people use when they say "oh do you suggest that Libyan protesters don't have AGENCY over how their country turns out?"

Uh, some? Partial agency? A bit? I don't know how you want me to quantify that. If you want me to suggest political groups operate in a vacuum, that there aren't extremely wealthy and powerful forces that can fund some factions and disempower others, or fund one government and economically ruin others, I don't know what to tell you. "DENYING THEIR AGENCY!!!"

"Are you denying the AGENCY of Amazon warehouse workers by implying they don't want to pee in bottles instead of getting breaks?"

I... guess? I guess I am?

[Anonymous No.20400692]

>>20400664
>your argument is completely stupid because you think capitalists are the only people with agency and that their goals are nefarious and not rational
I believe the opposite. Let me try to break this down so I can cut through the propaganda white noise you call thinking.
Scenario A:
>no government
>private entity (corp) has large share of market
>corp creates legal apparatus and civil service to protect property interests
>uses enforceable legal apparatus to kill competition and depress market activity to have monopoly
Scenario B:
>corp has large share of market
>separate civil service and legal apparatus disallows them to use law to solidify their position
>corp must cede to more efficient competitors

In every case B is preferable for obvious reasons, because there is a legal apparatus (which is inevitably created) that ensure open markets through oversight rather than simply hoping the field will remain barren. This is different from the libertarian position of "just don't have legal force," which is untenable.

[Anonymous No.20400699]

It should be noted that while many people equate “free” with “no government”, it is possible to think of a world where “free” exists within a functioning government. Both liberty and freedom should not be confused with “no rules, no regulations”, although many libertarians do hold this view. Furthermore, freedom and liberty are often mistakenly conflated as well. They are not exactly the same thing.

It is important to understand the difference between “personal liberty” and “positive liberty.” The former denotes the freedom that a person has to make choices about their lives in accordance with their desires, needs, and goals. These are concerns that fall under the umbrella of the individual. The latter refers to the type of freedom that implies that certain opportunities can be universally provided to everyone within a society, irrespective of merit or social status, as long as they prove valuable to the greater good. The type of freedom that government seeks to provide through the pursuit of “equality of opportunity” or a “social mobility.” Once these conditions are met, we should still remember that freedom is not an absolute, and that we should not encourage the unnecessary enslavement of all individuals through overburdening or unchecked excesses.

Now, obviously, to the extent that we live in a materialist society that is dominated by the powerful few, we will encounter limitations of our freedom of movement, communication, and exchange despite our relative material prosperity. Thus, we are compelled to seek to pursue our true liberty through the creation of institutional structures that prevent the powerful few from exploiting the many. Furthermore, freedom is not simply a product of a society where liberal democratic policies have been instituted, but also the manner in which the individuals of that society are educated and treated. Freedom can only be achieved through an educated populace, and that freedom can only be realized in a society that is minimally invasive of the dignity of each individual. In other words, true liberty and freedom are not simply outcomes of a functioning society, but of a culture, where people have been encouraged and educated to have incentive to support the material well-being and mutual respect of all of their neighbors. Clearly, liberty and freedom are entirely different things. Any conception of freedom that we develop must then be based on the notion that the most important ends are those of individual human flourishing and flourishing of our communities, and must serve as a mechanism to produce the outcome of liberty.

[Anonymous No.20400703]

>>20400687
>and the fact that Hillary Clinton herself said crypto is one the biggest threats to the establishment
I don't take cryptocurrencies or Dogecoin or NFTs seriously or think Hillary Clinton is some genius who has everything figured out.

[Anonymous No.20400706]

>>20400656
>On the contrary, I think the media has become much more centralized compared to the past. >It's just corporate-capitalist centralization.
If that was the case democracy wouldn't be "in danger" like you all liberals talk or about, and there wouldn't be so much skepticism towards basic stuff like vaccines. More and more our media is moving away from the leftist-globohomos to grass roots people like Andy Ngo and Joe Rogan. Literal everyday people instead of your leftist-think backed academics who push the great reset and great replacement. You don't see that way because you're on the losing side, and anyone who's on the winning will be your enemy, and you'll call them anything from fascists to corporatists

[Anonymous No.20400722]

Marx is a bitch nigger

[Anonymous No.20400729]

>>20400688
Your argument is essentially one that stipulates no one has agency besides the capitalists; so yeah it is stupid. Apparently, to you, college students aren't responsible for paying their student loans because the evil capitalist forcing them into signing a loan agreement against their will. Leftists want a world where only they are not held accountable for what they do out of moral reasons.
>>20400692
These are fallacious arguments - a false dilemma. Government officials are human beings that are infallible like us and make mistakes. According to you, government can do no wrong or be a part of the problem. That's why you scream "it wasn't real communism!!!" when leftist governments like Venezuela cause inflation and starve their people from government policies. And none of the scenarios you discuss have ever played out in real life, but I can talk about the times governments have killed millions - we have enough examples from communist governments to prove that.

[Anonymous No.20400745]

>>20400729
>according to you, government can do no wrong or be a part of the problem
I don't believe that at all, but it is better for organizational purposes to have a legal apparatus that has distinct interests rather than having the markets run it. That's all I'm saying. I don't know why you keep putting words in my mouth about communism. I think you've really been brainwashed into thinking that the existence of a political state is a marxist aim.

[Anonymous No.20400755]

>>20400692
Both those arguments are retarded. Corporations receive a large share of the market because people use their products in lieu of the alternatives. Google over took Mozilla not because your fucking leftist brainworms about evil capitalists "killing their competitors." Its because they offered a better product for their smartphones. You seem to think there are no scenarios where people just choose products without the capitalists doing something evil and not just having a better product. Government oversight in that situation is only called for a minority of people who believe they have right to change what the consumers decided with their dollars. Scenario B has proven not to work as companies use minimum wage laws to rise prices of production their competitors - i.g. regulatory capture. Amazon can absorb 15 dollars an hour but the average Joe can't. The same goes with unions and every other brain dead leftist policy.

[Anonymous No.20400763]

>>20400706
>If that was the case democracy wouldn't be "in danger" like you all liberals talk or about
You're arguing with someone in your head. I don't think the U.S. is a "democracy."

>and there wouldn't be so much skepticism towards basic stuff like vaccines.
The U.S. has a "liberal democracy" but that's like being a naughty priest. "Democracy" is what's supposed to be holy while liberalism is the actual "behavior," and I think liberalism is a bourgeois ideology that rationalizes a system that protects private property, and within the logic of highly developed monopoly capitalism, tends toward greater and greater concentration of wealth. Power follows from wealth.

But the plot twist or internal contradiction of liberalism that "the Holy Roman Empire is neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire." Once you become a liberal who is supposed to be critical to everything, you actually become less critical to liberalism, and even when you do, you're just repeating the narrative you heard from either the MSM or Alex Jones or Tucker Carlson (who is also MSM) who actually supports the elites when you really look at them since the rhetoric is usually aimed against some kind of "subversion" supposedly alien to the system. These theories also conveniently don't implicate them in why things don't seem to be working out very well and why the status quo is weak.

[Anonymous No.20400764]

>>20400755
So on the one hand you are arguing that large corporations have success because people give them support for superior product, and then you argue that corporations use legalism to depress their competitors, and this is an argument... for corporations to control the legal system?? Do you have the slightest understanding of what I'm saying?

[Anonymous No.20400772]

>>20400745
The United States is currently facing the largest increases in inflation in decades because of your beliefs - your beliefs in big government and big spending. You think society is sustainable if we just de-incentivize production with government taxation and regulation.
>The existance of a political state is a Marxist aim
Why the fuck they would call for violent revolution for the paupers? Marxists is entirely a political aim, and project, for the low lives for society. You've been brainwashed by leftist academia to buy into idiotic political beliefs that have done nothing but harm to the world. All because you want to be lazy, and not work for what you own. You think society should cater to your existence in spite of the rest of us. You live in a white, middle class blue state bubble where you ignore the realities of the economy for wokeness.

[Anonymous No.20400779]

>>20400772
>why the fuck would you call for violent revolution for the paupers
Quote the post where I said this you moron. Stop putting words in my mouth.

[Anonymous No.20400791]

>>20400763
>Muh real communism, muh real democracy
How utopian are you leftists? No ideas can perfectly 1:1 transmute to reality. Our minds are separate from what exists outside of it; we don't have perfect information or power to make things work perfectly outside of that. There's no need for you to be woke about democracy or politics. Nothing is going to be perfect, and part of being an adult ( a stage you haven't reached yet despite being old enough ) is that you have to make due with what's available.
>>20400764
Is reading comprehension your problem? My argument is that corporations can do both, and that is a problem for you - governments can not be "counter-weights" if they can easily be captured by corporations. Nor do regulations have the intended effects you believe. Government regulation for "good cause" does not imply it make life better for us, retard. That's why price controls don't work because there are objective economic laws that independent of morality... something you don't have the intelligence to understand.

[Anonymous No.20400797]

>>20400779
>Quote the post
You stupid fucking leftist retard. You're a Marxist. That's literal goal of your beliefs - violent revolution. You can't be Marxist and a reformist, you stupid fuck. You think higher minimum wage and government regulations aren't things liberals want too?

[Anonymous No.20400798]

>>20399982
I really wish this thread didn’t turn into a debate between capitalism and communism. They’re just different methods of organizing society with the same nebulous goal of “liberty.” But what matters most is what’s good or what’s wise. Furthermore, embracing the good and the wise usually leads to more liberty than simply following one’s whims. Good government should be about cultivating goodness and wisdom in its population so that everybody can reach their full potential. A thriving population then needs little government, for there will be few problems (and the problems that still exist can be resolved autonomously).

[Anonymous No.20400799]

>>20400791
>my argument is that corporations can do both, and that is a problem for you - governments can not be "counter-weights" if they can easily be captured by corporations
This is exactly my argument. So we agree then. Why are you arguing with me?

[Anonymous No.20400808]

>>20400797
Quote the post where I advocate for marxism or leftism then.

[Anonymous No.20400820]

>>20400779
You have to be a child. You ignore the fact that government bureaucrats can do harm (communist governments are the primary example of this) where their "regulations" killed millions of people. And you are very simple minded because you don't seem to realize the regulations have consequences that different than what you perceive. A retard like you seems think that raising wages without compensating rises in productivity won't lead to inflation, or that giving people free money for simply existing isn't going to crazy the economy as no one wishing to work. You also have these insanely stupid beliefs where you think people who buy products from Amazon, big corporations, are being exploited because they have a business that much cheaper to purchase from. You make no sense, and you make no arguments from reality.
>>20400799
retard, how can you argue that government is a counter-weight to protect the government from "greedy corporations when it can be easily manipulated by special interests? Do you lack brain cells?

[Anonymous No.20400832]

>>20400820
>a retard like you seems to think that raising wages without compensating rises in productivity won't lead to inflation
I'll make you a deal. Quote the post where I argued for anything in that screed you just posted and I'll concede.

[Anonymous No.20400837]

>>20400808
See >>20400692 where you argued governments ought to regulate markets because you believe consumers don't already have the agency to reflect what the market provides via their spending choices. According to you, the government must correct outcomes the consumers created. You think that corporations just magically become market dominant. Ah yes, Atari become such a big corporation because they were evil capitalists who manipulated their consumers and competitors. You keep using moralistic arguments, in lieu of reality based ones, for your world view.

[Anonymous No.20400851]

>>20400837
I'm saying that a corporation with sufficient power will enact market protectionism. This was my whole point from the beginning. You seem to agree (if >>20400755 is you) with your point about regulatory capture. So what's the problem?

[Anonymous No.20400858]

Do you think government is your enemy? Can people truly think for themselves? Do you think the freedom you have should be the freedom of the many or the freedom of the few? What does freedom mean to you?

[Anonymous No.20400866]

>>20400851
Government influence of the economy because civilization creates winners and losers. The losers rely heavily on government to protect them from the bad outcomes they are often on the receiving end from. Well off people tend not need receive government assistance. The well off, especially in the United States, are the most productive and pay the most in taxes. The least well off take more from the system than they put in. This trend also largely racial as many races that receive more than they put in tend to be non-white. Do you agree with this or no? Can you show the statistics that refute these facts?
>You seem to agree
No, retard, are you ESL? I'm arguing that your belief in government oversight of the economy doesn't insure outcomes that help workers because they have a possibility of either creating scarcity (price controls, minimum wage laws), or have a risk of capture by corporations. You have no answer for these bad outcomes - which I keep asking you, but you keep doing and pretending you agree with me. So you can explain how you tend to deal with these outcomes?

[Anonymous No.20400878]

>>20400866
>doesn't ensure outcomes that help workers
Who said anything about helping workers? I'm talking purely about maintaining the integrity of the markets.

[Anonymous No.20400885]

>>20400878
Leftists literally can't think. The question is so simple. How do you intend to deal with the fact that corporations can use regulations to make business more powerful. How does government oversight when government officials are easily manipulated by monetary interests - retard? You keep talking about corporations manipulating market, but have no answer to the fact your solution can easily be overrided by corporations. Where is your government oversight going to be when corporations capture unions (like they have), or capture the Congress (like they have). You seem to be so stupid, so naive, you think government-fits all approach is a solution to the problems society faces. And you prove it further because you won't even actually address the argument and you continue to dodge. You're so fucking pathetic.

[Anonymous No.20400897]

>>20400885
So let me ask you this: since government oversight underperforms in regulating the market, you would rather... what? Let the corporations take up the role the government fills regarding market rules themselves?

[Anonymous No.20400901]

>>20400897
You literally can't even respond to a simple retort of your argument - how do leftists intend to cope with the fact politicians who government oversight can be captured by corporations? How does the government protect the people when government can be simply used by the so called exploiters? Do you think Mac Donald was celebrating 15 dollars an hour because it would help them, and not because small businesses who they compete with would not survive it? Stop dodging my question and answer. How do you intend to stop government official who do oversight from being captured by corporations? Its a simple question. Answer it.

[Anonymous No.20400902]

>>20399982
>Is this the open secret of secular political philosophy, that it seeks to make life meaningless (Marxism), has an unstable end (fascism), or that it tries to take the best of both worlds but it only works if we lower our expectations and soften our horizons (liberalism)?
The spergs who are arguing about the merits and flaws of free market capitalism are ignoring the big picture. What should we live for? What is the good life? And how does each economic system get us there?

[Anonymous No.20400914]

>>20400901
By changing how money can be used to elect representatives. You're the one who seems to be dodging, because my argument is that these legal structures will always exist, so it is better to have them under an entity separate from the market than coming from market actors. You're the one spewing democrat talking points that you've made up because you are either unable or unwilling to address what I'm saying

[Anonymous No.20400942]

>>20400902
Ecclesiastes 9:7 - its intuitive.
>>20400914
Yes, because the corporations and politicians who rely on money to elected, and who run everything is going surely just let you do that, retard. You're going to surely just stop people from taking money and being selfish. You have to be a child, right? I wish I could be as fucking stupid and simplistic as you. You really think nobody has thought of that before - this was the whole point the progressive movement in the 1920s -- where that lead us to, retard? You don't seem to agree it worked because you're still complaining about corporations having too much power. Its almost likely societies will naturally gravitate towards people with wealth and power because they have innate to gather those resources and use them to create society to their own advantage. You literally do not understand human nature. Name a fucking society that didn't have money or where money did not influence politics. You literally can't because everyone knows, according to you, its utopian non-sense for retards - just like leftism in general and communism.

[Anonymous No.20400949]

>>20400914
> Says Government should control the market and that government is infallible and can't be corrupted, but the market can't
>accuses people of being democrats
What????

[Anonymous No.20400955]

>>20400914
>have them under an entity separate from the market
But government is never separate from corporations i.g. people with money and power, retard. This has never been the case. You're never going to stop the people with the resources to control government with money to stop doing so because there is no great incentive to power than wealth. You literally no understanding of human behavior and have a utopian understanding of government.

[Anonymous No.20400985]

>>20400942
>its almost like societies will naturally gravitate towards people with wealth and power because they use resources to create society to their advantage.
This is exactly what I was saying here >>20400692. You realize that the way the market operates is based on legalism right? Like if you eliminated the wage laws and workers rights and taxation and all these things you insist on trying to make this argument about, the basic property rights and organization of markets is still a government creation. You went on this whole autistic speech about how the government assists losers and how the market is superior and yet you have a child's understanding of the markets. I don't even know what it is you think you want because business is virtuous or corrupt depending on the point you want to make. You should educate yourself if you want to style yourself like the intellectual dragged down by the inferior races. Or learn to read since you confuse >>20400949
>accusing people of being democrats
with
>putting democrat slogans in the mouth of someone because you can't argue their actual point.

[Anonymous No.20400989]

>>20400985
There has never been, and never will be, a society in which wealth does not control society. From Rome to today, this has always been the case. The idea that you could change human nature, using government ( an institution of very same fallible individuals prone to selfishness & a lack of virtue) stop human exploitation is incredibly stupid, not reality based and demonstrates have a poor understanding of human psychology. Honestly, grow the fuck up and stop living in Kumbaya land.

[Anonymous No.20401008]

>>20400985
>Like if you eliminated the wage laws and workers rights
Leftoid, even with these laws corporations do wage theft, even with "worker rights" corporations capture unions to ensure workers don't act upon them or capture the government so that they are not enforced. You are retarded - the rich and powerful will always be smart enough to get around laws like they currently do while the poor won't have the resources to get around taxes and regulations that apply to them. You're just stupid. You can't separate laws from their intended effects to their real effects, and this is largely because you are leftist who lives in a bubble and not in the real world.

[Anonymous No.20401010]

>>20400989
So, this being true, is it not better that you have two entities working at cross purposes rather than consolidating all that power into one body?

[Anonymous No.20401016]

Reality endorses Marxism

[Anonymous No.20401025]

>>20401016
That's if our perception is really what exists outside of it

[Anonymous No.20401030]

>>20401010
Lol we live in one of the most regulated societies in human history, and you retards still complain the government is not doing enough. You people are a joke in itself. You have no self awareness. You're never going to get free healthcare, free college, UBI or any of the socialist garbage you call for.
>two separate entities
Does not exist, never will exist. Money has never been separate from politics. It is one body in itself. Again, you live in a bubble and not in reality. Power is always going to be concentrated in the hands the few who have the intelligence to gain wealth through their innate, genetic abilities. You can not change something that is so fundamental to humanity. Stop being retarded.

[Anonymous No.20401076]

>>20400942
>Ecclesiastes 9:7 - its intuitive.
Then why do we debate about politics?

[Anonymous No.20401122]

>>20400634
>There was no difference between how the poor and the rich lived in the Soviet Union
Fucking Stalin, Lenin and Mao lived in mansions - you people are stupid. Corruption was so widespread in USSR that the Russian Mafia was born in the gulag system. Its so hilarious seeing stupid white liberals romanticize systems they wouldn't even lasted a day in.

[Anonymous No.20401130]

>>20400703
Hahaha you think Dogecoin and NFTs are things people using, and want you make judgements about the economy? Holy shit leftsts are stupid. The SEC is having a field day trying to crackdown on blockchain, but you want act like its not the threat. Then again, you are the same people who believed the Soviet Union would still exist today, and Bernie would be president. You haven't been right about anything ever.

[Anonymous No.20401138]

>>20401076
Because for many of you white, hyper-online liberals politics is a hobby and not a serious commitment. Its a vanity for social clout in online circlejerks.

[Anonymous No.20401941]

bump

[Anonymous No.20402325]

bump

[Anonymous No.20402341]

middle class internet marxists who spent 2022 recreationally arguing with reactionaries on 4chan are going to the gulag after the revolution
there is work to be done and you aren't doing it

[Anonymous No.20402388]

>>20401130
the sec is cracking down on crypto because most of it is a scam defrauding americans

[Anonymous No.20403033]

A serious sign of economic decay began with the slow disappearance of personal control over property and the gradual transfer of the entire economic system into the hands of stock-controlled corporations. Labor had become an object of exploitation and speculation for deceitful stockbrokers with no conscience. The transfer of property from the wage earner to the financiers grew out of proportion. The stock exchange began to triumph, and slowly but surely, started to take the life of the nation under its protection and control.

[Anonymous No.20403473]

Marx:
>The practical application of man’s right to liberty is man’s right to private property.
you can delete your worthless thread now

[Anonymous No.20403487]

>>20403473
Based Marx supporting private property.

[Anonymous No.20403517]

>>20403487
Well, Marxists need to have something to seize, or else life becomes purposeless. The hunter can’t live without his prey, etc.

[Anonymous No.20404390]

fuck marx, take the sorelism pill