/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22249429]

arguments against liberalism

[Anonymous No.22249440]

>>22249429
>we got more poor grunts to throw as cannon fodder
The only arguement for liberalism.

[Anonymous No.22249446]

Where's the advocates for aristocracy? What can be better than a nationed governed by a small group of well-educated, filthy rich and energetic individuals who pass on their political rights through birth only??

[Anonymous No.22249451]

>>22249446
It's too retarded to even be considered an option

[Anonymous No.22249458]

>>22249446
Nah because we’ve seen what being filthy rich with an endless supply of money and being well educated does nowadays and it’s not good

[Anonymous No.22249465]

>>22249451
It has been a commonplace form of government in Greece, India, France of the 18th Century, some of the most formidable and splendid societies to have existed, that brought us philosophy, theology and literature.

[Anonymous No.22249468]

>>22249429
>arguments against liberalism
Blood, culture, and community is worth more than monetary value, and that's how both Communism and Capitalism fails against Nazism. Even if Hitler lost that doesn't mean the Nazis were wrong

[Anonymous No.22249489]

>>22249458
>well educated
Going to a progressive indoctrination camp to do nothing but drink, party, and talk shit about “dead white men” is not “good eduction.”

[Anonymous No.22249511]

>>22249429

[Anonymous No.22249514]

>>22249446
It turns out that inheriting wealth and power in no way results in intelligent people.

[Anonymous No.22249520]

>>22249514
It turns out that government by aristocrats is better than government by thug gangsters who violently took the power from the former.

[Anonymous No.22249525]

>>22249514
Good thing our current overlords are so heckin smart.

[Anonymous No.22249526]

>>22249440
fpbp

[Anonymous No.22249535]

>>22249525
What? Our overlords are what I just described.

[Anonymous No.22249565]

>>22249429
>eternally
?
It's very recent. Slave society lasted way longer.

[Anonymous No.22249608]

>>22249429
Liberalism's major weakness is that it can only thrive if the majority adhere to the same values that created it
But since it doesn't impose any value on the individual due to its tenet of individual freedom, it become impotent against people whose values oppose Liberalism
This is an aspect that both facism and communism hated about Liberalism, which is why they "fixed" by basically becoming a quasi-religion, to make sure the populace remains loyal

Otherwise, yes Liberalism is the superior humanistic ideology and essentially the culmination of Western political thought
But it really needs a strong spine like Christianity to survive
It is funny how the term "Liberal" is so demonized now, when even 70 years ago calling an american a "liberal" would be a compliment of the same equivalence as calling him a "patriot"

Communism is a pipe dream, the reason why it is so attractive despite being a clusterfuck
Facism is the ideology for retards with major chips on their shoulder and its "survival of the fittest" nonsense is ironically the reason why they were gang-raped by everyone else, as with kind of thinking they might as well hold-up a neon sign over their heads saying "You can't trust me as I will do everything in my power to undermine you as soon as it is convinient" (also the Nazis brand of racism was their downfall, had they not wasted the resources they did going after the "racial inferiors" and instead tried to extend their "LONG LIVE GERMANIA" to all people under German sovereignty they could've won the war)
Both suck in otherways too, compared to Liberalism

[Anonymous No.22249614]

>>22249565
Wage slavery is the hot new rebrand.

[Anonymous No.22249631]

>>22249489
Right, it doesn’t exist in the modern era unless you’re doing STEM.

[Anonymous No.22249635]

>>22249608
Ok, liberal. Jokes aside
>needs a strong spine like Christianity to survive
You've got a point with it needing a moral spine to uphold the structure, since otherwise it's too easy to undermine, but christianity doesn't hold true as an example. I've just followed up a bit on Italian "Years of Lead", and Christian Democracy didn't save it from ending up a corrupt clusterfuck, even with someone with like Aldo Moro.

I'd go as far as to argue for any form of liberalism to work, you have to give some way to left philosophy, because the capitalist element of neoliberalism is inherently corruptive with how it undermines and assimilates all values other than primitive accumulation of said capital. You can hardly expect democracy to work in a society which doesn't have the time and energy to participate in it.

[Anonymous No.22249642]

>The original content of the communist program is the obliteration of the individual as an economic subject, rights-holder, and agent of human history
https://libcom.org/article/original-content-communist-program-obliteration-individual-economic-subject-rights-holder

[Anonymous No.22249646]

>>22249642
Damn if that ain't a good clickbait title. Thanks for the read! Should be interesting with Bordiga at the forefront.

[Anonymous No.22249654]

>>22249429
it's a heresy that rejects the truth about fallen human nature

[Anonymous No.22249657]

>>22249654
>truth about human nature
good luck trying to define it first

[Anonymous No.22249669]

>>22249429
OP is retarded and deserves to be treated like one.

[Anonymous No.22249670]

>>22249446
The argument that Machiavelli made is that it degenerates into Democracy as the circle gets slowly expanded
Monarchy builds up a capable elite over time, which eventually can rule better than the king and turns into an aristocracy, aristocracy slowly grows outward until you have democracy, and then democracy is saved only by a single strong ruler taking control, and you are back to monarchy, etc.

[Anonymous No.22249671]

>>22249642
part II https://libcom.org/article/original-content-communist-program-obliteration-individual-economic-subject-rights-holder-0

[Anonymous No.22249677]

>>22249446
Even meritocracy has it's limits, nevermind aristocracy.

[Anonymous No.22249679]

>>22249635
Italy in the 1970s is not exactly a strong Christian society

[Anonymous No.22249681]

>>22249429
Here's liberalism's game
>The benefits of my world system are my doing
>The downsides are not my problem
The number of people living on less than 7-8 dollars a day has not dramatically decreased since Capitalism came into the picture. What liberal capitalism does is take a bunch of self-sufficient subsistence farmers and then churns them into slaves making dollars a day to sell plastic crap. This reads as going from 0 to 1 dollar a day and they celebrate their success. So far, the only true, massive reduction in extreme poverty came from Maoist China and the USSR. Early command economies have issues in the beginnings of industrialization but actually bring benefits eventually. Meanwhile the entire third world has had their governments bought by the IMF to turn their countries into slave factories with 0 hope for a future.

[Anonymous No.22249684]

>>22249679
Italy in the 1970s was many things, I'll give you that.
But the element was always strong, especially with their whole Vatican situation.

[Anonymous No.22249687]

>>22249679
I guess other example of christianity not being a fit example for a moral spine in liberalism, would be it's non-liberal symapthizers during the spanish civil war.

[Anonymous No.22249691]

>>22249681
>commies made it better
They literally remade the aristocracy again, with them on top.
Along with all the famines.

It worked solely to, ironically, build industrialization from such a subsistent people.

[Anonymous No.22249694]

>>22249691
Then let's take your words as argument against the centralized/authoritarian branch of communism.

[Anonymous No.22249700]

>>22249681
Every benefit of liberal capitalism is just a benefit of mechanization. The resulting government was "liberal" because it allows the global capital machine to organically organize itself into an alien AI called "the invisible hand". That AI is still very powerful today but also is not aligned with human goals and is dramatically outliving it's usefulness. Once a certain level of development is reached it will self-destruct, however it almost brought the world to global nuclear destruction to prevent its own demise.

[Anonymous No.22249702]

>>22249694
marxism is built purely upon word games and ideological fanaticism.
nothing but a big, fat, indefensible lie.

[Anonymous No.22249708]

>>22249691
>They literally remade the aristocracy again, with them on top.
There has never been a period of time with lower income inequality than the USSR. Your "history" is composed of second hand memes.

>Along with all the famines.
The liberal west had plenty of famines in plenty of countries when it first tried to industrialize as well. That's just part of the process. Also, American corporations are currently making massive profits in nations that currently have mass starvation and other preventable death.

>It worked solely to, ironically, build industrialization from such a subsistent people.
Yup, that's the whole idea. Ironically, as Marx pointed out, once industrialization reaches a critical mass it's actually beneficial to Capital to limit technological growth and keep it in a perpetual holding pattern.

[Anonymous No.22249709]

>>22249681
Fair enough but if we’re going by classical liberalism and mutant neoliberalism there is definitely a distinction in that classical liberalism sees the world’s problems as “none of our business” while mutant neoliberalism sees them as “our problem to fix because the world has to see the benefits of what we do on a grander scale”. I’m not defending classical liberalism wholesale as there’s still quite a few kinks to even work that system out in lieu of recent history and technological advances but that’s where I pretty much draw the line in terms of a generalized ethos of both systems of governance.

[Anonymous No.22249710]

>>22249681
it's the other way around.
The benefits end after the transition to industrial work.

[Anonymous No.22249713]

>>22249702
Not to say Marx was right in every regard, I like Kropotkin's take on the matter, but dismissing him altogether doesn't do service what conversation he and Engels brought to the table.

[Anonymous No.22249720]

>>22249708
begone, commie.
My history comes from eyewitnesses and historians. most of them left wing aswell, and the only few courageous ones who talked against it.

>no inequality
Because everyone was starving equally, lmao.
Not even that, as they basically genocided ukraine with it.

[Anonymous No.22249725]

>>22249709
Neoliberalism is a Frankenstein ideology that exists to post-hoc rationalize the goals of the continued development of the Capital AI machine. Marx explains how liberalism leads to the self-destruction of Capitalism and says that a very select number of occurrences could prevent this fate. Currently neoliberalism is just that, a series of motions to try to maintain the game.

[Anonymous No.22249729]

>>22249713
i do dismiss all of them.
It's all lunacy; completely impractical idealistic rhetoric.
Built upon even more senseless notions, like historic materialism.
Do you know why they advocate for atheism? So that the ideology can be put in an altar, with any and all criticism being taken as heresy and severely repressed.

They're like gender activists; advocate for freedom of speech until they themselves are in power.

[Anonymous No.22249731]

>>22249725
Right but that destruction is supposed to happen any day now, right? Right?

[Anonymous No.22249732]

>>22249720
>Haha I have a very solid grasp of history
>Everyone starved all the time lmao
Do you really think they starved through the entire history of the country? Do you think there's never been famines in liberal capitalist countries?

[Anonymous No.22249734]

>>22249729
oh, and another similarity, they both advocate for their own lies and inventions, until they're taken as truth.

[Anonymous No.22249736]

>>22249713
Kropotkin and Darwin both were on two sides of the human nature argument but the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

[Anonymous No.22249737]

>>22249732
reductio ad absurdum. classic fallacy to hold your point.

All were suffering to a degree, and that can be seen if you talk with anyone who lived there, or even see eyewitness reports (which were suppressed at the time, how curious!).

as for the biggest event, you'll be overtly dishonest to say the holodomor didn't happen.
commies are the nazis on the other side of the political spectrum horseshoe.

[Anonymous No.22249744]

>>22249429
>arguments against liberalism
1. Marginal Utility voodoo
2. Everyone is equal -> "1=1" -> Everyone is equally replaceable
3. Human Rights -> If you disagree, you are not a human
4. Property Rights -> i.e. "I'll use violence if you don't fuck off my porch. And it's mine, because I proclaimed it so five minutes ago!"
5. Free Will voodoo

[Anonymous No.22249748]

>>22249720
>Because everyone was starving equally, lmao
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

[Anonymous No.22249749]

>>22249708
>The liberal west had plenty of famines in plenty of countries when it first tried to industrialize as well. That's just part of the process. Also, American corporations are currently making massive profits in nations that currently have mass starvation and other preventable death.
No they aren't. Name one.
Also name one "capitalist" European country equivalent to the Holodomor.

[Anonymous No.22249751]

I always felt drawn to study all these political theories, but they're all so stupid.
how can someone be fooled by that, and worse, fool themselves into their theories.
always the same routine of knocking off God and, in the lack of absolute truth that is left, build a castle of impossibilites.

[Anonymous No.22249752]

>>22249731
We have much more empirical data than Marx did. Like I said, Capitalism is a living organism that strives for homeostasis.

Here's a graph of its pulse.

The recent financialization of Capitalism has in some ways been a new revolution but it draws ever further down and will eventually die.

[Anonymous No.22249753]

>>22249429
The endgame of liberalism has been revealed to be trannies, which is sufficient to discredit it entirely.

[Anonymous No.22249755]

>>22249631
lol

[Anonymous No.22249757]

>>22249748
>*nglos
biggest commies in the world.
And that was more racism than search for profit.

[Anonymous No.22249758]

>>22249757
>>"Initial limited but constructive government actions to alleviate famine distress were ended by a new Whig administration in London, which pursued a laissez-faire economic doctrine"
>commies is laissez-faire hurr durr

[Anonymous No.22249759]

>talk about famines
>commies seethe and cope extremely hard
lmao, it's the same with gender theorists. start poking holes and instead of trying to fix them they want to cut your finger off.

[Anonymous No.22249761]

Liberalism is contradictory. Anarchism is true liberalism, which is doomed to fail.
It makes sense for an atheist to support anarchism, so I have nothing against it (outside of belief) due to the fact that it's its logical conclusion, however, I disagree with it since I am religious.

[Anonymous No.22249762]

>>22249758
>quoting wikipedia
i'm gonna need a proper source.

>whigs
Literally leftist.

[Anonymous No.22249765]

>>22249737
>reductio ad absurdum. classic fallacy to hold your point.
Reductio ad absurdum isn't a logical fallacy; it's a mode of argumentation. Look it up.

>All were suffering to a degree, and that can be seen if you talk with anyone who lived there, or even see eyewitness reports (which were suppressed at the time, how curious!).
People suffer in modern America. People lose life savings and their house for cancer treatment, many are dying due to temperature, dying from lack of healthcare and mental health support, etc. However, non-partisan polls have shown that the majority of people who lived in both Communism and Capitalism preferred Communism.

[Anonymous No.22249766]

>>22249761
to what religion, if i may?

[Anonymous No.22249767]

>>22249766
Catholic.

[Anonymous No.22249770]

>>22249749
The Irish Potato Famine for one. Very famously exasperated by British liberal economic policy. Same thing happened when Britain took over India leading to several famines that killed millions. You should look up the book "Late Victorian Holocausts" for many more examples.

[Anonymous No.22249771]

>>22249767
pretty based.
Do tell me you're critical against liberation theology.

[Anonymous No.22249777]

>>22249762
>i'm gonna need a proper source.
>Woodham-Smith, Cecil (1991) [1962], The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845–1849, Penguin, ISBN 978-0-14-014515-1
There are literally links there, faggot.

>Literally leftist.
>Laissez-faire is literally leftist
Sure, whatever you say, clown.

[Anonymous No.22249779]

>>22249765
any debate that wasn't your """poll""" said otherwise.
It's the fault of America, not the system.
Most countries in Europe have free healthcare and higher education.

>it's a mode of argumentation
For lying rats trying to relativize anything.
As i said, freedom of speech until you're the one oppressing.

[Anonymous No.22249781]

>>22249771
>Do tell me you're critical against liberation theology.
Obviously.

[Anonymous No.22249783]

>>22249777
>penguin books
Quote from the book, i won't listen to a wikipedia colored hair liar.

[Anonymous No.22249784]

>>22249770
These are all bullshit commie tropes but anyways answer the question about American corporations and current mass starvation.

[Anonymous No.22249788]

>>22249702
>>22249729
>marxism is built purely upon word games and ideological fanaticism
>It's all lunacy; completely impractical idealistic rhetoric
Come on, that just sounds like a Peterson-tier interpretation based on little more than a communist manifesto pamphlet.
If you want a more tangible example, I like what he points out in Wage Labour and Capital, regarding the disproportional growth of wellbeing, which tries to disprove trickle-down economics.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch06.htm
>A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal or even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls.
Sure, it might sound hermetic, be obvious by our standards, or nothing big to write about, but it's a fair point in regards to relativity and it's part in economic inequality.
>>22249736
>answer lies somewhere in the middle
Care to elaborate?

[Anonymous No.22249789]

>>22249762
>>22249777
You both need to remember that the initial left-right divide was pro liberal capitalism and pro protectionist mercantilism. "Left or right" is an abstraction that changes with time. We're talking about liberal Capitalism exemplified by laissez-faire economics.

[Anonymous No.22249796]

>>22249429
you know the board is done when reddit radical centrists are raiding it

[Anonymous No.22249801]

>>22249789
>"Left or right" is an abstraction that changes with time.
And even circumistances. Notions of left and right differ especially between America and Europe.
By standards of the american discourse, someone like Bernie, or even Obama, have been associated with both socialism and communism on more than one occasion.

[Anonymous No.22249802]

>>22249789
The issue is that US dictates the political climate and they still believe that laissez-faire is the right side of the debate when it is, in fact, long dead and neo-liberalism became the right.

[Anonymous No.22249803]

>>22249781
An interesting thought is realizing such philosophies and theories are merely making idols after trying to remove God.

[Anonymous No.22249805]

>>22249779
>any debate that wasn't your """poll""" said otherwise.
I'm not sure what you're referring to.

>It's the fault of America, not the system.
>Most countries in Europe have free healthcare and higher education.
And most European countries can pay for that because they use dollar a day labor to manufacture their goods. Also, it's very weird to say that Capitalism is fine because we took medical care out of the hands of Capitalism and into the hands of the state.

>For lying rats trying to relativize anything.
It's a very standard argumentation. It's literally just logic. You're seething at logic.

>As i said, freedom of speech until you're the one oppressing.
Non-sequitur (actual fallacy)

[Anonymous No.22249807]

>>22249788
>if everyone is in the same lake of shit, everyone's happy
Proves my point.

[Anonymous No.22249810]

>>22249801
I'm fully in my rights to believe certain European countries are completely without an actual right-wing party

[Anonymous No.22249814]

>>22249758
There's a difference between arguing for something and using an argument as an excuse to do something you want to do anyways.
As >>22249757 said, they didn't do it because they were liberals, they did it because they fucking hated the Irish. Otherwise, the situation in Ireland would've never have reached such levels where they mass starve because the one crop they could actually farm was sickly.
It's like if I raped someone and didn't use a condom - then blamed the STD I passed them on my lack of sex education in middle school (when really, I just wanted to feel more pleasure). The situation only got this bad because I completely disregarded the other person's well being in the first place.

[Anonymous No.22249815]

>>22249744
if you are so hellbent on disagreeing with the concept of free will I can hand you a gun and it will be all over, I promise you.

[Anonymous No.22249824]

>>22249788
I guess so, for one solitary occasion since I'm kind of feisty this morning but sure. humans were neither bound to help one another or compete with one another, but to choose the level of competition and co-operation based on mutual utility. Aristotle described "a friend to all is a friend to none" and choosing allies and rivals/enemies is never more pertinent in this age, more so now than it has ever been. I think monists have been led astray with believing that there is only one substance, the good, when the fact that not taking evil seriously has caused problems from the local to the regional to the national to the global, even with Christians seeing evil as mere corruption is literally not enough, one must go deeper.

[Anonymous No.22249828]

>>22249788
The logic of the marxist is that if someone has what he's jealous of he can take whatever he wants from the others to build up and be higher than the one he's jealous of. It's monkey psychology, pure degeneracy. That's why the least human looking people are marxists, that's why you can militarize a stone age tribe with Lenin's slogans, that's why you will always see a rise of elite and dictators in the communist society. These are the people who do not operate on the conception of productive labor and respinsibility of individual or nation. Production is mechanistic magic for marxists, they want to divide it and can't ever understand that preventing other people from productive labor they diminish any wealth possible. Marxism will always fail, not for the reasons that people are lazy as liberals say, but for the reasons that a communist can never understand a worker. For a marxist workers are a tool that needs to be brainwashed first. In all their ideology not a single time a common labourer is seen as human, in the materialist worldview workers are cogs that can pick up rifles if you promise them riches.

[Anonymous No.22249833]

>>22249807
>Proves my point.
No, that's just a very dishonest reading of it. You cannot have read that in good faith, and summed it up with just a
>equality is when everyone is equally miserable
Neither Marx, nor left philosophy in general advocates for some vague notion of universal equality.
They're speaking of economic equality, and even that doesn't do it justice, because it'd be more accurate to speak of FAIR redistrubution to the best of our ability to make that judgement. Seriously, try giving him a read with fair or just replacing the word equality, and it's a whole another story with interpretation.

>>22249810
>certain European countries are completely without an actual right-wing party
Wouldn't go that far, there's always reactionaries. I've tried looking up the situation of most european parliments, or their equivalents, and pretty much everyone has their fair share of conservatives, some more hostile than others.

>>22249824
Much appreciated!

[Anonymous No.22249835]

>>22249815
>if you are so hellbent on disagreeing with the concept of free will
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_pattern
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_architecture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosognosia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wegner#The_illusion_of_conscious_will

Enlighten yourself.
'Free will' is not something you 'have'. It is an indicator of something you have not.
More precisely, "free will" is when you FAIL to register that you are dancing in chains.

[Anonymous No.22249840]

>>22249828
>pure degeneracy
stopped reading

[Anonymous No.22249844]

Commies work by manipulating history and relativizing truth.
>noo, le nazis were right wing, even though they're literally called socialists (and they'll retort it was "all a ruse" if called out)
>repression and cover-ups of problems like the famines in its "golden age"
>calling attention to the issues of others (like criticizing operation paperclip), while having their own dealings (op. Osoaviakhim)

[Anonymous No.22249846]

>>22249828
>The logic of the marxist is that if someone has what he's jealous of he can take whatever he wants from the others to build up and be higher than the one he's jealous of.
Lmao, sounds like the French Revolution to me.

>That's why the least human looking people are marxists
Hilarious child mentality. I would genuinely love to see IQ results of this creature.

[Anonymous No.22249849]

>>22249840
I get it, you don't read in general. You're illiterate and have your understanding of the vocabulary from reddit

[Anonymous No.22249852]

>>22249833
Marxism sucks, there's no reason to make copes about it. >>22249828 has already brought it to the point well enough.

[Anonymous No.22249853]

>>22249846
>Lmao, sounds like the French Revolution to me.
Leftists are all the same. Do you have anything important to say though?

[Anonymous No.22249855]

>>22249828
This is just a mindless regurgitation of buzzwords and thought-terminating cliches. Serious right-wing thinkers such as Junger, Schmitt, de Benoist, Gottfried all read Marx intensely and applied his ideas in some way. Only brainlets like Shapiro or Peterson outright dismiss him.

[Anonymous No.22249857]

>>22249844
People's Republic of China and their Communist Party being called what they are, didn't stop it from not being either people's, nor a republic, or even communist. It's almost like the free market also has nothing to do with human freedom, other than maybe to screw one-another.

>>22249849
>You're illiterate and have your understanding of the vocabulary from reddit
Prefer shorter forms like the filthy zoomer I am, but like to challenge myself, don't you worry.

Also I'm going to take this >>22249855 anons take more genuinely than this >>22249828 kind of strawman.

[Anonymous No.22249864]

>>22249429
>Doses a retarded genocide than fight said war
Why would anybody take this 'jak seriously when it was obviously created by a fucking retard?

[Anonymous No.22249865]

>>22249844
>Commies work by manipulating history and relativizing truth.
What you mean by this is call into question the view of history that just so happened to be created and supported your own government and economic system. If the commies were just making up arguments you could just say they're lies but instead you have to come up with mental gymnastics accusations of """relativizing""" as if everything isnt already relative? What does it even mean? The facts aren't lies but it doesn't fit with your grand narrative so it's a "manipulation". This isn't how history works.

>noo, le nazis were right wing
Why did Russians and Germans kill more of each other than anyone else in WW2? Why did both sides make ideological speeches against the other?

>>repression and cover-ups of problems like the famines in its "golden age"
Sounds like Liberalism

[Anonymous No.22249869]

>>22249853
Do you support the French Revolution or are you a Monarchist? Or maybe you don't support the wild upstart barbarians that base their government on Germanic succession law and instead side with Imperial slave society like a true plebian? Or maybe that's too left wing too?

[Anonymous No.22249870]

>>22249855
Marx literally copied his historical materialism from a lesser known advocate for monarchy and feudalism. Here's how Gobineau finished his essay on the Inequality of the Human Races: "everyone will have average strength, average intelligence, average beauty. Men will look all alike, and no reason will exist for one man to have a richer lot than another". These were written 14 years before the publication of Das Kapital. How is it any different from Marx when he said that one day communism will inevitably come and that history deterministically starts with aristocracy, then capitalism (a rip-off from what Gobineau calls our current era,the age of the hybrids). Wich will be followed by the era of unity. Or communism in the rip-off made by Marx.

[Anonymous No.22249872]

>>22249855
Can't you accept not being able to understand a post on a first read? You're coming here and calling well established terms buzzwords. That's if you even know what a buzzword is.

[Anonymous No.22249881]

>>22249870
...you really think he wrote Capital in 14 days? Marx very explicitly is a synthesis of Adam Smith and Hegel.

[Anonymous No.22249883]

>>22249869
Third position does not get associated with the leftist revolutionary movements because it has a different direction all together. Your much more unsubstantiated opinion that you've implied by that question doesn't hold water either. Historical succession of societies is not a movement to the left, only the modern period of Europe follows this pattern.

[Anonymous No.22249890]

>>22249872
Can't you accept not being able to give benefit of the doubt? You're coming here and calling anything you don't like thoughtless degeneracy. That's if you know what a thought is.

[Anonymous No.22249891]

>>22249833
well, you just said everyone in cuck cabins is better than having palaces.
I'm just using a mode of argumentation, it's called reductio ad absurdum.

[Anonymous No.22249897]

>>22249883
Germans were the imperialized underclass of Roman society. Merchants were the oppressed underclass of Aristocratic society. All of material history progresses when an underclass seizes power.

[Anonymous No.22249905]

>>22249881
The economic part where he criticizes capitalism yes but communism and historical materialism no. Communism has existed for thousands of years now. Marx was right about communism coming at the end of societies. It's because communism is for old societies and the implementation of that political system is almost immediately followed by conquest by a stronger nation that still knows more aristocratic forms of government. Rome of the 3rd-5th Century was no different to America today. A rich society, but there being too many different people co-habitating close to each other made the sustainment of any policy that discriminated against others impossible - giving a logical explanation to why homosexuality became legal throughout the course of the 21st Century. It's not obvious at first glance, but the reasons are ethnoracial. Upsetting a single fraction of the population yet so small is putting too much at stake, like when the Romans made a word as meaningless and broad as "providence" their state religion.

[Anonymous No.22249912]

>>22249891
>you just said everyone in cuck cabins is better than having palaces
Nowhere did I even imply that, but that's not going to stop you from pulling straw men out of your ass. At this pace it'll soon amount to a whole terracotta army. How do you expect to have a meaningful discussion with anyone, if you won't even bother trying to undestand what someone meant? I get that my way with words might not be accurate, but we have to get out of our comfort zones, if we're to make anything worthwhile out of such interactions.

[Anonymous No.22249917]

>>22249865
>What you mean by this is call into question the view of history that just so happened to be created and supported your own government
What every totalitarian regime does.
>it was akshually like this!!11

>why did they kill most each other
One is socialist, the other communist. And by the notion of kills, the soviets were against themselves.

[Anonymous No.22249918]

>>22249681
>page 2: my wife works full times
>she fucks her coworkers
>she hops on nigger dick on swipe app collecting niggers for her stud stable
>my hands look like this so hers can look like...[draws it out in pencil to make his point]
>SUCK IT UP SWEETY

[Anonymous No.22249921]

>>22249912
>as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence.
Absolutely didn't say that, did you?
You rat.

[Anonymous No.22249923]

>>22249744
N

[Anonymous No.22249933]

>>22249890
If that's your assumption, I can assure you I know what marxism is. And I know what leninism is. And I understand the core ideas of anarcho-communism. I've read about it from the sources and gave enough benefit of the doubt already. What gets you so upset about me calling marxism a degenerate intellectual movement? Do you need an explanation?
Because that is not hard to understand.. Marxism does not appeal to everyone in the same manner, it's success can be attributed to this fact. It appeals to the oppressed worker as a way to liberate him from such oppression, for him it manifests as an impuls to gather a crowd and rob his boss so together everyone can have a good meal that day. A man in desperate condition DEGENERATES to this state, especially when seeing someone happily living a care free life. For a pseudointelectual man from the upper middle class marxism appeals as the way to prove his superiority by creating a system in which his power and status are recognized by the poor for whom he made a perfect system of redistribution. It is, of course, coupled with the DEGENERATE idea of being elected the chieftan and getting the top position and worship. None of this takes an account of responsibility, a fundamental quality of human. No mugger takes responsibility willingly, neither does an usurper. This is the same dynamic as you can see in chimps, only sprinkled with overly elaborate theory about what makes shit cost and how it is produced. Do you really believe that understanding of abstractions is the justification of immoral ways to acquire well being? Then you yourself are a degenerate.

[Anonymous No.22249945]

>>22249933
Absolutely correct and degenerately based.
reiterating what i said before, it's basically making up excuses for that degeneracy, by manner of kicking out absolute truth and making their own.

[Anonymous No.22249957]

>>22249446
including aristocracy in a serious discussion about ideologies demeans the actually serious ideologies, even ones as disastrous as communism/fascism
it would be like having a discussion on religion and including not just christianity atheism islam but also larp meme religions like astartu and wiccanism

[Anonymous No.22249958]

>>22249429
>arguments against liberalism
Liberalism has no built-in immunity to the collectivist mind virus it produces as a side effect. The system naturally produces winners and losers, and some fraction of the losers will seek to undermine the system (whether manifesting as communism or feminism or lgbtq+ or BLM/wokeness some similar incoherent but emotionally appealing postmodern ideology). Note that "losers" is relative-- academics who might seem to have a successful middle-class career still seethe with jealousy at their betters are a big source of collectivist cancer.

Liberalism has difficulty reconciling free speech and individualism in the face of dishonest, manipulative rhetoric that both exploits and strikes against these very core liberal values. To put it crudely: commies infect and kill liberalism, however liberalism expects you to tolerate commies. When conservatives try to protect the liberal institutions by purging the commies, liberals side with the communists who eventually stab them in the back (or shoot them in the face up against the wall).

>>22249608
Right. The spine doesn't have to be Christianity but there needs to be a spine.

>>22249635
>You can hardly expect democracy to work in a society which doesn't have the time and energy to participate in it.
A bigger problem than all of these things is scale of populations and the speed and sophistication of information flow in the modern world. (Sophistication both in terms of technology used to convey information, but also capability to manipulate human psychology at mass scale)

[Anonymous No.22249965]

>>22249933
we cannot steal our own labour

[Anonymous No.22249970]

>>22249945
>reiterating what i said before, it's basically making up excuses for that degeneracy, by manner of kicking out absolute truth and making their own.
>>22249933
>I can assure you I know what marxism is

How do you rationalize this "modern cold war propaganda iteration" of "marxism" with the historical reality? Political attention whores were imprisoned in psychiatric institutions (look up DSM sluggish schizophrenia and examine the current line-up of youtuber and activist culture), homosexuals, currency speculators and sex perverts were not empowered and crazy jews were imprisoned along with crazy antisemites; this constitutes that fabled gulag archipelago you've read so much about, you would slash your wrists to visit that place or a day and have to return to 2023. You would have had a secure job also, and assured housing, eliminating most of your economic needs today. And merely that is the USSR, as for contemporary China whose culture and economy vastly out-does that of the west... notice again that it's capitalism which is the cause of the woes and capitalism which has historically empowered the extremely depraved money-grubbing elements of the society that you're otherwise propagandized to believe communism was somehow doing.

*reloads shotgun*

This notion of,
>degenerately based.
>reiterating what i said before, it's basically making up excuses for that degeneracy, by manner of kicking out absolute truth and making their own.
can be demonstrated in every instance it is said by a westerner to be simple terror-dissonance; that is: you know and are terrified to say this is true of your own society (which you could do something about) so you try to articulate the grief you feel about your society onto other societies, and seek allies of those same grievances who displace their focus away from your/our society and onto sophistic political ejaculation.

*reloads shotgun*

would you like for me to put you out of your misery now that both your kneecaps are gone, senor amerimutt?

[Anonymous No.22249976]

>>22249520
You just described a major flaw with aristocracy. It's brittle and volatile. It does a poor job providing non-violent solutions to political conflicts so you wind up with assassinations and warfare.

[Anonymous No.22249978]

>>22249468
> Blood, culture, and community
just more copes for technological slavery and lifelong toil

[Anonymous No.22249985]

>>22249957
Do you like writing about things you have no clue about? Aristocracy has been the form of government throughout most of Europe for more than 900 years. What makes you call it a meme?

[Anonymous No.22249993]

>>22249976
No, I pointed out the illegality of many current governments and contrasted it sith the legitimacy of most historical aristocratic governments.

[Anonymous No.22249995]

>>22249446
>degenerates into hedonism and competition in vanities after the first gen
Very nice

[Anonymous No.22249996]

>>22249631
You could not have gone to college. I’m convinced everyone who buys into that narrative is a mechanic coping about how valuable their “common sense” is

[Anonymous No.22250002]

>>22249921
>as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence
is not the same as
>having everyone in a mudhouse is better than having some proper housing
it moreso implies
>housing standards change relatively to overall state of housing
Here's my attempt at explaining what I understand by it, before you call me a rat.

>>22249933
>What gets you so upset about me calling marxism a degenerate intellectual movement?
That judging by your wording, you'd rather reduce it alltogether, rather than give a single point any credit.

>Marxism does not appeal to everyone in the same manner
Sure.
>it's success can be attributed to this fact
Succes to what capacity? You win some, you lose some. It caught on in some places, didn't in others, and many had their own approach to it. You can hardly compare stalinists with anarcho-communists for example.
>It appeals to the oppressed worker as a way to liberate him from such oppression
Sure.
>For him it manifests as an impuls to gather a crowd and rob his boss so together everyone can have a good meal that day.
Or it can be argued they're reclaiming the surplus value that's been stolen from them instead, which puts it in a different light.
>A man in desperate condition DEGENERATES to this state
Or gains political consciousness, if it doesn't end up in aimless agitation and a lash out.
>For a pseudointelectual man from the upper middle class marxism appeals as the way to prove his superiority by creating a system in which his power and status are recognized by the poor for whom he made a perfect system of redistribution. It is, of course, coupled with the DEGENERATE idea of being elected the chieftan and getting the top position and worship. None of this takes an account of responsibility, a fundamental quality of human. No mugger takes responsibility willingly, neither does an usurper.
Opportunism isn't exclusive to marxism. I can take it as an argument against the vanguardist line of marxism-leninism, but that's a particular interpretation of marxism, and we're trying to discuss marxism in and of itself.
>This is the same dynamic as you can see in chimps, only sprinkled with overly elaborate theory about what makes shit cost and how it is produced.
That's the kind of reductionism I was refering to, and there's limits to how far one can argue with such statements, nevermind the point.
>Do you really believe that understanding of abstractions is the justification of immoral ways to acquire well being?
There's plenty to take into account with any kind of justification, so understanding of abstractions alone doesn't do it. It is however one of it's elements, and what is a fair or moral way to acquire/distributed this wellbeing, is precisely what marxism attempts to elaborate on.
>degeneracy
is subjective in this context


>>22249958
>the speed of information flow in the modern world
The fact we live in times of post-truth doesn't help the situation, yeah.

[Anonymous No.22250007]

>>22249828
You have never read Marx it seems. Cant even say if you are baiting or just simply uneducated

[Anonymous No.22250018]

>>22249970
Most based post I've ever read on /lit/

[Anonymous No.22250026]

>>22250002
it does, in the most literal sense, mean that if nobody has something superior, the lowest common denominator becomes good. That expectations might change based on envy of what another has. it's equaling a manlet with a giant by saying it can't have height.
I just added some humour into that.

You can see that play out in everyone living in a disgusting 'commie block' in soviet and ex-soviet countries.

[Anonymous No.22250029]

>>22249970
>>22250018
samefag+reddit tier "kneecap shooting" edginess
go back.

[Anonymous No.22250036]

>>22249970
Made my day with the argumentation, mentioning gulag archipelago AND the verbal shotgun. Thank you anon.

[Anonymous No.22250040]

>>22249970
>>22250018
>>22250036
Samefag
You need to go back loser
Also the shotgun edginess
Very marxistic if you get what I mean
Loser

[Anonymous No.22250046]

>>22250040
Cope and seethe in your reality bubble

[Anonymous No.22250055]

>>22249446
Because it turns into inbred megalomaniac cunts play games with human life for entertainment of their equally inbred ego bloated contemporaries. Unless I am born into one then it's the best way to rule and what the fuck did you just say about my family? Imagine being a Kennedy who didn't get shot. Life is so fucking easy you might end up as an unironic anti-vaxx president.

[Anonymous No.22250074]

>>22250046
Shut up gangster
Literal gangster thugs taking up the government
I will not allow that