[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 132 KB, 1256x1075, 25245637zu43783473.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2286747 No.2286747[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Is my assumption correct that most people on /lit/ have a leftist-utopian worldview?
As in you believe that the current political and economic systems are completely flawed and the transition to some kind of communist/socialist/anarcho-syndicalist/[...] society is necessary and would lead to greater prosperity and happiness for everyone?

>> No.2286754

I hope not.

>> No.2286758

>As in you believe that the current political and economic systems are completely flawed and the transition to some kind of communist/socialist/anarcho-syndicalist/[...] society is necessary and would lead to greater prosperity and happiness for everyone?

I do not agree with that viewpoint.

>> No.2286763

>>2286747
I do, but it'll never happen.

>> No.2286764

Nope

>> No.2286769
File: 91 KB, 200x200, 1323809284330.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2286769

I love how stupid it sounds when you phrase it like that.

>> No.2286775

>>2286747
No, because a utopia is unachievable.

>> No.2286776

Humans aren't built for communism.

Anarcho-syndicalism? Puh-leeeez.

Regulated, mildly socialist capitalism is what works, but most countries haven't got it right. Look thee to Scandinavia. The US is an unregulated pigfuckery right now.

>> No.2286784
File: 3 KB, 210x230, =[.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2286784

>that libertarian feel of disgust whenever you hear people talk about such things

>> No.2286788

>implying Plato's Republic wouldn't work

>> No.2286789

>>2286784
>That feel of disgust when you realise there are libertarians.

>> No.2286797

>>2286776

>implying regulations help the market

>> No.2286798

I believe that any form of government will inevitably be corrupted, and that man's true nature makes it literally impossible for a government for the people, and that the one that we currently have (in America) is close enough that it works for me for the rest of my short life.

>> No.2286801

>>2286797
Because we all know working conditions in the 1800s were so much better than they are today.

>> No.2286803

>>2286801

>implying the 1800s weren't a golden age for the entire world

>> No.2286807

>>2286747
I don't even know anymore. I used to buy into the LTV and used to advocate full on communism and I used to believe in the distinction between "personal property" and "private property". I can't believe in those things anymore.

Yet I still see the ways big businesses and the logic of capitalism allows people to suffer and prevents them from living as they'd want to. However even that judgment rests on several assumptions that I just am not sure of:

>implying people deserve the life they want
>implying all suffering is bad
>implying the businesses that have corrupted our government were born from pure capitalism

and if even those are in fact problems, I don't think the government I currently live under is in any way equipped to address them.

>> No.2286808

>>2286803
>implying people die from cholera in a golden age

>> No.2286813

>>2286808

I'd rather cholera than AIDS, chumley.

>> No.2286814

>you believe that the current political and economic systems are completely flawed

sure

>and the transition to some kind of communist/socialist/anarcho-syndicalist/[...] society is necessary

no

>and would lead to greater prosperity and happiness for everyone?

maybe

Mostly I just don't want to work.

>> No.2286816

>>2286803
>implying living conditions in the 1800s were superior to today
Face it, technological and medical advancements mean you and I are able to live more fulfilling lives and not waste our lives away in some shit coal mine or shoe factory.

>> No.2286819

>>2286813
You'd have to fuck someone first, champ.

>> No.2286821

democratic government with private ownership, strong regulations especially on finance sector, and an energetic social safety net. duh. duh, you guys.

>> No.2286820

If anyone has read Island, by Huxley, then that is what I consider to be a utopia. Is it achievable? Perhaps, perhaps not.

>> No.2286822

>>2286819

>implying I haven't sown my wild oats

>>2286816

We're on the verge of another golden age. Too bad socialists/big government types are trying to ruin it for everyone.

>> No.2286825

>>2286816
Doesn't someone have to do the shit jobs though? The poorness of poor people forces them to do the things a modern society needs. If we had a more collective arrangement many of the things we deem as goods we value would not seem worth the effort of society as a whole.

>> No.2286826

>>2286821

>safety net

Why the fuck should I pay for Leroy the Redneck and Jenesha from the Hood's 10 idiot children?

>> No.2286827

>>2286801
>implying the working conditions didn't improve tremendously from 1800 to 1914, before big government involvement and regulations even started
The working conditions improved and pollution went down because science and technology improved and enabled cleaner and more efficient production, not because of government regulations.

The kind of government involvement in the economy and social welfare state we have today didn't exist before the world wars, but the life and working conditions of the population improved dramatically even without that.

>> No.2286829

people who believe in utopias are naive morons who should try reading Notes from the Underground, Plato's fascist Republic, The Death of Ivan Ilyich, or anything regarding the self-destructive nature of man.

>> No.2286832

>>2286822
I fail to see how regulating pollution and food is keeping us from reaching an age of enlightenment. Please, elaborate.

>> No.2286835

>>2286822
We are not on the edge of a golden age. We are teetering on the precipice of self-annihilation. Libertarianism is tres chic right now, but if that means I have to live in a world where a library isn't really worth propping up then fuck that world.

>> No.2286836

>>2286822
We're nowhere close to another golden age. And those "socialists" are trying to put laws in place to prevent more of the shit that is currently fucking us over. Namely, being able to hold certain people accountable when they fail hard enough to fuck over the rest of the economy.

>> No.2286837

>>2286826
because it's the way you build a healthy society, a good society, a viable society.

>>2286827
government involvement and regulations had certainly started before 1914, mang. also, it's not as though 1800 was "no regulation" - the story of liberalization & regulation is a lot more complicated than that (for instance how does your narrative account for peel's repeal of the corn laws, which was government action to liberalize trade but nominally for the purpose of relieving the irish famine)

>> No.2286838

>>2286832

>regulating pollution

You mean allowing big corporations to pay to pollute more?

>regulating food

You mean subsidizing corn farmers so that there's so much extra corn that they have to put corn syrup in everything, leading to obesity and diabetes?

>> No.2286842

>>2286829
Question for you: are you religious or just pessimistic? I am reading a lot into your response, I know, but I can't help but ask this.

>> No.2286841

>>2286837

>because it's the way you build a healthy society, a good society, a viable society.


So you want a society full of idiot redneck children with no sense of responsibility. Right. No way THAT will ever go wrong.

>> No.2286848

>>2286841
We'd have that no matter what. Welcome to America.

>> No.2286846

>>2286836

You mean like the socialistic bailing out of big banks who squandered their and their customer's money?

>> No.2286849

>>2286835

There's nothing stopping you from having a library in a Libertarian society. It just wouldn't be government funded. It would have to be publicly funded.

>> No.2286850

>>2286784
>that tru libertarian feel when capitalist scums identify as libertarian

>> No.2286854

>>2286848

there'd be less of it if people weren't forced (by threat of prison) to pay for the idiot children. Let some of them starve to death and they'll learn their lesson.

>> No.2286856

>>2286846
Those corporate fucks paid for those votes. It's not socialism, it's corruption. And the bank bailouts were carried out by Bush appointees, under the urging or George W. Bush. Unless Republicans are socialists now.

>> No.2286857

>>2286841
i wouldn't put it that way and i don't think that would be the real effect of social safety net & regulations, except in a very marginal way. most people are willing to work, and the situation wrt the general welfare of society would not be any worse than the situation as it is now or in libertopia. there'll always be lazy and bad people.

>> No.2286859

>>2286856

Get with the times. Republicans are fascists, Dems are socialists, both want to fuck you.

Less government = less corruption. Deal with it.

>> No.2286862

>>2286854
Have fun trying to sell a system that involves children starving to death to the general population.

>> No.2286863

>>2286837
The government involvement was minimal before WW1. It was ~3% of GDP back then, ever since the world wars it rose steadily and today it's more than 30%.
Government spending before 1914 was too small to have any impact on the economy or provide social welfare, that's just a fact.

>> No.2286867

>>2286859
What proof do you have to back up that claim?

>> No.2286870

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

learn the difference

>> No.2286865

>>2286857

>there'll always be lazy and bad people.

And I don't want my tax money supporting them.

I'll gladly donate to a charity I think deserves it, but those fucks don't deserve a cent of my money.

>> No.2286868

>>2286825
There's a world of difference between what we consider a shit job now and what they considered one pre 20th century. Working upwards of 80 hours a week in a coal mine or some other physically demanding job only to make piddly shit wages that can't even sustain yourself let alone your family is a load of bullshit. And then what happens if you were to get injured? Without those regulations, you really think David Koch is gonna let you sue him for unsafe working conditions? Anyone who actually believes the 1800s were better than contemporary times is incredibly naive. I'd be willing to wager that they also don't have very many years of working experience under their belt either. And I'm talking real work, not your burger flipping easy shit. Work in construction for as long as I have, and try to tell me you'd rather live in the 1800s.

>> No.2286871

>>2286862

Oh, it's fruitless, I know. Believe me.

I still try, because it's the right thing to do.

So is letting the poor foreign countries starve to death. Maybe if we didn't send them food they could reach a stable population.

>> No.2286873

>>2286867

It's logic, man. If there's less of something then there's less of it to corrupt.

>> No.2286874

>>2286859
there would still be corruption, just it would be you getting fucked by businesses instead of government

>>2286863
there's a difference between government spending and government involvement. those are not at all identical. government regulation began before 1914, even if social welfare spending didn't. also, if you want to take a look at government spending, that includes defense spending & military-industrial stuff that's hardly social welfare money.

>> No.2286875

>>2286871
So letting children starve to death because of their parents mistakes is the right thing to do?
Cool logic, bro.

>> No.2286881

>>2286838
DHT is no longer used as a pestilent and the food industry is far better than it was in the 1800s thanks to the FDA. It's not without its flaws, but things are better. Don't believe me, read The Jungle.

>> No.2286878

>>2286874

At least I could choose what business to give my money to in that scenario. Not so easy to choose a different government.

>> No.2286877
File: 43 KB, 450x292, prof .jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2286877

itt:
>hurrr durrr nature of man

mfw /lit/ can't into Derrida

>> No.2286880

>>2286850
Why would you call yourself libertarian if you hate the free market?
Is being a leftist/liberal/socialist/whatever not good enough for you?

>> No.2286885

>>2286859
>Less government = less corruption
The point of regulations is to stop corruption, people will always shit all over each other as much as they can that's why we need a system put in place to control rampant capitalists and maintain a stable economy.

>> No.2286882

>>2286865
that's a bizarre and insupportable moral judgment, though, and it makes for a much worse society. your drive to punish the percentage of people who are actually lazy leads you to set up a society which screws over many more people who are not lazy & who could use help, and in general leads to a crueler, more empty, worse society. i'm okay with helping a few lazy bastards b/c it leads to a society that is ultimately more stable and more vital.

>> No.2286884

>>2286846
Is that socialistic (Nevermind, let's not go there for all our sanity's sake.)? Marx would probably point out that this represents a flaw in capitalism, in that it allows for banks that are too big to fail. If those banks went under, as in a free market, the results would have been catastrophic. Therefore, well-meaning liberals gave them a lot of money. In the end the only person that loses is the taxpayer. As usual.

In an ideal system, in my opinion, markets and people would only be able to tie each other to their successes, their failures would not affect the rest of society.

>> No.2286887

>>2286882

You have a bigger heart than I do. I'm bitter from years of having my paycheck stolen from.

I'm one of the people who could use help, and I don't take it. It's simply not the government's place to give it.

>> No.2286888

>>2286878
lol. "what i want is to choose who fucks me over!!! let's not even try to do anything that might limit the amount of being fucked. that's crazy talk."

>>2286885
yep

>> No.2286892

>>2286880
Capitalism isn't the same thing as the free market.

I call myself a libertarian because I belong to that tradition. American "libertarians" do not.

>> No.2286893

>>2286873
Because the business world if full of morally righteous people. They would fuck you over just as hard and with out the regulatory infrastructure, you'd just have to deal with it. The market would never self correct, because the corporations would have complete control over it. Poison in the food? It's cool, we fixed it. you have our word. Those people are dying from something else, at least according to these studies we paid for.

>> No.2286890

>>2286885

I'd really love to continue this argument, but I have to pick up my SO from work.

>> No.2286895

>>2286887
i can understand that, but it's not just a question of a bigger heart - i really do think that it's essential for a well-run stable society & i have an interest in living in that kind of society

>> No.2286896
File: 91 KB, 323x323, rr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2286896

>>2286776

>Tiny, energy–rich, ethnically homogenous, high IQ states used as a guide for American governance.

>mfw

>> No.2286909

>>2286874
You don't know shit about the economy of the 19th century. It is consensus even among the leftist economic scholars that the time before the world wars had barely any regulations and government involvement. Yes there was some, but all in all the amount was insignificant and had little to no impact.
I'm done talking with you. Read up on the topic next time before you talk such nonsense.

>> No.2286912

>>2286747
Yes.

Specifically, an anarchist society built on principles of autonomy and mutual aid.

Peter Kropotkin style anarchy.

>> No.2286913

>>2286909
lol

cool, dude, blow your shit

play like roosevelt didn't start trustbusting in 1900

whatever

>> No.2286917

>>2286887
Who says it's not the governments to give? Having a healthy and well educated population is good for everyone. Your taxes are like a form of insurance. I've been paying car insurance since I was 17, and have never had a wreck or any other occasion to make a claim. That doesn't mean I'm willing to get rid of that insurance. Same thing with social welfare. You don't have as much control over what happens in your life as you think you do. When I was little (around 5 or 6) my dad lost his job, and my mom was pregnant with my younger brother and unable to work. My dad lost his job because his boss was an exceptional piece of shit. My dad had been trying to find a new job for a little while to get away from it, but he couldn't find anything at the time that paid anywhere close to what he was making. We received at least 2 welfare checks, and it kept us afloat until my dad managed to find a new job. It was in a different field than he was used to, but paid a little better. If it wasn't for that assistance, we'd have been fucked. We had no way to know my dad would find a job as quickly as he did, and with my mom damn close to giving birth, we'd have been extra fucked. After that we were fine.

>> No.2286934

>>2286887
According to the Constitution, it is.

Article 1, Section. 8.The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That falls under the "general welfare" phrase.

You act like everyone who needs help is some freeloading scumbag. Not everyone is a lazy piece of shit. Some people just need a little bit to help get them through whatever troubles they're going through.