/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23105272]

what is the difference between modern and post-modern?

[Anonymous No.23105273]

>>23105272
Jews

[Anonymous No.23105285]

>>23105272
modern = kant till nietzsche
post modern = nietzsche till present
it's not exactly a perfect delineation because ideas post nietzche took heavy inspiration from modernism but they were never able to refute his criticisms.

[Anonymous No.23105291]

modern = good
post-modern = bad

[Anonymous No.23105294]

lowkey schizo to highkey schizo

[Anonymous No.23105315]

Modernism
>The world is old, let's make it new again by returning to the things themselves (die Sache selbst) and having the vigor to see everything afresh! Let's have a new axial age! Let's shrug off all this decadence and discouragement, at the end of this age of failed optimism, and take the bull of history by its horns! Whatever you do, do it authentically!

Postmodernism
>Well that didn't work. I guess I write for Encounter Magazine, now?
>Btw did you know anti-pedophilia technically is a cultural construct and there's a tribe in Booboo Mapoopoo that thinks fucking kids is normal??? Makes you think huh?? Huh???

[Anonymous No.23105328]

>>23105315
So what kind of movement is gonna come next after this?

[Anonymous No.23105331]

>>23105328
Back to modernism again. Read Griffin, Modernism and Fascism.

[Anonymous No.23105344]

Modernism never actually existed, it's just a collective hallucination that people have about the past.
Meanwhile every instance of the present is postmodern, the past was better, the future is doomed, we are watching Rome burn, everyone thinks this because the time before you were born is intangible and the time after you die is unknowable, and the present is boring and you have to shit like 4 times a day how can this be the height of civilization everything fucking sucks.

[Anonymous No.23105356]

>>23105328
Neofeudalism. We can already see it taking shape. There will be powerful landlords who control vast swathes of real estate, not only in the real world, but in the virtual world as well. We will be reduced to serfs. Perhaps we will even have city-states whose borders are not constrained by mere geographic coincidence

[Anonymous No.23105359]

>>23105272

[Anonymous No.23105362]

>>23105356
But aren't they trying to dissolve all borders and make identities obsolete?

[Anonymous No.23105367]

>>23105356
AiFeudalism where the demiurge behind capitalism in all living and non-living things consolidates power with the ultimate goal of the entire planet and everything on it completely enslaved to serving the most superior Ai that needs the resources of an entire solar system to expand itself to eventual total entropy and heat-death of the universe.

[Anonymous No.23105372]

>>23105328
Either neo-modernism or neo-romanticism, except its exponents will be true fanatics.

[Anonymous No.23106414]

>>23105372
>neo-modernism or neo-romanticism
I'd be happy with either :)

[Anonymous No.23106677]

>>23105328
Irony. It has already happened, now we're in post-irony.

[Anonymous No.23106763]

>>23106677
Stop using your phone during class.

[Anonymous No.23106767]

>>23105372
>>23105356
Neo-feudalism AND Neo-Romanticism.

Neo-feudalism will come for two reasons. First, most human beings are becoming irrelevant to the human economy. A small cadre of skilled technicians and the owners of capital matter. It's not that unskilled and low skilled labor can be entirely replaced, it's that there will be 25 people to fill each position.

Automation and AI will just turbo charge the now 60 year trend of rich nations having stagnating median wages, productivity growth divorced for wage growth (except for the top), and income from labor making up a lower and lower share of all income (most money will be made from owning capital instead of working in the not too distant future, we have been moving this way for decades).

More importantly, automated weapons systems, autonomous spotter drones, automated artillery batteries, artillery and MLRS deployed spotters, automated AP and interception systems, UGV support for infantry, etc.

Point here is that war can increasingly now be better fought by small elite cadres of well equipped soldiers than vast mass mobilized forces. The last time we saw a shift like this was the advent of the stirrup.

This history of the modern era is one where the citizens gradually gain rights because their labor and their mass mobilization into the military is essential for winning wars. Neither are going to be nearly as much the case in the future. And we are already seeing state decay in rich nations. Recall, the strong states of today came about from an alliance between the new middle class, peasants, and monarchs, as the latter two allied with the monarch to stop the dominance of recalcitrant feudal elites. This only worked because winning wars no longer required those elites.

In the future, capital, owned by elites, will be increasingly more important.

We already see armies getting smaller and more professional. As Gibbon says if Rome, the move from citizen soldiers to elite professionals "elevated war into an art... and degraded it into a trade."

Autonomous technologies are already here, just in their infancy. Don't let Ukraine fool you, one side has a per capital GDP on par with Botswana and Guatemala, the other has endemic hyper corruption. Neither exemplify even the current potential of immature autonomous technologies. Give it 20-30 years and the shift will be even more palpable. China is rushing to reduce the size of its military and make it more focused on quality, mass mobilization is dead. Just consider how Saddam spent lavishly on his military and had vast numbers under arms. Further, modern surveillance technology, cameras on every block, facial recognition, DNA banks, tracking apps, all make control easier.

Michelle Alexander's the "New Jim Crow," is actually prescient here. There she says the problem for blacks isn't that US elites want to expropriate their labor or wealth, it's that both are irrelevant to them. The only thing they have left of value is their vote.

[Anonymous No.23106778]

>>23106767
How long until that vote is made more and more irrelevant? These things don't happen overnight. People freaking out over Trump refusing to acknowledge election results or GOP plans for Electoral College-like systems at the state level (the Colorado plan would given them the governor's seat despite losing by 36%/64%) are thinking too short term. Before Caesar Augustus and Anthony, there was Julius Caesar and Pompi, and before that there was Marius and Sula. The degradation of electoral power will take time, but it seems likely if most people simply consume welfare and are irrelevant/easily replaceable in both defense and the economy. Mass migration and identity struggles clearly open up a path for minority rule being supported.

So, feudalism. Wagner won't be the last of its kind despite the obvious risks. The paradigm of the flexibile, private sector, tech-like military company is too alluring in our era, and caldrons like Africa with its population bomb represent excellent future opportunities.

So, will you serve House Musk or House Zuckerberg?

[Anonymous No.23106790]

>>23105367
This was a really good book, and had a pretty positive tone, but it definetly showed how such a thing is possible.


The parts about "core algorithms," the evolution of memes, languages, institutions, and societies, etc. convergent evolution as a terraced multi-level scan of solution spaces, all made me think Hegel was on to something very deep. When it comes to history and institutions, they are the substance and we are mere accident.

Hegel's self-aware state that knows what it wills and wills the best for all and helps being people's social welfare functions and identity into harmony seems a long way of, and things might get worse before they get better.

But what can be done? A Brave New World? Man must be forced to be free. A recalcitrant and petty people deserve the right to be punished by history.

[Anonymous No.23106808]

>>23105359
Post the original version mate.

[Anonymous No.23106809]

>>23106778
>or GOP plans for Electoral College-like systems at the state level (the Colorado plan would given them the governor's seat despite losing by 36%/64%)
I'll admit that is pretty weird, but you know that most states used to have non-proportional senates like the one we have in DC, right? It was just an accepted practice to have your state house by population-based and your state senate be county-based (or some similar model, sometimes town-based), until the Supreme Court just randomly abolished the whole thing in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) in an act of obvious judicial activism.

Strangely, there was barely any opposition. Conservatives cared more about meme social issues than this giant and unconstitutional blow to the political order, which severely weakened their state-level power and also made state governments way less gridlocked (so every fucking election there is a risk that a simple 51% majority can go in and change everything).

I get that the Court probably needed to do something about extreme cases like this:
>In the Vermont General Assembly, the smallest district had 36 people, the largest 35,000.
But they didn't just set some reasonable limits, they threw the whole thing out the window and made "one man, one vote" in every single state, including ones that obviously needed a non-proportional senate like Illinois (one giant, fucked-up city tucked away in the corner has more people than the rest of the state combined).

[Anonymous No.23106826]

What about meta-modern?

[Anonymous No.23106869]

>>23106809
I am talking about who becomes governor. As far as I am aware, no state currently allows you to get less votes and win a governor's race.

The Constitution used to allow EC delegates and states to decide who would be President, rather than the votes. That is, the votes weren't binding. And this was true for Senators as well. Candidates used to be picked by convention delegates far more often (Lincoln famously was brokered, not a primary/caucus winner).

These institutions were largely born out of the concerns of their era, in a more loosely bound society and economy, with a large uneducated public.

The EC itself was almost removed in the 1970s. It was almost never a factor in elections. Now it is the deciding factor. The past three elections one party hasn't even pretended like getting more votes is a real goal. The GOP has won more votes in one election in the last third+ of a century, and the one time they won they won by narrow margins by having the incumbency during 9/11 despite getting less votes in 2000 and, according to the best recount, losing the EC too. That is, Bush II won because his campaign manager was Florida AG and his brother was governor and intervened for him.

But the problem is that it then becomes all about parties securing the mechanics of elections, not actually being more popular.

[Anonymous No.23106912]

>>23106869
Because what actually makes democracy good?

It sure as hell isn't that it gives citizens some sort of strong sense of ownership in their society and causes them to identify with the state. Maybe some forms of democracy achieve this, but American democracy definetly doesn't, and I'd argue a continent spanning, 330+ million nation where 1 in every 8+ people if foreign born and 25+% are foreign born or have at least one foreign born parent is unlikely to achieve this.

So the real benefits seems to be what Fukuyama calls "accountability," which is basically that if someone fucks up and is unpopular they get the boot and someone else comes in.

There are many ways to do this. A city or county manager is accountable despite not being directly elected, because an elected city council can hire or fire them. These vastly outperform elected mayor's in the aggregate because it turns out that what makes you good at winning popularity contests isn't what makes you a good manager.

But it's particularly noxious if who wins elections increasingly becomes about who can best manipulate the law and effect turn out.

Also, the US legislature is too big. People in small groups can debate and decide on issues. People in groups over 70 act like a mob breaking into factions. And then Gerrymandering allows for extremely radical outlier people to get into office who are far from the median voter. Like right now, 8 reps from bum fuck are driving US foreign policy. No aid for US allies despite it passing the Senate 70/30 because of those 8, who also deposed the last speaker, even though they readily admit the aid would pass by a large majority of the House was allowed to vote on it. And we just lost the biggest migration deal in 30+ years, which we desperately need to curb illegal immigration, to those same 8.

[Anonymous No.23106933]

>>23106869
Yes, I know what you're talking about and I acknowledged it, but governors and presidents matter so much less than control of congress and state legislatures.
>The Constitution used to allow EC delegates and states to decide who would be President, rather than the votes
It still does, all that changed is that the supreme court allowed states to punish electors who go "faithless" after the fact (which requires the state enacting and enforcing a law, it doesn't happen automatically or anything, and we're usually just talking about a $1000 fine). The president is still put into office by the actual votes cast by human electors.
>It was almost never a factor in elections.
It absolutely was, read about some old elections and you'll see that they were very much focused on swinging states. It just happened that the popular vote usually lined up with whoever won the electoral college since states weren't as polarized so it didn't take a lot to overcome a 'hard' state, and also there were a lot of landslide victories in the past few decades,

I'm not trying to be a dick here but did you just learn about the electoral college or something? It sounds like you're under the impression that most people don't know about this stuff, which is not the case.

[Anonymous No.23106937]

>>23106808
I take great joy in knowing with my taxes I fund some faggot "academic" that gets paid wage for writing papers like "searching elements of critique of post-modernism in looney tunes: daffy duck as a flower."

[Anonymous No.23106943]

>>23106912
>And then Gerrymandering allows for extremely radical outlier people to get into office who are far from the median voter
>No aid for US allies
>Ukraine, Israel
Nigger please

[Anonymous No.23106954]

>>23106943
Even if it's bad policy, it is still the case that US foreign policy and long term obligations shouldn't be dictated a handful of people from random districts.

MTG is a full on retard and Gaetz is a criminal. Neither should have more influence on foreign policy than ranking House and Senate committee members, and yet currently they do.

[Anonymous No.23107066]

>>23106954
Sure, and they are all retarded and/or evil. The American public is completely misinformed by the people picking and paying them. The system is deeply vitiated and illegitimate and will continue to deteriorate. I think your autonomous tech predictions are a meme in that they don't seem to favor who you predict.
>In the future, capital, owned by elites, will be increasingly more important.
>How long until that vote is made more and more irrelevant?
Already happened. The social degradation has now started to effect basic demographic factors (https://www.unz.com/estriker/the-collapse-of-the-american-empire-part-i-demographics/)), the atomization, impoverishment, retardation, etc. already make a House Musk or Zuckerberg seem like pipedreams. The minimal level of competence/sanity/good will to make control matter do not apply to any current elite in the US. China is a more interesting question.

[Anonymous No.23107120]

>>23107066
>I think your autonomous tech predictions are a meme in that they don't seem to favor who you predict.

They don't necessarily favor current elites, rather they favor elites by default. If the vast bulk of people become dramatically less relevant to the economy or defense, they lose their leverage to secure rights.

In the 50s and 60s there was great optimism about the future. Automation was going to make it so we could all work just 20 hours a week and enjoy this super high standard of living. But this is predicated on the strong system of redistribution that existed back then, and on the idea that redistribution would get increasingly more palatable as the economy and wealth concentrated in the hands of a few. (See pic related, concentration has blown up as predicted; inflation was in part driven by markets such as meat packing being concentrated almost entirely into four firms — something like 65% of the value of the average American grocery cart go to six conglomerates)

What wasn't predicted was mass migration, which radically undermined a common sense of identity and unions, in turn undermining support for the socialist policies that became standard across all developed countries by the end of WWII (old age pensions, no child labor, universal education, right to unionize, etc.)

Liberal democracy sublated nationalism and socialism, taking in core parts of each, but digesting all the inflows from the third world (which necessarily also spike inequality while driving wages down and rents up) crashed the system's equilibrium.

By 2050, Pew has it that half of all Americans will be foreign born or have foreign born parents. The big Western European nations will become majority non-European around 2080. This is a vastly faster displacement than the Americas saw after Europeans arrived, albeit not one of conquest. There will be serious fallout for social institutions.

This is especially true because our belief in the future being significantly better led to lopsided funding of seniors over the young across the West. The US spends half its entire budget on seniors, giving them UBI and universal healthcare. Children get well less than half the $38,800 federal transfer payments per senior per year, and they must pay off the $33T debt. How much worse will this be as it shifts so that the old are largely a different ethnicity for the young? It's a time bomb, as is Africa's population situation.

In such a world, as the state decays, who is most able to pick up the pieces and gain power? Obviously the economic elite.

Ruling in name, fielding armies, that likely isn't in the cards, but dominating far more than the Guilded Age? Seems likely.

[Anonymous No.23107193]

>>23107120
>In such a world, as the state decays, who is most able to pick up the pieces and gain power? Obviously the economic elite.

>Ruling in name, fielding armies, that likely isn't in the cards, but dominating far more than the Guilded Age? Seems likely.

I guess I just think this has largely already happened. I don't know much about the Gilded Age but it seems like a gulf after a steady decline separates wasp elites of the time from the jewish and multiminority elites of today. I can't imagine they were so low quality. By contrast, tech has leveled the playing field of potential elites somewhat. Information if not directly education is superabundant, Israel cannot hide its crimes completely but relies on control of old media, intimidation and unengagement. Musk has to keep in their good graces. There is a gaping hole where a native elite not actively hostile to its people should be. That is imprudent on the current elite's part.