/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2787885]

>not being marxist
>2012

You are doing it wrong, dude.

[Anonymous No.2787918]

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.2789492]

>being marxist and using lenin as your mascot
>2012

[Anonymous No.2789573]

Economic inevitablism like Marx assumed, which says that the proletarian revolution is inevitable, as is the eventual communistic society, is idiotic. I can respect communism, but not the Marxist strains thereof.

[Anonymous No.2789577]

>>2789573
So what authors do you think are theoretically sound?

[Anonymous No.2789580]

>>2789573
cool opinion, got an argument?

[Anonymous No.2789588]

>not being Neo-Marxist
>2012

[Anonymous No.2789589]

>>2789577
I prefer Kropotkin, Malatesta, and Bakunin.

[Anonymous No.2789591]

>>2789588
That was the intent of
>>2789492

[Anonymous No.2789624]

>>2789580
Marx never made a convincing argument for "this WILL happen" and never elaborated on his ideas such that they could be interpreted in ways that didn't end in colossal failure. And like Bakunin said, people won't enjoy being beaten with a stick any more if you write "the people's stick" on it.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2789625]

>>2787885
>Marxism
>Lenin

You did it wrong.

[Anonymous No.2789628]

I can't find a place to discuss leftist politics. RevLeft is full of complete idiots.

[Anonymous No.2789631]

(Latin) American Communism ftw

[Anonymous No.2789638]

>>2789628
I don't think the internet is really a place where these discussions can happen. Honestly the only place I've found that can sustain discussions and give them justice are classes or debate societies (well, intercollegiate debate in the u.s.)

[Anonymous No.2789680]

>>2789631
If you mean communism as a big concept and not as a variation or modification of the marxist communism you're correct. It's anarchism, with a maya touch.


And welp, being a marxist in the 21th century it's a big error and ignorance. Only old people like Hobsbawm are still trying to save something from that dead rotten body named marxism-leninism, and the marxists that reivindicated the council and direct democracy form of the pre-bolshevik marxism are gone or they adapted into something less dogmatic like zapatism, damn, even the situationists are only anarchists today... Trotskysm it's the last "good" alive branch of marxism, but they're extremely obsessed with the doctrine of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, it's a religion for them. And as we all know, the marxists-leninists of the past are social-democrats now or they went postal.

Choose something better, have an open mind. Stop reading crap and get out of your fucking house, get your own experience from the social movements of today.

[Standard Toaster !bw9Bs742EI No.2789684]

[Anonymous No.2789690]

If you're a Marxist and you are older than 24, you need to seriously re-evaluate your life. You are quite possibly mentally retarded.

[Anonymous No.2789695]

>>2789690
How do you value your life?

[Anonymous No.2789697]

lenin was a tad insane but marx was a pretty cool guy

[Anonymous No.2789700]

>>2789690

Go on. What's your argument?

[Anonymous No.2789712]

>>2789690
what about historical materialism?

that shit makes too much sense. everyone eats that shits these days.
you cant even fox news for 10 minutes without getting a hm narrative from some rightist.
>a powerful elite wants us to surrender to their control. but we wont.
>fight the power.

[Anonymous No.2789713]

>>2789680

>>>Only old people like Hobsbawm are still trying to save something from that dead rotten body named marxism-leninism

How am I supposed to take you seriously when you use an ageist ad hominem (old people). That's not very anarchist of you. . . I think you're just here to score brownshirt points for edginess with the 4chan crowd. Unless you're brewing up mollies, STFU.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2789716]

>>2789690
I have a similar rule; if you are over the age of 18 and are capable of reading a book AND claim to be a communist of any stripe, I conclude that you are emotionally and/or intellectually stunted.
Why? Look at the history of Communist movements: violence, mass murder, starvation as a weapon, massive censorship and intellectual stagnation. Also, any analysis of Communist theory shows that it is fatally flawed.

[Anonymous No.2789721]

>>2789716
>Why? Look at the history of Communist movements: violence, mass murder, starvation as a weapon, massive censorship and intellectual stagnation.

cmon married oldfag you're better than this, the shitty actions of people in a name of the ideology do not disprove that ideology. the 30 years war doesn't disprove christianity.

there's enough things to criticize in communist theory (as you point out) that we shouldn't even need to reference this

[Anonymous No.2789725]

>>2789680

>>>Choose something better, have an open mind
>>>hurr durr only anarachists have open minds. I know what's better, better than any Marxist.

Dingleberry, you sound like Lenin.

[Anonymous No.2789727]

>>2789716
Read the Communist Hypothesis by Alain Badiou.

Also you make it sound like capitalism violence of global capital is nonexistent

[Anonymous No.2789728]

>>2789700

It's a nice theory. And it appeals to the idealistic nature of youth, but when you start thinking with your brain rather than your emotions, you realise how impossible Marxism really is.

And it has been tried. Many times. It's a resounding failure. You'll understand when you grow up and your brain tissue develops.

[Anonymous No.2789730]

>>2789716

>>>Also, any analysis of Communist theory shows that it is fatally flawed.

Go to it then. Show us.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2789731]

>>2789716
Where does your economics lean?

[Anonymous No.2789734]

>>2789716
dont forget all that industrialization-in-a-single-generation.

only communism could propel the ussr to superpower status.
(same of china)

communism is a tool bro.
want rights-protected? wrong tool.
want roads, schools, mass graves? bingo.

[Anonymous No.2789735]

>>2789728
You didn't point out a reason why it is impossible. Please elaborate with all the wisdom you have gained in your years, why this is true.

[Anonymous No.2789737]

>>2789731
i think married oldfag is a distributist? not 100% sure tho (distributism is awesome if somewhat impractical)

[Anonymous No.2789739]

>>2789728

I see no argument.

[Anonymous No.2789742]

>>2789734
You think china is communist in the same way that the modern left speaks of communism?

[sage No.2789743]

None of these anti-marxist dweebs have really read marx. This argument is pointless trolling.

[Anonymous No.2789746]

>>2789743
More importantly they haven't read any neo-marxists

[Anonymous No.2789750]

>>2789739
>>2789735

Where I'm from we measure the success of particular theories using empirical data gained from experiments. Marxism has been vetted. And it has never ended well. Just the fact that you believe it to still be possible is reason enough to have you institutionalised.

[Anonymous No.2789757]

>>2789750
if you think this you p much don't understand marxist thought

i mean, i am not a marxist at all, but you really don't have a clue about karl marx

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2789764]

>>2789727
>>2789727
Yet it isn't a constant.

>>2789730
The Labor Theory of value is simply wrong. It can't even explain why distributors or retailers should ever make any money. Since the rest of the economic theory within Communism flows from the Labor Theory of Value....

[Anonymous No.2789765]

>>2789750
And so these "experiments" say capitalism has been successful?

And these "experiments" take into account that communism is less of a system and more of an idea undergoing constant revision?

[Anonymous No.2789767]

Marxism can hardly be considered a political ideology unto himself anymore. Marx has become abstracted and reappropriated to the point where it makes more sense to consider him a discourse rather than a figure (like Freud). Neo-marxism largely understands this, and uses the anti-capitalist/Marxist discourse to an updated end.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2789768]

>>2789731
I am an avowed Distributist, personally

[Anonymous No.2789769]

>>2789742
i implied that china jumpstarted their shit with communism.
im saying that they couldnt be where they are today without communism.

we can pin some bad shit on communism, but dont forget the good it has done.

a question for all:

if you lived in a shit-tier country and you were convinced of a local revolutionaries promises of development-and-socialism-mao-style.
would you pick up a rifle and kick some shit off?
or would you eat dust and hope some asshole builds a factory in 40 years?

[Anonymous No.2789770]

>>2789750
>experiments
>uncontrollable social realities

Anyone that wants to use experiments in social sciences is a moron and knows nothing about science.

You can't make experiments in social sciences because you cannot control the environment.

[Anonymous No.2789772]

>It can't even explain why distributors or retailers should ever make any money.

what?

[Anonymous No.2789773]

>>2789765
>more of an idea undergoing constant revision

wait, capitalism? these arguments are futile because it assumes that there is some sort of organization or brotherhood amongst any people of a political ideology. this is why capitalism has stayed prevalent.

[Anonymous No.2789774]

>>2789757

Most people are idiots and without talent. The fact of the matter is that the goal of the "capitalists" is in line with the workers' need for employment. Many workers are bothered by the fact that they get paid less for doing what they consider the actual work, but ultimately they are not capable of anything more than manual labour.

Physical work in of itself builds nothing. The workers need to be led by people with real talents and creative instincts.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2789775]

>>2789734
>want roads, schools, mass graves? bingo.
OK, I LOL'ed

>>2789765
So Marxism can't be defined, then?

[Anonymous No.2789776]

>>2789774
Go fuck yourself

not a marxist, just go fuck yourself, you smug little shit

[Anonymous No.2789777]

>>2789774
What happens when you have a population composed most entirely of people who think they're the creative ones who should be in charge?

[Anonymous No.2789779]

>>2789773
You can continue to ignore the large-scale protests that have been happening for the past year all you want, they all share a dissatisfaction with the capitalism has been operating.

[Anonymous No.2789780]

>>2789770

Really? Are you a retard? If you can't control the environment in an "experimental" situation, then how the fuck do you think you're ever going to see Marxism applied in a real, tangible social environment?

The environment and human nature is beyond our control, so what is the point of imagining this perfect world (controlled environment) were Marxism is entirely possible if we can never apply it to the real world?

[Anonymous No.2789781]

>>2789777
everyone takes plasmids and goes crazy

[Ziggy Stardust !LrtpfUHOC. No.2789782]

>>2789725
>>2789713
Nice way argumenting in favour of marxism, samefag.

First: By old i mean that they're stuck in the past and never even tried to experience something else. Hobsbawm is nearly 100 years old, but that doesn't mean there are other people that were old and evolved into something better, like Salazar.

Second: I never said that. I'm an anarchist, yup, but i'm not forcing someone here to choose the libertarian way.

[Anonymous No.2789783]

>>2789764

>The Labor Theory of value is simply wrong.
yep, but not along the lines of thought you have here

>It can't even explain why distributors or retailers should ever make any money.
they have employees that add value
(distributors move that shit from a to b, cant sell a product that isnt on the shelves)

>Since the rest of the economic theory within Communism flows from the Labor Theory of Value....
but marxism is more than economic theory.

whats your take on historical materialism?
does the fact that labor theory of value is bs make historical materlism invalid? how?

[Anonymous No.2789784]

let me guess, first year arts degree?

[Anonymous No.2789785]

>>2789774
>The workers need to be led by people with real talents and creative instincts.
>Justin Bieber and George W. Bush

[Anonymous No.2789786]

>>2789780
you still have literally no understanding of what marxism is

i mean, you're just straight up misusing the word

[Anonymous No.2789788]

>>2789775
I tend to believe that Marxism is separate from communism. Marxism is easily defined because it is all in the texts he produced (overlooking the fact that his earlier and latter work have a schism)

Anti-capitalism (and neo-marxism) is a very broad movement which has revised what communism is and has debates over how it should be expressed all the time. The unifying force is that capitalism is not working and an alternative must be sought.

[Anonymous No.2789794]

>>2789777

Social darwinism. They're just going to have to give in to the fact that they're not special.

Most of the time, though, I assume they become Marxists and attempt to lower the really talented people down to their shitty level.

[Anonymous No.2789798]

>>2789786

I didn't define it once in that post.

I merely said that if it can't work in our imperfect social environment, then how is it ever going to work? A controlled environment is an impossibility.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2789799]

>>2789772
Under the labor theory of value, where does value 'come from'?

[Ziggy Stardust !LrtpfUHOC. No.2789801]

>>2789774
This is the most dumb argument i have read. Way to to miss the central point of the exploitation and surplus.

[Anonymous No.2789802]

>>2789780
Why do you assume capitalism is natural and nothing more than Ideology?

[Anonymous No.2789803]

>>2789794
quit talking like a sycophant.

if group A builds a system that guarantees the destruction of group B then group B has every right to return the favor, or build something mutually beneficial.
you disagree?

[Anonymous No.2789804]

>>2789780
I'm not a marxist.
And also what I mean by controllable it means that you can't guarantee that the environment is the same and so you can't repeat the experiment.

An experiment is successful only if you have the same results in the same environment. Since you cannot reproduce the same environment all you can get is statistical correlation from random samples which basically mean nothing unless you have already a theory to interpret them.

I'm not a marxist, but I have a problem with the classica liberal view of a society of individualists. I think that society is divided and class conflict exists and that knowing when you stand in society helps you understand what is convenient for you.

[Anonymous No.2789807]

>>2789794
>HE STILL BELIEVES IN SOCIAL DARWINISM
>2012
AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Damn, even liberals like Veblen 100 years ago rejected that crap

[Anonymous No.2789808]

>>2789798
you keep using "marxism" as though it's a political ideology we can choose or not choose to implement

this shows that you don't know what marxism is - that may be an accurate description of communism / socialism, but marxism is an intellectual theory, an idea, not a programme. indeed marxism would argue that the advent of a communist state is p much inevitable.

[Anonymous No.2789809]

>>2789799
...did you even read the first part of Capital?
value comes from labor, it is the crystalization of action altering nature

[Anonymous No.2789812]

>>2789801
>This is the most dumb argument i have read. Way to to miss the central point of the exploitation and surplus.
>not using superlative form
>not capitalising the "I"
>to to
>fragment, consider revising

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2789813]

>>2789783
That no serious person has regarded it as more than an historically interesting failed theory since 1940

[Anonymous No.2789814]

>>2789804

To be fair, though, if you are not able to replicate it in a variety of environments, then what use is it?

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2789819]

>>2789808
>marxism would argue that the advent of a communist state is p much inevitable.
which is another strike against it, obviously

[Anonymous No.2789818]

>>2789809
hes asking for the definition from someone that clearly doesnt know whats going on.
he isnt saying what you think he is.

btw labor thry is bs.
people will buy shit that was built by a robot and never touched a human hand.
meanwhile people will not pay shit for a labor-intensive product.

the only way to defend labor thry is to say that since people recv $ for their time.
they make $ decisions based on how much of their own labor they are "spending".

[Ziggy Stardust !LrtpfUHOC. No.2789821]

>>2789812
Stop missing the point, you understood the post.

[Anonymous No.2789822]

>>2789813
But there are plenty of historical materialists today. Dana Cloud is one, for example.

[Anonymous No.2789823]

>>2789803
>that guarantees the destruction of group B

What destruction? You have your job at McDonald's because someone with real-world intelligence created it for you.

How about you quit if it's so destructive?

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2789828]

>>2789809
>ever hear of the Socratic Method?
I have read Kapital, actually, but how does a shop that simply places a object on a shelf add labor value to each and every object in the store? The driver doesn't modify the product, etc.

In several instances in the Soviets of the early 20th Century truckers and even shopkeepers were decried as 'takers' for expecting pay when they performed no labor on any goods. While later thinkers have tried to overcome this, the issue is still a central flaw in Marxist theory.

[Anonymous No.2789829]

>>2789821
>Stop missing the point, you understood the post.
>comma splice

I don't think I did. Are you speaking English? I'm not sure,

[Anonymous No.2789830]

>>2789819
well yeah definitely, but my point is just that the dude does not know what he's talking about

married oldfag, do you really think that distributism is a practical ideology? isn't it just a nostalgic romantic agrarian fantasy?

[Anonymous No.2789834]

>>2789813
>That no serious person has regarded it as more than an historically interesting failed theory since 1940

if thats your response to my "historical materialism" question that is ridiculous.
everyone is a historical materialist today.

heres a fox news sampling of historical materialism:
>there is a powerful elite trying to oppress our (material: jobs, security) interests
>we gotta band together (and vote tea party) to protect our interests

there is no idealistic component.
its all materialism and collective action.
is there a rightist that doesnt think the liberal elite control the mainstream media?
most rightist narratives are historical mat.

[Anonymous No.2789842]

>>2789829
>complaining about comma splices
They're beautiful. His post was bullshit though.

[Anonymous No.2789849]

>>2789823

>How about you quit if it's so destructive?
they do. then they go to jail. then they die <45.
then their kids drop out of school. repeat.

eating your bosses ass wont guarantee you a job.
a person isnt their paycheck.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2789857]

>>2789822
You obviously missed this part of my statement
>no serious person
Prof. Cloud isn't a serious person

[Anonymous No.2789860]

>>2789849

Then be a better person. That boss whose ass you're eating out of is a generous man who gave you a job.

You don't want the job? Don't take it. No one is forcing you to make money.

"Wage slavery" is a fucking joke. You work and you get paid. It's a simple transaction and it's your choice to make.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2789867]

>>2789830
Distributism != agrarianism
Mondragon Corporation is Distributist - they are a large manufacturer, amongst many other things.
I am the owner of a Distributist high-tech firm and know plenty of others doing the same thing.

How is 'as direct as possible, as self-sufficient as possible while being ethical' impractical?

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2789877]

>>2789834
>everyone is a historical materialist today.
And you think what *I* said is ridiculous?
Listen, When Walter Benjamin finished mopping the floor with historical materialism it was over for that 'theory'.

[Anonymous No.2789878]

>>2789857
i said that everyone today is a materialist, most are explicit historical materialists.
serious people are a subset of all people.

you disagree that everyone today is a materialist?
(not including fringe shit like dominionists or the many theory-spouting-leftist-denialists that love this board)

also, what did you mean by:
>>want roads, schools, mass graves? bingo.
>OK, I LOL'ed

[Anonymous No.2789882]

god i hate communist scum.

[Anonymous No.2789884]

>>2789860
How does "being a better person" get you access to healthcare in Rwanda, or Haiti, or India? How do you "be a better person" and get an education when you have to go work in a factory at a young age because your parents don't earn enough money to support you? Why did bhu azizi feel it neccesary to light himself on fire because, despite having a degree, he couldn't find a place in tunisia's workforce?

[Anonymous No.2789887]

>>2789860
what about
>then they go to jail
don't you understand?

[Anonymous No.2789896]

>>2789860
Lol generous.
He is not making me a favor by making me work. I'm making him a favor.
That's why I'm getting paid.

[Anonymous No.2789892]

>>2789860

i understand what youre saying.
its sycophantism.
and thats fine.

but cleary its a shit way to run things.
it isnt working.
people arent jobbing-and-being-thankful.

its all "people should do x" and that fine.
but its not very "people actually do x".

you are aware that demand creates (service) jobs.
not your bosses compassion and well intentions.

[Anonymous No.2789894]

>>2789884
Third world countries are shitholes because these third worlders are incapable of building civilization.

Why do you think that otehrs should work all their live just to give some 80 IQ mud health care?

[Anonymous No.2789897]

>>2789764
>The Labor Theory of value is simply wrong. It can't even explain why distributors or retailers should ever make any money. Since the rest of the economic theory within Communism flows from the Labor Theory of Value....
did you actually read capital
i mean i'm not a marxist but it seems like you don't really understand what he was saying with the ltv lol

[Anonymous No.2789899]

>>2789867
hahahaha no worries i'm just giving you shit

i think chesterbelloc's vision of distributism did fit that description - super agrarian - but yeah it's pretty legitimate as is and i wish more people would pay attention to it

(also i been drinking, sorry if this don't make no sense)

[Anonymous No.2789901]

>>2789882
>they just want to take *our* shit, right boss. i mean your shit, sorry.

[Anonymous No.2789904]

>>2789894

Not to mention that donating aid does nothing. In fact, it probably has an adverse effect. You need to create infrastructure and educate the people. Throwing food and doctors at them does nothing.

[Anonymous No.2789905]

>>2789894
>social darwinist
>on unemployment

[Anonymous No.2789906]

>>2789894
>HURR DURR WEST IS BEST DIVINE RIGHT TO ROOL ALL LANDZ
If you can't make a legitimate argument don't even bother responding.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2789907]

>>2789878
>everyone today is a materialist,
>of course, I exclude everyone who isn't
Yeah, kid, not everyone is a materialist. Indeed, that is why do many people are having trouble communicating about certain political ideas in the mdoern world - yahoos like you think everyone else either thinks just like them or is crazy with no middle ground. It is akin to the entire
>Fox News sometimes uses certain language that PROVES all Rightists think the same way
Um, no.
first, define 'rightist' so that we all know what you are talking about before we laugh more.

What did I mean?
The various attempts to create a Communist nation have shared certain elements: lousy production quality, lousy quality of life, and mass death. The quip about mass graves hit me as funny. I am an ex-soldier, I love gallows humor

[Anonymous No.2789911]

>>2789894
>people don't deserve quality living standards because of the color of their skin

makes perfect sense!

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2789912]

>>2789768
Oh, okay.

[Anonymous No.2789913]

>>2789905
"poverty" is the norm, it takes savings, hard work, and sacrifice to rise above it.

>>2789906
We worked hard and developed our countries, these non-whites did not. Look at china and other asians countries how they have developed, there is literally nothing stopping the other third worlders from doing the same.

You filthy communists have no idea how economics works.

[Anonymous No.2789914]

>>2789907
Really? Not everyone is a materialist?
Tell me a single person that believes that economic matters are not what shapes society and I'll show you a liar.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2789916]

>>2789907
Well - the typos prove it is time for bed - good night all

[Anonymous No.2789918]

>>2789911
There is no "Deserves" in this world you retard.

If they are incapable of making it for themselves, who is going to give it to them?

You want to enslave whites, to endlessly give handouts to an ever expanding non-white population?

[Anonymous No.2789922]

>>2789913
>"poverty" is the norm, it takes savings, hard work, and sacrifice to rise above it.

Unfortunately most rich people got rich through speculation, slave labor and criminal activities.

[Anonymous No.2789926]

>>2789922
[citation needed]

also: speculation is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.2789927]

>>2789913
>there is literally nothing stopping the other third worlders from doing the same.

So how about you answer my question. How do these people magically liberate themselves and get access to these first world amenities? Since "working hard" like first world countries did involves invading and conquering lands while simultaneously enslaving the populations for economic gains, I'm not sure what these third world countries have at their disposal.

[Anonymous No.2789930]

>>2789918
Why is there no 'deserves'? Why doesn't the world work that way?

[Anonymous No.2789931]

>>2789927
>Since "working hard" like first world countries did involves invading and conquering lands while simultaneously enslaving the populations for economic gains

lel, talking to a commie is like talking to a brick wall.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2789932]

>>2789914
Me, dumbass.
Oh, and millions of others who might be
[deep breath]
Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Buddhist, Jewish, Hindi, Muslim, Zoroastrian, Rastafarian,
as well as
the majority of Philosophers, non-Marxist historians, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and plenty of others
Thats only, potentially, everyone who isn't an avowed Marxist, I'll admit, but it is FAR from zero.
Want to make any MORE extrreme claims that require you to be an omniscient telepath?

[Anonymous No.2789933]

>>2789918
>hurf durf I'm a retard

You know what happens when you have a world where 50% of the population lives in poverty? Crime, devastation, mass immigration, water crises, famine and disease. You might think that's okay, but it's very difficult to do business with war-torn nations, and they have a habit of sending 6,000,000+ undocumented immigrants to take advantage of more developed countries' healthcare because they can't provide their own (see Mexico). People move by push and pull, and if they get pushed out of wherever they're living, they'll make a beeline into Europe and the US, as they're already doing because of destructive and exploitative policies.

Did I mention you were a retard?

[Anonymous No.2789934]

>>2789926
How about a history of the world where nobility acquired the riches through pillaging lands during wars and early capitalism got its edge through cheap raw materials obtained through colonization?

[Anonymous No.2789935]

>>2789932
most people who claim to be christians in the united states are probably actually materialists

i mean, for god's sake, the very existence of the prosperity gospel movement should indicate what is going on here.

[Anonymous No.2789936]

>>2789931
yeah, we were just bringing freedom Central America Africa and the Middle East

[Anonymous No.2789937]

What really pisses me off is when poor people in third world countries keep having babies even though they can't afford to feed them and their last three kids have died of starvation.

What kind of fucking psychopathic retard keeps making new people in a desert?

[Anonymous No.2789938]

>>2789932
Materialism in sociology is not philosophical materialism you do know that right?

So what shapes society in your idea?

[Anonymous No.2789940]

>>2789907

>not everyone is a materialist
i guess i divide things by materialist, idealism, and romanticism.
maybe thats being too generous to materialism.
how would you categorize the most prominent groups of thought today?

i might be way off, give me some direction. dont just tell me im wrong, whats right?

>rightist
i didnt mean to suggest anything of all fox viewers.
its just that i think the "liberal media elite" is a single compelling example of the dominance of hist. mat.
i meant nothing broader than that particular example.

do you think my analysis of the "liberal media elite" as hist. mat. is appropriate?
whats a better fit?

>Communist nation have shared certain elements...shitty outcomes
communism killed lots of people for sure.
do you agree, though, that it also industrialized nation in a single generation?

could the soviet union (at its peak) and china today have gotten there without the smash-and-grab that is communism?
people hint at this but never say it explicitly. i think thats weird.

[Anonymous No.2789941]

>>2789931
>no response

[Anonymous No.2789942]

>>2789927
>Since "working hard" like first world countries did involves invading and conquering lands while simultaneously enslaving the populations for economic gains

And we're the ones who pull statistics out of our asses?

[Anonymous No.2789945]

>>2789933
Mass immigration only exists because we are run by traitors who want to see third worlders flooding in.

Their countries are literally the same as they have always been, nothing has changed except our countries have been getting better due to investment, hard work, and sacrifice. Which is the only way to actually do things.

>>2789934
Colonization was a net loss.
unless you think sugar from the carribean is an essential raw material to capitalism.
Also: africa has gotten WORSE since "independence"
for most places colonization was a benefit, we brought them civilization, built infrastructure, gave them language and math and so on.

Why do you think a population of 65IQ subhumans are capable of matching us in terms of civilization?

[Anonymous No.2789948]

>>2789936
So the communist countries in south america are better off from the western leaning ones?

Oh its quite the opposite huh?

Africa has gotten massively worse since independence.

[Anonymous No.2789949]

>>2789945
>colonization was a net loss
>had wars to keep colonies

The fox and the grapes

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2789950]

>>2789934
How about 'the extreme distortion in life caused by Henry VIII's mass looting of land from the Church and redistribution to his cronies resulted in their ability to use unwarranted economic and political power to artificially create what we now was industrial capitalism, a system that rides upon the infrastructure created by distributist growth?
Of course, in the absence of the solid foundation laid by distributism capitalism fails to flourish in other areas. Recognizing that *something* was wrong communist theorists trashed about and came up with some really odd ideas about economics (including copying the WORST failure, made by Smith, et.al., and thinking that 'economics' is something separate from ethics) and we have been dealing with a false dichotomy ever since?

and now I really am going to bed

[Anonymous No.2789954]

>>2789942
>Maya
>Aztecs
>every North American Indian tribe
>Chinese Opium Wars
>opening Japan at the point of a gun
>carving up the Middle East for colonial interests

inb4 these things never happened
inb4 it was for freedom

[Anonymous No.2789955]

>>2789941
You are literally spouting nonsense, there is no point talking to a crazy person.

We didn't go fucking "looting" through the whole world.

These non-whites were not using their resources at all, so what does it effect them if we make use of diamonds which have sat there in the desert for millions of years?

>>2789949
for the prestige.

[Anonymous No.2789959]

>>2789955
>what does it matter if they were not using their resources
>slave labor

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2789961]

>>2789935
1) come on, now you are going from 'everyone really is 'to 'most people probably are'? Give it up
2) Like Dominionists, Prosperity types are a vanishingly small group, as much as the media loves them.

[Anonymous No.2789962]

>>2789954
Well the opium wars is the only real thing on your list.

And that was because of the jews.

>>2789959
You know that slavery is still legal in many african countries today?

[Anonymous No.2789964]

>>2789955
confirmed for troll

but it has been fun, always a good time flexing the old brain muscles

[Anonymous No.2789965]

>>2789961
I'm still convinced that everyone is.
Thinking that personality or values shape society is laughable.

[Anonymous No.2789967]

>>2789955
it's always good when someone exhibits how fucking morally bankrupt / monstrous his own ideology is

>>2789961
i'm not same anon, i'm a different anon.

and it really does seem to me that prosperity gospel fuckers are only the most extreme example of a general tendency - that most people, at least in terms of how they actually act, are more or less materialist in our contemporary society.

[Anonymous No.2789969]

>>2789962
It's not about being still legal or not. It's about denying that we profited from it.

[Anonymous No.2789973]

>>2789964
>implying its possible to seriously discuss anything with a marxist who truly views the history of the world as "white people oppressing the wonderful peace loving non-whites"

>>2789969
Overall slavery is a net loss on our countries, look at the USA or south america, they are cursed by huge african populations which have been holding them back ever since.

[Anonymous No.2789974]

>>2789955
>diamonds

(you could win more arguments if you dropped the racist language, but do whatever you want.)
cool example.
outside of some industrial uses diamonds are only good for securing pussy-for-life.

i mean there that the value of a ring is made up by marketers and exists only in the mind.

would you agree that diamonds are mined by darkies in shit-countries for shit-pay?
would you agree that diamonds are sold by wealthy pricks that work less hard that diamond miners?

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2789976]

>>2789965
>Thinking that personality or values shape society is laughable.
OH DEAR HEAVENS!
Sweet mother....
I was going to bed, I swear, but no I am laughing too hard.
Oh, man
>Economics! People make their choices about economics! Not personality, not values, not family ties, not morality - economics!
Yeah, and its turtles all the way down, too.

Thanks a lot, kid, you made my night!

[Anonymous No.2789982]

>>2789973
Hahahhahahah

OH Wow!

We didn't profit from slavery because now we got to keep them.

[Anonymous No.2789983]

>>2789973
>a marxist who truly views the history of the world as "white people oppressing the wonderful peace loving non-whites"

it's a very pretty strawman, but I'm not sure anyone believes this. In fact, I'm pretty sure nobody does.

[Anonymous No.2789984]

>>2789974
>would you agree that diamonds are mined by darkies in shit-countries for shit-pay?

they agree to work for that pay, they are not compelled, it is better to work for pay then to farm subsistence labor.

>would you agree that diamonds are sold by wealthy pricks that work less hard that diamond miners?

What does this have anything to do with anything?
also knowing blacks i would say that the CEO's and other managers work a lot harder then them.

>>2789976
ya, its like these marxists actually don't accept that there are economic laws and realities which cannot just be legislated out of existence.

[Anonymous No.2789985]

>>2789973
You turned this into a racial issue before we did. Also a lot of neo-marxists think that identity politics is a flawed strategy. You should be less ignorant when you speak about things

[Anonymous No.2789990]

>>2789961
that wasnt posted by me, the long-winded questiony guy.

i really am interested in what you think most people are today.

i get the most religious people arent materialism-first.
but they still think that materialism is what shapes our societies.
(thinking the economy is a bigger deal than any other single issue doesnt make them irreligious does it?)

a person can be religious-first and still think that economic matters settle the fates of empires, right?

[Anonymous No.2789992]

>>2789985
>You turned this into a racial issue before we did.

No
this person here >>2789884
turned it into a racial issue.

[Anonymous No.2789994]

>>2789976
Yeah.
You wouldn't be able to explain the change in custom in the last 50 years without appealing to economics.
Sexual liberation and the suppression of censorship is the greatest change in our values and happened for economic reasons.

You wouldn't even explain how is it possible that a morality driven society consistently supports policies and politicians that are immoral by its own standards.

[Anonymous No.2790001]

>>2789992
You really can't even read another countries names without thinking along racial lines? Class based analysis exists, stop thinking everyone in the world wants to go around cleansing whitey

[Anonymous No.2790002]

>>2790001
>Class based analysis exists

Class is nonsense, there is no such thing.

[Anonymous No.2790007]

>>2790002
there is no such thing as race or individuals either. They are all different reading applicable to the social situation.

[Anonymous No.2790009]

>>2790002
You have reached the bottom level of stupidity. I don't think you can say anything more that could make me think less of you.

[Anonymous No.2790012]

>>2790002
this is what liberals posing as conservatives claim to actually believe

[Anonymous No.2790013]

>>2790002
>no such thing as class
>incredibly low social mobility

[Anonymous No.2790015]

did somebody not see this post?
>>2789964

[Anonymous No.2790018]

>>2790002
so income doesnt exists across a spectrum?
and doesnt correlate to patterns of consumption or crime rates or education?

you really believe this?

[Anonymous No.2790019]

Can anyone recommend some essential socialist literature? I'm just looking to give myself a full understanding of the beliefs and ideals that it proposes. Also, if it's not fairly easy to access, through decent torrent sites and such, can you offer a location to read or download it?

[Anonymous No.2790020]

plebs never learn

[Anonymous No.2790021]

>>2790007
Race is genetics, appearance, etc.

How do you tell "class"? There is no way.

The idea of class conciousness, or worker class vs bourgeous, or any of these other marxist ideas are literally nonsense.

>>2790009
So if i don't believe in your fantasy of "class" then i am stupid? I don't think you know how this works.

Perhaps you could prove that class exists?

[Anonymous No.2790024]

>>2790012
i dont know.
i watch the rnc every time and i get my repub congressmens newsletters.
its spot on.

[Anonymous No.2790025]

>>2790018
Some people make a lot of money, some people make little.
It doesn't intrinsically change the person, further certain numbers of income mean entirely different things at different areas.

>and doesnt correlate to patterns of consumption or crime rates or education?

No, of course it doesn't. Why would you think it would?

The idea of being poor causes crime is literally a modern left wing idea which attempts to explain rampant negro crime rates.

[Anonymous No.2790026]

>>2790024
post those newsletters here sometime, would you? I think they'd be great fun to read

[Anonymous No.2790027]

>>2790019
Start with
The Communist Hypothesis by Alain Badiou. Before you do that read the wikipedia page for May '68
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_%2768

From there you can read a lot of people.

[Anonymous No.2790031]

>>2790021
>prove that class exists?

there is no uniform income. people get paid at different levels.

these different levels of income allow you different lifestyles from street-people to yachts-and-helicopters.

with me on this?

[Anonymous No.2790032]

>>2790031
So everyone is in their own "class" ?

[Anonymous No.2790036]

>>2790032
in the same way that everyone is in their own race or their own gender.
technically its true.

but society lumps people into categories and depending on your label gives them different treatment.

[Anonymous No.2790038]

>>2790036
ok, but there is nothing in society that lumps people into "classes"

And you'll find that these classes don't seriously correlate with anything.

Hence the whole concept is nonsense and should be rejected. Of course i understand that goes completely against your religion, so you will have trouble with that.

[Anonymous No.2790040]

>>2790020

>useful idiot
i wonder what the chamber of commerce thinks of the average values-voter?

[Anonymous No.2790041]

>>2790040
>politicians are out of touch with the average man
>.....
>the solution is communist revolution, because intellectuals who have never worked a day in their life are far more in touch with us!

[Anonymous No.2790043]

>>2790038
so neighborhoods arent pretty homogenous?

you got mansions next to crack houses?
round here the suburbs are nice and the inner city is crime-and-gross.
maybe your cities different.

[Anonymous No.2790044]

>>2790043
>round here the suburbs are nice and the inner city is crime-and-gross.

because of race, nothing to do with class or income.

[Anonymous No.2790045]

>>2790041
You're absolutely ignorant if you think that the only people for a revolution by the common worker are people that have never worked.

[Anonymous No.2790046]

>>2790038
>little speck of dust in the bathtub
>oh boy guys time to throw out the baby

It is generally been shown that class association does influence the lifespan, habits, and character off human beings. Just because class isn't the stem of everything isn't to say it is useless measure either. Certainly, income and class are limitations to what CAN be done.

In short, you are really just not getting it. So I guess the only difference between landlords and workers is that they just choose to think differently. Liberal-left logic

[Anonymous No.2790047]

>>2790045
There is no such thing as a "common worker", quit it with these retarded pipe dreams.

The "poor" and "oppressed" live on welfare.

[Anonymous No.2790048]

>>2790038
It's really going to suck for you when the left stops pandering to radical democracy and starts taking up arms. If you've heard of the BLA, imagine that happening on a much larger scale.

[Anonymous No.2790049]

>>2790041
that doesnt follow from what i said friend.

i only advocated for communism in the developing world.
im not sure it would do much in developed nations.
(maybe jumpstart some rural development, not much demand for that though)

>revolution
nah. i would be happy with jailed-banksters and campaign-reform.

[Anonymous No.2790050]

>>2790047
>The "poor" and "oppressed" live on welfare.
yep.
because capitalism is unsustainable.
ask general motors and jp morgan about it.

[Anonymous No.2790052]

>>2790046
>It is generally been shown that class association does influence the lifespan, habits, and character off human beings

loose correlation on cherry picked statistics hardly means it is relevant.
It's a useless measurement.
The poorest whites are still smarter then the richest blacks.

>So I guess the only difference between landlords and workers is that they just choose to think differently

The difference is the land lord himself either worked hard and invested, or perhaps his ancestors did, and they contributed to society in proportion to their income. And so now they are wealthy.

You'll find these wealthy people all work hard too.

[Anonymous No.2790054]

I'm pretty sure I'm going to die before I'm 50. and never have kids or even a committed serious long-term relationship with a woman. it's a hell of a life, to know those things, and try to figure out how to spend the next 25 years.

[Anonymous No.2790055]

>>2790044
>because of race, nothing to do with class or income.
race is the 4th best predictor of crime, income is the 3rd.
(sex is 1st, and age is 2nd)

[Anonymous No.2790057]

>>2790055
You really think that genetics(race) has no relation to someones income? That an 80 IQ person could magically earn the same as a 120 IQ person?

>>2790054
kill yourself right now you disgusting waste of life.

[Anonymous No.2790058]

>This Thread

[Anonymous No.2790065]

>>2790057
>>2790052

>The poorest whites are still smarter then the richest blacks.
>You really think that genetics(race) has no relation to someones income? That an 80 IQ person could magically earn the same as a 120 IQ person?

welcome to the contradictory shitfest that is /pol/

[Anonymous No.2790066]

>>2790065
this thread was /pol/ a long time ago

[Anonymous No.2790067]

>>2790065
Ever heard of something called affirmative action?

[Anonymous No.2790068]

>>2789716
Oh married oldfag, why can't you into libertarian socialism?
>>Communist movements: violence, mass murder, starvation as a weapon, massive censorship and intellectual stagnation
MFW all of these except violence are exclusive to state socialism, which isn't even a form of communism until it 'withers away', which will never happen. Also, Matthew 16 27/28.

[Anonymous No.2790069]

We will monitor this thread from now on. Please care to continue.

[Anonymous No.2790071]

>>2790068
>literally thinks "communism" is somehow possible outside of the state imposing it

nothing stops you from forming communes right now, dumb commie, its just not fucking human nature.

[Anonymous No.2790076]

>>2790055
The single best predictor of the crime rates of an area is race.

Income has no correlation, sex is irrelevant because we aren't talking individuals, same with age.

[Anonymous No.2790077]

>>2790071
>nothing stops you from forming communes right now
You must not have read the news in the last few months. A bunch of communes were forcefully taken down.

[Anonymous No.2790079]

Man

You guys

Bunheads is such a good show

check it out

[Anonymous No.2790081]

>>2790077
good riddance.
probably for drugs huh?

[Anonymous No.2790083]

>>ctrl+f:
>> last instance - 0 hits
>> superstructure - 0 hits
>> Stirner - 0 hits

What have you people even been doing in this thread?

[Anonymous No.2790088]

>>2790071
>its just not fucking human nature.

currency and division of labor must have seemed like odd notions to communal hunter-gatherers

[Anonymous No.2790094]

>>2790071
a) Ever heard of Anabaptists?
b) Oh, you mean apart from the fact that some crook government will raise taxes that make it impossible for us to achieve subsistence, even if we could somehow buy enough land from its 'rightful owners' to start a commune?

[Anonymous No.2790095]

>>2790067
racism is a bad idea, whoever does it

what do you think you are saying?
your shit is all opportunistic. develop a theme.

make me believe your cause has a future.
people shit on racism because they think its a failed theory from the past.
get some skills friend. you could the next hitler if you just tried a little harder.

[Anonymous No.2790103]

>>2790071
have you heard of some nations bitching about how they should be able to self-govern as they chose without the pressure to conform to the "washington-consensus"?

[Anonymous No.2790106]

>>2790103
So effectively you are saying that everyone should have self-determination? I agree.

[Anonymous No.2790110]

>>2790106
yep. agreed.

i was gonna type
>the best way to secure your autonomy is shake of the chains of the poverty, the false promise of improbable wealth, and embrace an economic system that recognizes that all men are inherently equal
but i typed all this instead

[Anonymous No.2790134]

>>2790110
What does 'equal' even mean?

[Anonymous No.2790146]

>not being a mutualist (or at least leaning towards this -- ie agorist, an-cap, voluntaryist, anarchist, etc.)
>2012

[Anonymous No.2790148]

>2012
>taking seriously any ism

sure is full puberty in here.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2790589]

>>2789990
Perhaps, but, and this is a big 'but', historical materialism is a crock to begin with! Its predictive power (which is one of the main reasons it was and is called 'scientific' is a demonstrable failure and in its attempt to derive economics as 'the' force of history it ignores the majority of human experience.
And no, most people don't think that economics drives large nations (as if that is all that historical materialism is about) they think - correclty- that it is just one of many factors that varies in importance over time.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2790597]

>Sexual liberation and the suppression of censorship is the greatest change in our values and happened for economic reasons.

First, prove it beyond just repeating 'economics is all'
And yet! The feminists who drove/drive it claim it is based upon *morality*, don't they? I hear feminists talk about 'equality' and fairness' all the time, but never 'economic determinism'

>You wouldn't even explain how is it possible that a morality driven society consistently supports policies and politicians that are immoral by its own standards.
Translation
>I don't understand pluralism OR democracy

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2790601]

>>2790597
forgot the link to
>>2789994

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2790608]

>>2790018
But it *does* seem to be closely related to moral and ethical choices, doesn't it?

>>2790040
>most members of chambers of commerce *are* values voters
I'm a member of the chamber of commerce - are you?

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2790614]

>>2790048
see
>>2789716

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2790622]

>>2790050
I love people sitting in a comfortable chair in the West explaining that Communism is a great theory that they learned about in school and is totally viable state that Capitalism is unworkable.
This is akin to Cubs fans claiming the cubbies are the best team in baseball but the Yankees have always been terrible.
Or Stormfags talking about the 'unstoppable Nazi war machine'.
Every attempt to create a communist state has resulted in tyranny and mass death on a tremendous scale. To claim that this horror is preferable to the comparatively mild inequalities of Capitalism is the height of self-delusion.

[Anonymous No.2790625]

>>2790614
See
>>2790609
>>2790609
>>2790609
>>2790609

[Anonymous No.2790629]

>>2790622
Fascism, however, has never really failed.

[Anonymous No.2790695]

>>2787885
Agreed.

>>2790629
I think I know you personally. Hello, V

[Anonymous No.2790702]

>>2790622
>mild inequalities

[Anonymous No.2790721]

Ladies keep it down.

[Anonymous No.2790743]

/pol/ here, you guys are fucking retards.

[Anonymous No.2790748]

>>2790695
I'm afraid not, I'm no V.

[Anonymous No.2790754]

>>2790743
Coming from the worst cesspool on 4chan, I take it as a compliment.

[Anonymous No.2790774]

Alright, shitty thirdworlder here (Chile). Read the first 50 posts or so and found two "families" of arguments which in my opinion are pretty much bullshit.

a)
>Third worlders are lazy and can't into civilization, hurr, a boss is a generous person making you a favor by giving you the chance to work, durr, capitalism is not an ideological construction but just the way the world naturally works, the races who adjusted to this fatality lead thriving countries

Nope. Third world isn't a homogeneous thing. Many countries that fall into this category are not even countries, just tribal warfare situated in a specific geographical location. What you're doing here is you're assuming that material conditions are the same as in your developed country, or better, the same as in the US, and therefore the "self made man" theory applies, and people who work hard succeed and so on. This is bullshit. Actually, in most 3rdworld shitholes people work twice or three times as much as they work in Germany, England or whatever more or less developed country, and they do it for the shittiest wages, with no access to education or healthcare, etc. I work 44 hours a week in qualified jobs and make 600 u$d monthly, and I consider myself somewhat privileged. The minimum wage here is around 400 u$d monthly btw. A qualified job at anything related to engineering / healthcare may earn something between 1000-3000 u$d monthly for no less than 44 hours a week. Since prices here are pretty much the same or more expensive than the US, you can imagine what the quality of life is.
So the situation here doesn't depend on the choice of some of some individuals to "work hard and progress".

[Anonymous No.2790775]

>>2790754
This. Go back to your stormfag mancave in some trailer in Alabama, poltard.

>>2790748
Alas, I thought I know you. Oh well.

[Anonymous No.2790776]

>>2790622
>IT'S NEVER WORKED IN THE PAST
>IT CAN NEVER WORK EVER

Nice logic

[Anonymous No.2790777]

>>2790754

/b/tard detected

I bet you go to /soc/ too.

[Anonymous No.2790780]

Continued from:
>>2790774

The political-economical system pretty much is based on the reproduction of those who have owned the means of production for ages and, more recently, of those who administrate the means but do not own them, i.e. CEOs, economics experts and so forth.

Our ongoing struggle right now is for free and universal higher education and may soon turn into a struggle for free (by free I mean, state-owned, taxpayed) healthcare. There's also a parallel struggle for the re-nationalization of our minerals, water, crop fields and so on. The right for ultra-cheap exploitation of these resources, with almost nonexisting royalty taxes has been sold for a few pennies by our right-wing political class for decades, and thus 2/3 of the nation's GDP is actually taken out of the country by foreign "first world" corporations. But these fuckers dindt get in here because of the lack of initiative of local enterpreneurs: the US funded a coup d'Etat undertaken by the military in the 70s, which took some 3000 dead and 40,000 tortured, eliminated or sold all state-owned productive force and services, and of course sold all national resources to those who funded their way into power, i.e. US, Spain, Canada, Scandinavian countries and so on.

[Anonymous No.2790781]

And to finish
>>2790780

So yeah, fucker, third world is not a shantytown of lazy people turning their backs on progress. Our dominant class and Empire sold our shit away but we're now fighting to get it back and I hope we will succeed.

I'll post the B argument in a while against naïf leftists.

[Anonymous No.2790783]

>Not being an individualist anarchist
>2012

[OP No.2790787]

>>2790783
>not interpreting it as collectivist egoism

[Anonymous No.2790788]

>>2790783

Ah, egoists. The most useless anarchists of the bunch.

[Anonymous No.2790792]

>>2790629

Being defeated militarily does not count as failure?

[Anonymous No.2790797]

>>2790787
>"The Unique One and It`s Property"
>Collectivist

>>2790788
No u

[Anonymous No.2790803]

>>2790777
/b/ is the asshole of the internet, but /pol/ is the smelly trail of shit following it behind.

[TheBaker !aw6Qj2QiR. No.2790804]

>>2790797
>>>/pol/
here,

If you do not object to the use of force against person or justly acquired property, you are not, in the proper sense, even an Anarchist.

[Anonymous No.2790811]

>>2790797
A lot of Stirnerites are Mutualists.

[None !!qdvBtKFtNy6 No.2790812]

>>2790804

The onus is on you to prove that democratic republicanism works, not the other way round. North Korea disproves your claim that democratic republicanism works.

[Anonymous No.2790815]

>>2790776
>implying anybody voluntary stays in a communist country
People left the Soviet Bloc in droves, marxdrone. Face it, your ideology is a byword for destruction and oppression.

[Anonymous No.2790816]

>implying marxism could work
Certainly the opposite isn't working either.
Somewhere in the middle perhaps?

[Anonymous No.2790818]

>>2790792

A material defeat is not the same as an ideological one.

Fascism was defeated via warfare. Soviet Socialism was defeated through the lack of belief its people had in it. Even in the last decade before the collapse of the USSR, the Soviet elites would only express the virtues of communism sarcastically.

[Anonymous No.2790823]

>>2790816

Scandinavian Social Democracy.

[None !!qdvBtKFtNy6 No.2790824]

>>2790816

I have yet to see a state name its official state ideology "The Opposite Of Marxism-ism".

[OP No.2790827]

>>2790797
>union of egoists
>not collectivist

>it's

[Anonymous No.2790828]

>>2790823
Denmark here, you're retarded.

[TheBaker !aw6Qj2QiR. No.2790830]

>>2790812
Wrong board, chap.

>>2790811
Funny you should mention Tucker as he explictly rejected the idea that invasive force was compatible with anarchism, making the whole idea of "egoist anarchism" a reduntant term, since even if egoism permits invasive force for the satisfaction of selfish ends, anarchism cannot.

[Anonymous No.2790835]

>>2790824
I think you're mistaking this thread for the /pol/ thread.

[None !!qdvBtKFtNy6 No.2790840]

>>2790830
>>2790835

And here is a prime demonstration of the communist tactic of "avoiding the argument".

[Anonymous No.2790845]

>>2790781

so,
b) -naïf or naive left
>Poverty and the shitty byproducts of capitalism exist only in Africa, Asia, Western Europe, LatAm and so on. Look at those poor coloured people dying of starvation, so sad, bla bla bla. "Common sense humanism".

I mean, gentlemen, please look around your shit. I mean this specially for people from the US, You have tons of poverty, a horizontally overall violent society full of fucking individual initiative psychos with shitty jobs, entire shantytown States, state and private surveillance of all individual activities, specially political, fake democracy which should be better called "a right to vote with no real consequences in our political lives", your industries are depleted and you basically live off debt speculation; half the world is being looted by your fucking troops (I claim no innocence of the victim here, as I said before, our dominant class lives off of connivance with imperial forces, they sell out our shit and so on).

So yeah, look around you, leftist struggle is not only for equal wages, it's also quality of life, respect for life and the environment. Stop looking for wastelands abroad, you have a thriving one of your own.

[Anonymous No.2790850]

>>2790840
I think that's more of a libertarian way of handling things.

[Anonymous No.2790852]

>>2790804
Ok.In your opinion, what gives a person the right to own a piece of property?
>>2790811
Noted.
>>2790827
>Stirner rejects God, morality,idealism, concern for others when not beneficial to himself
>Somehow collectivist

[Anonymous No.2790854]

Marxism's success is that capitalism has yet to even come up with its own brand, or define itself in ways that do not continually involve beating the supposedly dead horse of Marxist thought and influence. Marx's success is that the social sciences owe their existence to his life's work, and that the struggles waged by workers for the conditions we are in danger of losing today gained force and momentum largely by his framework (the anarchists get credit too, keep it in your pants). And his impact amongst the world's intellectuals, politicians, rebels, academics and the public is so large it is immeasurable.

The 20th century was defined by Marxism. That is its legacy.

[None !!qdvBtKFtNy6 No.2790856]

>>2790850

>I think

False.

[OP No.2790860]

>>2790852
>completely ignores 'Verein von Egoisten' to propell Stirner as some kind of proto-Objectivist

[OP No.2790865]

>>2790852
>when not beneficial to himself

>implying the rejection is then relevant

[TheBaker !aw6Qj2QiR. No.2790867]

>>2790852
>what gives a person the right to own a piece of property?
That to deprive them of it would deprive them of the product of their labor.

Whether this is understood to mean a Lockean homesteading model, an Ingalls-Tucker Occupancy/Use model, or a Bylundian Use-Rights model (or some other model) is a matter for discussion.

But the function of property is to secure to labor its full product, so property is valid insofar as it serves this end.

[Anonymous No.2790868]

>>2790774
I thought the cono del sur was considerably better off than other countries? I've been to Peru and whoashithole.avi

[Anonymous No.2790871]

>believing in Historical Materialism
No one read War and Peace?

[Anonymous No.2790873]

>>2790868
Chile is specially devoted to selling worldwide propaganda of how things here are unicorns and rainbows. We're a little better off than Peru but it's basically the same scheme.
Statistics are a powerful tool for bullshit. We have economic growth of 5% a year and u$d 14000 percapita income, supposedly, but it's one of the most unequally distributed GDPs of the region. Also quality of life is shit, pollution of the cities, no decent labor legislation; private, expensive and shitty education; private, expensive and shitty healthcare, and so on.
Argentina and Brasil seem to be better but I don't have a really deep insight though.

[Anonymous No.2790874]

>be Karl Marx
>"If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist"
>this thread

[Anonymous No.2790882]

>>2789782

You used "old" rhetorically in an ageist way and you know it. Stop backpedalling. And regarding "trying something else" I was an anarchist before I was communist. Then I realized after extensive reading that most anarchists were infantile and had absolutely no practical solutions to real problems.

Without social authority, how does one 1) treat illness 2)public works projects that benefit all 3) civil engineering (you know how many people will die if there are no standards and enforced inspections in this field)

[Anonymous No.2790886]

>>2789713
What link does anarchism have with ageist ad hominems? LMAO

[TheBaker !aw6Qj2QiR. No.2790900]

>>2790882
"Communism is oppression and slavery. Man is very willing to obey the law of duty, serve his country, and oblige his friends; but he wishes to labor when he pleases, where he pleases, and as much as he pleases. He wishes to dispose of his own time, to be governed only by necessity, to choose his friendships, his recreation, and his discipline; to act from judgment, not by command; to sacrifice himself through selfishness, not through servile obligation. Communism is essentially opposed to the free exercise of our faculties, to our noblest desires, to our deepest feelings."
-Pierre Joseph Proudhon

In other words, just because you do not compel people to help their neighbor does not mean they will fail to do so. And, in fact, the more you attempt this compulsion the more they will resent the very charity itself.

"Gentle when free" and all that.

[Anonymous No.2790901]

>>2790886

Ziggy Stardust

[Anonymous No.2790919]

>>2790900
"Property is theft so theft is only proper" - Proudhon

This logically leads to people picking the weak and the poor, because they are the easiest targets for theft. They can't marshall the resources of law like someone with a lot of money to protect themselves.

And ever heard of what happened to homo sapiens neanderthalis? He was genocided into extinction by homo sapiens sapiens. So much for the "noble savage" and the "primitive anarchist communism" of people like Pierre Clastres...

"Property is the most popular honour among people" - G.K. Chesterton

How do you magically convince everyone of that property is theft? (Which I agree with, but Proudhon's reversal is simply naive and insane).

[TheBaker !aw6Qj2QiR. No.2790943]

>>2790919
"property is freedom"
-Proudhon

"property is impossible"
-Proudhon

The idea that Proudhon's statement "Property is Theft" somehow implied that ALL property is theft is a misreading of Proudhon.

Tucker again:
"It probably will surprise many who know nothing of Proudhon save his declaration that property is robbery to learn that he was perhaps the most vigorous hater of Communism that ever lived on this planet. But the apparent inconsistency vanishes when you read his book and find that by property he means simply legally privileged wealth or the power of usury, and not at all the possession by the laborer of his products."

Proudhon was referring to a specific conception of property, that of land and other capital granted by privilege of the State. His comment was meant to suggest that property is not INHERENTLY legitimate by virtue of mere declaration. After this led to gross misinterpretation of his work, he wrote "property is freedom" as an addenda to specify that property is both a tool for oppression AND the means of human liberty, and that it was not property's MERE existence, but its right and proper existence and distribution, that was to be considered.

[Anonymous No.2790947]

>>2790622

[Anonymous No.2790962]

a) Various people have interpreted Stirner as compatible with collectivist or communitarian socialism, among them Gustav Landauer and Rudolf Rocker. Daniel Guérin in his important study of anarchism values Stirner as the defender of individual freedom. To foreshorten the discussion on why most egoists would not live alone in a cave: Even Bakunin granted the possibility of individuals leaving the free societies (communes, syndicates or what have you). Not only was this meant as a possibility for the individual to 'opt out' of society, but also as a way of society for dealing with assholes (they would be thrown out). Anyone trying to tell you that everyone has to participate in their utopia is a wanker, no matter whether they claim their thought is based on Kropotkin.

b) Fuck 'ageism', most old people need to go fuck themselves anyway. Blocking the queue at the supermarket, walking nowhere in particular slowly, voting for shitty parties despite the fact that 99% of what happens in politics does not affect them anymore and I have to live with their shitty decisions.

[Anonymous No.2791434]

neo-marxism/communicative action.
gramsci, habermas, poulantzas, badiou. EO Wright ...

Get on my level

[Anonymous No.2791508]

>being a capitalist
>being a racist
>being a sexist
>any time

You failed the test.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2791829]

>>2790068
>Communist party X has taken control of country X and is implementing the steps required under communist theory to create a Communist state
>Communists 'Yay Party X!'
>Country X devolves into mass death and tyranny, then collapses
>Communists'Well, no one has ever *really* tried Communism, so you can't say its failed'
rinse, repeat

[Anonymous No.2791839]

>being
>2012

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2791844]

>>2790088
>thinks hunter-gatherers didn't have division of labor

>>2790629
Italian Fascism might be seen as a failure, maybe, and Falangist fascism in Spain went away, as it mainly agreed to do. Peronist Fascism also sorta' faded into less importance.

[Anonymous No.2791849]

>>2791844

>Italian Fascism might be seen as a failure, maybe

generally if your own people riddle you with bullets and hang you upside down for days to spit on it's a sign that you fucked up real bad

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2791851]

>>2790702
actually, the quote should be
>relatively mild inequalities

>>2790776
Repeating the same action over and over?
check
Getting the same results every time?
check
Expecting that the next time you'll get different results?
check
Communists confirmed for crazy

[Anonymous No.2791854]

>2012
>Not an anarcho-fascist

Stay mad, plebeian comrades.

[Anonymous No.2791859]

>>2791829
I am 100% sure that Communists outside of country X disagree with many of the policies that build up to "mass death and tyranny." I left this thread a while ago to go do some stuff; here I've come back, and you're still saying retarded shit.

[Anonymous No.2791862]

>marxism

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2791894]

>>2790816
Third Ways FTW

>>2791849
Iam speaking of the ideology, not Il Duce. Some fascists argue they hated Mussollni because he allied himself with Socialists, although I am uncertain of this. But, since it is up for debate....

[ϟ ＺＨＫＮＤ ϟ !Ry9.MAY90A No.2791896]

>>2791854

HELLO.

[Anonymous No.2791904]

>>2791894

pretty sure people just got tired of institutional thuggery by a dude who looked like curly howard's stunt double

but anyway shut up with the /pol/posts or at least do the ones about how much you love louis xvi instead, thos are more entertaining

[Anonymous No.2791910]

>>2791854
Anarcho-fascism, huh? That is some quality trolling.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2791914]

>>2791854
>not a Catholic Monarchist
are you even trying?

>>2791859
>still missing the point
let me repeat
>'Now that we Communists are in charge of nation X let's implement Communist theory!
>'OK! I'm sure it will work this time'
>very soon
>'Well, darn! Just like the last 5 times we've created another pestilential tyranny. Whooda' thunk, huh?' Let's take over nation Y and try it again!'
>'OK!'

[Anonymous No.2791917]

>>2791894
>Some fascists argue they hated Mussollni because he allied himself with Socialists, although I am uncertain of this.

They argue about that even though you're uncertain of it. Despite your uncertainty they continue to argue. Fucking idiots...amirite?

[Anonymous No.2791921]

>>2790919
>They can't marshall the resources of law like someone with a lot of money to protect themselves.

They can easily afford a 500 dollar gun, and being poor have nothing to lose for defending their life, liberty, and property.

The foundation of true freedom, is self-sufficiency.

[Anonymous No.2791924]

>>2791917
>Fascists
>Expecting intelligence from them
Lol.

[Anonymous No.2791928]

>>2790774
And people in the USA work 60 hours a week, what are you babbling about?
The poor generally work the least and have no responsibilities.

[Anonymous No.2791944]

>>2791914
Oh no, I understand what you're saying, I just have a hard time believing that you think Communist theory has been implemented in the exact same way, in every country it's swept. I mean, all you've got to do is read motherfucker...

>Privatization of anything in China
>Cultural revolution in China
>War Communism in USSR
>NEP in USSR

I don't see how you think any of this adheres to Communist theory.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2791995]

>>2791944
I am not saying its been tried 'the exact same way', silly - Heck, the fact that it has been tried many *different* ways is WORSE, isn't it?

>I don't see how you think any of this adheres to Communist theory.
Let me guess - if it was *really* Communist theory it would have worked, right?

[Anonymous No.2792023]

>>2791995
>Let me guess - if it was *really* Communist theory it would have worked, right?

Well, it depends on the economic status of that country prior to Communist occupation.

>I am not saying its been tried 'the exact same way', silly - Heck, the fact that it has been tried many *different* ways is WORSE, isn't it?

Not really; that just goes to show that different people in different situations do different things. Or not all corrupt politicians look, speak and think the same way.

[Anonymous No.2792024]

> discussing communism without having read Althusser
Ok, bourgeois dogs, time to get out the internet and study a little bit.

[Anonymous No.2793780]

>>2792024
Althusser is dumb. He took the name epistemological rupture from Bachelard and stole the identification of it in Marx' thought from Henri Arvon. He completely omitted Stirner's role in all this, despite the fact that he translated Feuerbach's reply to Stirner to French and was thus obviously aware of him, and despite the fact that Althusser's own turn towards a critique of ideology directly contradicts the arguments Marx made against Stirner in Die Deutsche Ideologie, precisely the moment where Althusser locates the rupture. To top it off, he used some hilariously retarded 'psychoanalytical theory' by Lacan.

[Anonymous No.2793785]

>>2793780
>hilariously retarded 'psychoanalytical theory' by Lacan.

"Hilariously retarded" describes just about everything I've read of Lacan's.

[Anonymous No.2793792]

>>2793785
It's really the worst thing about some theorists who could otherwise provide some contemporary interpretation of Marx: Laclau and Zizek, for example. How can I take someone seriously who not only takes serious Lacan's assertions about the human psyche but even goes on to pretend they have some kind of political relevance? Even if Lacan was right, it wouldn't be possible to simply divorce his theories entirely from the clinical environment in which they are meant to function and draw some very far-fetched conclusions about political subjectivity from them.

[Anonymous No.2793820]

>>2793785
2deep4u

Lacan is a thinker of the size of Heidegger and Wittgenstein. Well above anything else that has come out in the last 50 years.

[Anonymous No.2793828]

>>2793820
Haha. Sure, kid.

[Anonymous No.2793924]

>>2793828
sucks not knowing how to philosophy

[Anonymous No.2794203]

>>2793924
I hate to break it to you, but Lacan was a charlatanic dandy who bled dry the wallets of his patients by reducing each hour of their 'treatment', sometimes to as little as five minutes while Jacque was getting his nails done, with the result that many of them killed themselves. He stole the concept of the mirror phase from some marxist psychanalytic nobody and continued to load it with Hegel, Saussure, meaningless pseudo-mathematical formulae and assorted other crap that is meant to sound intelligent and make his writing obscure enough that it will always be possible to evade any criticism by reinterpreting the essentially meaningless stream of words. Lacanianism has many of the classic features of a cult. Everything that people criticize about Freud as unscientific, everything that is garbled metaphysics in Hegel, all the unwarranted, unfounded abstractions and extrapolations of Saussure (which had been dropped by linguistics more than 20 years before Lacan picked them up), plus a conception of mathematics that you otherwise only get by having a 14year old with aspergers teach himself from an italian text-book that has been run through google-translation, Lacan is all of that, on crack.

[Anonymous No.2794225]

>>2794203
>a conception of mathematics that you otherwise only get by having a 14year old with aspergers teach himself from an italian text-book that has been run through google-translation

[Anonymous No.2794229]

>>2794225
No, really. Lacanian mathemes are a joke.

[Anonymous No.2794273]

>>2794203
His character is as irrelevant to his assessment as a thinker or we would have to criticize people like wittgentsein, heidegger or even frege (which was an antisemite).

The mirror-stage was not so much the fact but about inserting phenomenology into psychoanalysis.

It's not meant to sound intelligent. It is intelligent. It actually answers many of the problems that were brought forward by postmodernism after heidegger. If you don't believe me you can ask me any question, with the exception of his very last seminars which I haven't read (from XVII onward).

I personally don't understand his mathematics but I find it the less interesting and weakest point of his thought. But still even if he didn't have a good grasp of mathematics what people actually don't know if that he was advised on it by mathematicians from the ENS (not the worse school in the world).

Also suicide is not at all a failure in the view of lacanian psychoanalysis. The point of the analysis is to make an analysis that does not try to make socially adapted individual, but individuals capable of following their desire.

But despite that, despite the fact that I have no sympathy for his therapy, the strong point of Lacan is that it manages to uphold a conception of truth and agency after Nietzsche.
Which is more than can be said of any other philosopher. A result much stronger than anything Analytic philosophy managed to obtain (which is pretty much nothing since they just work by ignoring nietzsche and are only now with 50 years of delay starting to understand hegel).

The problem today is that thanks to economic circumstances in philosophy the dumbasses have won the war.

[Anonymous No.2794289]

>>2794229
Also, Lacan's mathemes are not a contribution to mathematics but are a contribution to psychoanalysis.

Lacan's problem, and that's why he turns to them, is the problem is how to teach a knowledge which is highly individual (each patient is different) and practical (that is you derive it from the practice).

He tried with the mathemes and sincerely failed. But hey no one makes fun of Leibniz's characteristica universalis.

[Anonymous No.2794296]

>>2794273
>>The mirror-stage was not so much the fact but about inserting phenomenology into psychoanalysis.

So it's a metaphor? What is the ontological status of the theory of the mirror stage? Because at least in some of the many formulations Lacan published over the years, he makes specific claims about the developmental state of the human brain at the point when the mirror phase supposedly takes place, which are demonstrably untrue. He clearly formulates the mirror stage in such a way that it is meant as an explanation of an actual ontogenetic moment in every human's development. If that is not what it means, what does it mean?

[Ashplant No.2794317]

>>2794273

Neutral part here. Can you please elaborate on what post-Heidegger questions Lacan answered and elaborate as much as much as you can about this:

>The mirror-stage was not so much the fact but about inserting phenomenology into psychoanalysis.

Thank you.

[Anonymous No.2794320]

>>2794296
No it's not a metaphor. He really believed that it is true. But it's a 1930s idea. That's from a time when in psychology comportamentism was the most popular opinion and psychiatry was trying to cure homosexuality with electroshock therapy.

What I'm pointing out that in the end the importance of the mirror-stage is in its role for the history of ideas. What I'm saying is that the reason that it is still interesting to read the mirror stage is because its dialectics between the fragments, the whole in the mirror and its perceived destruction is exactly the same way that phenomenology conceives the constitution of the object.
Lacan applies it to the constitution of the self and that is a very interesting idea and also a key passage to understand the development of his further thought.

[Anonymous No.2794332]

>>2794320
>>the whole in the mirror and its perceived destruction
What is that supposed to mean? How is the whole destroyed?

Also, you are basically saying 'It's wrong, but that is okay because it's from the 30s and very interesting', right? I still don't see in what way this is a significant development in our view of the human psyche: What does this tell us about the self that was hitherto unknown?

[Anonymous No.2794355]

>>2794317

I'm sorry I'll be quick. But you can ask any questions.

On the mirror stage I answered here. Also it's good to remember that Lacan's understanding of phenomenology comes through Merleau-Ponty and not through Husserl.

On the Heidegger question.
So Heidegger has a problem. How can we talk about being if we are always in the house of language. The house of language is tradition, the community where we are thrown.
Lacan for example answers this. He has a community which is the Other, and he explains how the truth is the failing of the Other (you can make resound this with Adorno's aesthetic about the truth in art being what it's impossible to be said in the community). And he devices an ethic (the ethic of desire) which if followed allows to break up the shackles of the Other and permits an authentic ethical action.

I understand this is very vague, but I can explain things in much more depth if you want.

[Anonymous No.2794385]

>>2794332
>What is that supposed to mean? How is the whole destroyed?

The mirror stage goes like this:
1) The child feels fragmented. He is clumsy and he sees himself only in parts. He sees an arm here a leg there and does not know that they are all attached together.
2) The child sees himself in the mirror and understands that he is a whole thing. The he comes together in one thing.
3) The child understands that as he is whole now he may go in pieces (by remembering his initial experience) and thus understands his own mortality.

>Also, you are basically saying 'It's wrong, but that is okay because it's from the 30s and very interesting', right? I still don't see in what way this is a significant development in our view of the human psyche: What does this tell us about the self that was hitherto unknown?

Yes. It basically tells us that we identify through a series of external images. That our identity is not encoded in us but is the product of external practices.
This was important because at the time it was an attack on the idea of the homunculus .
But it becomes even more important when you understand this concept in regard to other forms of identification. As identification in one owns' genre or one owns' nationality and so on.

[Anonymous No.2794393]

>>2794385
Okay thats great now show me the convincing physical evidence.

Oh you can't do you? Well I'm sorry Lacan was a charlatan

[Anonymous No.2794407]

>>2794393
Lol what?

Was aristotle a charlatan?
Was wittgenstein a charlatan?


That's a little bit of a double standard going on there.

[Anonymous No.2794411]

>>2794393
Or even Quine, Davidson, Searle, Austin.

[Anonymous No.2794428]

>>2794407
>>2794411
Burden of proof is on you. And you can't provide anything.

Lacan a shit

[Anonymous No.2794431]

>>2794428
So what is the compelling physical evidence that you have to prove that philosophers have a burden of proof?

[Anonymous No.2794436]

>>2794385
>>It basically tells us that we identify through a series of external images. That our identity is not encoded in us but is the product of external practices.

Yes, but it is pure conjecture. Especially if we reject this specific scenario (which I do, for reasons both biological and anthropological, the availability of mirrors conveniently installed on the eye-level of infants varying drastically among cultures), this becomes not only an abstract claim without concrete evidence, but actually a claim without concrete illustration. Basically I am frustrated with the weird phenomenon that no one takes Lacan's assertions about the human psyche seriously as a truth claim (and doing that would basically be an act of faith, because they cannot in any way be verified and every relation Lacan creates to observable human behavior only undermines his claims), yet people still continue to cite his ideas of the Symbolic and the Real as if this was the state-of-the-art of psycho-analysis or philosophy, or both. I simply see no reason at all to believe that there is any truth to any of it. People just use it because it is obscure, giving them a wide range of interpreting it in a way that suits them, and it references difficult philosophy, which means that they can appear deep without actually having to engage with someone like Heidegger or Hegel, who are much harder to set in relation to cinema, politics or whatever it is these people study (especially since on Heidegger and Hegel there are experts who will actually call you out on your bullshit if you don't know what you are doing).

[Anonymous No.2794450]

>>2794431
This is the last reply I'm going to give you. The question is irrelevant, I have not even given reference to any of these philosophers.

If you don't have evidence, your claims are mere speculation and can't be taken particularly seriously. This does not mean they are possible, but you could say the same thing about the logical possibility of quetzalcoatl returning to mexico. Not scientific.

[Anonymous No.2794472]

>>2794436
>yet people still continue to cite his ideas of the Symbolic and the Real as if this was the state-of-the-art of psycho-analysis or philosophy, or both.

But this is the bets part about his philosophy.
I can agree that a lot of people use Lacan in a bad way but his tripartition works wonders in managing post-kantian metaphysics.

You have got the symbolic which is the cultural level of human metaphysical constructions (language, tradition, culture, in hermeneutics and certain panlinguisms or the spirit in hegel).

You have the imaginary which is the lived body of phenomena and qualia. What Husserl calls the Lebenswelt.

And you have the real, which is the hard core that interrupts the play of interpretation, reminding us that the world is not just a virtuality, but is a reality and we cannot interpret in whatever way we like it.

It's perfect from a metaphysical point of view.

Then if you also add that he constructs this three dimensions not as a stratified tower but as dialectical interplay it becomes even more useful and intelligent.

[Anonymous No.2794484]

>>2794450
The problem is that now you are making non scientific claims yourself. I mean if I believed you then I would have to think that you are a charlatan.

[Anonymous No.2794589]

>>2794472
>>It's perfect from a metaphysical point of view.

Sorry, but what's a 'metaphysical point of view'? It just seems to me that some people refuse to acknowledge that (a certain kind of) metaphysics are over. The way you describe it basically argues for Lacan because you find his categories practical, because they make it easy for you to talk about things in a way that makes you feel good. But when was this ever a criterion for thought? There is no argument here, not even an attempt to convince me. You are just saying how nice it is to use Lacans ideas, the argument presumably being that I should believe them not because there are arguments or evidence to support them, but simply because they fit nicely into a particular kind of philosophy... If I chose my philosophies by how nice and comfortable they make my thought-processes, I would chose to believe in God, not Lacan. That's a far nicer, completely unfounded explanation of how the world works.

[Anonymous No.2794597]

>>2794472
Or to put my incredulity in perhaps more constructive terms: What is the Real and why should there be such a thing? Is that a construct that each individual psyche creates? Is it supposedly inter-subjective? If there are the symbolic and imaginary realms (and why would I call qualia imaginary? They are the most immediate thing available to me. If anything, the symbolic is far more imaginary than the phenomenological or sensory realm), how could I determine what is the real? Is this not simply something made up to fulfill the preconceived notion that philosophical concepts should come in triads?

[Anonymous No.2795125]

>>2794589
Well it's not really because they are nice or practical or make me feel good. Lacan doesn't make me feel good. I don't argue because here space is short and because I don't know what your preparation is.

But to tell you a short story about why he is important it basically goes like this:

First there was Hume which posited some very good skeptical arguments. To those arguments kant replied. But we had problems to understand where the categories where. So we decided to put them in the world, like in language, culture and biology. But this brought to Nietzsche and Nihilism. Where Nihilism is in a certain way renouncing to answer the question of being (read if you will of truth). Lacan answers a lot fo Nietzsche's (and Heidegger concerns) and explains us how we can still talk about the truth.

That's how it goes.

[Anonymous No.2795131]

>>2794597
The real is the breaking point fo represantation. It's just being, the fact that something exists with no adjectives.

Immaginary is called like that because it pertain images, geometrical and visual space, not because it's fake. It's the world we live in its visual/sensory dimension (this goes back to the greeks that consider vision the prominent of senses).

You don't determine what is real. That's the point. Having no adjectives it's just what fucks you up your attempts of understanding reality. The real in a sense is the aristotelian hyle but seen in a dialectical perspective.

Again here I am not arguing for, I'm explaining the concept. If you don't understand what the concept is I can't argue.

[Anonymous No.2795990]

>>2795125
But Nietzsche is not a nihilist, Nietzsche just reveals the nihilism in Idealism, the nihilism that is inevitably present in the attempt to treat language as if it could express truth. Eveything 'true' or 'real' is unsayable, that's just the way it goes. People just got really confused when they started using Saussure's conception of the sign (which is already pretty sketchy) and emphasizing the signifier over the signified. That just doesn't work. Even in Saussure himself, they don't have individual existence but exist only as aspects of each other. There is no 'floating signifier'. Any philosohpy based on Saussure is just fetishizing linguaform expression as the container of actual truth. This, however, is just another form of linguistic Platonism. It's slightly more agreeable to some than the rationalist version of enunciation we get from the Chomsky / Habermas mainline of rationalist structuralism (I know this doesn't describe Habermas, but for this specific argument everyone else is a structuralist, and since his position seems to be roughly compatible with Chomsky's on this point, I brush this over), to others it is slightly more retarded. However, the basic point is that there is a very strong tendency in post-structuralism to NOT LEAVE THE HALL OF LANGUAGE but merely play hide and seek behind its pillars. They have neither the rigour or the courage to go where Nietzsche and Stirner went before them.