/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4121192]

Dear lit,

How does communism and marxism do away with bureaucracy and the natural human tendency to serve one's interests over others?

[Anonymous No.4121200]

Communism doesn't magically solve selfishness, friendo. It rationally explains why common ownership of the means of production is in the majority's interest. You're welcome to plug your ears and lalalalalalalala away, but that's the plain and simple truth.

[Anonymous No.4121201]

The idea is that there will be a different, superior type of man.

[Anonymous No.4121207]

>>4121200
I was just participating in a marxist group that turned out to be an echo chamber.

I want to know why communism has failed so much.

[Anonymous No.4121212]

>>4121201
which is in effect *magic*

[Anonymous No.4121217]

>>4121207

Communism often fails not because of internal pressures and/or "human nature." It often fails because of external forces (i.e. Imperial war-states mucking about markets that hampers trade balances, embargoes, etc...)

[Anonymous No.4121220]

>>4121217
See for example, Chile circa 1972, for example.

[Anonymous No.4121223]

>>4121217
but what about stalin extracting power in 1923?

[Anonymous No.4121238]

>>4121192
I dont think you've read anything related to those two ideas, since Marxism is a theory of history, a lens to see things, it isnt a doctrine or a utopia, thats communism which is seperate from Marxism. You can be a Marxist but not a communist if you have an argument that society will go a different way from what Marx said, something Anarchists talk about sometimes.

>>4121201
Nope.

>>4121207
Communism hasnt happened, communism only happens when everyone everywhere is communist, then we see if it worked.

What we HAVE seen is dictatorships using the name socialist and communist to further their goals. Sometimes they are actually socialist, sometimes they work (modern day Scandinavia or to some extent the entire Western world compared to America and Hong Kong), sometimes they dont.

>>4121212
Nope.

>>4121217
Nope because of the above.

Remember, people can say they are one thing and be another. People can label something as X when it actually isnt X. Think of the Nazis and how they argued for socialism but then argued against socialism, and then justified this by saying their socialism was different, which it wasnt.

[Anonymous No.4121250]

>>4121238
>modern day Scandinavia
Modern day Scandinavia is a liberal free market democracy.c

[Anonymous No.4121259]

>>4121238

1. Your post is an exemplary no true scotsman fallacy.

2. You don't know the difference between socialism and communism.

3. Non-communist marxists are scum. Just sayin'

[Anonymous No.4121276]

>>4121207
Revleft? I think Revleft is the ultimate Marxist echo chamber.

>assert that anarchists are welcome and treated as equal members
>anyone who opposes a dictatorship of the proletariat is seen as counterrevolutionary and relegated to the "opposing ideas" section

>anyone who has any religious views whatsoever is relegated to the "opposing ideas" section

>anyone who doesn't want to do away with markets entirely is a "reformer" even if they want to eliminate the current system completely and replace it with a different one that happens to have a market in some form

>anyone who argues that liberty is as important as economic equality is leaped on like a pork chop in a room with six starving dogs, and treated like some kind of monster

>and you'd better never disrespect any of the "great" Marxist dictators of the past

[Anonymous No.4121287]

>>4121250
Again, compared to America and Hong Kong, they are far more socialist.

When not comparing them to America and Hong Kong, yes, they arent as socialist as other countries.

>>4121259
1. I can understand the no true scotsman fallacy, but you have to understand that a fallacy only holds when there is no justification given besides the fallacy. I am not simply saying, oh theyre not communist, im giving a reason for why theyre not communist, the reason being they do not fit the actual definition, I havent changed the definition (what I would be doing if I were using the fallacy). Heres one example:
Marx argues that communism can only rise from a world revolution, a communist state must be world wide, until this happens, there would be no communist state, only scattered socialist states that were working towards communism. So you could say (like I argued), there are failed socialist states, but to say there are failed communist states is simply wrong by Marx's definition. If you have another definition of or justification (like I pointed out with the anarchists) then thats fine, but traditionally, no, there has not been communist state.
. For an argument to be fallacious it must rest on the fallacy, there can be an argument that is partly fallacious and partly not if it has multiple points, and the argument can be fallacious while the conclusion is still true.

I mean come now, it is possible that someone can lie about what they are, right? It is possible that countries that have been called socialist or communist, werent.

What matters is the argument for whether they are or not, that is where fallacies come in, and im giving a justification besides, oh they just are, which means it isnt that particular fallacy.

2. I do, means of production go from the state to the people, socialism's role is to gain the means of production and then to deteriorate the state.

3. This point doesnt really mean anything. Just sayin brah

[Anonymous No.4121300]

>>4121276
no something stupid at the university of canterbury in NZ

[Anonymous No.4121306]

>>4121287
>Again, compared to America and Hong Kong, they are far more socialist.

You can't be more or less socialist. You're either socialist or you're not, and Scandinavian countries are not socialist.

[Anonymous No.4121349]

>>4121306
Yes you can be.

You can socialize some business but not others, whats called a mixed economy.

You honestly arent denying the existence of mixed economies, are you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

You really dont know what youre talking about, do you?

[Anonymous No.4121355]

>>4121349
Mixed economy is not socialism.

[Anonymous No.4121360]

>>4121217
communism works when every nation is communist. mixed national economies are still a capitalist's game. this is even said by Marx himself. the revolution needs to happen everywhere, not just in certain geographical areas. otherwise that nation will end up have to play the same game as everyone else, as is evidenced by history.

[Anonymous No.4121362]

>>4121306
>You can't be more or less socialist. You're either socialist or you're not

lolol

socialism is not like pregnancy

[Anonymous No.4121369]

>>4121362
yeah m8 we're totally socialist except for all these mcdonalds and wal-marts and shit don't worry about them we got no capitalism here at all

[Anonymous No.4121370]

>>4121360
I think that that's just a poor excuse to why state-controlled economies fail. "If the Soviet Union failed, it's because they had capitalism in America!". Well, turn the whole fucking world in a socialist regime and you'll get the same results as any other socialist experiment: a shitload of corpses.
Marxists are going to claim that socialism is different to communism, and they have a point. Socialism is the intermediate regime between capitalism and communism, the proletariat's dictatorship before class system has been overwhelmed and we can all finally in a stateless, classless society. That's just bullshit and will never happen for two reasons:
1 - Socialism will always turn into a totalitarian society and those in charge will not abdicate.
2 - Even if they do, in a stateless society who the fuck would have to right to keep me from putting a fence around my house and telling people to fuck off? No one. Bang. Private property. Private property of the means of production. Free trades. No one could keep me from doing that. Cry me a river.

[Anonymous No.4121378]

>>4121370
a communist society in a world where capitalism dominates doesn't work. it's like trying to play indoor soccer while everybody else is playing basketball and you got one ball and one court. ref is going to be calling kick ball on you all game long.

[MrThrills !aAnvD.FqpM No.4121385]

>>4121192
The field of economics -- where it bleeds into the humanities -- have branched beyond marxism. However, socialism is still a possibility (and, depending on who you talk to, an inevitability). My knowledge of Economics is amateur, but here's what I understand:

Keynes basically put a whole in the idea of a self-sustaining free market run by a cyclical "business model." He helped propogate the simple truth that Depression is not temporary by nature, and that it CAN potentially linger forever. He essentially killed the idealization of capitalism.

Soon after, another economist -- I believe it was Schumpeter -- realized that the next "stage" of capitalism was corporatism. Corporatism does not foster entrepreneurship, and so the whole business cycle becomes stagnant. Schumpeter's forecast is that nonpartisan intellectuals will elect to replace corporatism with socialism.

Today, we don't really have a nonpartisan elite. But if /pol/ is on the right track (and /pol/ is always right), we DO have a corporate, globalist elite (Bilderberg group), which does tend to spout rhetoric very similar to socialism.

To summarize: Capitalism becomes unsustainable, so it is in everyone's (or at least, the corporate elite's) self-interest to transition into socialism.

Not communism but close enough. If there are any Economist-anons on the board, don't hesitate to eviscerate my post.

[Anonymous No.4121387]

>>4121370
when Marx talks about private property he doesn't mean it in the popular sense that we use it today. like nobody wants your toothbrush and used underwear bro. I always took it to mean the means of production. plus, once something is yours it is YOURS.

[Anonymous No.4121388]

>>4121378
Nope. Russia was one court, America was another. Your metaphor is ridiculous. A controlled economy doesn't work because the price system is fucked up. Even if it did work, it'd be immoral. A free market is not only efficient but also moral.

[Anonymous No.4121391]

>>4121388
>A free market is not only efficient but also moral.

Well, at least you're honest, I suppose. You demon, you devil, you bastard of a whore.

[Anonymous No.4121392]

>>4121387
Means of production are just like any other kind of property.

[Anonymous No.4121398]

What makes a piece of literature Young Adult? Is it written by a Young Adult or... does it have common themes, or is it the writing style or the vocabulary or the archetypes used?

[Anonymous No.4121399]

>>4121398
It is called a YA book by its publisher, marketed as a YA book, and shelved and categorized with other YA books.

wait, I'm sorry, did you think that genre definitions had to do with the literary content of the works involved, or were basically anything other than categories of convenience for selling and marketing books?

[Anonymous No.4121403]

>>4121399
I thought most YA stuff invoked similar themes. To be honest, I don't know what defines a book's genre. So it must be what the publishers call it then?

[Anonymous No.4121415]

>>4121391
I also detest your socialist policies and think that people like you are responsible for the death of millions of people. Also, insulting my mother, who happens to be a kind woman who votes labor, is not really 'leftist', is it?

[Anonymous No.4121419]

>>4121259
Not him and not talking about this particular case, but this no true scotsman fallacy thing is shit. Sometimes it is indeed not a true scotsman and I feel that people are inclined not to point that out anymore, in fear that others will call it a fallacy. It is quite easy to spot this fallacy and the ironic thing is, you may even fall for it too when spotting it: "but that's not a true argument" and then you dismiss it. Well, sometimes it is a real argument, sometimes it is not a true scotsman and it is important for us to be humble enough to consider that. To call this a fallacy is sometimes just a sign of arrogance and ignorance, you ignore the possibility that the other knows more than you do on the matter, that he may point out that you derailed from the matter long ago, that you were building your argument on a fake or misinterpreted object of study long ago.

[Anonymous No.4121424]

>>4121369
yeah m8 we're totally capitalist except for all these healthcares and welfares and shit don't worry about them we got no socialism here at all

[Anonymous No.4121427]

>>4121415
Sorry, I mean a whore and a bastard, birthed under an evil star, defiler and hater of everything good. Get gone from here, you evil spirit! Away, you dog!

[Anonymous No.4121431]

>>4121427
I'll take it is a compliment, you're basically comparing me to Edmund. You, on the other hand, were not born under evil influences of the stars, but are simply stupid and corrupt.

[Anonymous No.4121456]

Socialism is an inclination. You may be a little socialist or go all the way, but it does not exclude other political positions. Sometimes, it is contraditory, so capitalism and socialism don't mix, they pull the strings to different directions. Except they do mix and we often find ourselves pulling multiple strings at multiple directions. Every country has it so, every government, every term of a political party in power and so on. The label we give to these countries are just its overall tendencies. USA are capitalists. Cuba is socialist. But Cuba is not free from the capital and the US are not free from socialist inclined measures. No nation is. And still, the -ist names are rightly ascribed to them like that.

Communism, on the other hand, as the other anon told, is an ideal. An ideal common to socialist countries, but not really what they are or were.

The Cold War did a great job ruining these terms for a lot of people. There is still this tendency to divide things between commie scum and capitalist pigs.

[Anonymous No.4121467]

>>4121192
It does away with itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state Stalin introduced the idea of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country contrary to the marxist ideas of world revolution and permanent revolution.

[Anonymous No.4121827]

>>4121192
Marxism is a method of analysing societies: how the fuck will that do away with anything?

Proletarian communism, as historically practiced, uses constantly sitting committees of the entire effected population. So its anti-bureaucratic.

If you want to talk about nomenklatura controlled new-class societies then I suggest you start by reading Ðilas.

[Anonymous No.4121831]

>>4121415
>whore
>insult
You might want to introspect on the triumph of achieving payment for a particular form of housework.

[Anonymous No.4121971]

>>4121355
10/10 reply
This man deals in facts, watch out.

[painful bowel movement No.4123328]

>>4121287

This is a pretty good response. I concede point 2 but not point 1 (sorry, Cuba fairly explicitly seized property and "publicized" it). It was at one point a true transitional communist state. And then the embargo happened. Dat anti-communist hysteria.

3. All I have is my personal experience. And most of the non-communist marxists I've had dealings with were lacklustre human beings for the most part. I'm not stating it as some truth, but as a school of hard knocks conclusion.

[Anonymous No.4123337]

>>4121424
Health care and welfare aren't socialist.

[Anonymous No.4123338]

>>4123328
Value form continued circulating in an expanded form in Cuba.

Let me tell you about wage labour and proletarian autogestation. Actually, fuck that, if you don't learn it on the factory floor your knowledge means shit.

[painful bowel movement No.4123363]

>>4123338

But I work at a factory mate. All the inmates would rather play vidya and talk conspiracy theories than organize the revolution Is that what you mean by auto-gestation?

[Anonymous No.4123414]

>>4123363
Our class has become embroiled in plenty of "revolutions" that support one faction of bourgeois against another. The only thing of any account is our power over production directly

[Anonymous No.4123427]

>>4121192
How do communist societies award people for doing quality work?

[Anonymous No.4123451]

>>4123427
Skill is its own reward

[Anonymous No.4123473]

>>4121238
>What we HAVE seen is dictatorships using the name socialist and communist to further their goals. Sometimes they are actually socialist, sometimes they work (modern day Scandinavia or to some extent the entire Western world compared to America and Hong Kong), sometimes they dont.

This is what is wrong with most communist arguments. Communism is not an ideal state of things, communism is a movement. The idealized communistic utopia is impossible, as proven by Ludwig von Mises's calculation argument. One doesn't define a communist state by looking at it and seeing if it is close to an utopia, one defines it by looking at the movement that constituted it.

Better saying, instead of looking at the form of government to see whether they are "communism" or "nazism" or shit (since to do so we'll need to compare them to an utopian framework which will never exist), one must look at the method used to get power and the mentality driving the adepts of saying movements. They all are or have:

>Global ambitions
>Structured in a very hierarchical way
>Morality defined by the needs of the revolution
>Usage of terrorism to achieve power
>Totalitarian, in that they don't want to rule people but they want to create a "new man"
>Heavy usage of symbolism

The "economic" argument for demarcating whether an economy is "communistic" or "capitalistic" is pretty bad because Ideal Communism is a pipe-dream. There isn't really "capitalism", there is only The Economy, which has general categories that don't change as time passes (though some specific forms may). No country in the world is ever "free market", nor is it fully state-controlled.

"Capitalism", after all, began as a smear word for the state of things, and a smear word is all it is.

[Anonymous No.4123484]

>>4123473
He lost the calculation debate mate.

[Anonymous No.4123486]

>>4123484
To...?

[Anonymous No.4123511]

>>4123486
His own hubris and trams historical categories. Also that methodology: apriori reasoning on empirical matters went out with Hume's critique

When you make Bastiat look cogent you really are a cunt.

[Anonymous No.4123519]

>>4123511
The fuck? The calculation problem is not dependant on Mises's apriorism. It is based on the notion that prices serve as guides for production, which is widely agreed. (even Marx says something to the effect of it in one of his early pamphlets on economics. Wage Labor and Capital, I think.)

[Anonymous No.4123539]

>>4123519
Nice transhistorical category mate. Show me price level resolution in preNoan agriculture. HOLY SHIT HUMANS PRODUCED WITHOUT PRICES.

[Anonymous No.4123553]

>>4123539
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were both interested in living in industrial society.

[Anonymous No.4123567]

>>How does communism and marxism do away with bureaucracy and the natural human tendency to serve one's interests over others?

They don't. They (granted unintentionally) give these faults free reign.

[Anonymous No.4123563]

>>4123337
lel

[Anonymous No.4123570]

>>4123427
Social status, of course. Which is the end goal of making shitheaps of money under capitalism as well often.

[Anonymous No.4123572]

>>4123553
Firms calculate without active market prices.
Households calculate without active market prices.
States calculate without reference to active market prices.
Long term investment valuations are calculated without reference to active market prices.

Homoeconomicus is a myth that is demonstrably falsified by empirical data.

Nice apriori shite mate: industrial society is not determined by final instance products for sale on market.

[Anonymous No.4123576]

>>4123567
Yeah, nah, subjectivity generalises in worker controlled social arrangements. See the moral votes portion of any democratic meeting's conference; or the fucking Rochdale divvy.

[Anonymous No.4123589]

>>4123572
>Firms calculate without active market prices.

No, they don't. Firms determine whether they will expand or contract somewhere else entirely based on the price system, and, if they expand (i.e. do internal activities that in themselves do not directly deal with the price system), the success or failure of this expansion is determined with reference to the price system (profit, loss, opportunity cost, etc).

>Households calculate without active market prices.

A household has direct information on what is being effectively demanded and the price for consuming goods within it is zero, and the production process has mostly negligible costs (time and effort spent cooking, doing chores, deciding whether to open the cookie can or eat an apple, etc), so 99% of the time it is not analogue to the ideal communist society. In the ocasions where cost does matter, the household refers to the price system.

>States calculate without reference to active market prices.

Now you're making shit up.

>Long term investment valuations are calculated without reference to active market prices.

No, they are not. They use present prices as a basis on which to determine what someone will invest in. Or else it would be random. Empirical evidence suggests it is not random.

Also, there are no "active" market prices, as all prices are past prices. You do not know even the theory you are attacking.

>Homoeconomicus is a myth that is demonstrably falsified by empirical data.

Homo economicus has nothing to do with this, why are you even bringing it up. Do you even know what we are talking about. If you're just going to pull shit out of your ass, take some time to study first, it'll be less embarrasing for you.

[Anonymous No.4123591]

>>4123589
Oh look, I'm just reading over three or four firm accounting sheets right now

NO INTERNAL PRICES WERE USED
NO INTERNAL PRICES WERE USED
NO INTERNAL PRICES WERE USED

I'm sorry but you're denying empirical reality, go fuck off and die in a fire with pre-Hume thinkers.

[Anonymous No.4123597]

>>4123591
>NO INTERNAL PRICES WERE USED

By god, this is embarrassing. You are either trolling or completely beyond redemption. One thing is to disagree with a given theory, another is not to even understand it.

Either way, not worth continuing.

[Anonymous No.4123637]

Through the proletariat forming into one unit through struggle, becoming something people identify with more than their individual selves, these two forming it into a subject more primary than the individual, and that subject realising that substitutionalists of all kinds are leeches and acting to kick them out (of their positions or of existence). Or being so powerful that a few leeches can be tolerated.
As to whether this will happen: Who knows lol?


Basically by changing identity so that the self that's interested is the communal self of the proletariat, not the other group selves offered to workers like the nation and the family, or the individual self. Can you handle it?

[Anonymous No.4123642]

Anyone who's experienced anything close to a riot, or even just a sporting event will know what I'm talking about. Faced with opposition on a team level where the success of all is reliant on the participation of all, your self becomes the team, even if your individual body is moving. And you act as one organism. You effectively are.

As to sociopaths, beatings.

[Anonymous No.4123646]

>>4123642
>beatings
>not ye olde icepick slipped nine inches past the eardrum mid slumber

[Anonymous No.4123650]

>>4121223
That *is* an external factor you shitstain

[Anonymous No.4123654]

Out of curiosity, any Leninists here want to try and justify their bullshit?

[Anonymous No.4123664]

>>4121259
>all modern left-wing is scum
Communism is dead. Who will overtake the means of production in a post industrial society? The proletariat? Don't make me laugh

[Anonymous No.4123722]

>>4121276
am I th only one who thinks top-down, counterrevolutionary, dare I say it "bourgeois" leftist democracy is a good idea?

[Anonymous No.4123726]

>>4123722
Social democracy? It's a thing in most of Europe.

[Anonymous No.4123733]

>>4123722
if you were we wouldn't live in such a shitstain of a world

social democrats are more poisonous than anything else to the socialist cause

[Anonymous No.4123737]

>>4123722
Consent of the governed is still a failed fulfilment of the liberal principle of self-identity as the government cannot be the people in a bourgeois democracy.

Full communism is the only fulfilment of liberalism, everything short of it is a contradiction where liberty is enslaved to the state.

>>4123597
Fuck off mate. Experiential sense data disproves your pure reason.

[Anonymous No.4123746]

>>4123733
but the nordic countries are objectively the best place in the world

[Anonymous No.4123742]

>>4123722
Well it's better than a lot of alternatives, but "good" is a relative term that assumes a certain set of values or ideal states.
If you mean good from the perspective of its own ideology, yeah, it's pretty good.
If you mean good for the march of history in a Marxian model, who knows?
If you mean, do I think it's good? I dunno. I find it lacks chaos, but that's a personal aesthetic preference. Hm.

[Anonymous No.4123748]

>>4123746
>objectively
You don't understand what that word means, do you?

[Anonymous No.4123750]

>>4123748
I was using it like 'literally' (as in 'not literally').

[Anonymous No.4123764]

>>4123750
Here's a clue: you're a cunt and if I meet you I'm taking both thumbs and both big toes with a bolt cutter.

[Anonymous No.4123770]

>>4123764
I don't care what you do with your digits, good sir. ;)

[Marxist-Leninist-Maoist !quM58wnvXA No.4123888]

Huh. So this is what you all think of Marxism. Wow.

[Anonymous No.4123900]

Oh woah I didn't even see how dumb the OP was

[Anonymous No.4124104]

Democracies overrated I reckon, nothing can get done when politicians focus on polls and all the bullshit that comes along with politics. An unelected body of the best scientists and thinkers would be the best government, a technocracy, but the plebs would never give the right to vote away, even when faced with little choice anyway at the ballot box.

[Anonymous No.4124106]

>>4124104
you dumb tho

what do you think the problems of government are

[Anonymous No.4124109]

>>4124106
Weak will, bowing to lobbyists, corporate scum, bailing out banks, focus on 24 hour news cycle, caring about polls, knifing leaders over polls (Australian here), political apathy in society, etc

[Anonymous No.4124111]

>>4124109
no i mean the problems of politics in general

what kind of shit does politics deal with? what problems does it attempt to solve? what issues and concerns are we trying to resolve by creating this system, and what kind of thing are we working with when we talk about politics? and why are scientists and experts necessarily better qualified to deal with whatever those concerns are - you say scientists and thinkers; i see no intuitive reason why expertise in scientific research should give one the ability to deal with political matters, and while i can see why thinkers might, that's a really broad category and you have no idea of what you mean by thinkers.

what the fuck are you talking about, you can't just say "get some smart lads in there and they'll sort if out", it's fucking bullshit. it's not a serious fucking proposal. it's some trite, banal horseshit.

[Anonymous No.4124112]

and shit, even if you just talk about the things that you specifically mentioned - why would scientists and thinkers not be vulnerable to bribery or pressure from corporate interests or what have you?

[Anonymous No.4124114]

shit

[Anonymous No.4124120]

>>4124112
Because they wouldn't be elected, but rather discovered through implementations in the education system, so there's no way that outside influences have any power. On your point of what scientists could do, well using energy accounting and the laws of thermodynamics, could build a sustainable zero growth economy, so the human race doesn't fall apart when we use up all the oil and coal. Government of society should be done by those who know better, think about this, Isn't the right decision imposed on you better than the wrong decision made by yourself?

[Anonymous No.4124128]

>>4124120
>Because they wouldn't be elected, but rather discovered through implementations in the education system, so there's no way that outside influences have any power.

really? the fact that they would be discovered by implementations in the education means that they aren't human any more? they're no longer vain or greedy? they're suddenly incorruptible because they came out of the education system? really? really?

>On your point of what scientists could do, well using energy accounting and the laws of thermodynamics, could build a sustainable zero growth economy, so the human race doesn't fall apart when we use up all the oil and coal.

that's... wow, shit. i don't even know how to respond to that. it's patently absurd. at the very least, i would say that (a) if they could do that, i don't see why it would require that they also be the rulers and (b) there's no indication or reason to assume that they can do that, or would do that.

> Government of society should be done by those who know better, think about this, Isn't the right decision imposed on you better than the wrong decision made by yourself?

i don't necessarily disagree with that principle, but with your method and sense of certainty of getting the right decision. why are scientists those who know better when it comes to politics? you still haven't explained this: why does training as a scientists necessarily qualify someone to know what should be done in politics? they're incredibly different fields.

[Anonymous No.4124129]

let me offer a positive response, not just a criticism of your words: the idea that being a scientists gives someone the capability for what to do in political situations, or even knowledge of how to solve the problems of society, is wrong. these are complex problems dealing with human feelings and emotions, dealing with force, dealing with the complexity of the wheels within wheels of modern society.

there's no reason that being a scientist makes you capable of understanding these things, or gives you knowledge of how to move them and act efficaciously and even maintain your grasp on power - and you can't simply assume that you will be able to do things. because we live in the real world, and politics is the art of the possible. you need to give some thought to what politics actually means, in the world as it exists, and what dealing with that world really requires.

[Anonymous No.4124131]

>>4124128
Because logic, reason and a search for truth are pillars for the scientific community, and politicians are searching for idealogical power, which one would you rather determine policies for societies future. Energy accounting is a very real thing, do some research mate. I don't want to live in a system where my vote is equal to some dumb bogan, who votes with his hip pocket or based on three word slogans

[Anonymous No.4124138]

>>4124131
>Because logic, reason and a search for truth are pillars for the scientific community, and politicians are searching for idealogical power, which one would you rather determine policies for societies future.

but we're not talking about the intellectual ideals of the scientific method ruling society, we're talking about actually existing scientists ruling society. academics, in other words. and your faith in academics ruling society astounds me (especially if you have any experience with academia), certainly your faith in their incorruptibility and good will astounds me. and just as there are scientists who are real shits and who are careerists etc, there are politicians who really are idealists and decent.

>Energy accounting is a very real thing, do some research mate

that's not the part of the claim that i object to

>I don't want to live in a system where my vote is equal to some dumb bogan, who votes with his hip pocket or based on three word slogans

that's fine, but i don't think that relying on scientists as the masters of politics is necessarily the right answer or a better alternative. just because scientists are intelligent doesn't actually mean they'd be good at politics.

[Anonymous No.4124140]

>natural human tendency to serve one's interests over others
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.4124142]

>>4124140
Also, the idea that communism and marxism require doing away with that

It's the dumb fucking idea that communism and marxism, on their most fundamental level, say "play nice and share with each other, and it'll all work out because everyone's nice", and that somehow if anyone were selfish it would all fall apart or something. Which is just as fucking lol and unrealistic and unconnected to reality as it always has been.

[Anonymous No.4124144]

>>4124138
You are converting my argument to one of politics, they wouldn't be doing politics as we currently know it, this is a systematic shift in government running, all interaction with society would be done through figureheads and such, all problems that the government controls can be solved with logic and reason, it's just that not many reasonable and logical people hold power.

[Anonymous No.4124151]

>>4124144
how would they keep and maintain power? and how would they know how to convince the people that what they are doing is right and gain the compliance of the people with their measures?

setting aside all other issues

[Anonymous No.4124154]

>scientists are disinterested, let's give them absolute power!
._.

[Anonymous No.4124156]

>>4124144
How are you going to keep these scientists from getting bribed?

[Anonymous No.4124158]

>values can be derived from logic
>science isn't both a wonderful tool of discovery and a very particular socio-cultural entity full of assumptions, assumptions, and more assumptions

[Anonymous No.4124160]

>it's logical to support the rise of logic
>science = logic
>logic is the most important thing and all society should be directed towards it and from it

[Anonymous No.4124161]

>>4121192
The state has to act against itself in the sense that the optimal decision is to give political power to the people rather than solving it internally (bureaucratically). Economy plays the biggest role of course, in the transitory period worker collectives should have a bargaining position with the state, conserving self interest in group-dynamic, so that later, after the dissolution of the state these built up nuclei freed from outer coercion could loosen up and develop freely on the level of individuals towards homeostasis.

At least that's how I imagine it.

[Anonymous No.4124164]

>trying to rationally run a society doesn't end in a basketcase of hideous illogic caused by people trying to logically one-up each other through deception and sciency-sounding things, because they've been taught that logic is the good
>something conceiving of itself as logical doesn't immediately make it more illogical

Yabba dabba dooo!

[Anonymous No.4124385]

>>4124104
>putting stemfags in charge of society

Enjoy the Autist 4th Reich of Doom.

[Anonymous No.4124401]

>>4124385
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh2kmEYLf5Y

[Anonymous No.4124417]

>>4124401
My nigga.

[Anonymous No.4124442]

>>4123650
>Muh external factors muthafucka

No, Marxists are all spineless sycophantic scum who can't stand up to forceful personalities. The whole ideology attracts the type of person who tries to find refuge for his personal weakness in the herd.

[Anonymous No.4124454]

>>4121192
by not designing systems like idiots and giving people power to actually make decisions, but allowing the public to see what decisions they've made and criticize them

regarding the last point, humans evolved to function in groups and human behavior is extremely plastic anyway. In non-capitalist societies people function fantastically in groups, or even in the non-competitive parts of capitalist societies, like the military or in many non-profits

I suggest you read kropotkin's "mutual aid: a factory in evolution" (he was a biologist as well as a communist/anarchist philosopher)

[Anonymous No.4124458]

>>4124454
>"mutual aid: a factory in evolution"
>Factory
kek

[Anonymous No.4124461]

>>4124458
it's 6 am, nigger

[Anonymous No.4124485]

>natural human tendency
you were doomed from the beginning, my friend.

[Anonymous No.4124491]

>>4124442
which is exactly why it is necessary.

people like you think you're better than others for being 'strong' or whatever, but don't even recognize that 'strength' as ridiculous, as much a product of factors beyond your control as the weakness you despise.

[Anonymous No.4124498]

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.4124500]

>>4124491
>but don't even recognize that 'strength' as ridiculous, as much a product of factors beyond your control as the weakness you despise.

Strength is not given, it has to be wrested from life out of self-knowing and overcoming, do you even Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.4124615]

>>4124500
that;s not even nietszche, you fuckhead