/lit/ - Literature

File: 86 KB, 800x1008, santa_clause.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 02:58:18 2013 No.4194959 [Reply] [Original]

>Meeting up with a reading group I formed with some friends and aquaintances from college
>One girl offers to host the reading group's first meeting at her place
>It's a huge house in the rich area of town, multiple cars in the driveway, huge foyer. She directs us towards a side-parlour--we don't even enter the "main" space of the house, it's so big.
>We're discussing Marx (it's a great starting point for a lot of the literary theory we'll be looking at later on)
>The discussion moves to the topic of exploitation
>"But if workers didn't create profit for their bosses, then their bosses couldn't afford to pay them and the workers would starve."
>"Commodity fetishization doesn't make any sense, because obviously things that are made with higher quality materials and skills are worth more because they're made for people with better taste." (her exact words)
>Will not be dissuaded from these positions

I didn't think people like this existed outside of books, /lit/. I don't know if I should drop the group or what. Do you know of any books I could give her that might help her check her bourgeois privilege?

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:09:05 2013 No.4194969
File: 1.13 MB, 1024x1499, identity politics.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4194959
>check...privilege

1) You should stay in the group and fuck her.
2) Oppression isn't "privilege." Read _Wages Price and Profit_
3) The only thing you'll get out of this reading group is the echo chamber of the bourgeoisie and some bourgeois pussy
4) We do not convince the bourgeois of our opinions. We discover our class position and remove the bourgeoisie from production by force

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:09:05 2013 No.4194970 She's right

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:11:04 2013 No.4194973 >>4194959 I know you made this up, OP, but still, it's a valid question because everybody has a fucking bourgeois tool of a 'friend' who needs recalibrating

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:13:05 2013 No.4194977 >>4194969 >>4194959 >implying class >implying materialism As a deconstructuralist, I have to say that this thread is full of idiots. Your so called "revolution" will achieve nothing, in effect.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:14:04 2013 No.4194982 >>4194969 explain this cartoon to me: ID politics are a "me too" things which won't overthrow capitalism, so they should be forgone and a more pure marxism accepted? if that's the message, i agree with it

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:15:04 2013 No.4194984

>>4194982
It's just vulgar marxist dogmatism, don't take it too seriously if you want to actually get something done (intellectually speaking).

Some people just won't be satisfied until you burn all your possessions, sign up to the local communist party, and wage unceasing class warfare against the Bourgeois.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:17:05 2013 No.4194990 >>4194984 hah, i see. yeah, marxism is essentially a monstrous intellectual crutch at best, vicious blinders at worst

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:19:05 2013 No.4194992 >>4194990 >>4194984 >>4194977 Bourgeoisie scum, pls go

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:21:04 2013 No.4194994 >>4194984 "some people" you mean all reasonable people

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:26:06 2013 No.4195005 If you're so reasonable then why don't you shower? Marxists: 0 Me: 1

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:30:05 2013 No.4195009 Tell her she's an enemy of the revolution, and a capitalist pig, and then tell her to fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:31:05 2013 No.4195011 >>4194984 >Implying Marxism says you should burn all of you personal possessions Get a load of this faggot, read more, scrub.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:34:07 2013 No.4195015 >>4195011 >>4195009 >>4195005 >>4194994 >>4194992 RECOMMEND US FICTION, ASSHOLES, LIKE OP ASKED

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:39:05 2013 No.4195019 >>4195015 OP didn't ask for fiction, OP asked for books. And, on the real, this is not a problem that books are likely to solve. This is a problem for talking through and explaining things with rhetoric and critical thought.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:40:06 2013 No.4195022 >>4194984 The most typical politics of "identity" is nationalism. j'accuse.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 03:41:06 2013 No.4195024 >>4195015 Germinal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 04:31:08 2013 No.4195056 >>4194959 Do you all know all this socialism bullshit is anti-natural?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 14:26:38 2013 No.4195801 >>4195056 What?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 16:47:14 2013 No.4196082 >whiney marxist gets owned by rich daddy's girl >HIVE PLEASE, HELP ME THINK

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 16:56:15 2013 No.4196093 >>4195056 >>4195801 He's referring to Darwinism.

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 17:00:14 2013 No.4196103

Yes, all of Zola's work.
Orwell's essays and novels, like Raffles and Mrs. Blandish, The Lion and the Unicorn, etc. (1984 and Animal Farms are mainstream, so she'll likely hold no unfavorable prejudice against the author).
Ken Loach movies are pretty great too (I know this aint a cinema board, but you know.)

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 17:05:14 2013 No.4196111 >>4196093 Oh. Man, fuck social Darwinists. Not even fucking Darwin was a social Darwinist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 17:09:14 2013 No.4196121 >>4196103 Hammonds, Webbs, Thompson, Hill

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 17:14:14 2013 No.4196133
File: 116 KB, 500x400, 1375298183554.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4194959

OP you stupid fuck if you cannot explain a simple thing like commodity fetshization that Mmarx analysed over and over in the Capital and the manifesto and you call yourself a Marxist?

Read:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

http://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/marxism/modules/marxfetishism.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism

As Marx said:

>"As against this, the commodity-form, and the value-relation of the products of labour within which it appears, have absolutely no connection with the physical nature of the commodity and the material relations arising out of this. It is nothing but the definite social relation between men themselves which assumes here, for them, the fantastic form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy we must take flight into the misty realm of religion. There the products of the human brain appear as autonomous figures endowed with a life of their own, which enter into relations both with each other and with the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men's hands. I call this the fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour as soon as they are produced as commodities, and is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities."

Go tell that stupid cunt that commodity fetishization has nothing to with the material value. "Value" in Marxist terms is how much work and effort is put in a work, commodity fethization is when a product enters the market relations and when we buy it how we perceive each other (money,buyers, sellers,producers) not the product by itself. Namely we transform an apreciation of an object from a subjective abstract aspect of economic value into objective, real things that people believe have intrinsic value.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 17:27:13 2013 No.4196159 You both sound pretty retarded, but I guess that's why you're studying literary theory and Marx in the year 2013.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 17:44:13 2013 No.4196182 >>4196133 >that picture So how is that different than communism in practice?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 17:46:13 2013 No.4196183 >>4196182 Well practical communism, as within the IWW or the Hungarian councils, would probably start by the workers taking down the partitions themselves and hanging middle management from Cat-5e

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 17:52:54 2013 No.4196194 File: 1.66 MB, 260x260, 7j1fp79.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] 1. Marxism is not relevant anymore 2. There doesn't seem to be a problem

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 18:03:25 2013 No.4196210

>>4196182

Because communism is based on abilties/needs of every single person while capitalism only serves the few since it takes acount only individual self interest at any given time, people don't work with each other, they work againste each other.

>>4196194
>>4196159

You can stay mad and bitch all you want, people are gonna talk about Marxism untill the year 3000

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 18:06:26 2013 No.4196215 >>4196194 creating a marxist state is impossible. doesnt mean his theory isnt relevant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 18:09:25 2013 No.4196221 >>4196215 >creating a marxist state is impossible Necessarily. Do bother to read Marx on what a state is; and what class praxis is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 18:19:25 2013 No.4196242 I can't even understand anti-communism. You may as well be a flat-worlder or alien cultist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 18:20:25 2013 No.4196243 >>4194977 >As a deconstructuralist, hehehe you mean as a first year philosophy student :)

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 18:21:26 2013 No.4196246 theres alot of ppl in here who blatantly havent even read marx

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 18:39:59 2013 No.4196307 >2013 >Marxism >narratives ha ha ha

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 18:54:28 2013 No.4196360 >>4194977 >deconstructuralist >not a deconstructural'ist'

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 18:56:28 2013 No.4196370 >>4196246 every time Marx is mentioned on the internet it just turns into a cesspit of edgy kids trying to be harder-left-than-thou.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 19:02:28 2013 No.4196386 >>4194992 >muh ad hominem >muh elitism >u cant kno noffin >check ur privilege >stahp bourgeoisplaining pls

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 19:02:28 2013 No.4196389 >>4196370 they should try reading him

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 19:16:00 2013 No.4196432 >>4196370 >the problem isn't rightfags flooding every threat with "lol muh gulegs gomism dosnt werk feget"

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 19:17:00 2013 No.4196433

>>4194959
>help her check her bourgeois privilege

You can't. Every experience of her life has led her to believe, and reinforces the belief in that privilege. If she succeeds, it's because she is obviously superior to those shiftless poors. If she fails, the failure will be inconsequential and her life will not change. Eventually, she will get a good paying job because of her privilege and thus her "success" is inevitable.

It is only if she develops an extraordinarily critical mind (doubtful) or if she experiences true, life altering failure that happened despite her best efforts (more likely, but also doubtful) will she be susceptible to seeing past her privilege.

Millions of wealthy people around the world live in the deluded haze she lives in.

Feel pity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 19:22:01 2013 No.4196447 >>4196159 So is it acceptable to completly disregard Marx and pretend he never existed?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 19:26:01 2013 No.4196454 If you're a Marxist you're poor and jealous of people who are everything you aren't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 19:28:01 2013 No.4196459 >>4196454 obviously, but that doesn't make them wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 19:28:01 2013 No.4196460 >>4196459 Yes it does.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 19:29:00 2013 No.4196465 well, that's nothing, I actually know some people who believe in labour theory of value

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 19:29:00 2013 No.4196466 >>4196460 i don't think you understand how language works

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 19:29:00 2013 No.4196467 >>4196464 Marxism and mental illness appear to go hand in hand.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 19:29:01 2013 No.4196464 >>4196454 I'm poor and jealous of people who are everything I'm not, but that's because of my self-esteem issues, not because I'm a Marxist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 19:32:01 2013 No.4196473 >>4196454 >People who oppose Marxism are comfortable with their wealth and social status and are afraid of losing them wow look at that

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 19:34:00 2013 No.4196482 >>4196467 If you're not mentally ill, you probably lead a vanilla and comfortable life where you haven't considered the need for Marxism.

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 19:41:01 2013 No.4196495
File: 157 KB, 400x502, marxtf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

building off of this,
how the fuck does the marxist left gain traction in modern societies (especially the US)?

most leftists are all caught up in bullshit identity politics
>>4194969

while those who demonstrate bolshevik-core tactics, like the tea party, are absolutely execrable from most points of view.

this is now a reviving the specter that haunts capitalism thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 19:43:01 2013 No.4196502 >>4196454 It isn't necessarily jealousy. I find the bourgeoisie to be obscene. >>4196495 Go learn how the UWM was formed.

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 19:45:00 2013 No.4196506

>>4196495
>while those who demonstrate bolshevik-core tactics, like the tea party, are absolutely execrable from most points of view.
Rightly so, I think. The Bolshevik experiment was a total failure, we should try something else. A strong anti-globalist people's movement.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 19:58:01 2013 No.4196542 >>4196502 finding something obscene is fundamentally jealousy.

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:00:01 2013 No.4196551

>>4196506

imagine if 10% of americans adopted tea party tactics, but were composed of occupy types.

instead of arguing pointless over whether or not to participate in electoral politics, high theory, etc etc etc, they decided to become kingmakers for local electoral districts, state level politicians, and set their sights on lower-house federal politics.

imagine what an emboldened progressive caucus, bolstered by this type of support, and hence free of needing DNC + obama's coattails could do, during the healthcare debate, dodd-frank, or in making noise about any number of issues.... and if they did this while focusing strictly on economic issues, letting the democrat/republican family feud about gays, guns, and fetuses seem as irrelevant as it really is.

and as to the ussr, frankly disowning that part of our legacy, which has a LOT of good in it (look up Lunacharsky, who turned a nation of serfs into a literate and numerate nation; or take a look at the standard of living in most of the warsaw pact countries; peel back the stalin/kgb bullshit which is used to discredit the whole thing)

or consider what some organized fucking outreach on places like 4chan could do; combating the stormfront/pol bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:06:01 2013 No.4196573 >>4196542 >argument by assertion So decadent.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:08:00 2013 No.4196584 >>4196573 thank you i try but seriously it is. someone must have made the jealousy-puritanism argument, refer to them.

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:08:00 2013 No.4196585

>>4196210
>capitalism only serves the few since it takes acount only individual self interest at any given time, people don't work with each other, they work againste each other.

hahah wait, is this what marxists actually believe?

do you understand how much cooperation between people was required to make that computer you're sitting behind right now?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:10:02 2013 No.4196590 I always thought value was subjective. An item is worth however much im willing to pay for it, not how much labor went into making it.

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:17:52 2013 No.4196621

>>4196585
It was made by employing a group of people to make it. Then it sold on the market to benefit the person/people who employed the people who made it and to gain a higher capital over their competitors.

Also the computer I'm using now was probably made by Chinese workers who get paid next to nothing just to make their employer richer than other people.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:22:50 2013 No.4196641 File: 20 KB, 300x300, is this crackah serious.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4196542

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:23:50 2013 No.4196643 >>4196641 very yes

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:24:52 2013 No.4196651 >>4196542 How did you come to that conclusion?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:27:52 2013 No.4196664 >>4196643 >Rape is just jealousy

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:29:51 2013 No.4196674 >>4196664 i don't think the moral repugnance you feel at rape is the same repugnance one means with the word "obscene". >How did you come to that conclusion? not sure, but i am convinced it is true.

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:29:51 2013 No.4196677

>>4196621
it required cooperation from thousands of different people all over the globe. From the people who conceptualized it all the way down to the people who delivered it to the store you bought it from. Thousands of different people from numerous different companies and divisions of the labor force.

you clearly misunderstand how the real world works.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:32:52 2013 No.4196688 >>4196674 No, I think that is exactly what it is. ob·scene [uhb-seen] adjective 1. offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved: obscene language. 2. causing uncontrolled sexual desire. 3. abominable; disgusting; repulsive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:33:52 2013 No.4196694 >>4196677 And one guy in a leather chair gets 99% of the capital from that commodity.

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:35:51 2013 No.4196705

>>4196677
The base of it is that workers were exploited by an employer to ultimately make the employer richer and keep the workers alive.

The benefits of the end product of the cooperation is very one sided. Ultimately a fair way to sell this product would be that the money goes back into society not just one group of individuals.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:38:52 2013 No.4196718 >>4196688 definition doesn't always map to use, which is closer to its meaning offensive to decency would be my approximation

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:41:52 2013 No.4196729 >>4196705 oh you mean the workers who volunteered and agreed to a contract? those poor exploited bastards.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:43:52 2013 No.4196735 >>4196694 thats such a simplistic disney movie way to view it. Not to mention its completely false lol.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:43:52 2013 No.4196737 >>4196729 >keep the workers alive. That's not voluntary.. They have to work for that employer or else they will die.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:44:52 2013 No.4196742 >>4196729 >exploitation You don't actually know what that means, do you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:45:52 2013 No.4196744 >>4196729 u haven't read marx

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:53:52 2013 No.4196787 >>4196737 are you talking about the workers in communist china? must be a shitty economic system they live under if they have to work in a factory or die. Good thing we live in the USA and can benefit from capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:56:52 2013 No.4196799 that one books about the wrathful grapez

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 20:59:52 2013 No.4196808 >>4196787 Are you arguing that, without substantial existing resources, a person can reasonably go from no capital to being an employer without starving in America? Because, really, that's completely adorable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 21:04:51 2013 No.4196828 >>4196808 yes. people do it all the time. Just because you're incapable doesn't mean others arent. Im glad you think its adorable though, maybe that helps you sleep better at night.

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 21:07:52 2013 No.4196843

>>4196787
That's the system that we all live in. You work for the benefit of other people or else you die. What would ultimately benefit everyone is if you didn't work for employers and the money made from labour goes back into society.

Also the problem with China is that they're ultimately working for employers. Someone said to me a while ago that China should invest more time in things like the silk trade instead of pumping out American made shit and being used by the Japanese as prostitutes.

>>4196828
It's been proven time and time again that there are people in America and the rest of the world that can't get out of poverty no matter what they do and to do so would be an act of god.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 21:08:52 2013 No.4196849 >>4196808 are you seriously denying the existence of upward mobility in this country just because you'd rather believe the invisible force called capitalism is whats actually holding you down?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 21:12:52 2013 No.4196863 >>4196849 Upward mobility between the working and haute bourgeoisie doesn't exist. Fuck of shill.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 21:16:56 2013 No.4196874 >>4196849 >>4196828 There's a reason that people who do so are called "exceptional".

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 21:26:56 2013 No.4196901 >>4194973 but... but what if I enjoy being part of the bourgeois?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 21:29:56 2013 No.4196910 >>4194959 My overriding concern with this, op, is: is she hot? Is a dickin' in the forecast?

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 21:29:56 2013 No.4196912

>>4196551

I don't think the Tea Party is really a good model though. Just to take the description from Wikipedia:

The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that is primarily known for advocating a reduction in the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit by reducing U.S. government spending and taxes. The movement has been called partly conservative, partly libertarian, and partly populist. It has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.

>by reducing U.S. government spending and taxes

The reason the Tea Party is successful is because its aims are perfectly in line with the interests of the wealthy elites. Towards the top of the income distribution, the income tax becomes just plain regressive. Above $400,000 all income is taxed the same at ~40%. Plus as we all know, capital gains are taxed at 15%. So the very wealthy are benefiting wholeheartedly from this regressive tax structure, meanwhile depending on the discontent of the rest of the top 50% who actually pay taxes on a progressive scale to keep anti-tax sentiment a constant in the political discussion.

And the combination of reduced government spending + this spending being put toward paying off the national debt means no money left for entitlement programs. When these programs are underfunded, they become less effective. People become disillusioned with them (these people hardly had a political voice anyway) and the right can point to their ineffectiveness as proof that social welfare doesn't work.

It's no coincidence that this "populist" movement is backed by billionaires. I mean, doesn't that sound like a contradiction? Anyway, my point is that the Tea Party is successful because it actually IS the establishment. Its political candidates are disproportionately businessmen. It is ultimately a plutocratic movement. I completely agree it would be great to have a REAL grassroots progressive movement. But the reason the Tea Party thrives while Occupy Wall Street is brutally eviscerated by the police is exactly because the Tea Party is not a challenge to the establishment. Now, it remains to be seen if it can be kept into control before it devolves into an outright nationalist movement... THAT would be bad for everyone, the rich included, no?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 21:31:55 2013 No.4196918 >>4196433 This

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 21:32:56 2013 No.4196920 >>4196433 pity? it's a pretty good haze, as far as hazes go

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 21:41:21 2013 No.4196943 >>4196901 Then you're a sociopath. This isn't your fault, you were taught to value this kind of behavior.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 21:47:55 2013 No.4196966 >>4196943 >you are a sociopath because society taught you to be a sociopath what is this I dont even, cultural relativism and an objective judgment in the same sentence?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 21:48:55 2013 No.4196967 File: 106 KB, 640x480, AMERICA FUCK YEAH.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4196849 >are you seriously denying the existence of upward mobility in this country

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 21:49:55 2013 No.4196972 >>4196966 You might want to look into what all of those words mean

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 21:53:56 2013 No.4196984 >>4196735 Holy shit, cracker, stop pretending to be retarded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 21:57:55 2013 No.4197006 >>4196787 >he seriously thinks current China isn't capitalist

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 21:59:56 2013 No.4197015 >>4196694 Not that much different than at any other point in history.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 22:04:55 2013 No.4197030 >>4196972 >I dont understand what this concept means in this context >THE WRITER MUST BE USING THEM WRONG sure, it is not as if you were asking me to dumb it down because you are not able to read what the author supposes it is trivial to clarify

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 22:07:55 2013 No.4197036

>>4196585

Do you understand how much cooperation between government and industry was required to invent that computer you're sitting behind right now?

>Greatest technological gains since WWII due to government-funded research by academics and engineers on a fixed salary.
>Without a huge concerted effort we wouldn't have computers, internet, wireless communication, etc.
>Technology appropriated by entrepreneurs who proceed to create giant monopolies and become billionaires.
>Use litigation at every turn to stifle competition.
>Steve Jobs is our Messiah.

Actual innovation is what requires cooperation between people.

>>4196621

This guy pretty accurately explains the uncontroversial idea that capitalism represents economic activity in terms of self-interest. Which on its own isn't a value judgement. You can still be free to think that it's good for people to be motivated this way. The idea here is that there's another way to look at it: it's better to be motivated by something other than self-interest, like altruism, commitment to others, etc. The motivation in turn for wanting to think this way is that the capitalist mode of operation results in outcomes that we might consider immoral, like exploitation of cheap outsourced labor, lack of a mutually beneficial relationship between companies and communities, etc. The most important thing to realize is that this is essentially a moral issue--the capitalist system is grounded in a particular set of values that we are free to either accept, reject, criticize or amend.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 22:07:55 2013 No.4197037 >>4197015 hence, communism

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 22:09:56 2013 No.4197043 >>4197037 Communism runs contrary to human nature. Everybody wants to be at the top...nobody actually wants to work side by side in jolly cooperation. It's only good for mental masturbation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 22:14:56 2013 No.4197062 File: 145 KB, 480x360, aku doesn't know what he's looking at but he likes it.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4197030 >uses terminology nonsensically and is called out on it >goes on tirade to save face on an anonymous message board

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 22:15:56 2013 No.4197063 >>4197043 you make me cringe so hard

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 22:15:56 2013 No.4197066 >>4197043 >nobody actually wants to work side by side in jolly cooperation Except people have been doing this for thousands of years.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 22:19:40 2013 No.4197080 >>4197043 >mfw capitalists refuse to think that their opinions and world-views are foreign to 99% of history, despite this being so

Anonymous Sat Oct 19 22:20:40 2013 No.4197083

>>4197043
Shut the fuck up.

What do you think communism? Do you think that the entirety of communism is, "Let's just all get along and everything will work out"? Because it doesn't, and you're a fucking idiot. Furthermore, human history is full of people working together perfectly well, at many times, and in many conditions, you fucking mong. In conclusion, fuck you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 22:21:40 2013 No.4197086 >>4197043 >Communism runs contrary to human nature. This has exactly no substantive meaning. At best it's a thought-terminating cliche.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 22:49:40 2013 No.4197183 File: 78 KB, 864x648, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4194959 This is my first day on /lit/. Are you goys all socialists/communists/liberals?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 23:47:40 2013 No.4197394 >>4197183 1. No, not at all. But it is much more left-leaning than, say, /pol/. 2. >socialists/communists/liberals One of these things is not like the others.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 19 23:58:40 2013 No.4197435 >>4197086 I thank you for your humor, and for the comforting knowledge that I am not mad because other people have the same thoughts.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 00:01:40 2013 No.4197442 >>4197183 >>4197394 It is well known that people on /pol/ despise reading.

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 00:03:40 2013 No.4197449

>>4197442
/pol/'s particular breed of right wing seems to be mainly the populist sort, so that isn't exactly surprising. There've been a couple interesting threads lately on traditionalist/conservative/reactionary/etc. books, though, and my reading list just grew by a ton.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 00:11:40 2013 No.4197472 >>4197394 Precisely. Both socialists and liberals effectively support capitalism as they support the value form. Backsliding blockheads.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 00:12:40 2013 No.4197475 >>4196584 You're assuming I tread the bourgeois like a peccadillo; as if they're inserting a fist in each other's anuses. This is incorrect. They are fucking murderers and deserve to be hung by their entrails in public until they die of infection.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 00:13:40 2013 No.4197476 File: 19 KB, 160x208, connelly labyrinth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] out of interest, what does the average marxist think of diogenes?

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 00:16:40 2013 No.4197483

>>4196920

You know how those insults that take decades to hit home are the most soul crushing kind?

Imagine you're 53 and one day something makes you see what kind of haze you've been in, what a fool you've been your entire life. You've got a fool's house, a fool's car, a fool's job, some fool's friends, a fool's husband/wife and a bunch of fool's kids. Now you're 53 and you have a choice: You either stop lying to yourself and toss it all away, or you double-down on the lies and double-up on the whiskey. Either way whatever bright center that was in you is going to die.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 00:24:40 2013 No.4197496 >>4197476 >average Marxist >think pick one

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 00:26:40 2013 No.4197499 File: 98 KB, 353x500, tolstoy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4197483 You forgot your pic.

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 00:27:40 2013 No.4197500

>>4197483
>Haze
Quit pretending that a life spent lamenting the failure of the oh-so-noble Marxist struggle is any more noble than average middle class people living an average middle class existence.

People are not born equal. People cannot be made equal.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 00:32:40 2013 No.4197508 >>4197483 that's beautiful

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 00:38:40 2013 No.4197515

>>4197500

(not person you were talking to)

I'm something of a Marxist.The unequal distribution in wealth at birth is the enemy of the Marxist, not the unequal distribution in skills.

You see, nature gives us a certain kind of inequality, which is more a gift and a curse. But capitalists add a whole 'nother category of man-made inequality onto this project. And this is nothing but a curse, for it permits fools to run about with power and pride and it enslaves genius to the drab and cold life of wage-labor and alienation.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 00:50:40 2013 No.4197528 >>4196967 Even in the depression they're all dressed so nice :(

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 00:53:40 2013 No.4197535 >>4194959 Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty is a great read on the subject

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 01:08:40 2013 No.4197557

>>4197515
>One man uses his natural inequalities to amass wealth and a fortune
>Passes it on to children because he loves his children more than the state
>They inherit his inequalities
>The cycle goes on
>The stupid family members either become poor or are shunned away from important business/family matters

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 01:15:40 2013 No.4197566 why is the belief that a wealthy person is inherently extracting or "exploiting" [with a negative connotation] the persons they employ, ie abusing them in the manner of serfdom, so popular?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 01:23:40 2013 No.4197577 >>4197566 Because M -> C ... P ... C' -> M'

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 01:27:40 2013 No.4197585 >>4197566 because the people making the claims are never in that position.

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 01:31:40 2013 No.4197590

>>4197566
>P own the means of production
>Workers, not P, utilize means of production to produce commodity
>Commodity is exchanged for money
>P takes 100% of the money, despite not having made the commodity, and distributes the vulture's share to workers as he sees fit

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 05:24:36 2013 No.4197885

>>4194959
Thing is, OP, she's not wrong. Within her frame of reference her opinion is entirely justified. What you would like to do is explain to her the difference in use and exchange value. What you also like to do is bring home the point that we are all created as equals in the sight of a jewish god turned protestant.

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 05:39:35 2013 No.4197907
File: 24 KB, 500x509, 1185682_682117421798836_1164130273_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

what is the role of art in the ideal marxist society? is political art the only permissible discourse? how esle is art justified?

forgive my ignorance, ive only just started reading marx.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 05:40:35 2013 No.4197909 >>4197528 smells can't be photographed :(

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 05:42:35 2013 No.4197913

>>4196495
I really want that to be a line in a Marxist action movie.
"You can't just act without thinking. Are you listening? We interpret the world to change it."
"I change the world" *sunglasses* "to interpret it." *revs off on motorcycle as 80s music starts playing*
MARXIST SCIENCE COP

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 05:54:35 2013 No.4197933 >>4196433 But she is superior to those shiftless poor people, not for a fair reason, but she is

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:06:05 2013 No.4198019 >>4197500 Marx thought equality was a bourgeois concept. U mite want 2 read him

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:08:05 2013 No.4198022 >>4198019 >pretending Marx' though was not an exponent of French Enlightenment thought. >Liberte >Egalite >Fraternite

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:12:05 2013 No.4198026

>>4196551
>some organized fucking outreach on places like 4chan could do; combating the stormfront/pol bullshit.

If you think that this would have any more benefit for the left then all of current neo-nazi outreach on /pol/ has for any segment of the right, then you are fucking delusional. 4chan does not influence the real world.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:13:05 2013 No.4198032 >>4198026 >4chan does not influence the real world. I feel like you should qualify this statement. >Who won Times most influential person of the year 2000something?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:15:06 2013 No.4198034 >>4198032 Clearly it does not influence real-world politics. It's not like expecting it to is such an unreasonable position, since /pol/ is visited by millions of people every month. But who won the last US elections? It's just a circlejerk.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:16:05 2013 No.4198037 >>4198034 >Piratenpartei

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:18:05 2013 No.4198041 >>4198037 Don't bother the anon you're responding to is clearly an americunt who knows little of the outside world.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:20:05 2013 No.4198046 >>4198041 >yes my comrade, spend your time and energy spreading our message on obscure, hated corners of the Internet instead of organizing in the real world! This will surely bring about the communist revolution! Fucking retard.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:22:05 2013 No.4198049 >>4198046 You're being rude

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:25:05 2013 No.4198055 >>4198046 hello, strawman. 's been a long time since we've met.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:27:06 2013 No.4198057 >>4198049 >>4198055 You are the stick that props up the bourgeoisie. I hope you die in a pile of your own vomit with a gigantic nigger cock up your ass.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:28:06 2013 No.4198059 >>4198057 this pseudo revolutionary first world marxist is throwing around nigger on internet forum

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:29:06 2013 No.4198063 >>4198059 It's an imageboard not a forum you Swedish cockmongler.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:29:06 2013 No.4198064 File: 427 KB, 400x271, 1378313334345.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4198057

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:31:06 2013 No.4198069 >>4198064 Fuck off you subhuman capitalist prole, go back to Apefrica.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:31:06 2013 No.4198070 >>4198063 >>4198057 Mind the language and tone, there is no reason to throw pejoratives around like that. It might hurt someone's feelings.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:32:05 2013 No.4198073 >>4198069 dude you dont have to revert to racism every time you get Viscerally Owned in an argument

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:33:05 2013 No.4198076 >>4198073 Nice try Jamal, why don't you go give your Judeo-Capitalist overlord another blowjob under his huge mahogany desk.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:36:05 2013 No.4198079 >>4198076 see >>4198070

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:38:11 2013 No.4198082 File: 402 KB, 744x549, 1382262049916.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4198079 >you

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:43:05 2013 No.4198086

>>4198082
That picture does not adequately describe every single individual, and you are propagating the perpetuation of these stereo-types causing uncalled-for aggrevation in everyone who is affected by it. I am neither Swedish, black, nor gay, but I feel violated by your vicious intolerance and implore you to reconsider offending any more people.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:44:06 2013 No.4198088 File: 61 KB, 750x500, 1382260371258.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4198086

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 07:57:06 2013 No.4198107

>>4198086
go whine in a corner somewhere you pompous, over-sensitive dummy. oh, won't someone think of the feeeeelings!!! i hope you suffer anal prolapse and a big black gentleman takes a liquid lava dump right in your mouth, how do you like them apples you cunt?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 08:01:06 2013 No.4198115 >>4197590 Yes, that's Communism. He was asking a different question.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 08:03:07 2013 No.4198118 >>4197907 Marx didn't outline the shape of the ideal society. But he loved literature, particularly Shakespeare and Hamlet.

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 08:04:05 2013 No.4198120

>>4198107
That made me sad, actually. I had not hoped for that kind of pugnacious animosity online.
You have hurt my feelings and I will carry this traumatic encounter with me till the end of my days. I hope you will inevitably repent your insufferable display of intolerance

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 08:06:06 2013 No.4198121 >>4197907 Marx was all about giving people the freedom/"leisure" to pursue their individual interests and passions, whether that be art, jerking off, mindless entertainment etc. etc.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 08:06:06 2013 No.4198122 File: 9 KB, 189x266, imgres.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4198118 >Shakespeare and Hamlet. P-L-E-B

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 08:45:12 2013 No.4198187 >>4196210 Competition isn't bad for the economy, idiot. Lacking it is one of the reasons communism fails as a system.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 08:53:12 2013 No.4198200 >>4198187 >implying you can't have competition without exploitation

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 08:55:11 2013 No.4198206

>>4198187

>hurr Stalin competition gulags human nature good in theory but bad in practice

You and everyone else who has obviously never ready any Marx, why the fuck do you comment in these threads? What's worse is you are sincere in thinking your half baked feelpinions about communism are valid and wouldn't be refuted with 30 minutes of reading.

tl;dr read more, faggots

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 08:56:11 2013 No.4198208

>>4196210
>people don't work with each other, they work againste each other.
Damn I just keep waiting for this capitalism thing to stop working so freaking efficiently with human nature, then we could finally stop pretending it's the best model out there.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 08:56:11 2013 No.4198211 at least half the ppl here have never read marx

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:11:44 2013 No.4198247 >>4198200 >implying communism prevents exploitation >>4198206 k

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:15:45 2013 No.4198255 >>4198247 >implying it doesn't (ideally lel)

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:16:45 2013 No.4198258 >>4198247 OK, shitlord(s), explain why you think historical materialism is wrong and how you think we should view history instead? What's your objection to the labour theory of value?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:18:45 2013 No.4198263 >>4198258 >how to view history as a non-linear, contingent process

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:20:45 2013 No.4198266 >>4198258 >objection to labour theory of value scarcity of resources is not taken into account, is one obvious one. Also, any theory that reduces a phenomenon to one explanans is bound to be insufficient.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:24:44 2013 No.4198276 >>4198258 It is utopian prefiguration, not scientific theory.

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:30:45 2013 No.4198291

>>4198258
It isn't, I agree with historical materialism and Marx's view of history and labour theory of value. For that matter I agree with communism in the long term. My objection is to conducting the transition now. Capitalism works, and things didn't happen the way Marx thought they would.

In my opinion his reckoning was blurred by the horrible historical period he lived in, the growing pains of capitalism, the abhorrent exploitation of the working class. It didn't continue that way though. I don't support anarcho-capitalism, I'm a social democrat looking up to the nordic model.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:32:45 2013 No.4198299 >>4198291 >Capitalism works For whom?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:33:45 2013 No.4198305 >>4198299 For you, for example.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:34:44 2013 No.4198307 >>4198305 I'm checking my privilege A lot of people suffer under capitalism.

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:34:44 2013 No.4198309

Honestly, the biggest issue I have with the labor theory of value is that it's neither 1) disprovable or provable and 2) it's not predictive of market pricing.

So as to the first, we can view the capitalist world as exploitive of workers, and we can also view the capitalist world as benefitting workers. Workers are exploited because profit is not shared equally (true), but advancements in technology, the specialization of labor and the accumulation of large capital has allowed general economic growth that is larger than under all previously tried communistic societies (also true). So clearly there's a balance that needs to be achieved, but without the profit motive or the shareholder capital raising model of corporations there really hasn't been demonstrated a reasonable way of making large companies work. How do I make a computer, which requires thousands of parts and highly specialized (and super expensive), industrial equipment, without a capitalist system to raise the money for the equipment? Communism hasn't addressed this issue. We still exploit workers in China to make our Iphones, but we can't have a modern society with exploitive capitalism. Marxism, to me, outlines all the ills of a capitalist society without providing a workable road map to a better one other than "we overthrow the capitalists and then live in a magical paradise". State control rarely works - peoples counsels end up devolving into an unaccountable politburo ruling over the mob.

Which brings me to the second point. There is very little evidence to suggest that there's a good way of distributing the flow of goods without a pricing mechanism. I'm all in favor of a "living wage" becoming law, but without some sort of market for goods there's no way to solve seemingly simple shortage problems. Capitalism doesn't do it 'great', but it does make sure that food is available to most and the local supermarket has shelves of food you can buy (even though a seventh of the US is on food stamps). Under communist governments this sort of thing just doesn't happen - things we take for granted (like well constructed housing or clothing you can buy - remember 'mao' suits?) breaks down and falls apart. Those are things (food and housing) that if they don't happen cause civil society to collapse.

I would consider myself a socialist, I think we need to care for the poor much better than we do and force the upper classes to do more, but their hasn't been a working Marxist Communist system yet. I'm not even sure it's possible.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:35:44 2013 No.4198314 How valid is alienation theory?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:38:45 2013 No.4198326 File: 1.89 MB, 400x225, 1381119764100.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4198307 Yeah, global standards of living have never been lower.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:39:45 2013 No.4198327 >>4198307 That's how civilization works, and nothing is fair. What's the assertion again ?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:40:46 2013 No.4198331 >>4198305 It doesn't work for me. I'm homeless, and I use the library's computer.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:40:46 2013 No.4198334 >>4198307 People are going to suffer regardless of anything.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:42:45 2013 No.4198340 >>4198331 liar

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:43:44 2013 No.4198346 File: 1.03 MB, 290x189, 1381880572231.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4198331

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:46:44 2013 No.4198356

>>4197590
seeing as this is the most coherent response, here's another question:

Where does the belief come from that a business owner would pay an arbitrary [I'm assuming a small wage just over subsistence] instead of a relatively higher wage that would encourage skilled workers to seek employment with their firm?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:47:44 2013 No.4198361 >>4198356 You really did not see the fallacy in that piost?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:47:45 2013 No.4198363 >>4198356 lol

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:48:45 2013 No.4198367 >>4198356 Nobody is forcing them to work. Clearly the owner is happy with the output at the current wages and seemingly so are the people accepting them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:50:44 2013 No.4198373 >>4198356 Experiments (first on pidgeons, then on people) have shown that we work harder if we are rewarded in moderation. We get lazy otherwise.

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 09:58:44 2013 No.4198409

>>4198373
link?

>>4198367
what business isn't trying to maximize profits, what business gets to x output at y profit and says "Z profits would be nice but gotta keep the workers in line!"? [profit, which is after all, the whole point of going into business]

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 10:04:45 2013 No.4198419 >>4198409 http://psych wustl.edu/lengreen/publications.html

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 10:06:46 2013 No.4198428

>>4198409
Clearly the business trying to maximize profits believe the wages are at x. In your example if higher wages would bring in more profit, then that would happen if there was labour offering work with that skill at that price. The fact that the wages are at x and not at y above it means either workers aren't prepared to work at y, don't possess the skill to work at y, or the employers don't believe the profits will rise at y.

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 10:12:44 2013 No.4198445

>>4198428
then there wouldn't there be a disincentive for people to provide labor to that firm? Would it be logical to assume that this would lead to the firm being overtaken by more successful firms who have expanded to Y profits and therefore Y wages and Y employment?

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 10:16:45 2013 No.4198457

>>4198445
>then there wouldn't there be a disincentive for people to provide labor to that firm?
Only if there are other firms providing a higher wage for the same work. Clearly that's not the case if the firm in question can employ people at X, because that's a two-way street - the employer is willing to employ at that wage, and labor is willing to accept those wages producing an equilibrium at x.

>Would it be logical to assume that this would lead to the firm being overtaken by more successful firms who have expanded to Y profits and therefore Y wages and Y employment?
I'm not sure I get what you're trying to say with firms expanding to Y profits.

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 10:26:21 2013 No.4198477

>>4198457
Why would wages above the equilibrium price for their labor be a good thing, assuming that's what is implied?

>I'm not sure I get what you're trying to say with firms expanding to Y profits.
when the factors of production increase a firms ability to produce increases implying an increase in profits.

>>4198419
moderation =/= underpay after reading through the link

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 10:30:20 2013 No.4198492 >>4198477 >moderation =/= underpay after reading through the link Never said it was, merely responded to the question: why such low wages, aot relatively higher payment.

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 10:31:20 2013 No.4198493

>>4198477
>Why would wages above the equilibrium price for their labor be a good thing, assuming that's what is implied?
Well I'm starting to think I might have misunderstood your post. I'm not claiming that at all.

I thought with your post
>instead of a relatively higher wage that would encourage skilled workers to seek employment with their firm?

that you were wondering why an employer doesn't offer a higher wage to attract more skilled workers (thus increasing his profits or was that what you were implying?)

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 10:37:21 2013 No.4198511

>>4198493
well, I'm trying to understand the promarxist arguments, so I was implying with my question that firms have incentives to hire and pay and produce products as long as it profitable, and if it's too low people have incentives to work elsewhere, or else find work that pays more.

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 10:45:21 2013 No.4198526

>>4198511
Well this:

> that firms have incentives to hire and pay and produce products as long as it profitable, and if it's too low people have incentives to work elsewhere, or else find work that pays more.

is pretty much correct in economic theory. I'm not pro-marxist though, I thought you were gunning for some argument that a higher wage would result in a higher profit for the business through high skill workers, which seems faulty at least in economic theory because the labor market doesn't work that way..

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 11:11:20 2013 No.4198601

>>4197557
>The stupid family members either become poor or are shunned away from important business/family matters

Why don't you actually go look up how the wealthy use things like trust funds, off shore accounts and foundations to ensure their descendants benefit from wealth without actually needing to have any control over it.

They ensure their wealth lives on in perpetuity, never decreasing, always providing for their most direct descendants.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 11:14:20 2013 No.4198610 >>4198601 What's wrong with that?

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 20:29:12 2013 No.4200456

>>4198610
>>What's wrong with that?

The answer to that question depends on if you think people should prosper according to their merits or not, because every dollar that some useless twit inherits is one dollar less that could go to someone actually worthy of having it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 20:37:12 2013 No.4200484 >>4198367 >Nobody is forcing them to work. >They just happen to live in a world where literally the only option they have to survive is to sell their labor Holy fuck, can someone be this stupid?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 20:40:12 2013 No.4200489 >>4198373 This seems to lead to the conclusion that the rich are the laziest of all. Not sure that's where you wanted to go, but there it is.

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 20:42:12 2013 No.4200495

>>4200456
>someone actually worthy of having it
I'd like to see the mental gymnastics requisite to justify a man's children being less worthy of inheritance than...whatever your idea of 'most worthy' is.

I would much rather liquidate everything I've ever earned before I died than have it forcefully advocated for 'the betterment of my fellow man' or whatever inane bullshit is used as justification.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 21:01:48 2013 No.4200533 >>4196433 Wait, what? People here actually believe in privilege? Holy fucking shit no way

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 21:04:49 2013 No.4200542
File: 570 KB, 1800x1796, 1379049915966.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

If I spend more effort to pick lettuce than a friend, I should obviously get more lettuce, ie the lettuce I picked. How is this any different than an intelligent businessman reaping from the stock market? You all want him to steal my lettuce or what?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 21:52:21 2013 No.4200681 File: 60 KB, 610x626, 1378944962984.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4200542 >he thinks Im gonna let him keep the lettuce Cute

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 22:13:21 2013 No.4200762 >>4200542 "Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?"

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 22:16:12 2013 No.4200770 >>4200542 Certainly, if you're expending the effort, you should get the lettuce. In just the same way, if you're working in a factory, and making the goods, you should get the profits.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 22:18:10 2013 No.4200779 >>4200542 >intelligent man >stock market >investor >businessman just invest in muh company so that we can spend the money on jets and hookers for our, uh, clients. haha.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 22:24:12 2013 No.4200808 >implying any theory which schematizes 'humanity' as a collective and reduces it to a series of universal identities is appropriate >implying communism isn't such a theory and that OP's cool, upper class ladyfriend isn't pretty much right

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 22:24:12 2013 No.4200809 >>4200770 and if you're working in a hospital, and working with disease, you should get the diseases!

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 22:25:11 2013 No.4200814 >>4200809 This is how Marxists actually reason.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 22:27:10 2013 No.4200821 >>4200808 >implying individuals are capable of existing outside of society >implying individualist politics aren't retarded

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 22:28:10 2013 No.4200825 >>4200814 >this is how conservatives and right-wingers actually believe Marxists actually reason

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 22:30:11 2013 No.4200834 If there's no surplus value, then there is no extraction, and if there's no extraction, there is no exploitation. In what sense then can the workers be said to have any legitimacy over the capitalists?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 22:32:11 2013 No.4200838 >>4200825 Did you just insult me?

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 22:35:11 2013 No.4200849

>>4200838
Maybe. If you actually meant what that post said, then I guess I was basically trying to insult you rather passive-aggressively. Kinda mean, I admit, but so is the post I was responding to if taken at face value.

(And yes, I'm aware that there are, no doubt, right-wingers of various sorts that don't actually think Marxists reason like that.)

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 22:35:11 2013 No.4200855

>>4200821
>implying your first 'implying' has any bearing on what I said
>implying individualist politics aren't perfectly functional, only so long as we don't expect that every change be monitored and regulated through the limited powers of the government

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 22:39:10 2013 No.4200867 File: 98 KB, 750x500, hollande.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >build machine >hire somebody to work machine while you build another machine >he now owns the machine because appropriation

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 23:10:24 2013 No.4200936

>>4200495
>>I'd like to see the mental gymnastics requisite to justify a man's children being less worthy of inheritance than...whatever your idea of 'most worthy' is.

I'd like to see the mental gymnastics requisite to justify a dead man getting to make decisions that affect the living.

>>whatever your idea of 'most worthy' is.

Oh, and here I thought rewarding people according to their aptitude was better than dirty socialism. I guess it comes as no surprise that it's "meritocracy, unless I say otherwise".

TL;DR: go back 2 hypocrite-land.

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 23:18:46 2013 No.4200952

>>4200936
>>4200936
>to justify a dead man getting to make decisions that affect the living
You know a lot of dead people who make their wills postmortem? Because I don't.

>Oh, and here I thought rewarding people according to their aptitude was better than dirty socialism
A man being able to ensure that his fortune passes to his children *is* a fucking reward and *is* an incentive to work. Use your intellect you fucking mental midget. You know the whole idea of busting one's ass to try and make it so your children live a better life than you did? Is that so ignoble a goal? Should a person be stripped of everything they have worked for upon their death so it can be given to strangers? Should they, on their deathbed, have to worry for the financial future of their family instead of reminiscing fondly on a life that was worth living? Marxists are seriously enemies to humanity. A person should be more comfortable with a cobra crossing their doorstep than a Marxist. There should be some sort of process to diagnose, in infancy, whether a child grows up to believe such inhumane garbage so that they might be mercifully aborted.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 23:20:46 2013 No.4200968 >>4200936 You're unspeakably retarded.

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 23:43:46 2013 No.4201037

>>4200952
>>You know a lot of dead people who make their wills postmortem? Because I don't.

Wills are enacted post-mortem, stupid.

>A man being able to ensure that his fortune passes to his children *is* a fucking reward and *is* an incentive to work. You know the whole idea of busting one's ass to try and make it so your children live a better life than you did? Is that so ignoble a goal?

The moment you die it's not about you anymore. There are bank-accounts full of money that belong to a non-person and your kids are no more deserving of than anyone else.

>>Should a person be stripped of everything they have worked for upon their death so it can be given to strangers?

Yes. That's what it means to be dead. No, we will not bury you with your money you looney cunt.

>>Should they, on their deathbed, have to worry for the financial future of their family instead of reminiscing fondly on a life that was worth living?

If you raised a houseful of irresponsible slackers then you bet your ass they should be worried. People should be rewarded according to their aptitude, not because they won the vagina lottery.

>>Marxists are seriously enemies to humanity. A person should be more comfortable with a cobra crossing their doorstep than a Marxist.

Not a Marxist. I'm sorry you labored under such false pretenses.

Anonymous Sun Oct 20 23:54:46 2013 No.4201054

>>4201037
>There are bank-accounts full of money that belong to a non-person and your kids are no more deserving of than anyone else.
I apologize that mommy and daddy have nothing to leave to you. I apologize that either mommy or daddy or both wanted nothing to do with you. But some people, with normal families, have this insane idea that they want to make their children's lives more comfortable after they themselves are gone. Silly, right?

>People should be rewarded according to their aptitude, not because they won the vagina lottery.
Aptitude is just as derivable from genetics as heritage is. Again I implore you, mental midget, to use your faculties.

>No, we will not bury you with your money you looney cunt.
We both know that we are discussing inheritance and whether or not individuals have the right to leave their fortunes to their children. Quit being silly.

>Not a Marxist. I'm sorry you labored under such false pretenses.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

>and your kids are no more deserving of than anyone else.
But they are. Because they're my kids and it is my fortune to dole out as I please. Again, I apologize for your presumably regrettable familial situation but that is no excuse to inflect your hateful myopia on the rest of humanity.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 23:55:46 2013 No.4201056 >>4200533 You dont get out much do you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 20 23:55:46 2013 No.4201057 HEEEEY MARXISM THREAD!!!!!!!! Bros!!!!!!! Whats a good stalin book that does NOT push anti-stalinism. Thanks dudes! My friends.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 00:01:47 2013 No.4201067 >>4201054 You reak of entitlement and fabricated self importance. What part about your great-grandfather cashing in on the flamingo boom makes you better than me?

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 00:04:47 2013 No.4201073

>>4201054
>>some people, with normal families, have this insane idea that they want to make their children's lives more comfortable after they themselves are gone. Silly, right?

I'm sorry you live in such delusion.

Your "normal" family is about as exceptionally screwed up as it gets. Look around you at the poverty, the hunger, the need for basic education and healthcare. You think your corpse has the right to deny anyone the means to end those things?

>>Aptitude is just as derivable from genetics as heritage is. Again I implore you, mental midget, to use your faculties.

"Herp derp the rich have good breeding that makes them better than the ill-bred poors"

>>We both know that we are discussing inheritance and whether or not individuals have the right to leave their fortunes to their children. Quit being silly.

You ignored the main point and went straight to taking the flippant comment seriously. Well, now we *know* what mental level you're working at.

>>Because they're my kids and it is my fortune to dole out as I please.

Nope, you're dead. You get no say. Yeah, you left a piece of paper and we may or may not take that into account but it's not really binding or anything BECAUSE YOU'RE DEAD.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 00:32:46 2013 No.4201110 >>4200484 >Holy fuck, can someone be this stupid? It's not stupidity per se, it's alienation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 00:41:47 2013 No.4201118 >>4200867 >implying financing is the same as building >implying trademarking is the same as building are you retarded kid

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 01:43:10 2013 No.4201265 something makes me think you wouldn't go to this much trouble if it were a guy

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 01:50:10 2013 No.4201297 >>4201110 Perhaps the phrase you're looking for is false consciousness?

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 02:28:30 2013 No.4201405

>>4200484

Isn't it hilarious when you tell libertarians that taxation isn't theft because 1) taxes are part of the job and 2) if you don't like taxes then you can just not work and starve they start going "No no no, I do not consent to being taxed, I am being coerced!!" and start quoting Nozick, Hayek, Hoppe, Rand, and Freidmann as if because they said something that it's automatically true

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 02:29:29 2013 No.4201410 >>4201405 sorry very drunk english isn't my first language, you get what I'm saying I am sure

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 02:30:30 2013 No.4201420 >>4201297 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_alienation

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 02:43:30 2013 No.4201463 File: 369 KB, 200x100, 1379899384456.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Wait... if I hire someone to make something, afterwards it's theirs...? That's... that doesn't sound fair.

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 02:44:29 2013 No.4201465

>>4201405
taxation IS theft though. Just like the sky is blue, and boobs are good. Basic facts of life.

the distinction is between people like you who believe that because this theft is endorsed by the state, its perfectly ok, as opposed to people who believe any type of theft is wrong.

in simpler terms, you either love the states cock in your ass, or you don't, basically.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 02:47:30 2013 No.4201473 >>4201465 If you hate the state so much, let's see how your precious property rights fare without it

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 02:47:30 2013 No.4201474 >>4201465 >, as opposed to people who believe any type of theft is wrong. Mr. Kunt, is that you?

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 02:57:30 2013 No.4201497

>>4201473
Specialized firms (perhaps distinct from arbitration agencies) would keep records on the property titles, either for a specific area or group of individuals. Title registry would probably be accomplished through a complex, hierarchical web of such firms.

The fear of rogue agencies, unilaterally declaring themselves "owner" of everything, is completely unfounded. In market anarchy, the companies publicizing property rights would not be the same as the companies enforcing those rights. More important, competition between firms would provide true "checks and balances." If one firm began flouting the community norms established and codified on the market, it would go out of business, just as surely as a manufacturer of dictionaries would go broke if its books contained improper definitions.

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 02:57:30 2013 No.4201498

>>4194969
So identity politics is a dead end because capitalism will give them everything they want, but communism is the future because the revolution is JUST around the corner?

Really all this comic does is explain why capatalism is better than comunism, because it can successfully integrate any and all descent.

It's also telling that the countries where capitalism tends to find the cheapest labor to exploit, tend to be communist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 03:29:34 2013 No.4201555 >>4201497 This results in the same end as having a state.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 03:56:34 2013 No.4201611 >>4201465 all dat strawman

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 03:57:35 2013 No.4201614 >>4201497 holy shit, an actual ancap on /lit/ >a complex, hierarchical web of such firms ...so basically, government. But for profit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 03:59:35 2013 No.4201617 >>4201497 HOLY SHIT THIS FAGGOT ACTUALLY PLAGIARIZED ON /lit/ http://mises.org/daily/5646/Law VER-FUCKING-BATIM. so basically, he can't think for himself. typical /pol/ack

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 04:01:34 2013 No.4201622 >>4201617 lmao

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 04:02:34 2013 No.4201625 >>4201617 capped incase these faggots return to /lit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 11:35:20 2013 No.4202119 >>4201555 >>4201614 And this is why I think that anarcho-capitalism, though perhaps well-intentioned, still leads to statism. Sure, it looks good on paper, but in practice it can only result in tyranny.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 11:42:21 2013 No.4202133 >>4194977 The idea of class is legitimate. Materialism is silly. But OP's friend is also silly.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 11:43:21 2013 No.4202135 >>4201617 >ancap >calling an anarcho-capitalist a typical /pol/ack. You are really swinging wild aren't you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 11:43:21 2013 No.4202136 >>4202133 how is materialism silly? serious q

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 11:44:21 2013 No.4202138 >>4195056 Please read this book: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4341 Survival of he fittest doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 11:44:21 2013 No.4202139 >>4201617 >HOLY SHIT THIS FAGGOT ACTUALLY PLAGIARIZED ON /lit/ Oh my god, this never happens at all here. /lit/ always post sources and reference the authors.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 11:48:21 2013 No.4202145 >>4202136 I should've said economic materialism is silly. Other forms of materialism, I still disagree with but am less willing to argue about.

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 12:51:43 2013 No.4202235

>>4201498
>It's also telling that the countries where capitalism tends to find the cheapest labor to exploit, tend to be communist.
china
viet-nam
...
what else?
made in bangladesh are not communist
made in india are not communist
made in phillipines are not communist
made in turkey
made in romania
made in thailand
made in south korea
...
russia was communist, but we never see and never saw "made in russia" under our product goods.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 12:54:43 2013 No.4202237 >>4196901 if they exploit you, then enjoy ebing exploited if you're rich, then you don't sympathize with the bourgeoisie. You are a bourgeois.

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 13:09:42 2013 No.4202257

>>4196912
contrary to popular belief (built by mass media), taxes are not robin hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor.
if you study it closely, you see that taxes mostly go back to the rich. Even worse, you can see that taxes are actually stealing from the middle class to give to the rich.
airports are built with taxes, only a minority travel by plane.
the police is a big public budget. The work of the police is mostly to protect the rich's property, and prevent uprisings of the exploited.
same for the army. Huge public budget, huge taxes that go directly for the protection of the rich's interest.
But still, if you listent to too much TV, you get this deeply rooted plot theory that taxes go directly from the rich's pocket to the poors.
Truth is, janitors don't receive each month 40% of 10.000$.
The 4000$ go to pay the police, the army, the president, the airports, the roads, the congress, the research, the space exploration, public medias like NPR...
Does the tea party point this out (I'm in Europe), or is it like here, where the right wing constantly use the poors and the unemployed as scapegoats for deficits?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 13:13:43 2013 No.4202266 >>4202138 it's not survival of the fittest. it's free opportunities for the heirs. it's unnatural selection. Nature, God, Jesus don't approve of exploitation of man by man. there's nothing natural in capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 13:18:43 2013 No.4202273 >>4201465 >as opposed to people who believe any type of theft is wrong. yeah, the rent, to begin with.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 13:21:59 2013 No.4202279 >>4202266 >all dat utilitarian >ignores hierarchies in nature; sheep eats lion, etc. Yeah, the left is deluded.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 13:25:00 2013 No.4202287 >>4202273 Rent is lame, but how do you propose to unbundle property from the individual without force or coercion? As someone who is against absentee landlordism this interests and concerns me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 13:43:00 2013 No.4202314 >>4202279 >>ignores hierarchies in nature; sheep eats lion, etc. So... landowner and wage-slave are biological categories now?

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 13:44:00 2013 No.4202319

>>4202287
maybe low budget housing, financed by the state.
I write english as a foreign language, but I get what "absentee landlordism" means.
occupation (called "squatting" here) is probably the best solution.
but I heard about a new idea. A young entrepreneur tries to sell the idea that having one tenant with a small rent is better than no tenant at all, because the tenant will deter the homeless from wanting to occupy the empty property.
So if you look closely, you can find opportunities to pay a very low rent usually in big office space.
at the same time, the landlord (or hedge found...) can speculate over the raising of the market (which is usually the reason behind absentee landlordism) (if the word for it is not different)

I know my landlords have kept a key, so I have few options to occupy.
I could change the lock, but it's a complicated "3 ponits" lock, so it's quite expensive.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 13:45:00 2013 No.4202321 >>4202314 >natural = biological

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 13:50:01 2013 No.4202334 >>4202314 yes. wages and "owning" are just conceptions of exchange, which is the essence of nature, and thus biology. the lion takes from the sheep, the "land owner" takes from the "wage-slave". leftists are delusional.

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 13:51:01 2013 No.4202340

>>4202314
Utilitarianism is never a good starting point.

>>4202314
>cannot become post-left
>cannot think outside labels
Prides are self-organizing hierarchies, unless you think lions are sentient. They consist entirely of lions, and they only exist in the minds and actions of the lions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 13:52:00 2013 No.4202341 >>4202334 to put it even simpler, nothing exists outside of nature, so to pretend that something like a "wage-slave" is nothing more than a sheep being eaten by a wolf- is delusional leftist escapism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 13:59:01 2013 No.4202352 >>4202319 So you want other people to help you pay your rent?

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:06:47 2013 No.4202362

>>4198263
Marx viewed history the same way. He had specific things to say about the capitalist mode of production inevitably unraveling due to its own internal contradictions. He and Engels didn't suggest revolution or communism was inevitable, but entirely contingent on the proletariat's class consciousness and actions.

There's plenty to criticize in Marx but don't pretend like it's some kind of cyclical historical eschatology. Marx's theory is hardly "pre-figurative utopianism".

If anything modern economics' business cycle, its absurd conclusion that capitalism is the rising tide that lifts all boats, and that it can innovate its way out of ecological catastrophes and resource scarcity is the real doctrinaire utopianism. But don't take my word for it.

Of course most people here have only interacted with straw-Marx taught in basic Economic courses, so whatever. Read more, post less.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:07:47 2013 No.4202366 >>4202139 Where were his quotation marks? He literally copied and pasted from that site. You're just mad because you lolbertarians literally would not come to these conclusions on your own.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:10:48 2013 No.4202371 >>4202334 >>4202341 lol you faggots probably couldn't even tell us the difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells without googling it first, don't try to talk about biology here

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:10:48 2013 No.4202372

>>4202362
Except that currently capitalism, at the moment, does act like a tide (rising or withdrawin - I'm not sure) moving most, if not all of our boats. Kinda funny how you use a metaphor that has to do with the sea and, as such -due to a contingent historical fact, a metaphor that has to do with overseas trade routs.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:11:48 2013 No.4202376 >>4202321 At that, what isn't nature? Is a computer biological at that point?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:13:46 2013 No.4202379 >>4202372 Yeah that is pretty funny. Wait for oil to hit ~$200 a barrel and even more hilarity will ensue.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:14:46 2013 No.4202380 >>4202376 By Jebus, natural =/= biological, though biological phenomena are of course natural.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:15:46 2013 No.4202382 >>4202235 >china >vietnam >communist ha ha ha America

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:18:48 2013 No.4202384

>>4202340
So are you some kind of anarcho-squadristi who thinks we should return to nature AKA live organized tribes much like the one the movie Fight Club?

You really are a terrible human being either way. Combining Nietzschean rhetoric with social Darwinism is about as infantile as it gets.

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:22:46 2013 No.4202391
File: 1.33 MB, 3235x2201, group_therapy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4202362
>scarcity in an almost infinite universe full of matter
>ecological catastrophe guaranteed!

The only thing guaranteeing those outcomes are governments jockeying to maintain "order" and stay relevant in a society the is now rapidly outpacing them.

>>4202371
You started it, faggot.

>>4202376
>reduction to the absurd
The line becomes blurred when you get your giant ego out of the way and think about humanity as an organism. At which point is a computer a gizzard stone?

>>4202382
Other than us academic circle jerk types, most folks seem to have that kind of idea about communism. Same as how they think the US of A is a capitalist democracy.

>>4202384
>thinks he can overcome human nature with reeducation camps.

The stronger ones belief in state power, the less imagination one seems to have.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:24:46 2013 No.4202393 >>4202340 What about bred and flowers, what about eco systems and symbioses, why do you nit-Pick concepts from Biology? Its like you have a confirmation bias running there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:26:46 2013 No.4202395 >>4202371 >can recite highschool level knowledge of cell types >thinks this has to do with a discussion on natural reality. nigger please.

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:31:46 2013 No.4202408

>>4202391
>The only thing guaranteeing those outcomes are governments jockeying to maintain "order" and stay relevant in a society the is now rapidly outpacing them.

Because "Government" is solely responsible for the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels. HINT: it isn't.

>The stronger ones belief in state power, the less imagination one seems to have.

I believe in education "camps"; as someone who believes in such naive, artificial concepts as "society", we call these schools.

Acculturation forms 99.9% of whatever you will ever be able to imagine as human nature. Not to say there isn't one, but it's obviously more complex than some storybook metaphor like "wolves eating sheep".

>Other than us academic circle jerk types, most folks seem to have that kind of idea about communism.

State control over capitalism -- AKA the system in China and Vietnam -- is just that.

In the abstract, communism is a stateless, classless society. Whether that's possible or even desirable is debatable, but that's what it is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:32:47 2013 No.4202409 >>4202393 >what about bred and flowers >bred and flowers >bred I don't know. Argument from analogy?

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:32:47 2013 No.4202411

>>4202393
>ignores matters of debate
>breaks out logical fallacies which are not relevant for normal discussion and are only relevant for debate

It is almost as if you think conversation and debate are the same thing, and that you can bend the discourse to fit your need since we cannot assign a name or face to your comments.

The best part is, you seem to be incapable of keeping up with the pace of a slow conversation.

>LOL SO ANONYMOUSE. I TROL U.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:33:46 2013 No.4202413 >>4202393 how does anything you say disprove the predominance of hierarchical emergence in nature.

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:36:46 2013 No.4202418

>>4202408
>Government solely responsible
DO HO HO! Nobody said that dipshit, although it is amusing that you built your strawman atop that. Don't put words in my mouth, comrade. HINT: You did.

>Predation is a fairytale
Holy shit and wholly shit.

>in the abstract
Fuck the abstract, only an ivory tower intellectual could be so naive as to only discuss the abstract. HINT: reality is much harder.

>>4202413
HINT: it doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:39:46 2013 No.4202421 >>4202418 You're a fucking idiot. Die a painful death.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:41:47 2013 No.4202426 >>4202421 >ad hominem Stay classy

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:41:47 2013 No.4202427 >>4202421 You're an internet tough guy. Live long and prosper behind your keyboard with your A/C firmly set to something comfortable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:42:47 2013 No.4202430 >>4202413 Because hierakies doesn't exist in nature they are a figment of human imagination nature just is, it doesn't care.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:44:46 2013 No.4202434 >>4202411 >Argues semantics like he's still attending school Can you try to argue better than a useless appeal to nature instead?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:47:19 2013 No.4202444 File: 862 KB, 300x192, 1375734464386.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4202430 >human language is inadequate to describe nature

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:47:19 2013 No.4202445

>>4201073
>Look around you at the poverty, the hunger, the need for basic education and healthcare. You think your corpse has the right to deny anyone the means to end those things?

If the money was donated to a private institution dedicated to accomplishing those goals, it would be likely to accomplish them. As it stands Dr. Thomas Sowell approximated based on research , that it costs 3 dollars to deliver 1 dollar worth of service. While I agree with the concept that these problems have to be solved, solutions will not originate from bureaucratic means.

>Nope, you're dead. You get no say. Yeah, you left a piece of paper and we may or may not take that into account but it's not really binding or anything BECAUSE YOU'RE DEAD

Your statement is true, once a person has died they cannot make further decisions. However, if the decision is created before death should it not be taken into account? If a person loses his cognitive functions, previously asked to be killed if such a situation does occur, and people neglect to follow his will; has a ethical dilemma occurred? Should you not respect contracts or agreements formed before you became a non-person.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:49:19 2013 No.4202449 >>4202434 >useless To what end?

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:49:20 2013 No.4202451
File: 920 KB, 1022x1508, zeroG toilet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4202430
Nothing is outside of nature, dumbass.

>>4202434
This isn't a debate, this is a discussion. If you want to have a debate, you need to start by educating yourself about the topic beforehand and sticking to an intellectually honest and principled rhetoric.

You have shown neither.

So, can you try yo not be a hypocrite?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:51:20 2013 No.4202456 >>4202444 BINGO! DING DING DING!

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:53:20 2013 No.4202460 >>4202451 Get a load of this college freshmen

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:53:20 2013 No.4202461 >>4202456 >doesn't realize he was being made fun off for possessing a childish idea that belongs on /x/

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:54:19 2013 No.4202466 >>4202456 >inadequacy = inability I agree with having the bingo if your point is Heideggerean and you acknowledge that inadequacy entails that we cannot simply rise up above our nature, let alone nature.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:54:19 2013 No.4202467 >>4202460 >I know, I can call him KID, that will piss him off! I remember my first day on the internet...

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:54:19 2013 No.4202469 >>4202451 >Nothing is outside of nature, dumbass. That's why it doesn't make sense to apply oughts to it nature doesn't give 2 shits about hierarchies, it just is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:57:20 2013 No.4202476 >>4202449 I repeat the question: to what end should our understanding of value, labour, capital, communes, and all that jazz, be of use?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:59:20 2013 No.4202481 >>4202476 Escapism, we're bored.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 14:59:20 2013 No.4202482 >>4202469 That's not what you said earlier... >>4202266

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 15:00:34 2013 No.4202485 >>4202482 That's not me. I just came here to call out the faggots and their inadequate theoretical scientism bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 15:03:34 2013 No.4202489 File: 1.50 MB, 3264x2448, 1380756544784.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4202485 I thought you came here to show off how cool you are, with your "English as a second language" skillz, bro. BTW, >>4202482 Is not me.

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 15:03:34 2013 No.4202493

>>4202485
>theoretical scientism
I'm not sure if this is a strawman or an inconsistency. If you are calling out people who insist on the primacy of nature over ideology, it;s the former. If you are a Marxist, it's an incosistency. (Historical materialism is a scientism.)

Might be both.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 15:07:53 2013 No.4202505 File: 105 KB, 1011x924, shame.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >tfw I found out my family is bagets

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 15:11:08 2013 No.4202517

>>4202352
my building was built 200 years ago.
Come on.
Gimme a break.
funny thing is, the money that goes to the rent is the money I can't use to learn valuable job skills, pay a web host, learn CS... (I did try to learn alone, apparently I'm not a genius)

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 15:13:08 2013 No.4202525

>>4194959
>>"Commodity fetishization doesn't make any sense, because obviously things that are made with higher quality materials and skills are worth more because they're made for people with better taste." (her exact words)

/fa/ here, this is accurate, pls b in london

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 15:18:08 2013 No.4202540

>>4202489
that's not him. And I mentioned english as a second language as a warning to the reader, to avoid misunderstandings when things go technical (absentee landlordship...).

>>4202485
ma nigga!
did you read about how they try to abuse us with the idea of the "law of the jungle", while the truth is that animals also rely on cooperation?

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 15:25:55 2013 No.4202552

>>4202517
It was a question, holmes, not an accusation. Sorry to make it sound that way.

I am not defending your landlords, but property ownership has an income but it is also a substantial liability to the title holders. Taxes, maintenance, cleaning of public spaces, etc. must all be paid by the owner. This, theoretically, comes from the renters... without whom the landlord wouldn't be able to keep his property from winding up in the hands of the state.

I feel your pain, unemployment is the wave of the future as everyone becomes redundant right before the singularity. Well, I hope it is the singularity and not some shitty lazy post-apocalyptic dystopian fiction.

>>4202540
>this isn't me
Damn, nobody cares about your samefag circlejerk.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 21 18:24:32 2013 No.4202935 >>4202525 You do know that your "superior taste" is really just the effect of your immersion within a spectacular hyperreality, right? You're a bunch of delusional faggots, basically.

Anonymous Mon Oct 21 23:20:50 2013 No.4203491

>>4200533
>people actually believe in privilege

It gets tossed around as a meme but the concept does have merit in certain situations, and being born into a wealthy family certainly meets all the criteria of what the whole "privilege" idea is all about.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 05:55:15 2013 No.4204235 File: 295 KB, 2045x1534, mfwmadcromanlet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4194959 >mfw this thread >mfw /lit/ doesn't into economics Oh wow.

Anonymous Tue Oct 22 06:07:17 2013 No.4204255

>>4198255
(ideally)

That is the most faggoted word thrown around by communists ever, the fact that you have to shift the goalposts to claims it "could" work suggests that, inherently, it fucking can't work.

Yet, as it stands, I CAN point out that capitalist societies have been FAR more successful and consistently so.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 06:10:17 2013 No.4204259 >>4202366 Aren't you missing the point?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 09:42:02 2013 No.4204489 Anyone willing to answer, what happens when fossil fuels(oil, coal, gas etc) diminish to the point of costing a lot more money to use, will the poor be cut out, seeing as people are struggling with power bills already?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 22 09:48:02 2013 No.4204504 >>4204489 Lots of people will die from things we used to treat with antibiotics.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]