/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4401956]

Holy shit was she sadistic...

Just, some of that shit Hank did to Dagny was borderline rape...

[Anonymous No.4401964]

>>4401956
>borderline

[Anonymous No.4401968]

>>4401956
I even feel a litle guilty of thinking that Dagny is hot being just a book character.

[Anonymous No.4401987]

>>4401968
Well, hello there Mr. Rearden

[Anonymous No.4402374]

>>4401956
Yes, why don't people just go straight to Sade? I never got this...

[Anonymous No.4402378]

>>4401956
>mfw someone actually wasted time reading that hogwash

[Anonymous No.4402403]

newsflash: women enjoy the idea of getting raped by attractive men

sunny tomorrow

[かわいい No.4402404]

I WONDER WHAT ALL CAPS JAPANESE MAN WILL "SAY"

[Anonymous No.4402459]

>>4402378
I've actually been enjoying it, I just wish it were less romantic. As misogynistic as it sounds, I probably would have enjoyed it more if a man had written it.

[Anonymous No.4402476]

>>4402403
Actually, Hank Rearden is described as below average and the same with his physique. To my understanding so far, her obsession is between her submissiveness (him wanting to own her) and the power she holds over him (a.k.a. pussy whipping).

[« 零 » !Ry9.Zir1EM No.4402510]

AYN RAND HAD A "RAPE FETISH", BECAUSE SHE WAS RAPED WHEN SHE WAS A TEENAGER IN RUSSIA.

[Anonymous No.4402528]

>>4402404
>>4402510
Reit on cue.

[Anonymous No.4402618]

Guys everyone says any rand is shit but why? I don't want to read a 1000 pages if it's shit so can someone explain? I know her whole thing is about being selfish and individualistic.

[Anonymous No.4402641]

>>4402618
It's actually a well written novel. It's just very descriptive and focuses quite a lot (maybe a little too much) on submissiveness and sex. Other than that junk, it's a great read. It also provides an interesting alternative to what is thought of as "rich people". Personally I think regulations and restrictions on individuals and businesses is foolishness and quite enjoyed the multiple bills and legislation her characters came up with. For instance, one of them was a drawn out explanation on why there was a bill needed to prevent manufacturers from leaving the state they've setup in. The reason granted by the lout could be paraphrased as, "If you move your factory, you're directly imposing your will on me and my business, so you should have to stay where I say."

tl;dr: Interesting read, but you have to be pretty open minded.

[Anonymous No.4402648]

>>4402641
Also forgot to mention there's a quick test to whether you'll enjoy it or not. If the following enrages and/or confuses you, you'll most likely not enjoy the book:

To Rich people, it is not whether they have excess money or not; it's that they've built their life and business from the ground up and it (and it's product/capital) is theirs and no one else, 'nor should any man or woman be allowed to take it or control it.

[Anonymous No.4402670]

>>4402641
Ayn never had an opinion she could express in less than 12 pages. Most of them can be ably summarized in two or three sentences.

Atlas Shrugged is approximately 1000 pages too long. It could have been a pamphlet.

[Anonymous No.4402683]

>>4402670
"It wasn't perfect therefore it sucks."

I like that lit will still hold up Ulysses and Infinite Jesticulations as magnificent without reading them because they're not brutally capitalist but if someone writes a doorstopper that's a good read it'll be criticised for being too long.
Proust man, why couldn't he write a pamphlet?
Hegel man. Why couldn't he write a pamphlet?

[Anonymous No.4402690]

>>4402683
I'm not even against pamphlets, btw. Lits critiques of anything right of liberal are just so amusingly ad hoc. I love it.

[Anonymous No.4402704]

>>4402618
Are you really going to let the opinions of other people dictate your own?

Atlas Shrugged is in my opinion, one of the greatest books ever written. It helped me understand that my life is mine to live - that I do not need to follow any set path which others may want to force upon me. It helped me overcome my jealousy of others, not that I was jealous of everyone I ever met, but that emotion no longer brings that heavy emotion toll it once had. My life is my own, and I am free to live it however I wish, and by acceptance of that principle I cannot force other people to live off my whims either.

Will you get as much out of the novel that I did? Who knows, maybe you will. But the only way to find out is to actually read it for yourself and make your own judgment call. If you think it's shit then that's fine and dandy, just don't let other people shape your opinions on the basis of their own more often than not, less than comprehensive criticisms (ie, IT"S SHIT!).

[Anonymous No.4402707]

>>4402683
I'm not a fan of Joyce, Wallace, or Proust either. The only one in that set that had comparable goals to Rand is Wallace, and he DID write a pamphlet on the same subject before he dithered on for a doorstop.

...and I also wish Hegel had summarized his shit, and I'm ever so thankful that he never wrote an overtly Socratic novel full of straw men.

[Anonymous No.4402724]

>>4402704
Just a playful inquiry my friend, rand is not a priority to me at the moment so I just wanted to get a bit of 4chan insight on it as you guys tend to be brutally honest about things. Of course I'm taking it with a grain of salt but I just wanted someone with a (probably) similar mindset to explain to me why she is so hated on 4chan and (I think) generally disregarded in the modern world for her ideologies.

[Anonymous No.4402742]

>>4402618
incredibly boring read. terrible plot. mundane ideas that only pleb americans take seriously. terribly conventional and bland form/style/language. found myself skipping to the sex scenes, which i read as comedy. that said, you might as well read it to form your own opinion. unfortunately one of the hazards of living in the US is being confronted by objectivist zombie libertarians who delude themselves into thinking J. Galt would let them into his gated community when he wouldn't even give them the time of day.

[Anonymous No.4402745]

>>4402724
see my comment above

[Anonymous No.4402752]

>>4402745
About pamphlets and Hegel?

[Anonymous No.4402784]

>>4402742
I honestly don't give a shit about the John Galt part, but the insight of the hard working man (not just the "poor" ones) interests me; especially from the standpoint where what is mine can be taken from me.

It was also my understanding that JG let anyone who was a hard working man/woman, who truly wanted to produce excellence, in. If that was the case, I probably would. I have a job where I actually help produce software that is used by multiple businesses. So, I would be very useful.

P.S. Bonus point for having the entire point of the book flown right over your head.

P.P.S.
>pleb
You lost all cred right there.

[Anonymous No.4402891]

>>4402784
The only people who get into JG's gated community (the whole point of the story) are the wealthy genius artist, writer, inventor, industrialist types. The main character even deserts her earnest, trusty sidekick/secretary guy. AS is a book that poor and middle class Americans (plebs) read to feed their delusions of grandeur. They misdirect their anxiety about their economic and social security towards "the takers" (i.e. the lazy poor needy people who deserve everything they get because they are worthless scum) and focus on the fact that they contribute to society and pay their taxes and everyone else is just a parasite. They imagine that, since they work hard and deserve their modest wealth, the super wealthy must also all have worked hard to accumulate their wealth. AS allows them to project their own experience onto that of truly successful industrialist-types, who in reality make money by exploiting plebs like the people who read AS.

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” John Steinbeck

[Anonymous No.4402983]

>>4401956
Read the fountainhead, same shit.
Dominique Francon, most beautiful girl alive gets ''raped'' though she kind of wants it in a way, but also doesn't. Then she gets ''raped'' in a marriage she doesn't want.
Loved the book though (the fountainhead that is)
And I don't get the hate on Ayn Rand either.

[Anonymous No.4403160]

>>4402983
the fountainhead is great if you take her ideological metaphors as hyperbole and with a few bags of salt

[Anonymous No.4403631]

>>4402891
They let in the personal staffs of Hank Rearden and that banker guy, so presumably Eddie Willers would have been let in as well.

Eddie wasn't let in because he went and got lost in the desert, and explicitly told Dagny to forget about him if he didn't show up again.

Had he been around he would have been admitted. I did think it was cruel and sad that he was left to starve to death, though, after all he had done. Regardless of what he could have achieved, his fate was truly a tragic one.

[Anonymous No.4403994]

>>4402510
I'd say that she had a rape fixation, because fetish may give you pleasure.

[Anonymous No.4404327]

I didnt read all of this book. i got about 2/3 through it and was sick of hearing how dagny wants to fuck people.
i liked the book, though.
>>4402648
i think that was the only point i really took out of it. I preferred the Fountainhead by miles. it had the same kind of message, and Howard Roark is a fucking badass.

[« 零 » !Ry9.Zir1EM No.4404357]

>>4403994

WHY DO YOU PRESUME THAT IT WAS NOT A FETISH?

[Anonymous No.4404362]

>>4404357
CHINAMAN, MERRY CHRISTMAS.
AYN IS LOVE, AYN IS LIFE.

>YOUR HITLER HAIRDO IS STILL MAKING ME FEEL ILL

[« 零 » !Ry9.Zir1EM No.4404366]

>>4404362
>YOUR HITLER HAIRDO IS STILL MAKING ME FEEL ILL

1. MY HAIRCUT IS NOT THE SAME AS ADOLF HITLER'S.

2. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT STATEMENT?

[Anonymous No.4404369]

>>4404366
>I GOT A HITLERJUGEND ONE DAY...
>ONE DAY EVERYONE HAD HITLERJUGEND HAIRCUTS...
>I SAID NOTHING...
>MY MOTHER IS DEAD...

YOUR TUMBLR IS PUBLIC FRIEND.

[« 零 » !Ry9.Zir1EM No.4404379]

>>4404369

DO YOU KNOW WHAT "HITLERJUGEND" MEANS? IF YOU DO NOT YOU ARE GOING TO SEARCHENGINE IT ANYWAY, UPON READING THIS.

I POSTED "HITLERJUGEND HAIRCUT".

THE HITLERJUGEND HAIRCUT HAS MANY VARIATIONS, AND MINE IS NOT THE SAME AS ADOLF HITLER'S.

[Anonymous No.4404381]

>>4404379
RELAX. I'M JUST TICKLING YOUR FUNNY BONE. HITLERJUGEND CUT =/= HITLER HAIRCUT
>ALREADY GOOGLED (DAYS AGO)

>RADIOHEAD LYRICS JUST HAPPEN TO FIT MY OBNOXIOUSNESS

[Anonymous No.4404616]

Plenty of normal women have domination/rape fantasies. That's not what makes Rand sadistic.

>"It is said that catastrophes are a matter of pure chance, and there were those who would have said that the passengers of the Comet were not guilty or responsible for the thing that happened to them.

>"The man in Seat 5, Car No, 7, was a worker who believed that he had "a right" to a job, whether his employer wanted him or not.

>"The man in Bedroom H, Car No. 5, was a businessman who had acquired his business, an ore mine, with the help of a government loan, under the Equalization of Opportunity Bill.

>"The woman in Roomette 6, Car No. 8, was a lecturer who believed that, as a consumer, she had "a right" to transportation, whether the railroad people wished to provide it or not.

>"The woman in Bedroom D, Car No. 10, was a mother who had put her two children to sleep in the berth above her, carefully tucking them in, protecting them from drafts and jolts; a mother whose husband held a government job enforcing directives, which she defended by saying, "I don't care, it's only the rich that they hurt. After all, I must think of my children.

>"The woman in Roomette 9, Car No. 12, was a housewife who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing, to control giant industries, of which she had no knowledge.

>"These passengers were awake; there was not a man aboard the train who did not share one or more of their ideas. As the train went into the tunnel, the flame of Wyatt's Torch was the last thing they saw on earth."

Elitist misanthropy is what makes Ayn Rand sadistic.

[Anonymous No.4404622]

>>4404369
>>4404381
You didn't explain the 'making you feel ill' part, guy

[Anonymous No.4404624]

>>4404622
IT'S A SONG LYRIC...
>KARMA POLICE BY RADIOHEAD
CHINAMAN'S FAVORITE (PROBABLY).
ALSO, CHINAMAN's TUMBLR MIGHT MAKE YOU ILL.

[« 零 » !Ry9.Zir1EM No.4404635]

>>4404624

MY FAVORITE SONG BY "RADIOHEAD" IS "MOTION PICTURE SOUNDTRACK".

[Anonymous No.4404640]

>>4404635
I'm new to the board, so forgive my ignorance, but what the fuck is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.4404641]

>>4404635
THAT'S A GOOD TUNE. MY FAVORITE IS EITHER "THE TOURIST" OR "MYXOMATOSIS".

[Anonymous No.4404647]

>>4404640
LEAVE CHINAMAN ALONE. HE'S A WONDERFUL HUMAN BEING.

[Anonymous No.4404649]

>>4404647
You misread my tone. I'm not asking. I'm telling.

[Anonymous No.4404652]

>>4404635
My favorite song by "radiohead" is "stop changing tripcode you inbred moron".

[Anonymous No.4404716]

>>4404649
Then get off /lit/, newfag. No one gives a shit about your opinions.

[Anonymous No.4405062]

Ayn was fucked up in the head, and it scares me there are people out there who believe all the shit she said.

>“If [people] place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man’s life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite.”

[Anonymous No.4405074]

>>4401956
>mfw people think they understand egoism
>mfw libtards screw it up every single time they describe it without fail
>mfw libtards seem completely satisfied with their ignorance
Step it up /lit/, this is a basic branch of ethics,

[Anonymous No.4405114]

>>4401956
From everything about her the only thing I really can't understand is why "true" sexual relationships have to be so cold and maybe not violent but it definitely wasn't sensual in her books, except maybe Anthem, I can't remember well.

[GirlJesus !!ggYw9XaQXSW No.4405128]

>>4405062
Meanwhile, there's context and a fairly coherent argument to be weighed in, all of which she delivers at (great) length in order that statements such as those are not taken as idle eccentricity, aren't immediately dismissed as 'fucked in the head', but I'm sure you were going to continue?

[Anonymous No.4405132]

>>4405062
Didn't she admire some guy that turned out to be a sociopath and child murderer?

[Anonymous No.4405152]

>>4405062

Pretty much every american believes that, in my opinion. This is a society that seeks to be free from the tyranny of ever being even remotely accountable for so much as a single human being other than oneself. We celebrate our freedom as individuals predicated upon the concept that absolutely every single person has complete and utter control, be it physical, social, or mental control, over absolutely ever single factor and detail of our lives and who we are. One is absolutely responsible for all of this, and success is always and absolutely determined by one's dedication to their goals.

Of course america has proven to be objectively true, and anyone who says otherwise is a lowly fool who is only making excuses for not overcoming every single obstacle in life regardless of what they are, and simply blaming others for their own laziness, stupidity, or ignorance.

[Anonymous No.4405164]

>>4405132
Yes. She used to regularly fawn and gush over William Hickman, the guy who murdered some people, animals, and at the end murdered and cut into pieces some 12 year old girl he had kidnapped. Ayn loved him so much that she based a character from one of her books on him.

America is weird.

[Anonymous No.4405194]

Ayn Rand is the equivalent of a guy who goes to China and comes back thinking YES THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION WAS GREAT I HEART THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA LET'S NUKE THE US. She's the right-wing version of the crazy Maoist who never bathes (no offense to actual non-crazy Maoists out there), a foreigner who interprets the ideology of a country they admire in the most extremist and crazy terms. The difference being very few people in the Chinese Communist Party believe that the country should have another Cultural Revolution, whilst apparently many in the US government take Rand quite seriously.

[Anonymous No.4405768]

>>4404716
>newfag
You've been here over a year and no one gives a shit about yours either.

[Anonymous No.4405782]

>>4402510
What teenager in Russia wasn't raped?

[Anonymous No.4405783]

>>4405114
The sexual relationships weren't cold. Read the book. Dagny's trysts with Rearden and Galt were fiery and loving.

[Anonymous No.4405849]

>>4405152
>Pretty much every american believes that, in my opinion.
Your opinion a shit.

[Anonymous No.4405947]

>>4405849
Spoken like a true delusional libtard. Get a job.

[Anonymous No.4405983]

>>4404357
Because a fetish can be anything from a harmless pleasure to something totally dangerous. A fixation, however, is more on the neurotic scale.

>>4404381
>>4404379
>>4404369
>>4404366
>>4404362
>the kids these days call it "Hitlerjugend haircut"
This is the beginning of the end. I doubt that it will survive 2014! :D

[Anonymous No.4406006]

>>4405152
Is this sarcasm?

[Anonymous No.4408359]

>>4406006
No. This is America.

[Anonymous No.4408511]

>>4408359
Freedom motherfuckers!

[Anonymous No.4408598]

>>4405947
"Get a job" is the last rhetorical refuge of incoherent right wing Americans. Their final hope of converting you to their outlook is that you'll get stuck in an exploitative relationship with a U.S. employer. When it makes you miserable enough to despise everyone else too, their ideology will finally suit you.

[Anonymous No.4408677]

>>4408598
>Expect everyone to just accept I'm a valuable member of society without making the minimum effort to contribute and uphold my rights
>Get defensive when that doesn't happen
>"must be them there 'servatives that ruined my life"

What don't you get about living in a proper individualistic society?

[Anonymous No.4409539]

>>4408677
Everyone in America doesn't believe that. Many Americans believe in sacrifice and service. Firemen for example. Or people with families.

If you subscribe to Randian ideology you subscribe to a Reaganite distorted fun-house version of American values. Equal opportunity, a level playing field where people can succeed in business.. these are basic values here, yes. But equal opportunity requires a perquisite level of law and regulation to preserve. Rand would have us start there, and then turn off all checks on capital. She tells you it will all sort itself out and meritocracy will happen naturally.

This has nothing to do with reality. It's a recipe for dynastic oligarchy within a generation. Which is exactly what's happened. The further along trickle down libertarian ideology goes the poorer and more miserable it makes practically everyone. Since your ideology doesn't square with your own personal experience Protip: you're not a potential billionaire and you never will be, "get a job" is the last knee jerk defense you've got.

Don't defend your economic Objectivisim with that up-by-your-bootstraps Horatio Alger bullshit. Her philosophy is a propadanga tool of the ultra wealthy. As long as you keep defending it, so are you. And like Rand, you'll both go utterly unrewarded for it.

[Anonymous No.4409551]

>>4409539
Please, duckspeak more and use more buzzwords. "Reaganite", "dynastic oligarchy", "ultra wealthy", "trickle down."

Also, tell us all about your favorite communist and sympathizers philosophers and novelists. Their vision of the world surely has lead to less misery and oppression than Rand's.

[Anonymous No.4409560]

>>4409551
I actually agree with this Ayn Rand fan--and I'm a Marxist. Most of those buzzwords are just Mother Jones-Daily Kos inventions with a good zing but zero explanatory power. They're useless bits of slogans, like the 1% vs 99% thing.

[Anonymous No.4410080]

>>4401956

I'll credit Rand for trying to create a unified philosophy and model it all in one massive work of fiction. She failed miserably but it was a heck of a thing to attempt.

Her depiction of a successful capitalist society plunging into the abyss of socialism appears quite accurate when viewed by what is happening to the United States now.

I didn't find her Objectivism compelling. I certainly didn't enjoy her obsession with stretching and twisting that philosophy to explain and justify her various sexual quirks.

With an absolutely ruthless editor, this book could have been worthy of standing alongside Orwell's 1984, Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, or Huxley's Brave New World. As it is, the book requires a well-developed nonsense filter to appreciate. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone under 30.

[Anonymous No.4410186]

Women like pseudo-rape.

[Anonymous No.4410193]

The book was pretty good.

Not an objectivist, I'm just a libertarian, the book was 8/10

[Anonymous No.4410196]

>>4410080
>Her depiction of a successful capitalist society plunging into the abyss of socialism appears quite accurate when viewed by what is happening to the United States now.
This.

[Anonymous No.4410225]

The first 200-300 pages were pretty interesting.
You did feel as though the entire economic stock market was just borderline away from crashing and the ones who wanted to succeed were being held back from the 'parasites'. There was a true sense of struggle when Dagny decided to leave her company with what little money she had and asked not to be held back by bureaucracy and rules. It made Rand's entire philosophy poignant on that point, that people who truly just want to make good things should simply not be held back by pointless endeavor.

After the rail line is completed, it basically just goes nowhere and the ending is disappointing.
I actually felt like it was not long enough as I wished Rand would expand on what her glorious intelligent people would do in their free time rather than be her interpretation of america's intellectual vagabonds.

There was an interesting sense of wonder of who John Galt was and for him to just be this ordinary guy who had no personality and was boring in every way was extremely disappointing to me.

I see people as either exaggerating her points and making it look silly or simply not understanding them, which makes no sense as they are dumbed down enough for anyone to understand.

As for the sex/rape, to me, it was what Rand considered 'intellectuals having sex' more than just rape. I found it hilarious at one point when some lowly attendant just pointed out that Hank and Dagny were committing adultery and neither could say anything to justify themselves. Funny how Rand brought that up and just dropped it for no real purpose.

[Anonymous No.4410262]

>>4410080
>>4410196
You're both joking, right? You can't possible be this out of touch with reality and the history of the country's economy to really think this.

[Anonymous No.4410303]

>>4410262
>You're both joking, right? You can't possible be this out of touch with reality and the history of the country's economy to really think this.

Protip:
You are being lied to about the economic history of this country.

>b-b-b-but world war 2 brought us out of the depression hurrr

[Anonymous No.4410309]

>>4402891
pretty much the best summary of that book and it's real life implications


On average, CEO's of big multinationals are paid 371 times as much as the lowest earning person in the company. Either it's unfair that they are paid that much more, or the deserve it because they work 371 times harder than the cleaner who works 12 hour shifts scrubbing toilets for minimum wage...

[Anonymous No.4410315]

imagine if /lit/ put down their fedoras and tried to read the old testament.

>there's too much focus on genealogy!
>God is such a sadist!
>it's so black and white!
>moses wasn't allowed in canaan!

Ayn Rand's only "mistake" was creating a story of biblical proportions. A story so epic and robust that fedora-wearing beatniks can't even approach it.

[Anonymous No.4410319]

>>4410303
No, that's not what I meant. Thinking the last few years of the country's economy is evidence for its socialist downfall is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.4410324]

>>4410309

average rand-hater here folks. doesn't even understand what value is or how it is derived but thinks he can prognosticate what a fictional social system would look like.

[Anonymous No.4410333]

>>4410324
Stop cheerypicking the parts of the guy's argument that on their own seem incongruent, the overall message was clear; some people make more than they deserve simply on virtue of where they were born, and an objectivist society only amplified that

[Anonymous No.4410345]

>>4410333

1. i wasn't cherrypicking
2. his (your) idea wasn't incongruent, it was just clear evidence of a lack of knowledge in the subject he (you) were trying to discuss
3. your 'overall message' is precisely what is wrong, don't pretend that the only way anyone could possibly disagree with you is if they don't understand you
4. that has nothing to do with the fact that wages are determined by value and the value of a good or service is completely unrelated to how much work is put into it.

please go find the nearest marx thread and spew your shit there.

[Anonymous No.4410355]

>>4410345
I didn't post that, apparently I'm just a better critical reader than you are, to actually get the full message.

>wages are determined by value and the value of a good or service is completely unrelated to how much work is put into it
Is this true for government charges, too?

[Anonymous No.4410378]

>>4410319
>No, that's not what I meant. Thinking the last few years of the country's economy is evidence for its socialist downfall is ridiculous.
Bullshit, we're spending, inflating and regulating at massive levels.

This is clearly the fault of the state and socialism.

[Anonymous No.4410406]

>>4410345
>the value of a good or service is completely unrelated to how much work is put into it.

this is what capitalists actually believe

[Anonymous No.4410432]

>>4410378
government involvement is the nly thing that stopped the recession from turning into a depression. don't pretend like the stimulus and bailout didn't avert an even more massive meltdown. and the fact that bush pushed a lot of it proves that it is just inevitable. the more data points we have like this, the more economists will advise states to intervene to avert economic catastrophes. this has nothing to do sith socialist activists and everything to do with inevitable economic forces. free market is and always has been about boom and bust. government has long been about creating stability. also, the gvt got a lot of that money back.

rand is about unrecognized privilege, the unrestrained arrogance of the wealth, and the middle class's disgustingly obsequious attitude towards the wealth. the only people who take her seriously are middle class people who feel like they worked hard and fantasize about being rich.

if you want a more cogent, intellectually engaging, and historically significant take on some of the ideas, just go to the physiocrats.

[Anonymous No.4410434]

>>4410406
>the value of a good is completely determined by how much work is put into it
>even if that nobody in society values that good or labour at all

This is what socialists actually believe.

[Anonymous No.4410448]

>>4410432
Good post.

[Anonymous No.4410469]

>>4410434
incorrect. for marxists value is extremely variable. c.f. The first part of Capital in which Marx compares exchange value to a floating table or a phantasmagoria, i.e 19th century "magic" parlor tricks that people accepted as fact. In other words, exchange value is not fixed and is a sort of human construction that we try and convince ourselves is real or natural/supernatural.

anyway all these totally uninformed posts on "value" (which kind, duh!) are making it obvious that you guys dont have a clue about political economy.

[Anonymous No.4410477]

>>4410469
sorry people tried to convince themselves the magic tricks were magic even tho they knew they were fake. that wasnt clear in my post.

[Anonymous No.4410486]

>>4410432

good little sheep.

[Anonymous No.4410488]

>>4410432
>government involvement is the nly thing that stopped the recession from turning into a depression.
Bullshit it simply postponed it, it's going to be far worse when the petrodollar inevitably crashes.

Government created the recession in the first place with artificially low interest rates.

>don't pretend like the stimulus and bailout didn't avert an even more massive meltdown
My sides. Keep printing money and giving it to your banker friends we all know how that will turn out.

>free market is and always has been about boom and bust
Then why during free market periods were there no booms and busts? Why during periods of government intervention especially in banking and money were there business cycles.

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Panics

[Anonymous No.4410491]

>>4410486
great discussion. glad we could have it

[Anonymous No.4410492]

>>4410469
>incorrect. for marxists value is extremely variable. c.f. The first part of Capital in which Marx compares exchange value to a floating table or a phantasmagoria, i.e 19th century "magic" parlor tricks that people accepted as fact. In other words, exchange value is not fixed and is a sort of human construction that we try and convince ourselves is real or natural/supernatural.


This is what marxists actually believe.

[Anonymous No.4410494]

>>4410432
>government involvement is the nly thing that stopped the recession from turning into a depression.

lol enjoy your delay and your exponentially bigger collapse later. or even bigger bailouts.

[Anonymous No.4410499]

>>4410469
>labour theory of value

Oh wait, you're serious.
http://archive.freecapitalists.org/forums/t/32365.aspx

[Anonymous No.4410501]

>>4410494
Leftists are cocksuckers for the status quo, of course they believe the official story.

[Anonymous No.4410508]

>>4410488
>postponing it
maybe there will be a crisis in several decades, but it will not be seriously tied to the housing market crash. that crisis was heavily mitigated by the government. maybe in several decades we will be more knowledgeable about how to control the economy. it is really baffling to demand that we suffer now to avoid some hypothetical crisis decades away.

>inflation has not been a major problem at all. they also got a large portion of the money given to banks back.

>free market periods never have boom and bust
that is just ignorant. government regs didnt cause the sub prime housing market crash. derivatives, hedging, risky financial products had nothing to do with with regulation and everything to do with deregulation. there have been so many bubbles in the free market--if you cant look through recent history and find a few, you are just willfully blinding yourself

[Anonymous No.4410511]

>>4410508

the housing market crash was caused by the government.

[Anonymous No.4410516]

>>4410508
the problem with the bailout is that it is basically a get out of jail card. with no consequences the big financial companies are basically playing with house's money and should something go wrong the taxpayer pays for them. of course they are going to ignore risk.

the role of the government and the central bank in creating stability is of course completely stupid. all they accomplish by this manipulation of the market is a delayed gigantic wave that crashes everything as opposed to smaller boom and bust cycles aka natural volatility of the market that is healthy and does not seriously hurt anyone.

[Anonymous No.4410517]

>>4410508
>maybe there will be a crisis in several decades,
No it's not maybe. It's for certain.

You massively distorted the structure of production now our economy only stays afloat because we have the petrodollar standard and the rest of the world produces while we consume. It's going to destroy itself very soon.

>but it will not be seriously tied to the housing market crash
The fed is inflating another housing bubble as we speak.

>maybe in several decades we will be more knowledgeable about how to control the economy.
Yeah it's called fuck off and leave it alone. End the federal reserve, legalize competing currencies.

>government regs didnt cause the sub prime housing market crash. derivatives, hedging, risky financial products had nothing to do with with regulation and everything to do with deregulation.
That's fucking hilarious.

>government gives banks trillions of dollars to gamble with more than they would normally have
>they gamble with in the housing market(which fannie and freddie greatly helped create)
>shit collapses.
>hurr free markets fault

You do know that banking is the most regulated industry in the usa right?

> there have been so many bubbles in the free market
But there hasn't been.

I just sent you a fucking link on those "bubbles", educate yourself.

[Anonymous No.4410518]

>>4410511
How?

[Anonymous No.4410520]

>>4410518
http://mises.org/daily/3203

[Anonymous No.4410523]

>>4410511
no it wasnt. the government's only responsibility in the matter was not regulating risky financial products enough, they had very little to do with the creation of derivatives and the like.

Some people will try and tell you it is liberals' fault for encouraging low interest rates and encouraging banks to make riskier loans so that people could get houses, but most economists agree that that along was a very minor problem compared with the way banks pushed even riskier loans and bundled them into toxic financial products.

[Anonymous No.4410526]

>>4410518

government lowered the interest rate
government created (inflated) the money used to prop up the bubble
NGOs like fannie and freddie owned bye the government
FDIC insurance of sub-prime mortgages
SEC assumption and consequent non-performance of watchdog activities

[Anonymous No.4410532]

>>4410523
>they had very little to do with the creation of derivatives and the like.


>give bankers trillions of dollars
>banks gamble with it because government "regulation" incentives it
>NOT GOVMINTS FAULT GUISE

Seriously?

>but most economists agree
You mean the same keynesian economists who caused the crash?

[Anonymous No.4410533]

>>4410516
i agree there should be more oversight ver the banks who got money, but to argue that we should have let a massive depression pccur and millions of people suffer and die for the sake of free market principles is idiotic. the free market is inefficient and cause long periods of depression and suffering that the large majority of people want to avoid. like i said, suffering now massively for a hypotheticsl future is an simplistic dystopian view

[Anonymous No.4410538]

>>4410533
it's going to happen regardless, just on a bigger scale. the ron paul meme "you could've stopped it" is decades ago.

[Anonymous No.4410539]

>>4410532
banks gambled with the money because rightists refused to let the government adequately regulate the banks. simple as that. capitalism leads inevitably leads to massive unemployment and housing shortages. democracy isn't going to allow that to fly. end of story.

[Anonymous No.4410545]

>>4410533
>i agree there should be more oversight ver the banks who got money


No faggot.

THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN ANY MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Why do you leftists idiots love banks so much?

>but to argue that we should have let a massive depression pccur and millions of people suffer
Typical fearmongering tactics. If we let the banks fail, the economy would restructure itself on solid footing and in a few months time we would have a sound economy with high levels of real economic growth again.

We had a "recession" in 1921 and the government did absolutely nothing, it was over within 5 months.

That recession started off worse than the great depression(in which the government ACTUALLY intervened and made the great depression great)

>the free market is inefficient
Bullshit, the market is efficient, the government is inefficient and causes the business cycle.

[Anonymous No.4410547]

>>4410538
pssh whatever you guys "it's going to happen"... you are like the exact opposite of communists who want to sacrifice for a hypothetical better future.

"lets all engage in self-flagellation to ward off a coming crisis"

most people agree that it os best to avert crises for as long as possible in that hopes that a solution will come. the fact that the economy has somewhat stabilized should give us some time to try and work on the problems.

[Anonymous No.4410548]

>>4410520

>Misses argument


I'm convinced there is this one fucking one that has to shit in all Leftist arguments with that pathetic argument. Randroids are really desperate, by posting lies and more even more lies so taht they can defend thier corporate overlords. To the gulags with them.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?MisesArgumentAgainstSocialism

[Anonymous No.4410550]

>>4410539
why complicate the things further? no free government money, no need for regulation. nobody is going to gamble with their own money.

[Anonymous No.4410554]

>>4410539
>banks gambled with the money because rightists refused to let the government adequately regulate the banks. simple as that
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Holy fucking shit, honestly are you this retarded.

You steal trillions of dollars from the people, give it to bankers and claim "rightists" are the problem because we didn't want the state to "regulate" what banks do with their own funds.

Incredible.

You people really are corporate fascists.

>capitalism leads inevitably leads to massive unemployment and housing shortages.
Bullshit, capitalist periods resulted in the lowest unemployment, the strongest levels of economic growth and the most reduction in poverty.
look at the gilded age.

[Anonymous No.4410557]

>>4410548
>by posting lies
Bloodthirsty leftist shitstains are the ONLY ones who lie.

The left has historically been responsible for corporate fascism. Look at the progressive movement.

>marx with a peace sign

You sure love your statist overlords you sycophantic cocksucker, why won't you people just die?

[Anonymous No.4410561]

>>4410532
>banks gamble with it because government "regulation" incentives it

How is any investment not a gamble do you even know how modern capitalism works it's based on conjecture of future yields. You should read Hume to find that this is recipe for disaster. We can not predict the future, economists just pretend they can because that's their bread and butter. They have only a mechanical understanding of the system and fail to get educated in actual critical thinking. Something that is usually suppressed as pessimism. Economy is modern superstition. By this I mean its the idea that you can actually predict the future and from this fundamentally flawed basis we actually make most political and business decisions, because it's the best we got.

[Anonymous No.4410563]

>>4410548
>that image

Holy fucking shit is that person ever dumb.

[Anonymous No.4410565]

>>4410554
keep kowtowing to your corporate masters.

you people are even worse ideologues than communists.

>the free market is perfect
>free market periods are full of rainbows and chirping birds and unicorns

[Anonymous No.4410566]

>>4410548
Socialism is going on RIGHT NOW in Venezuela, look at how big of a shithole it is. Look what it's doing to people.

Fuck off you authoritarian piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.4410569]

>>4410557
>>4410554

You are so mad... I'm not even gonna answer since you really sound like a 16 year old that throws around buzzwords like "corporate fascism" when you don't know the first thing about economics. Read the link I posted why Mises argument against socialism is utterly destroyed and then we will talk.

[Anonymous No.4410573]

>>4410561
>How is any investment not a gamble do you even know how modern capitalism works it's based on conjecture of future yields.

It's many times more a gamble when you print trillions of dollars and give it to bankers to gamble with.

Holy fuck are you ever stupid.

>>4410565
>keep kowtowing to your corporate masters.
HAHAHAHHA
I'm not the one printing money and giving to to the banking cartel you worthless, easily manipulated piece of shit.

>>the free market is perfect
I didn't say that. I only showed what the market actually did in reality. It was really good.

[Anonymous No.4410575]

>>4410561
>How is any investment not a gamble
it's not when the taxpayer/government pays for it

> By this I mean its the idea that you can actually predict the future and from this fundamentally flawed basis we actually make most political and business decisions, because it's the best we got.

precisely why government intervention doesn't work

[Anonymous No.4410576]

>>4410566
Shouldn't the boss be free to control his workers and take the piece of the cake he can get away with taking because he owns it the workers merely spend their lives there? How is this not authoritarian?

[Anonymous No.4410579]

>>4410563
>>4410566

>Muh authoritarian Gubment

>Muh Ayn Rand fantasy capitalism

In the past , Randroids at least tried to defend their insane ideology.

[Anonymous No.4410580]

>>4410569
>I'm not even gonna answer since you really sound like a 16 year old that throws around buzzwords like "corporate fascism"

HAHAHA Oh wow. I only say that because you people say that and it makes people think when you reverse their arguments and shove it in their face.

>when you don't know the first thing about economics
hahahahhah

Riiiiggght, and every socialist country in the world using your retarded ideas was not a complete shithole, riiiiiggghhtt.

>read my crappy strawman link in it's entirety because I'm too lazy to write my own arguments

[Anonymous No.4410584]

>>4410575
>precisely why government intervention doesn't work

How is making a law saying you can't dump poison into the lakes a prediction? Damn you are naive.

[Anonymous No.4410585]

>>4410579
>>4410569
>>4410565

Is this really the best /lit/ commies can muster? Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.4410590]

>>4410579
>Shouldn't the boss be free to control his work
>anyone who doesn't want to live under an authoritarian socialist government loves ayn rand

Lel, you do know that most libertarians don't even care about ayn rand. I never see her posted around /pol/

Rand herself said she hated libertarians.

>>4410576
>Shouldn't the boss be free to control his workers and take the piece of the cake he can get away with taking because he owns it the workers

He doesn't own his workers at all, they voluntarily exchange their labour for money. If they tried to start their own firm to deliver goods to consumers they could but they would most likely fail.

There's absolutely no benefit in taking over a factory. No surplus value, nothing. You would be worse off.

[Anonymous No.4410587]

>>4410573
printing money is really the problem for you isn't it? you just can't understand that the gvt got most of that back. where is the inflation you are so worried about?

[Anonymous No.4410589]

>>4410585
That was a very selective display. Please try to actually make arguments for your case.

[Anonymous No.4410592]

>>4410584
what does dumping poison into a lake have to do with the government manipulating economy as a whole? strawman

[Anonymous No.4410595]

>>4410584
>How is making a law saying you can't dump poison into the lakes
A free market would have laws like that.

>>4410587
>you just can't understand that the gvt got most of that back

So a massive boom and bust and the making rich of scumbags who don't deserve it is okay because the government got some of it's money back.

Top Lel

[Anonymous No.4410603]

>>4410590
>He doesn't own his workers at all, they voluntarily exchange their labour for money. If they tried to start their own firm to deliver goods to consumers they could but they would most likely fail.
>they could but they would most likely fail.
>they would most likely fail.

Oh I didn't see we were living in a perfect world.

[Anonymous No.4410608]

>>4410603
>Oh I didn't see we were living in a perfect world.
What is your point?

They would most likely fail. They would take all of the firms profits and spend it on themselves, destroying the company by forcing them to raise prices or simply go bankrupt due to lack of production.

[Anonymous No.4410612]

>>4410595
the massive boom and bust was mitigated into a much less problematic recession, duh. that was my point from the beginning. i agree the government should have sacked most of the banking executives responsible, but it doesnt change that, overall, the stimulus and bailouts have effectively averted the huge depression, hopefully for several decades

[Anonymous No.4410617]

>>4410595
>A free market would have laws like that.

How is it free then? Isn't freedom "anything goes" no one should be able to hinder you in your pursuits that would be theft anyone harmed or unable to compete by selling something from your destruction of their lives, should just lay themselves down to die.

Why would you stop yourself if you are making money which is the markets greatest virtue and mans quintessential pursuit?

[Anonymous No.4410620]

>>4410612
>the massive boom and bust was mitigated into a much less problematic recession
No it wasn't for the 10th time, you simply postponed the recession.

We're still in a fucking recession, it's simply going to get worse when the petrodollar dies.

We're the only country in the world that can keep doing this because we're allowed to exploit the rest of the world to eat our inflation while they send us all the products they produce.

[Anonymous No.4410626]

>>4410617
>no one should be able to hinder you in your pursuits
Yes and if you pollute someones lake then you will be punished.

If you pollute a public lake(there is still public property in a free market enforced by claims assocations and polycentric law) you will be punished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism

[Anonymous No.4410631]

>>4410626
Wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy the lake then? To maximize profits? This looks more and more utopian.

[Anonymous No.4410638]

>>4410620
i am sorry, but you are the one who is not addressing my points. i have several times that you want us to suffer now on a massive scale for a hypothetically worse future. no one is going to buy that.

as far as the rest of the world is concerned, they need our dollars desperately. china keeps buying our debt for a reason. also, we arent the only place in the country with the same situation. UK, switzerland, EU are all benefitting from favorable monetary/debt conditions

[Anonymous No.4410649]

>>4410638
only place in the world, not the country. sorry

[Anonymous No.4410653]

>>4410631
>Wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy the lake then?
Sure if you have enough money to do that. More often than not, companies don't. If it's a small lake nobody is using and is only going to be used for industrial purposes then I see no problem with it. There are countless other lakes out there.

>>4410638
>i have several times that you want us to suffer now on a massive scale for a hypothetically worse future.
YES AND I HAVE COUNTLESS TIMES EXPLAINED WHY WHAT YOUR SAYING IS RETARDED AND INCORRECT

Here:
>>4410545
>>4410554
>>4410573

>they need our dollars desperately
No, they don't you brainwashed idiot.

>china keeps buying our debt for a reason.
If china told the petrodollar to fuck off and instead let their own currency rise, they could actually consume the products they make instead of enslaving themselves for fat americans like you.

Nobody needs the petrodollar, nobody needs financial slavery.

We need deflation not inflation, countries need to let their currencies rise so their people will have better lives.

[Anonymous No.4410660]

>>4410653
>If it's a small lake nobody is using and is only going to be used for industrial purposes then I see no problem with it.

In Africa right now you see rich Arabs buying indigenous people's lands for hunting and hiring private police to burn down said people's villages to drive them off the lands of their forefathers. How is this not an example of your wet dream? Surely there's more money to be made on the Arabs than the poor people living there.

[Anonymous No.4410683]

>>4410660
>In Africa right now you see rich Arabs buying indigenous people's lands for hunting and hiring private police to burn down said people's villages to drive them off the lands of their forefathers.

Yep. That's statism for you.

There's a reason they have the lowest levels of economic freedom in the world.

Capitalism just works.

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

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

[Anonymous No.4410698]

>>4410683
How is that not pure freedom of the owners of capital to rule the people. How would you mitigate this without a body representing the people's interest?

[Anonymous No.4410747]

>>4410698
>How is that not pure freedom of the owners of capital to rule the people.
Uh because he would be interfering with the freedoms of other individuals?

How would you mitigate this without a body representing the people's interest?
You mean a law enforcement agency and courts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

[Anonymous No.4410773]

>>4410747
>How is that not pure freedom of the owners of capital to rule the people.
>Uh because he would be interfering with the freedoms of other individuals?

[Anonymous No.4410802]

>>4410773
>>Uh because he would be interfering with the freedoms of other individuals?
Yes and that strictly goes against the free market.

[Anonymous No.4410808]

>>4410747
Watched 12 mins of the video so far interesting stuff. I feel one thing though. This idea seems assume that it is in the best interest of humans to play fair it's like corruption isn't a problem for him to take serious. Also that we are always rational. Also putting a price on justice seems quite abhorrent to me. It only provides justice for people who has payed for it which will exclude the poor from any justice, they are forced (coerced) to pay for it. Maybe he'll address this later I'll keep watching feel free to answer this post still though.

[Anonymous No.4410815]

>>4410653
you telling me i am fearmongering is rich

re US debt: investors want stability. obviously, even when the debt rating gets pushed down, people still think government debt is a safe investment. so what? it isn't just US petro dollars. If it were peteo dollars, we would be investing middle eastern currencies. people invest in US and western countries' debt because they are reasonably confident that it is a safe mid term onvestment. it isn't even true that it is western debt. The renminbi and Chinese debt are increasingly a sought-after investment. In general, when investors want safe investments, they go for government debt. this is the "free market" showing its confidence in governments.

>deflation
Japan: decades of deflation, economic stagnation, and downward spiralling. what is helping: government investment in infrastructure. arguin for deflation shows more than anything else that you do not understand economics: deflation means less consumer spending means less corporate profits means less employment means less consumer spending, repeat. there is no credible economist who argues for deflation.

this is another think you free market ideologues don't get: gvt investment in infrastructure improves the economy overall. getting a little in debt now to build roads/trains/sewage/etc is a very wise investment in the country.

[Anonymous No.4410825]

>>4410653
also, if the free market is so great and government involvement is so bad, how do you explain the success of the German economy, one of the most heavily directed and regulated?

you justhave blind faith in markets that leads you to interpret everything through this lens and blame all the worlds problems on one thing: the government. it is so ridiculously simplisticand dogmatic. i am not even arguing against free markets entirely, just for the need for occasional governmental involvement. who is brainwashed? the person who has a one-sided solution or the person who looks for a balance built around the best aspects pf multiple systems/ideologies?

[Anonymous No.4410828]

>>4410808
>It only provides justice for people who has payed for it which will exclude the poor from any justice, they are forced (coerced) to pay for it.
Yet when this actually occurred anyone who tried to gain special privileges was strongly denied them.
http://mises.org/daily/4108

>>4410815
>people invest in US and western countries' debt because they are reasonably confident that it is a safe mid term onvestment.
They do that because they're brainwashed plebs like you who are going to get hit hard when your petrodollar slave system dies.

>this is the "free market" showing its confidence in governments.
Lol there are no governments or "bonds" in a free market at all.

>Japan: decades of deflation,
BULL FUCKING SHIT
They've had massive inflation and keynesianism.
http://mises.org/daily/5170/

You want real deflation. Look at the gilded age, massive increases in wages, living standards and technology, massive decreases in prices.

and free banking was actually STABLE unlike your corporate bullshit system

>government investment in infrastructure.
Yes because that's working WONDERS in china.
See ghost cities.

>more than anything else that you do not understand economics:
Sorry I don't believe in the religion of keynesianism.

>there is no credible economist who argues for deflation.
Yes, good slave....

>gvt investment in infrastructure improves the economy overall.
Like in North Korea and China amirite?

>muh roads

[Anonymous No.4410837]

>>4410825
>how do you explain the success of the German economy, one of the most heavily directed and regulated?
Because it's not the most directed and regulated?

Here's a list of the most free market countries in the world with detailed explanations why:
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

>you justhave blind faith in markets
Lol you have blind faith in government.

>and blame all the worlds problems on one thing: the government.
Ever think that maybe they actually were all caused by government.
>what do you MEAN you don't want wars, poverty, corporate fascism and a police state, you're just a cultist

Dat irony.

[Anonymous No.4410852]

>>4410828
Why do you seem to think that there's a correlation between justice and monetary value? Is justice a commodity like a shampoo? The cheaper a process of settling dispute is, the more just it is? How does justice even enter into economic theory?

[Anonymous No.4410861]

>>4410852
>Why do you seem to think that there's a correlation between justice and monetary value?
I don't think that at all.

I just think that a market based system of law is much more efficient and humane. History shows this to be true as the anarchist american midwest was the most peaceful time in american history.

[Anonymous No.4410863]

>>4410837
ITT Fedora libertarian shills speaking in memes and saying "sheeple."


GB2 Reddit

[Anonymous No.4410867]

>>4410863
>Fedora libertarian
Butthurt projecting fedora liberal detected.

YOU go back to reddit.

[Anonymous No.4410870]

>>4410861
Al Swearengen detected.

[Anonymous No.4410872]

>>4410863
>shills
Shills for what?

Freedom?

[Anonymous No.4410874]

>>4410870
kekd

[Anonymous No.4410879]

>>4410867
>legitimately used North Korea as an example of why infrastructure development is bad.

MUH FALSE EQUIVALENCE

[Anonymous No.4410885]

>>4410837
everything you are saying is filtered through hard line, unquestioned orthodoxy.

nowhere have i showed that i have dogmatic faith in the government, just a balanced approach that accepts some gvt involvement, some free market principles.

all you are doing is proving my point that you have a totally one-sided vision of the world. points on china, japan, and germany all erase subtleties to fit your mantra.

>muh roads
exhibit A: dogmatism. cant even accept minimal gvt coordination of infrastructure

>gilded age=great
smh

>thinking that everyone who disagrees with you or accepts some gvt control or buys bonds is a brainwashed slave pleb
worse than communists and "false consciousness"

[Anonymous No.4410891]

>>4410874

[Anonymous No.4410893]

>>4410861
>efficient and humane.

In terms of what exactly? How can you guarantee any justice if there isn't any omnipotent power to guarantee it that we are all equal under?

I really can't see any argument that goes against that the one with the most money defines what justice is. It's even like that now, even though we have in fact tried to construct an omnipotent power called the law. People will always try to control the game? I can't see how your proposed ideology is any hinder emcee to doing this since there will be no one watching the watcher it's not even a watcher it's just a product.

[Anonymous No.4410898]

>>4401956
>ayn rand

God I fucking hate all you liberals. You guys are some of the most delusional cunts to ever exist. Go back to fucking reddit.

[Anonymous No.4410899]

>>4410885
Communist here, don't drag us into this. False consciousness is at the absolute margins of Marxist theory today. Carry on.

[Anonymous No.4410904]

>>4410898

>believes in non-fiat currency, likes Ayn Rand, tells people to go to Reddit

huh.jpg

[Anonymous No.4410908]

>>4410899
>Communist here

Hey buddy, why don't you eat shit and die? None of your policies are going to be implemented, everyone knows the disaster they reek all too well.

>False consciousness
ahahahaha
>anyone who doesn't want to be a slave to my statist overlords is exhibiting "FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS"

How does it feel that your ideology is completely retarded and you hate yourself with a passion?

[Anonymous No.4410913]

>>4410908
What statist overlords what are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.4410914]

>>4410899
i understand that, and should have stipulated that i meant the historically situated bolshevist, vanguard elite version of communism, not the more prevalent contemporary forms of democratic, revisionist versions that would have been labelled social democrat or menshevik or revisionist back in the day.

[Anonymous No.4410921]

>>4410908
>implying you're not underage ban

[Anonymous No.4410923]

>>4410908
dude you totally misunderstood the
oints made in the posts: left wing people have much more towards democracy and away from false consciousness. it is a major reason that "left" wing parties today are far less dogmatic than you ridiculous free market zealots who think everyone who has even a tiny degree of confidence in gvt is brainwashed

[Anonymous No.4410925]

>>4410879
Lol okay?

Fine take China instead, it's seriously the greatest example of why taking resources from the economy to waste of "infrastructure" is the dumbest thing ever.

>>4410885
>everything you are saying is filtered through hard line, unquestioned orthodoxy.
Thew irony is incredible.

Everything YOU SAY is filtered through hard line, unquestioned orthodoxy. You get all of your opinions from the keynesian cult and mainstream media.

>nowhere have i showed that i have dogmatic faith in the government,
Yes, yes you have. By opposing the free market you are by definition for government. You've stated you want a controlled market many times.

>exhibit A: dogmatism. cant even accept minimal gvt coordination of infrastructure
That's not dogmatic, it's just what I believe.
Roads should be completely privatized.

>>gilded age=great
Lol you're denying the fact it was because it destroys your argument.

Deflation is GOOD.

>>thinking that everyone who disagrees with you or accepts some gvt control or buys bonds is a brainwashed slave pleb
You think getting in debt slavery and loving it is not being a brainwashed slave pleb?

>>4410893
>How can you guarantee any justice if there isn't any omnipotent power to guarantee it that we are all equal under?
How can you guarantee any justice today? Oh wait you can't and our legal system is a fucking joke.
The belief in omnipotent power is the problem, it's not going to save you. You are only safe if others are willing to keep you safe.

>I really can't see any argument that goes against that the one with the most money defines what justice is.
But it didn't happen at all? In fact people that tried to do that were quickly destroyed.

>since there will be no one watching the watcher
The consumer is the watcher.

>>4410904
>is a liberal
>on 4chan
>tells others to go back to reddit

[Anonymous No.4410926]

>>4410914
>i understand that, and should have stipulated that i meant the historically situated bolshevist, vanguard elite version of communism, not the more prevalent contemporary forms of democratic, revisionist versions that would have been labelled social democrat or menshevik or revisionist back in the day.

More into Althusserian structuralism, but agree with the gist of your point. Want to see more Austrian rage.

[Anonymous No.4410928]

>>4410913
>What statist overlords what are you talking about?
The ones who you want to put in power over everyone?

>b-b-but I'm actually a left-anarchist
No, you're just a statist.

[Anonymous No.4410937]

>>4410923
>it is a major reason that "left" wing parties today are far less dogmatic


It's absolutely incredible you call us dogmatic because we tell you to think for yourself. Lel wow.

[Anonymous No.4410938]

>>4410925

"mainstream media"

"brainwashed slave pleb"

"debt slavery"

"Keynesian cult"

>I R SRS SCHOLAR AND NOT BASEMENT DWELLING IDEOLOGUE, LISTEN TO ME! TAUTOLOGIES! LOUD NOISES!

[Anonymous No.4410939]

>>4410925
>one drop of government means dogmatism. 100% free market is moderation.

>it isnt dogmatic, because i believe it.

rich. i dont even need to respond to you anymore.

[Anonymous No.4410940]

>>4410926
> Althusserian structuralism
>muh psudeoscience and secular creationism

>Want to see more Austrian rage.

Dat marxist shitstain anger.
You will always be wrong.

[Anonymous No.4410943]

>>4410937
>implying Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, and the like don't engage in cult like discipline of their followers

[Anonymous No.4410944]

>>4410938
>no argument
>no argument.
>no argument
>no argument.

lel

[Anonymous No.4410945]

>>4410940

>new atheist rambling, scientism, under 18

BAN THIS MAN

[Anonymous No.4410949]

>>4410945
>scientism
Lel

>instincts play no role in human behavior only my batshit insane social constructs do
>baawwww fuck science
>BAN THE CAPITALIST MOMMY

Sorry kid.

[Anonymous No.4410950]

>>4410943
Because they tell you to think for yourself and that cults are bad?

[Anonymous No.4410952]

>>4410937
>think for yourself
>but only if you agree with me

[Anonymous No.4410963]

>>4404641
Myxomatosis is the GOAT Radiohead song

[Anonymous No.4410964]

>>4410952
>>but only if you agree with me
You defined the state perfectly.

[Anonymous No.4410962]

>>4410925
>How can you guarantee any justice today? Oh wait you can't and our legal system is a fucking joke.

It's build on trained judges that interprets the laws, the lawgivers however are allowed to take money from lobbyists so that their interest is reflected in the law. This is seen as an good thing because what's good for American corperations is good for America as a whole.

>The belief in omnipotent power is the problem, it's not going to save you. You are only safe if others are willing to keep you safe.

I don't deny this. My contention is how can you take a law serious if it's arbitrarily conceived unless you are afraid of the consequence. In your proposed system it would be most beneficial to pay for a judge who would judge in my favour no matter who was wronged.

>But it didn't happen at all? In fact people that tried to do that were quickly destroyed.

How do you know that, the winners write history.

>The consumer is the watcher.

Haven't you learned anything from mass culture? The consumer decides this very moment, it's not like anyone are forced to buy anything.

[Anonymous No.4410968]

>>4410928
>No, you're just a statist.
(not that guy) are you trying to imply that left-anarchism and statism are the same thing?

[Anonymous No.4410969]

>>4410968
>(not that guy) are you trying to imply that left-anarchism and statism are the same thing?
Yes.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm

[Anonymous No.4410971]

>>4410937
>because we tell you to think for yourself.
>if you think for yourself you will naturally conclude that libertarianism is the best ism
>everyone else but me and people I agree with lives in a world of shadow play, we few are the only ones who has seen the light
>there's only one right way for everyone
>I am da philosopher king

Go to bed Plato.

[Anonymous No.4410974]

welp time to go to work now

some of us have jobs

[Anonymous No.4410975]

>>4410969
>http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm
http://www.spunk.org/library/places/spain/sp001532.html

[Anonymous No.4410979]

>>4410975
>crappy strawman article we already debunked
lel k

[Anonymous No.4410986]

>>4410979
>we already debunked
show me

[Anonymous No.4410988]

>>4410979
>strawman

God I'm tired of seeing this as if it was an auto-refutation of any argument. Show how it's a strawman and why the strawman is bad.

[Anonymous No.4410995]

>>4410986
>>4410988
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/11/how_the_economy.html

[Anonymous No.4411008]

>>4410964
you are some piece of work, friend. you define the world in black and white and then complain that the opposition is monchrome.

[Anonymous No.4411014]

>>4410995
This entire article consists of material quoted directly from "The Anarcho-Statists of Spain." How does this debunk the article I posted, which is a reply to that article?

[Anonymous No.4411036]

>>4410995
You've just posted a strawman that assumes that anarcho syndicalists want equal pay and equal opportunity and therefore needs a state. This is a gross misrepresentation as most syndicalists wants a more buttom up structure of the company a democratization of the work life and transparency of the management of the company where anyone has a voice and a share of excess value. See cooperative enterprises as a model of the ideal of anarcho syndicalism.

Captcha: newest dnewpol

[Anonymous No.4412504]

>>4411036
>This is a gross misrepresentation as most syndicalists wants a more buttom up structure of the company a democratization of the work life and transparency of the management of the company where anyone has a voice and a share of excess value.
AynSyns are authoritarian fascists.

Mutualists are the only anarchist leftists.

Deal with it.