/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4811686]

What would you consider essential political reading and why?

[Anonymous No.4811688]

Milton Friedman because based Milton Friedman.

[Anonymous No.4811691]

Machiavelli

[Anonymous No.4811695]

>>4811688
Well he is a bit too extreme for me he is still better than Marx.

On Marx he is important to learn about 20th century he is mostly irrelevant now seeing how his philosophy has been a huge failure.

[Anonymous No.4811708]

Francis Yockey - Imperium.

It's one massive block of critique on Liberalism, Democracy, Marxism, Freudianism, Materialism, the Scientific- Worldoutlook and more.

I try to read a few pages every evening even though I've read the book cover to cover before.

[Anonymous No.4811711]

>>4811688
>abolition of medical licences

[Anonymous No.4811716]

>>4811695
>he is still better than Marx.
They stand at opposite ends of the spectrum.

[Anonymous No.4811725]

http://www.constitution.org/jjr/polecon.htm

Enjoy yourself

[Anonymous No.4811729]

>>4811711
>Affordable healthcare for all

He championed a licensing body that wasn't owned by the government.

[Anonymous No.4811732]

>>4811708
>anything to do with philosophy or politics influenced by a bias against any race or religion
I see no reason to trust the logic of a person who tries to put the appearance of reason behind something that is inherently unreasonable.

[Anonymous No.4811734]

>>4811716
I am aware. I considerate myself somewhat of a centrist. So his libertarianism is too far for me.

[Anonymous No.4811759]

>>4811732
>A bias against any race or religion
>Hasn't read the book, let alone the part where he speaks highly of the Japanese, the Chinese, the Russians or any other culture with an impact.
>Religion
>Speaks highly of 14th century Christianity, certain aspects of Islam and Eastern religions.

I think your post is a thinly covered 'I bet he's a nazi and an anti-semite' post.

The reasoning behind his views on government , the state and politics in general is solid.

[Anonymous No.4811768]

"The Road To Serfdom"

[Anonymous No.4811778]

>>4811759
>'I bet he's a nazi and an anti-semite
Are you trying to say that Yockey wasn't a nazi and an anti-semite? Because you must've been reading him with your eyes closed in that case.

[Anonymous No.4811792]

>>4811759
>'I bet'
He was outwardly an avid supporter of German Fascism and a staunch Anti-Semite you fucking cretin. Him praising one whole race and condemning another whole religion are totally unrelated, as well. I don't view any form of Anti-Semitism as being of any contemporary importance.

>>hasn't read the book
Who needs to? I'm a European and he's going to tell me to exterminate the Jews, why the fuck would I even waste my time. Get help.

[Anonymous No.4811800]

>>4811778
You can pretty much read the book without having to avoid anti-semitic/nazi 'traps'.

There's wáy more valuable information with no relation to his personal political alignment.

[Anonymous No.4811806]

Anything by Ann Coulter

[Anonymous No.4811809]

>>4811792
Then why did he stay at a Jew's home for several weeks?

He's not advocating fascism or race-hatred.

>Hurr I haven't read it but someone said he was an evul nazi so fuck him

[Anonymous No.4811815]

>>4811809
No, he only supported it privately. You can't disconnect a man's private politics from his public ones, like you can a comedian's comedy from his privately held beliefs.

[Anonymous No.4811827]

>>4811815
It's ok anon, you can still learn alot from the book even if you disagree with the author.

Marx won't make you a communist, Friedman won't make you libertarian, but you can still learn alot from both.

Same with Yockey.

[Anonymous No.4811843]

>>4811827
Maybe so, I may read him some day if I find myself so inclined, I find myself more apprehensive about reading people like him and Marx and others influenced strongly by centralist policies in the mid-20th Century -- there's something about it that just feels so irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.4811861]

>>4811695

Would that philosophy be historical materialism, which is now the general approach to history; dialectic reasoning, which remains the method of all material science in practice; or his specific application of these to bourgeois society in Das Kapital, which I'll wager you have never read?

I hope you aren't confusing Marx's thought with the political ideologies of the self-described 'communist' (bourgeois) states of the 20th century, most famous for disenfranchising and exploiting the working class - because that would be really stupid. If you were at all familiar with Marx's work, you would be aware that the structure and ideologies of those states is categorically condemned his his philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4811869]

>>4811695

Would that philosophy be historical materialism, which is now the general approach to history; dialectic reasoning, which remains the method of all material science in practice; or his specific application of these to bourgeois society in Das Kapital, which I'll wager you have never read?

I hope you aren't confusing Marx's thought with the political ideologies of the self-described 'communist' (bourgeois) states of the 20th century, most famous for disenfranchising and exploiting the working class - because that would be really stupid. If you were at all familiar with Marx's work, you would be aware that the structure and ideologies of those states are categorically condemned in his philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4811883]

coup d'etat by luttwak
and a similar but older book by malaparte: technique of coup d'etat

[Anonymous No.4812150]

>>4811883
How is that essential political?

[Anonymous No.4812214]

>>4812150
i dont get the question.
coups happen and mishappen. these offer a theory... or more polemically: a script
one will also get a sense for international interventions during cold war (which apparently hasnt ended yet)

[Anonymous No.4812294]

I don't read political theory, because it's all blatantly obvious. It fascinates me how people can be so retarded, though.

[Anonymous No.4812330]

>>4812294
dunning kruger detected

[Anonymous No.4812369]

>>4812330
Sure bro. Let me explain the simplicity of politics to you, though. It's simply a balancing act, a dichotomy of collectivism vs. individualism and what's most stable. The answer is liberalism, libertarianism as retarded, anarchism as retarded, communism as utopia. Why would anyone need to read a book on something so utterly basic?

[Anonymous No.4812397]

>>4812369
There's pretty much nothing of interest in any discourse on politics, to be honest. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem? Retarded. TotC? Retarded. Social Calculation Problem? Retarded. It all just comes back to the very basic, that being which is more efficient, collective or private enterprise, and then the answer is obvious.

I mean fair enough when you're getting down to it, dealing with intricacies of a given political system or as regards something like the death penalty or something like that, but otherwise it's all blatantly obvious.

[Anonymous No.4812406]

>>4812369
The same goes for people who study economics. It's laughable.

[Anonymous No.4812416]

Anything right-wing.

[Anonymous No.4812418]

>>4811716
That image is pantsu on head retarded.

[Anonymous No.4812438]

>>4811716


and yet, the same kind of people tend to buy into both (autists) http://therightstuff.biz/2013/03/03/in-a-mirror-darkly-marxism-and-libertarianism/

[Anonymous No.4812459]

>>4812369
yeah bro and physics is simply the conservation of energy bro.
cool abstraction level bro. and so useful.

[Anonymous No.4812462]

>>4811686
Max Stirner - The Ego And Its Own

Afterwards you can see the rest for what it is.

[Anonymous No.4812559]

>>4812459
Physics actually is complicated, though, not incredibly simple organisation as with politics. Cool retardation bro, and so useful.

[Anonymous No.4812595]

>>4812559
so you've figured out on your own the simple interactions between state, culture and religion based on the above mentioned "dichotomy"?
thats neat

[Anonymous No.4812613]

>>4812595
Oh, a study of bias, is it? Well that's a different thing altogether then. I was but talking about plain and simple practicality.

[Anonymous No.4812719]

>>4812613


practical for what?

[Anonymous No.4812803]

Anarchism and Other Essays by Emma Goldman

[Anonymous No.4812808]

>>4812803
notable critique of capitalism

[Anonymous No.4812822]

>>4812719
Getting food and shelter.

[Anonymous No.4812828]

Bakunin is interesting but not practical.

[Anonymous No.4812830]

>>4812822


food and shelter for who? (protip, the answer is not 'everyone').

[Anonymous No.4812836]

>>4812830
Protip my ass. The answer is everyone outside of selfishness, war, etc. - basically, the individualistic, which is ridiculous, unstable, plain ol' survival of the fittest though we dress it up in fancy delusion.

[Anonymous No.4812838]

>>4812836
Still not seeing where the complication comes in. Oh, saying "Fuck those guys" hugely complicates the whole thing? Nope.

[Anonymous No.4812842]

>>4812838
You're right, anon. Here, have some music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DohRa9lsx0Q

[Anonymous No.4812852]

Marx - Grundrisse
Debord - Society of the Spectacle
Foucault - Discipline and Punish

[Anonymous No.4812857]

Now a study on how ridiculously biased people can be is definitely something everyone should look into. I've literally known dudes who have tried to replace their dead fathers with government and god, dudes who railed against god and government because their mothers died (Arsene Lupin anyone?) and adopted chicks who had such a bad experience of adoption that they ended up trying to control it in the political arena, being ardently contrary to multiculturalism (I'm sure you guys can figure out the parallel). People are laughably retarded, no doubt.

[Anonymous No.4812859]

>>4812836


ah, so we are taking 'food and shelter' to be a categorical imperative? so then, The Good must be found in concentrating 'humanity' (never mind that the very act of defining such would necessarily involve transcending any such reductionistic attempt to create a system to quantify moral goods in a fully consistent manner) in factory farms, so that we can maximize the number of living humans possible with 'food and shelter'. (and wherefore? no explanation needed, and none is offered, thats the magic of doing ethics with categorical imperatives).

[Anonymous No.4812866]

>>4812859
It always comes back to the subjective, you cretinous retard. But again, where comes in the complication in saying "Nah, fuck those guys?" Go stick your dick in Sun Tzu's The Art of War, mate.

[Anonymous No.4812871]

>Hur durr there is no objective good

And? Politics is still basic as fuck, you chimp

[Anonymous No.4812879]

Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France
Rawls, A Theory of Justice

[Anonymous No.4812882]

>>4812866


>It always comes back to the subjective

well it was obvious to me of course, but for everyone else watching, this is what happens to your thinking when your brain is hijacked by enlightenment mind-viruses. this is how virtuous men seeking to do good do such evil.

[Anonymous No.4812893]

>>4812882
You're pathetic, mate. Carry on reading your silly little books.

[Anonymous No.4812903]

Would you consider books on ethics to be political?

[Anonymous No.4812905]

>>4812893


you literally fell back on a thought terminating cliche, and then carried on regardless. your mind is being pwned by deleterious memes and youre hardly even aware of it.

[Anonymous No.4812908]

>>4812893
Seriously...
>hurr if you give food to one person that means another person can't have it
Okay. Well, collective enterprise is most efficient (as per common sense), which means it makes most food.
>Utilitarianism
Shut up

[Anonymous No.4812912]

>>4812905
Again, it all comes back to the subjective. Are you fucking stupid? At some point you have to actually just be something.

[Anonymous No.4812922]

>>4812903
Meh. I think bias is the most important study as regards the political, its ethical implications as a part of that study.

[Anonymous No.4812929]

>>4812912


i completely agree, but thats not what subjective means (its a leap of faith btw [also some leaps are more adaptive than others]).

[Anonymous No.4812949]

>>4812929
So what's your point? None of this has anything to do with politics, but the personal that comes before politics.

[Anonymous No.4812967]

>>4812949
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DohRa9lsx0Q

;D

[Anonymous No.4813001]

Daily newspapers.

[Anonymous No.4813005]

>>4812949


my point is that what you've just said here is mostly true, but not coherent with the rhetoric youve used heretofore, which is why i said your thinking is hijacked by dangerous memes.

you say you havent read political books, but that hardly matters, because youre up to your eyeballs in the tradition started by those (certain kinds of) books. and what makes enlightenment thinking dangerous is its tendency to put system and systematizing prior to systematizers (and ultimately, prior to reality in general).

in hegels hands, dialectics arrived at conclusions he had reached without it. theory is simply a means for more transcendent thinkers to communicate their strictures in a way that is understandable to less transcendent beings. systems are useful because they can be utilized 'naively', like a calculation. but things get problematic when a theory goes outside its operating envelope (as they inevitably do), slavish adherence to the system then would result in what would otherwise be deleterious action. things get even more problematic when less transcendent thinkers try to over-step their abilities in making 'theories of everything', often identifying some contingent concept ('equality' is a popular one, 'non-violence' is a good runner up) as the ultimate object, with the result often being the theory is 'outside the envelope' by definition from the very start. woe betide any who fall prey to such sophism, and their neighbors especially.

so yeah, its ultimately a religious debate, but not all theology is created equal.

[Anonymous No.4813019]

Hitler's Table Talk.

it's authentic and enlightening, unlike Mein Kampf which is of dubious origins.

[Anonymous No.4813031]

>>4813001

[Anonymous No.4813092]

>>4813005
Sure. And you're an individualist then?

[Anonymous No.4813097]

>>4813092


nope

[Anonymous No.4813103]

>>4813097
What then?

[Anonymous No.4813114]

>>4813103


i like some groups and not others, the same way every other being ever thinks, consciously or otherwise.

[Anonymous No.4813116]

>>4812294
>politics is all simple as fuck
>go on to have a completely vapid conversation, rather trying to decide which one of the posters was more retarded: the original poster for coming up with such a vapid thought or the people who were responding for validating it and thus giving such idiocy a life

Basic as fuck how? Surely you should have some political power if you were so inspired, blessed even? Politics is more than simply marxism vs capitalism; more than simple abstracted good vs. evil like you have presented it. It's not only clear that you have never read any political theory, but I doubt you have read many books in general given that you think that in one fell swoop you can solve what has been the subject of some of the greatest literature of all time by just calling it simple and then saying that the rest of the world can fuck themselves.

It fascinates me how people can be this retarded.

[Anonymous No.4813123]

>>4813114
Sounds like an individualist to me, dude.

[Anonymous No.4813125]

>>4813097
>i believe in my physical needs and supplying for my physical needs first and foremost
>my need for food and water is the greatest problem, first and foremost
>i am not an individualist
You sound dangerous.

[Anonymous No.4813126]

>>4813116
You're ridiculous, mate.

[Anonymous No.4813132]

>>4813126
Don't hold back, ridicule me, the idea of being ridiculed isn't insulting to me.

[Anonymous No.4813133]

>>4813123


neither atomism or universalism holds.

[Anonymous No.4813137]

>>4813125


who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.4813139]

>>4812879
Seconding Rawls's ToJ. At least Part One.

[Anonymous No.4813142]

>>4813132
I don't want to ridicule you, though. You're wrong in your objections of course, or for the most part. I will give you that it's actually marxism/capitalism, good/evil and also stupidity, though. "Thy Kingdumb Come" - ever read the Sermon on the Mount, mate?

[Anonymous No.4813144]

>>4813137

This guy:>>4812822
(I may have gotten the poster confused, apologies if so).

[Anonymous No.4813153]

>>4813133
It's politics, mate, and it's a dichotomy of individualism vs. collectivism with finite resources.

[Anonymous No.4813155]

>>4813139

>rawls
http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1815

[Anonymous No.4813162]

>>4813144
That's me, and I was talking about food and shelter for everyone.

[Anonymous No.4813171]

>>4813153


which means, you dont actually believe in the possibility of either, and should dispense with the framework to clarify the ability of being to disclose itself..

[Anonymous No.4813177]

>>4813142
>you're correct, but i still believe that i am correct and you are wrong
Wrong in what objections? Did this argument not stem out of one guy claiming that political theory is a complete waste of time, because he finds it all so glaringly obvious? I mean, that's just plain idiocy, 'I'm not involved in the intricacies of it so therefore it is useless and easy, and let it be known that to undermine the complications caused by the intricacies of it, I simply ignore the intricacies and focus on the highly abstracted simplification of the problems presented.'

[Anonymous No.4813181]

>>4813171
I don't see how that follows. It's as simple as people working together or splitting off and doing their own thing. I'm for the former as it's obviously the best way to do things, religious debate over with.

[Anonymous No.4813184]

>>4813177
See the post right below this one for politics in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.4813194]

Of course the bible is right-wing as fuck, lol.

[Anonymous No.4813206]

>>4813184
I don't see it that way, I don't think either of you have a clue what the fuck you're talking about, and I think that that black and white vision of the world is pretty idiotic to be frank. Anyway, the whole idea of political theory is that it won't give you a badly phrased one liner 'in a nutshell' on the issues of politics, it will think out and present at length the problems presented by it, and the philosophy and drives behind them. If you don't think that's interesting, what do we care? It doesn't make your solution to all problems, ever, any less based in ignorance and stupidity.

[Anonymous No.4813230]

>>4813162


>food and shelter for everyone

anon, youre going to keep getting into trouble untill you learn to love particularism (which is to say, particularism is inevitable, so being aware of such is necessary to avoid being an unwitting accessory to the destruction of civilization [by being particular to the wrong things]).

im not going to ask you to actually try and wade into the belly of the beast though. from what ive seen so far, it is infact very well that you chose to restrain speculation to the more simple and parochial. to live ones life, and make the extent of ones political speculation the extent of facilitating ones life, the 'food and shelter' formula then becomes 'food and shelter for my favored thede'. an assumption yes, but also a safe one. the whys go all the way to god after all, are all men saints? certainly not.

[Anonymous No.4813233]

>>4811686
Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Mill, Proudhon, Bastiat, Marx, Rothbard, Chomsky, Hoppe

[Anonymous No.4813308]

G.K. Chesterton

[Zed !ZF41dz6F/Y No.4813318]

[Anonymous No.4813320]

>>4813230
I think a name does more harm than good, personally. Ideology is the favourite tool of tyrants after all.

And that was quite the assumption, yes, and I don't restrain speculation but see things simply as they are and call everyone else's nonsense for what it is because it is and should be called as such. I have no thede. I am a man the same as you or any other man. It's just I'm not a shit-talking cunt.

[Black-supremacist !KNKZK3Yv5g No.4813321]

who /revleft/ here?

[Anonymous No.4813326]

Reading past political theorists is certainly useful, but a comprehensive understanding of the role of the media in modern society is also integral, and easily missed if you focus on anyone who lived before the radio (and especially before the television).

Read McLuhan, Debord, and Chomsky. Get a feel for the importance and domination mass media provides.

[Anonymous No.4813327]

>>4813320


so you *dont* actually believe in groups then.

[Anonymous No.4813328]

>>4813206
You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.4813330]

>>4813327
Semantics.

[Anonymous No.4813331]

>>4813321

>>>/tumblr/

[Anonymous No.4813335]

>>4813330
And then how does one even not believe in groups? lol

[Black-supremacist !KNKZK3Yv5g No.4813341]

>>4813331
for your imformation the smartest most intulectual boards on 4-Chan (/co/, /mu/, and /lit/) know that they are joined at the hip with tumblr

[Anonymous No.4813343]

>>4811686
How much time do you need to let your hair grow to look like Marx?

[Anonymous No.4813348]

>>4813321
Why would I be united with democrats, muslims and anti-gun activists.

[Anonymous No.4813354]

>>4813330


very important semantics.

what if i told you that atomism and universalism are practically the same? that both are infact, throughout history, expressions of nominalism, the ultimate intellectual sin. and if taken seriously, would constitute an abrogation of thought whatsoever?

what do you need to hear to understand that you can support group effort where 'group' is not interchangeable with 'everything'?

[Black-supremacist !KNKZK3Yv5g No.4813356]

>>4813348
they are all opposed to the white male supremacy, for if the white male is gone we can live in true cultural and emotional diversity

[Anonymous No.4813358]

>>4813321
Uhh, how the fuck are Islam and Democrats left?

[Anonymous No.4813361]

>>4813356
how can it be true diversity if there are no superior white males?

checkmate atheists.

[Anonymous No.4813365]

>>4813354
I am at no fault. It's just my morality doesn't stop at my front door.

[Anonymous No.4813369]

>>4813356
>democrats, muslims
>opposed to the white male supremacy
Wait what?

You realize that whites can be Muslims too (and Islam being totally pro male supremacy) and that democrats are the same rich, old, white men, that Reps are, yeh?

Trollin' ain't this easy, bro.

[Anonymous No.4813372]

>>4813365


where your 'morality' ends is the real question

[Anonymous No.4813382]

>>4813372
I've kept it nice and simple, haven't I? Everyone else will do what they will.

[Anonymous No.4813392]

>>4813382


so where back to the beginning then? your ideal society is infact the factory farm? the maximal concentration of humanity?

[Anonymous No.4813412]

>>4813392
>the factory farm
Preferable to the sex slave trade or the market for kidnapped children? There will always be an absurdity to living, mate, but that doesn't mean we have to be bastards about it.

[Black-supremacist !KNKZK3Yv5g No.4813417]

>>4813369

[Anonymous No.4813424]

>>4813412


i dont think you realize anon, values are implicit teleologies. unless you qualify what youre saying, when you say 'food and shelter for 'everyone'', thats what that means.

[Anonymous No.4813432]

>>4813424
I think you play with words too much.

[Anonymous No.4813440]

>>4813432


ideas have consequences anon.

[Anonymous No.4813446]

>>4813417
>black supremacist

racism isn't allowed outside of /b/

[Anonymous No.4813452]

>>4813321

Fuck off back to /pol/, retard. Shilling doesn't work if its so glaringly obvious.

[Anonymous No.4813468]

>>4813440
As do words.

[Anonymous No.4813469]

>>4813468


so you agree with me then.

[Anonymous No.4813478]

>>4813469
anon, what qualification do you think goes with my "food and shelter for everyone"?

[Anonymous No.4813483]

>>4813478
How many "anarchists" have we out there, anon?

[Anonymous No.4813485]

>>4813478


well if you do not infact desire the human factory farm, then it becomes 'food and shelter for every x, where x != everyone'

[Anonymous No.4813489]

>>4813321
I am a leftist and I despise Islam, anti-gun activists, and the Democratic Party. I'm not a huge fan of "communists" who hold "communist" countries in high regard.

[Anonymous No.4813494]

>>4813485
I desire human decency, mate.

[Anonymous No.4813502]

>>4813489
What's wrong with anti guns activism, anon? Or rather, what's wrong with laws that don't basically handle an arsenal of guns to every halfwit, like in Europe?

[Anonymous No.4813515]

The situationist international and all it requires

bourdieu

[Anonymous No.4813517]

>>4813502
this poster was published in 1921 in Pravda magazine, you know what the soviet leadership did shortly thereafter

[Anonymous No.4813528]

>>4813517
It's not like Russians were equipped like the Muricans are today either way. Doubt it would've changed much, worst case scenario would be few more deaths through resistance, that would pale compared to the number of sacrifices for the regime overall.

[Anonymous No.4813569]

>>4813494


anon, ill say this as gently as possible, what youre doing here is called *rationalization*. youve got these ideas that makes us feel good about ourself, that satisfy our will-to-right without devalidating our egos, who doesnt like to think that what you like is above reproach?. and of course, when the reproach actually takes coherent form, the mind virus boots up thought terminating cliches; 'its all subjective maan', 'you've gotta believe something maan'.

'who would argue against food for everyone?'. i should say, we can only hope that noone takes it seriously! that it remains mere rationalization, a disingenuous affectation. and what could indeed happen if someone took it seriously? someone with influence? certainly not the actual world factory farm, as that would require civilization surviving to get to that point. 'sure, these people may be actively harmful to our ability to get food and shelter, but who are you to deny them food and shelter? dont you belive in the axiom of food and shelter(tm)?'

if your principle is everything, your principle is nothing, and you'll have no justification against victimization by those with actual principles, especially if they are otherwise unadaptive without help.

[Anonymous No.4813675]

>>4813569
Nonsense.

[Anonymous No.4813682]

>>4813675
Where is the reproach?

[Anonymous No.4813695]

>>4813682
If my principle is everything, it is nothing? It's very simple. Make it work, don't be a bastard. Again, human organisation is simple.

[Anonymous No.4813701]

>>4813695


this is all pablum, tell me what you really think.

[Anonymous No.4813718]

>>4813701
I think you engage in obfuscation, and others a delusion through your nonsense. What is an "anarchist", anon; and how many of them have we running around? There is no complexity, but fools.

[Anonymous No.4813745]

>>4813718


you are so afraid to actually stand up for something explicitly, its disgusting, youre disgusting. this is the morality of a solipsist; where does this fear of passing judgment even come from? because they cannot imagine how anyone would conduct themselves, besides themselves. and in their minds, to acknowledge particularism=becoming mega-hitler, *because thats exactly how they themselves would think*.

so they cloak themselves in feel-good universalist sophisms, because actual empathy is very difficult for the solipsist. but just the same, they are equally incapable of imagining the actual consequences of validating these sorts of ideas in public, the social cost.

it hardly requires mention, but groups with higher out-group preference than in-group preference generally dont survive the course of history, for obvious reasons.

[Anonymous No.4813756]

>>4813745
Oh, shut up, mate. I'm a communist if you want to be a little bitch about it. I've dealt in the very basic, the obvious, where you're talking shit.

[Anonymous No.4813772]

>>4811688
His son David Friedman is better.

Machinery of Freedom is legend status

[Anonymous No.4813777]

Animal Farm.

[Anonymous No.4813778]

>>4813756


believe me, i could tell that from the very start, all pretty much the same (even if you labeled yourself otherwise, thats what youed be in practice).

[Anonymous No.4813795]

>>4811695
>seeing how his philosophy has been a huge failure.

[Anonymous No.4813803]

>>4811716
>that fucking image

Back from whence ye came.

[Anonymous No.4813819]

>>4813778
And you are? Nothing. Afraid of being something. Nice projection bro.

[Anonymous No.4813825]

>>4813819


when a solipsist criticizes someone, they are telling you most about themselves.

[Anonymous No.4813838]

>>4813825
Oh, you're a solipsist then. Well that's retarded.

[Anonymous No.4813845]

>>4813838


your infantile attempts at a tu quo que psychologization of the debate are transparent.

[Anonymous No.4813851]

>>4813845
>a tu quo qu
Speak English mate. You call me solipsist because I'm a communist and shun your bullshit obfuscation, now I'm asking you what you are.

[Anonymous No.4813861]

>>4811883
This looks pretty interesting, anon. Got a PDF or link?

[Anonymous No.4813868]

>>4813851


it doesnt reflect very well on you if you havent been able to tell so far that im a super extreme right wing radical (if i do say so myself).

ps, you confuse 'obfuscation' with 'incomprehension'.

[Anonymous No.4813873]

>>4813868
I want you to refer to yourself as individualist.

And I don't.

[Anonymous No.4813877]

>>4813873
Now who's the little bitch who wont explicitly take a stand.

[Anonymous No.4813886]

>>4813873


because im not an individualist, ive already explicitly outlined my preference for thedish affiliation. atomistic individualism is also an expression of nominalism (or 'modernity' in its most recent incarnation), which is ever the mindset of solipsists.

>>4813877

lol

[Anonymous No.4813895]

>>4813886
>obfuscation
Sure bro. The bottom line is that you're a selfish cunt.

[Anonymous No.4813898]

>>4813886
>buttfrustrated
Sure bro.

[Anonymous No.4813899]

>>4813895


listen friend, i realise this is a very difficult and nuanced concept to wrap your limited mind around, but pleased to be re-referring to this post here >>4813354

[Anonymous No.4813903]

>>4813899
And again, I am at no fault, it's just my morality doesn't stop at my front door.

[Anonymous No.4813912]

And you call me solipsist. Oh, I'm sorry I don't maintain some delusion of "real-world practicality" as you do.

[Anonymous No.4813917]

>>4813912
I suppose you'll name your firstborn after yourself so as to conquer death, eh?

[Anonymous No.4813933]

>>4813917
Have some music, mate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DohRa9lsx0Q

[Anonymous No.4813944]

>>4813903


you really dont seem to understand, 'at fault', how does that even relate to whats being said here? but, certainly you are indeed at fault for something, you are at fault for conducting this entire discussion in bad faith. at no point have you actually offered any substantive rebuttal, you have displayed no means to dispute anything said heretofore, save blanket dismissal and more thought terminating cliches.

this is the major pathology of conditional solipsism, narcissism. any purpose or ideal in debate is secondary to the overriding desire for ego protection and validation, to 'win' at the conversation. the nonsensical nature of taking 'lets provide stuff for *everyone*' as a categorical imperative has been demonstrated multiple times in multiple ways, yet still you cling to this flimsy sophism.

[Anonymous No.4813948]

>>4811716
>On the left believe in
>On the right believe
Holy fuck how can you be this stupid. Out with ye libertarian trash.

[Anonymous No.4813951]

>>4813912


this is ironic considering you predicated your whole 'point' to begin with on supposed practicality and simplicity.

i suppose this is the part where you say you were just trolling?

[Anonymous No.4813973]

>>4813944
There is no bad faith. My framework is sound, not given to any of your intellectual sins. It's just that you're full of shit.

And I had a cousin commit that sort of suicide that's done to deny one's own selfishness actually. Same sort of kid as me, just younger and looked up to me. A pentinent man has little time for narcissism, solipsism or simply wanting to 'win' the debate.

>>4813951
I did say "real-world practicality", did I not? The "real-world" is with reference to your religion.

[Anonymous No.4814001]

>>4813973


your 'framework' hardly deserves the label.

thedes can be more or less transcendent, some can be integral to others. surely we can imagine a world thede too perhaps (thatle certainly take some doing however), and beyond even. but as im sure you realise, whats good for the thede is not necessarily good for the individual, hence we see yet another contradiction in this sophism. actually doing good by other people takes more transcendent levels of reasoning, and slavish adherence to a rule can indeed run counter to things that are ultimately in the interests of the thede.

[Anonymous No.4814009]

>>4811686
What do you mean, 'essential'?

[Anonymous No.4814017]

>>4814001
Worried about the rich, mate? That's some impressive transcedence you got there.

[Anonymous No.4814025]

>>4814017


just admit youre a pleb and stay as far away from politics as possible.

[Anonymous No.4814030]

>>4814017
Collective cultivation is necessarily more efficient than private cultivation all bullshit and selfishness aside.

[Anonymous No.4814035]

>>4814025
Oh, buttfrustrated methinks.

[Anonymous No.4814043]

>>4814035


you've got nothing m80, youve been destroyed by the enlightenment miond virus. you can hardly think beyond ideological signaling, you dont even understand what it is exactly that youre advocating, and never mind articulating it.

[Anonymous No.4814046]

>>4811686
Hobbes-Locke-Rousseau.
At the least, those three.

[Anonymous No.4814049]

>>4814043
And I'm sure you realise just how ridiculous you actually are.

[Anonymous No.4814050]

Nietzsche, Plato, Aristotle, enlightenment thinkers

[Anonymous No.4814057]

>>4814049


if i wanted a comeback, id have wiped it off your lip.

[Anonymous No.4814063]

>>4814057
Oh damn, you win! lmfao

[Anonymous No.4814065]

>>4814063


thanks i had a good time too :^)

[Anonymous No.4814069]

>>4814065
It doesn't make me a solipsist that I owned you with that last post and now I'm ruining it.

[Anonymous No.4814071]

>>4814069


you cant outshitpost me dirty dan, the last reply will be *mine*.

[Anonymous No.4814075]

>>4814071
Wow you're crazy mate

[Anonymous No.4814077]

>>4814075


crazy like a fox.

[Anonymous No.4814152]

>>4814077
In fairness, it must suck to be so unintelligent.

[Anonymous No.4814170]

>>4814152


says the guy who apparantly failed to reflect on the possibility that human beings are a factor in social dynamics.

did you know that people can hinder optimal foodnshelter(tm) providence to people? mind blowing stuff right.

[Anonymous No.4814177]

>>4814170
lol. So do you wish to continue the debate then?

[Anonymous No.4814192]

>>4814177


i can extrapolate debate to existence with a few layers of abstration and equivocation, so clearly i am always and already ready to 'debate'.

[Anonymous No.4814198]

>>4814192
Oh wow, that sounded very intelligent. It's just... you seemed like you were shooing me off earlier?

[Anonymous No.4814204]

>>4812369
> The answer is liberalism

Indeed.

[Anonymous No.4814206]

>>4814198


well it didint seem like anything substantive was forthcomming, so the onlything left was to close things out in typical 4chan style.

[Anonymous No.4814231]

>>4812369
Classical liberalism, to be exact.

[Anonymous No.4814236]

What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen

[Anonymous No.4814239]

>>4812369
just because something claims to be the end of history doesn't mean it is

[Anonymous No.4814248]

this thread is so disgusting.

Look OP, you don't need to read any of the revered philosophic thinkers for politics because nothing of what they say is essential. The marxist kiddies are trying to bum rush this thread like every other one but it's just a cult posing biased expectations allegedly scientific grounds like what you get out of the singularity in the hard sciences.

I would advise reading sociology. It's better to know how things work before coming to some pants on head retarded opinion than the other way around. Weber is a bute - class, status, party laws out the basics pretty tight and square. I'd also suggest some spencer if you can stomach his political bias from time to time. Machiavelli is of course mandatory if you don't mind power fantasies, and if you feel like some entertaining speculation on technology and society go see Jacques Elul.

But really, you should do your own homework and read straight history and functionalist sociological analysis

[Anonymous No.4814249]

>>4814204
Bertrand Russel quite succinctly crushes all else besides in his History of Western Philosophy. Anarchic or unordered nations have a tendency to be crushed by those with a greater unitarity. Hey, that's how the whole survival of the fittest bit works, right?

>>4814206
I think I got to you, which is exactly the purpose my simplification is to serve. Of course human beings are a factor in social dynamics - you think I don't know that? It's just there's quite a lot of bullshit and bias to be dispensed with first, should we ever hope to live in a decent world, and the first step towards that dispensation is in hammering out the truth of things.

Now, what's your issue as regards practicality? Tyrants? Dictatorships? Past failures? Laziness? I have thorough argument on all fronts. The time-value of money perhaps?

[Anonymous No.4814267]

>>4814249


'lets get stuff for everyone' is not how you excise bias, its the introduction of a huge facking bias. thats why i spent the whole thread showing you how dumb it is to say that with seriousness. which was really a huge farce considering how easy it is to make reductionistic imperatives like that self-destruct upon contact with the slightest bit of analytical rigor, and yet there was persistence, which is why i then said you were using it as a rationalization (since if we accept the possibility of judging people too, better or worse, then naturally we ourselves also become implicated).

[Anonymous No.4814276]

>>4814267
It's all bias, mate; both yours and mine. Some bias is just better than others.

[Anonymous No.4814303]

>>4814267
And you had a lovely little ad hom going, too, didn't you? I was but a silly little egotist living in a dream world, and all was well, but then I had to go and ruin that, didn't I? And then you got mad :( I'm sorry, mate.

[Anonymous No.4814308]

>>4814303
Not really, though. Anyway, I'm going to hit the bed for my last few hours of darkness. Some other time perhaps.

[Anonymous No.4814339]

>>4814276


certainly, and what makes 'mine' better is that you cannot, infact, get stuff for 'everyone' ever, even if you wanted too, finitude is an ontological necessity (unless of course when we mean 'everyone' we really mean every 'human', and are limiting our definitions of 'human' to only certain kinds of bipedal apes). the ideology socket is pointing at /dev/null, just waiting for a parasite to hijack it. its not even internally consistent, as ive taken pains to show.

i know that people love to look for magic bullets that they think will be all good in all cases. many people also presume that enlightenment morality is the whole of morality, that repudiating enlightenment ethics is repudiating morality whatsoever (a condition that ironically haunts many post-structualists who ostensibly repudiate enlightenment modes of thought). but the 'perfect' is the enemy of the good anon.

if you want an easy path to truth, start small. 'how to get stuff for x group?' that is what simple, parochial, and pragmatic is. and the pursual of such parochial, instrumental goals will unveil more fundamental aspects of being, more transcendent principles. then perhaps if someone asks you 'whats good for y thede?', you'ed be able to answer without defaulting to cliche 1-size-fits-all admonitions. who knows, maby you'll even find actual community, instead of a desolate abstraction.

[Anonymous No.4814373]

>>4814339
somebody call da cops, we've got condescending lecturer on our hands

[Anonymous No.4814386]

>>4811716
>this chart
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.4814393]

>>4814386
I think you mean >>>/biz/

[Anonymous No.4814396]

>>4814373


you sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind anon-kun.

[Anonymous No.4814416]

>>4814396
dude you just reaped an F- on your paper and that's all there is to it

>I'm so profound! listen to me elaborate a retort into a long-winded lecture on this important subj-
you're done

[Anonymous No.4814424]

>Political philosophy

It can be fun and interesting, occasionally really great, but you won't really know anything about politics if you aren't at least aware of

a. the last hundred years of history + current events
b. the last hundred years of poli sci/IR
c. economics

Any decent undergrad textbook will teach you more than well over half of the stuff ITT.

[Anonymous No.4814434]

>>4814416


Translation, you've got nothing to say to me, same way its been all thread.

Let's baby it down for you then.

What do we do with people who are hindering foodnsheltr providence?
>iunno prison I guess
Prisons are very resource intensive, youed be able to get more foodnsheltr without dealing with people who are bad at providing foodnsheltr (or are actively disruptive to it).
>gee willikers anon, we can deduce good and natural particularism even from such a limited axiomatic envelope!
No need to thank me anon, just doing my job for righteousness.

[Anonymous No.4814601]

>>4813019
and this here for full spectrum

and it all began with martin luther's table talk (if you dont count jesus)

[Anonymous No.4814618]

>>4811686

Thomas Carlyle

[Anonymous No.4814627]

>>4811686

[Anonymous No.4815147]

>>4814339
My ASS, lol. Anon, you don't think I've met many an old fool who makes the same objection as you do? And then they sit on their bar stools and drink and try to make out their son is better than me because he's such a selfish little cunt. It all becomes a game. He knows how things work, by the ways. It's laughable, it's pettiness, defeatism, NOT good, and it's easily picked on and oh don't I love doing so. Whatever happened to that utilitarian image you posted earlier? It quite plainly detailed the absurdity of your position, I think. You were decrying morality as a whole not so long ago. Now what? Yours is the bible's morality. The defeatist's "practicality". We'll take 10 Commandments and some charity. Thank you. And all the while half the world burns. A religion of "We Can't". How quaint.

[Anonymous No.4815169]

>>4811827
If Marx doesnt make you a communist you havent understood him.

[Anonymous No.4815172]

And the suicide is decried as selfish, pathetic projection feeding the greatest delusion there ever was.

[Anonymous No.4815181]

>>4815172
Are you understanding the necessity of speaking in simple terms yet, anon?

[Anonymous No.4815189]

thread got hijacked by some markov chain generator

[Anonymous No.4815217]

>>4815189
I take great empowerment from eliciting that knee-jerk reaction with text, the frightened need to so control the physicality of others. It's effect isn't so profound with anonymity, however. It's a pity. Selfish little children still, though, mate. Oh how I laugh at its real world counterpart too.

[Anonymous No.4815223]

>>4815217
>jokes on you i was only pretending to be retarded
>lol i troll u so hard u so mad
yawn

[Anonymous No.4815236]

>>4815223
You are a child. It's the same thing that has people so interested in sports, the need to feel in control of the physicality of others, the unwavering order to the rules of whichever game. It's all quite pathetic, however, and to hint at the grand delusion I've spent my time exposing in this thread. I'm sorry my being upsets you, my brother.

[Anonymous No.4815240]

>>4814434
I wasn't even talking to you ITT, dude

[Anonymous No.4815384]

ITT: 'Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti'

[Anonymous No.4815718]

>>4815147


i dont suppose youve noticed that all youve been doing at this point is parroting concepts ive mentioned previously back at me.

>You were decrying morality as a whole not so long ago.

this kind of thinking is *literally* what i was talking about in that post, but youre so delusional that it goes in one ear and out the other. the problem with solipsists is not merely that they can be wrong, but that they have great difficulty imagining whats right even when its staring them in the face. if i 'actually' believed that, i wouldent bother trying to correct you.

>if you dont agree with my autistic reductionism, then that means you dont care about anything!

is such a myopic world view even possible? yes it is.

[Anonymous No.4815822]

>>4815718
>solipsist, parroting
Sure bro
>if you dont agree with my autistic reductionism, then that means you dont care about anything!
I don't level apathy against you, but childishness. Aren't you such a good little boy to love your mommy.

[Anonymous No.4815825]

The Fountainhead (or Atlas Shrugged if you like the unabridged version)

[Anonymous No.4815832]

>>4815822


youre just a broken record at this point
>if you dont agree with my autistic reductionism, then you dont care about morality!

[Anonymous No.4815853]

>>4815832
I'm bored with your bullshit. Go read 1984 again, mate.

[Anonymous No.4815862]

>>4815853


1984? wernt you just trying to tell me im actually a crypto-'individualist'? try to keep your head strait anon.

[Anonymous No.4815891]

>>4815862
Big Brother is synonymous with Christianity, the defeatism you give yourself to. You know that scene at the end where Winston sits alone, his love taken from him? Orwell turns your philosophy against you, finishes you by the means you yourself provide.
>But I do care about things!
Okay bro. Aren't you a good little boy. Long may it last.

[Anonymous No.4815894]

>>4815891
I haven't been leveling apathy against you, but yourself.

[Anonymous No.4815908]

>>4815172
Bump this because anon is retarded

[Anonymous No.4815910]

What is empathy, anon?

[Anonymous No.4815925]

>>4815891


shows what you know, christianity (or more properly said, the bible) has within itself the same seeds of proto-universalism (upon a naive reading) that i am criticising here (look up 'the unintended reformation').

it is precisely my concern for community that compels me to expose dangerous memes that threaten the community. its really simple friend, all you have to do is drop the 'everyone', and youre closer to perfection.

[Anonymous No.4815949]

>>4815925
You are a silly person. Christianity is the philosophy of God = Power, which was the theme of 1984, utopia decried as an impossibility, the 10 Commandments and charity the next best thing. Proto-universalism my ass. The bible but describes the state of the world and puts in place some social order, which Orwell then rails against. Empathy is weakness, mate. It's born of fear and self-pity, choice as with Winston and Julia, but god it is beautiful, isn't it? It should be absolute.

[Anonymous No.4815956]

>>4815147
Bump that maybe you'll get it this time

[Anonymous No.4815958]

What do you hold dearest, anon?

[Anonymous No.4815993]

>>4815949


youre missing the point by being reductionistic, again. look up 'main-line protestants', the cladistic ancestors of left-wing currents (the universalist parts that is) in america were christians (specifically, they were new england puritans).

unitarian universalism is the most popular religion in the world right now, only its cloaked in the guises of enlightenment modes of thought. the theology is basically the same as those who came over on the mayflower (1. the universal brotherhood of man – i.e. equality 2. the futility of violence – i.e. peace 3. the fair distribution of goods – i.e. social justice 4. the managed society – i.e. community run by benevolent experts), just without any explicit reference to an anthropomorphic god.

your idea of utopia is a factory farm (not too dissimilar from 1984, aint that funny, its almost as if the same sort of people tend to come up with the same sort of ideas regardless of starting point), so i hope you'll excuse me if i politely decline enthusiastic approval of that sort of eschaton.

[Anonymous No.4816080]

>>4815993
1984 is reality, retard, not some far off nightmare that Orwell envisioned. It's a counter to the bible, deals truthfully with these men's philosophy where they obscured it. You defend the status quo, not I.

[Anonymous No.4816114]

>>4816080


>You defend the status quo, not I.

as expected, you continually demonstrate an inability to comprehend nuance outside of banal dichotomies. you probably dont even realize what the status quo really is (hint, its currently dominated by people who think like you: http://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/orwell-vs-huxley/))

[Anonymous No.4816174]

>>4816114
>status quo, hint, blah
Wrong. Most people who would agree with me are but children and will grow out of that and cold. They'll turn into those miserable sods sitting on bar stools, but still vulnerable to my antagonism because they'll always be pathetic. Ever see that debate between Chomsky and Foucault on Justice vs. Power where Foucault spends the entire thing looking at Chomsky as if he has two heads? Foucault is the common man, and men rule the world, not children. I'm a bastard is what I am.

[Anonymous No.4816191]

>>4816174
It's a case of "mommy and daddy love me, this is good, maybe everyone else could love me too". I, on the other hand, couldn't give a single fuck. I have but guilt.

[Anonymous No.4816226]

>>4816174


right then, its obvious you are fully incapable of actually addressing any point i bring up. lets talk about you instead.

those 'miserable sods' are the same as you, both conditional solipsists, incapable of conceiving nuance, going full retard one way or another.

you are quite correct in saying that the common man rules today. which is to say, the common man of course does not actually rule, but those who do, do so through the ideals of the 'common man', solipsistic memes. and because solipsists can understand them easily, that is why they are popular. so in popular governance, adherence to solipsistic ideas (or the appearance atleast) gives power. an ironic case of might over right.

[Anonymous No.4816237]

>>4816226
What age are you, mate?

[Anonymous No.4816243]

>>4816237


i suppose that means youre done trying then.

[Anonymous No.4816245]

>>4816243
No, I'm curious. Humour me.

[Anonymous No.4816258]

>>4813155
Does your notion of "essential political reading" imply that it should only contain works you agree with? I for example don't agree with some of Rawls' basic assumptions concerning human nature he takes for granted, though that doesn't make him less influential in political philosophy, the contract tradition etc. in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.4816264]

>>4816245
The common man is not so much the dullard as you think he is. How could Islamists, for example, possibly perceive rightness in their philosophy? It's because god = power, not some solipsistic fairy tale bullshit. Nuance my ass.

[Anonymous No.4816270]

>>4816245


you liked foucaults performance, yes? how did he react when the moderator tried to ask him questions like that?

i also dont suppose you see the irony in approving of foucault while simultaneously being so stuck in modernist/structuralist modes of thought.

[Anonymous No.4816277]

>>4816270
I don't approve of Foucault, I think he was a bald shithead.

[Anonymous No.4816356]

>>4816277


well at least youre trying to be somewhat consistent in message now.

>>4816264

>god = power

you know, its a time honored philosophical tradition to take some contingent concept and inflate it to encompass everything, while disingenuously retaining the same meaning and exosemantics the term had in the original context. this is where double-think comes from anon.

[Anonymous No.4816377]

>>4816356
>doublethink
Doublethink is the love and capitalism anon

[Anonymous No.4816404]

>>4816377


i dont suppose you could translate this to an actual point.

>implying that a given fundament of being is a merely contingent phenomena is also a time honored philosophical tradition.

[Anonymous No.4816445]

Plato
Aristotle
Cicero
St. Augustine
Thomas Aquinas
Marilius of Padua
Niccolo Machiavelli
Thomas Morus
Martin Luther
Jean Bodin
Johannes Althusius
Francicso Suarez
Hugo Grotius
Thomas Hobbes
Baruch de Spinoza
John Locke
Montesquieu
David Hume
J.-J. Rousseau
Adam Smith
Thomas Paine
The Federalist articles (Hamilton, Madison, Jay)
Immanuel Kant
G.W.F. Hegel
Alexis de Tocqueville
John Stuart Mill
Karl Marx
Michail Bakunin
Friedrich Nietzsche
Lenin
Max Weber
Oswald Spengler
Carl Schmitt
Antonio Gramsci
Walter Benjamin
Theodor W. Adorno
Leo Strauss
George Orwell
Anthony Downs
Friedrich v. Hayek
Michel Foucault
Niklas Luhmann
Jürgen Habermas
Noam Chomsky
Michael Hardt/Antonio Negri

Feel free to criticise, but those would be the essentials I would name.

[Anonymous No.4816483]

>>4816404
The point is that one wins out.

[Anonymous No.4816488]

>>4816483
Which is 1984 and the reality of those miserable sods upon bar stools.

[Anonymous No.4816518]

>>4816483


what do you really mean when you say 'love' and 'capitalism'.

[Anonymous No.4816621]

>>4816518
I mean self-pity and savagery, but love is a choice and I still see salvation in it regardless of its psychological conception. We have a marvelous ability to program our own reception of the world (see: Stockholm syndrome) and there's actually something real in loving others, it doesn't decay into the miserable, pathetic existence that most men live. It truly transcends death.

[Anonymous No.4816829]

>>4816621


i know what youre trying to do here anon, youre trying to systematize sympathy, to equivocate altruism and existence, a categorical imperative. because above all, youre trying to convince yourself. uncertain or afraid of how you could conduct yourself, if not for this, if it does not obtain. afraid of the possibility of such a sentiment existing altogether, without the assurance of a simplistic logical necessity.

but i say to you, being is bigger than any one theory. to make some contingent concept instead the ultimate object to which all is subject is to inevitably invite ruin. i ask you, are you truly capable of love? without resort to sophistic equivocation? without pushing concepts beyond the pale? because i say to you, the 'love' of the universalist is sterile, he does not love anything, it is merely matters of course. true love is only possible in the context of finitude.

can you take that portentous step? in between the fantasies of all or nothing (the same thing) where reality lies? to chose what to love in that universe of choices? because i say again, if you do so truly love a people, you will do well to protect them from those self-same fantasies, as such ideas bare open vulnerability, offer no justification for defense against predation, from social entropy, be it from within, or without.

[Anonymous No.4816846]

>>4816829
What I'm trying to do, and I'm blatantly honest about it, is trying to save my cousin's life, the same as what Orwell is trying to do in 1984 (remember the part about when he was a kid and he robbed the last piece of chocolate from his sister right before she died?). It's bias, same as all else, but I'm right, and besides in what I propose there is but misery or power.

[Anonymous No.4816856]

>>4816829
And no, I'm not truly capable of love. I'm empty but for egotism, but it's aimed egotism. It's 1984 again. I have purpose, and that purpose might be lost in addiction to the feeling of victory (victory gin, victory cigarettes, victory chocolate), my goodness might be lost, but I try hard to keep it with me ---to suit the occasion I will tear down my egotistic self, a masterful artificer of doublethink, only to build myself back up again afterwards. I am empty, but a champion of decency. I'm for someone else but myself.

[Anonymous No.4816862]

>>4816856
Feelings are programmed, mate; there's a rationality behind them all. Be careful with yours.

[Anonymous No.4817282]

>>4816856
This is a sort of love in itself, is it not?

[Anonymous No.4817620]

>>4811716
I want American politics to go away

[Anonymous No.4817738]

>>4817620
Same.

[Anonymous No.4818006]

>>4817738
saaaaaaaame

[Anonymous No.4818538]

>ctrl f
>the republic
>0 items match your search

[Anonymous No.4818594]

Cultural Hegemony. Gramsci is less concerned with who is in control of society but by what means do they stay in power without the use of force.

[Anonymous No.4819175]

>>4818538
3 people said Plato

[Anonymous No.4819187]

>Gramsci is less concerned with who is in control of society

And this is why the usefulness of Gramsci has ended. How the fuck are you going to win a struggle when you don't give a fuck about knowing who you're struggling against?

[Anonymous No.4819201]

This is a great book

[Anonymous No.4819257]

>>4819201
I have this, I got it on amazon for a decent price I am not done reading it yet but so far it is good. I recommend it for anyone who wants to learn more about what really happened besides the babble that they teach in the public schooling system. I would rate it an 8/10.
And no I don't browse /pol/ I have been browsing this board for awhile and I think if people are going to read communist books they should see they other side and read National Socialist books too to get a feel for both and formulate an opinion then. Once again thanks for posting that it is an excellent book.

[Anonymous No.4819264]

>>4811716
Marx did not believe in big government.

[Anonymous No.4819302]

>>4819257
I might as well get it on Amazon I can't find the PDF thanks though.

[Anonymous No.4819340]

Communism, Capitalism; All I see are fancy words for Feudalism

[Anonymous No.4819384]

>>4811695
actually marx's predictions about an ever increasing income gap, natural resources, the privatization of everything at the expense of the average person and others I'm sure are truer every day.

[Anonymous No.4819713]

>>4819340
how are those words fancier than feudalism?