[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 15 KB, 1065x1207, che-gueverra.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4989886 No.4989886[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>> No.4989909 [DELETED] 

>>4989886
Good and communist reads are oxymoron

>> No.4989941

>>4989886
Berkman ABC
Lomax Hungary 1956

>> No.4989945

>>4989909
you are literally the worst poster on this board.
could you just fuck off, jesus christ
>>4989886
what sort of communist are you looking for OP?
pro-leninist?
anarchist/libertarian marxist?
or just a good left wing critique of capitalism?

>> No.4989957 [DELETED] 

>>4989909
based

>> No.4989979 [DELETED] 

>>4989909
edgy
>>>/pol/

>> No.4989983
File: 231 KB, 1920x1200, 1402086194027.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4989983

Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union, by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny. A very good pro-Soviet account of the final years of the USSR that basically dispels most of the typical western myths about that event - namely that it was the planned economy's inherent failure that led to the collapse, that America's military build-up played a key role, and that the Soviet system had entered a terminal phase of its existence by the early 1980s. It's a book that really needs to be read more, for at the very least an alternate take on an event that had such staggering implications for world politics.

>> No.4989985

>>4989983
tankie pls go

>> No.4989993

>>4989985
remove trot

>> No.4989997

>>4989993
>implying
you all massacre workers

>> No.4989999

>>4989997
gb2 special brand of communism that's never been tried, comrade

>> No.4990002

>>4989999
what is a catalonia
or a workers council (pro-tip - in Russian they're called "soveits"

>> No.4990012

>>4990002
>>4989999
>>4989997
>>4989993
>>4989985
>>4989886
the message OP is that communism is a dark and scary place full of many warring factions who all hate each other more than the bourgeoisie.
You are going to have to be more specific

>> No.4990020

>>4989985
Don't be cruel to tankies who were there in 1968. They're demonstrably incapable of praxis, and its not good to make fun of the disabled.

>> No.4990026 [DELETED] 

This is a literature board.

For communist faggotry

--> Reddit.com

>> No.4990038

>>4990026
see >>4989979

>> No.4990044

If you want to know about just read some Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, Hans Hermann Hoppe and Max Stirner. Then again, communist writings are so stupid in of themselves that they should turn you off the ideology entirely.

>> No.4990049 [DELETED] 

>>4990044
DDDDD:
meany

>> No.4990067

>>4990044
I smell ancap

>> No.4990078

>>4990067
I'm torn between that and individualist/egoist anarchism.

>> No.4990108

>>4990078
you're dumb

>> No.4990110

>>4990108
You're a statist who wants his life controlled by others.

>> No.4990112

>>4990110
no, im an anarchist
just of the non moronic egoist kind
you know, the types who dont believe in positive obligations
or, like, good things

>> No.4990116

>>4990112
Are you some kind of leftarchist? Because socialism and anarchy are incompatible from a practical standpoint.

>> No.4990119

>>4990116
HA
anarchism just means no state, not no coercion
besides, a coercion free society is impossible
the NAP just shifts coercion to the point of property, its still there and necessary


lets not also forget that left anarchism is anarchism, to say that its impossible is to dismiss literally all of historical anarchism as a movement

>> No.4990120
File: 136 KB, 546x700, polplsgo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4990120

>ancaps
you mean edgy kids?

>> No.4990125

>>4990119
It is not true anarchism, it just changes the name of the state to the collective. You cannot be free in collectivism. That's why I would prefer a different term to anarchy, that specifically states the aspect of individual freedom, as traditional anarchism, or leftarchism, is statist and boils down to fascism.

>> No.4990133

>>4990112
If you support the NAP, then you aren't really an egoist, since you place negative obligations above yourself.

>> No.4990156

>>4990125
ok, have your different name, though "egoist anarchism" seems to work just fine
semantics aside, your political and moral beliefs are stupid
if you actually think that you have no obligation to help your children not starve, or no obligation to, at low cost to yourself, help a child drowning in a pond, you are a moron

>> No.4990166

>>4990156
Sorry for believing in personal freedom. But 'because if you don't u r stupid' is not a good argument for why I should be responsible for the autonomous lives of others.

>> No.4990169

>>4990156
Do you mean a moral obligation? a legal obligation?

>> No.4990178

>>4990166
But you also say that you should not overtly take aggression against others. Your "should" stands on no better ground. You demand and obligation as well, and obligation to property owners, just as anon demands an obligation to workers.

>> No.4990181

>>4990178
Nice ad hominem, kid
Stay edgy

>> No.4990182

>>4990166
Free will is only valuable when combined with good will.

>> No.4990184

If you want to see the more authoritarian communist arguments read lenin if you want the more libertarian variant read books by george woodcock

>> No.4990187

>>4990169
moral, obviously, considering we are discussing an ideal "legal" system

>> No.4990191

>>4990178
I don't say that I will force others to be nice. However, violence is for stupid people, so they would not be rich enough to own a firearm so I could easily neutralise them.

>> No.4990193

I've not read him but I hear Kropotkin is the authority on libertarian/anarcho-communism.

>> No.4990195

>>4990191
Nice autism, stormweenie
>>>/pol/

>> No.4990196

>>4990182
Define 'good'. Do you mean helping others or just being nice? Because it is not good or nice to force people into something they do not agree with, like forced charity, aka socialism.

>> No.4990201

>>4990195
Why are leftists/statists so mad all the time? Is it because they subscribe to an indefensible ideology?

>> No.4990202

>>4990166
ok, then i pose it to you as a question.
Do you think that there are positive obligations, ever?
do you think that a parent is obliged to feed their child?
do you think that you are obliged to save a child drowning in a pond at little (the inconvenience of getting wet, say) cost to yourself?
do you even believe that we have negative obligations (i.e. not stabbing people)?
if so, how do you strictly define the distinction between the two (see anything written on acts/omissions, the stanford article is a good place to start)
if you dont believe in negative obligations, you are really just a moral nihilist, in which case why would you subscribe to any political belief at all? why not just do your best in the current world to better yourself?

>> No.4990209

>>4990202
Only the individual can know what they are obligated to do, I can't force any belief onto someone. They are autonomous, rational moral agents, after all.

>> No.4990210

>>4990196
"Good" as in helping others. You are only forcing them to fulfil their moral obligation. If they do not wish fulfil this obligation, they should be welcome to surrender their stake in society.

>> No.4990212

>>4990187
>you're an idiot if you don't believe moral obligation exists
So when did it first come into existence, anon?

>> No.4990214 [DELETED] 

>>4990212
*tips fedora*

>> No.4990217

>>4990191
Considering some of the greatest minds in history were geniuses in the application of violence, this doesn't make sense. Violence is a tool; to try to put a screw in with a hammer is stupid, but that doesn't mean hammers are for stupid people.

>> No.4990219

>>4990217
>>>/pol/

>> No.4990224

>>4990214
I actually believe in the Greek Gods.

>In 2008, scientists Marcelo O. Magnasco and Constantino Baikouzis at Rockefeller University used clues in the text and astronomical data to attempt to pinpoint the time of Odysseus's return from his journey after the Trojan War.[8]

>The first clue is Odysseus' sighting of Venus just before dawn as he arrives on Ithaca. The second is a new moon on the night before the massacre of the Suitors. The final clue is a total eclipse, falling over Ithaca around noon, when Penelope's Suitors sit down for their noon meal. The seer Theoclymenus approaches the Suitors and foretells their death, saying, "The Sun has been obliterated from the sky, and an unlucky darkness invades the world." The problem with this is that the 'eclipse' is only seen by Theoclymenus, and the Suitors toss him out, calling him mad. No one else sees the sky darken, and it is therefore not actually described as an eclipse within the story, merely a vision by Theoclymenus.

>Doctors Baikouzis and Magnasco state that "[t]he odds that purely fictional references to these phenomena (so hard to satisfy simultaneously) would coincide by accident with the only eclipse of the century are minute." They conclude that these three astronomical references "'cohere', in the sense that the astronomical phenomena pinpoint the date of 16 April 1178 BCE" as the most likely date of Odysseus' return.

>This dating places the destruction of Troy, ten years before, to 1188 BC, which is close to the archaeologically dated destruction of Troy VIIa circa 1190 BC.

When Odesseus tells his story about the Cyclopes and all that, that is a lie; Odysseus tells bullshit stories throughout. But the rest is true; Homer sang improvised melody through divine inspiration, and a singer who does this in the Odyssey is so true in his visions of Troy that he brings Odysseus to tears.

>> No.4990225

>>4990210
I don't advocate force of any kind, sorry.
>>4990217
Sorry, but if you can't convince someone with reason, thus turning to violence, either you are stupid or your contention is invalid.

>> No.4990227

>>4990209
so if i was, for whatever reason, incapable of helping said child, but was capable of forcing someone else to who otherwise wouldn't, it would be wrong of me to do so?
and if you accept that there is no distinction between acts and omissions, would it be wrong of me to prevent someone from murdering someone else for money?


>>4990212
the same time we started to notice our internal experiences had moral worth, or at least worth that cause us to strive to do certain things

>> No.4990229

>>4990219
>>4990214
both of you, leave the fucking board
>>4990219
can you come even close to justifying how that was in any way a /pol/ comment?
it wasn't racist or right wing, nor was it simplistic and stupid.

>> No.4990230

>>4990225
>Sorry, but if you can't convince someone with reason, thus turning to violence, either you are stupid or your contention is invalid.
This is quite silly. It only makes sense to use reason when it is the person's self-interest; if your interests conflict with theirs, then it is a matter of conning them or using violence.

>> No.4990232

>>4990227
So about the time the gods came into existence?

>> No.4990235

>>4990224
post your ass

>> No.4990238

>>4990125
actually, you have it the wrong way around, freedom for the individual can only exist in a society with a state that ensures that freedom. freedom for the collective on the other hand, can only truly exist in the absence of a state and traditional systems of property. through true collective ownership and a move towards a society not based on scarcity society can become free.

>> No.4990239

>>4990227
How could you force them?
>>4990230
I see you are the ultimate man, the failing of humanity.

>> No.4990241

>>4990238
You don't understand the term 'negative freedom'

>> No.4990243

>>4990239
umm... the state?

or, in the case of anarchism, the collective?

all i am doing is providing that positive obligations do exist, even positive obligations to coerce others, and thus pure individualist egoism or anarchism are ethically wrong

>> No.4990245

>>4990241
there can never be negative freedom other than that which a state like body grants.its simply impossible to create a system that ensures any level of negative freedom and isnt a state

>> No.4990247

>>4990239
Humanity as a species would not exist without using violence. The economic stages necessary as predecessors to capitalism (and what comes after capitalism, if you're a commie) would not have been possible without violence.

>> No.4990254
File: 25 KB, 420x312, laughing-man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4990254

>>4990247
>worshipping a dead kike on a stick
>2012

>> No.4990257

>>4990243
Sorry, but coercion creates slavery. Would you say forceful slavery is ethical under your utilitarian standpoint?
>>4990245
Negative freedom refers to the lack of a guaranteed meal, lack of welfare, lack of state protection.
>>4990247
The existence of humanity has no bearing on whether violence is excusable for a rational person.

>> No.4990262

>>4990257
would you please actually respond to the argument (the first one) rather than just revert back to a wild base assumption that you have, like a little slogan in case someone challenges your beliefs?

>> No.4990264

>>4990257
>Negative freedom refers to the lack of a guaranteed meal, lack of welfare, lack of state protection.
yes, and it also refers to your right not to have your home burnt to the gorund and yourself enslaved by a mongol horde, a right that is granted and defended by the state, and which you, on your own, cannot defend. in order to defend this right there must be a system of organization and obligation defending it. withing your conception of a stateless society, the negative freedoms you value are most at risk. you have to scrifice some of them to ensure others

>> No.4990265

>>4990257
>The existence of humanity has no bearing on whether violence is excusable for a rational person.
You have not demonstrated how violence is innately irrational; you said violence is what is used when you cannot convince someone to do something with reason, but that does not make violence innately irrational at all; I cannot make a washing machine work by arguing with it.

You have not made your point rationally, therefore you are the one who cannot utilize reason.

>> No.4990266

>>4990262
Well, I don't agree with utilitarian ethics, it promotes tyranny of the majority (democracy) and other such nonsense. So I disagree with your argument on a fundamental level.

>> No.4990271

>>4990266
WHY!
actually respond to the examples i gave, show which obligations you think do and dont exist and WHY. vague proclamations about which types of systems you dont buy, only justified with question begging references to serfdom aren't progress.

>> No.4990274

>>4990264
I haven't seen many mongol hordes around here.
>>4990265
Your problem, regarding the washing machine, is that it is not a rational, autonomous moral agent. That is why violence against animals can be justified.

>> No.4990277

>ethics
In a communism thread.

Seriously. Fuck off bourgeois idealists.

>> No.4990280

>>4990274
>I haven't seen many mongol hordes around here.
know why? because the state keeps them away and prevents them from forming. without the state or any system of social organization capable of engaging in warfare, your society will fall before those who are capable of organized warfare.

>> No.4990281
File: 29 KB, 846x999, naked football man.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4990281

>>4990277
>that le feel face when you can recede your testes voluntarily and play with your loose sack

>> No.4990283

>>4990274
"not a rational, autonomous moral agent"
im sorry, but you are very very very poorly informed.

this is a tangent about animal rights, but fuck this shit pisses me off.
disabled people aren't rational agents. does this make violence against them justifiable?
what makes humans qualitatively more rational than animals? surely we are all rational to some degree (animals can do basic math, apes can learn basic language) and not rational to some other (humans are very often very irrational). Where does the distinction lie?
what is the criterion for being a "rational, autonomous being"
are we still rational autonomous beings if free will doesn't exist?
how do we determine which beings do and dont have free will?
there is a reason noone takes Kant's views seriously anymore, its called "science"

>> No.4990286

>>4990274
>Your problem, regarding the washing machine, is that it is not a rational, autonomous moral agent. That is why violence against animals can be justified.
What if I want to get a rational, autonomous agent to wash my clothes for free?

>> No.4990290

>>4990271
If you can't apply my principles you shouldn't be here.
>>4990283
Violence against disabled humans is justified. They aren't people by the Aristotlean definition.
>>4990280
This is why we can only achieve true anarchy, egoist/individualist, when the ubermensch emerge.

>> No.4990292

>>4990286
Convince him why he should do it, or pay him.

>> No.4990294

>>4990292
Or hit him and tell him to do it

>> No.4990295

>>4990294
I guess if you're an idiot. Then he would fight back.

>> No.4990299

>>4990290
>This is why we can only achieve true anarchy, egoist/individualist, when the ubermensch emerge.
i think what your looking for here is aristocratic anarchy, where people voluntarily choose to follow ubermensch basically because they're cool, and there isn't a state. however, really, if we return to the mongol horde, all this system really is is a lot of mongol hordes running around and probably fighting each other a lot.

>> No.4990300

>>4990292
He should do it because I want him to. Slavery is hardly irrational.

>> No.4990302

>>4990295
Not if you're bigger

>> No.4990305

>>4990290
"cant apply your principles"
you haven't provided any principles, only ones that you reject.
you haven't commented on the distinction between positive or negative obligations, or a positive obligation to prevent violations of negative obligation.

as for animals, if you think that hurting disabled people (and children, its important to point out) is ok, then you are internally consistent, if a sociopath. In which case, answer the second question - what is a criteria for rationality?

>> No.4990324
File: 49 KB, 412x257, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4990324

>>4990299
No, we require the elimination of those who hinder society. We need 100% ubermensch.
>>4990300
He doesn't want to do it if you have to force him.
>>4990302
What are guns?
>>4990305
I am for individual freedom.
Kids learn rationality/self awareness at 18 months, by the way

>> No.4990327

>>4990324
>He doesn't want to do it if you have to force him.
I fail to see how that makes me irrational for wanting him to do it anyway.

>> No.4990331

>>4990324
>No, we require the elimination of those who hinder society. We need 100% ubermensch.
but then who'se going to like, farm the land for food for the ubermensch to eat?

>> No.4990344

>>4990324
the self awareness of which you speak (any that can be found in children of 18 months) can be found in many species of animals - for instance, elephants can recognise themselves in the mirror, scrub jays have awareness of themselves existing over time.

extent your definition of personal freedom.
I'm a left anarchist, i believe in personal freedom, but we obviously have disagreements as to what that entails.
Talk about obligations - what obligations do you think that an individual has?
none? only negative? positive only in cases of protecting negative?
so far everything you have said has begged the question big time.
also you haven't answered anything about definitions of rationality

>> No.4990370

>>4990327
It's not what you want, it's how you want to do it.
>>4990331
The ubermensch. Being ubermensch doesn't mean you are automatically wealthy and distinguished. It is a state of knowledge and understanding.
>>4990344
Show me a talking elephant and we will talk.

>> No.4990379

>>4990370
you are so painfully irrational. straw mans all around and question dodging all around.
So language is the criteria for moral worth.
does this mean that skill with language can confer differing degrees of moral worth?
surely that would contradict your libertarian philosophy.
What if i could show you chimps that can talk, like washoe?
does that make chimps autonomous moral agents, with all the rights of humans, including property ownership?

>> No.4990384

>>4990370
>The ubermensch. Being ubermensch doesn't mean you are automatically wealthy and distinguished. It is a state of knowledge and understanding.
ok, so how do we get there, i mean, is it even possible for there to be 7 billion ubermensch

>> No.4990391

>>4990379
The comment on language simply refers to the ability to express oneself, you moron.
If I told a monkey to write an essay on Rousseau how well could he do it?

>> No.4990394

>>4990384
Read Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

>> No.4990398

>>4990391
how well could 99% of the human race do it?
you still haven't provided a criteria for rationality that applies to all (or the vast majority) of humans and no animals

>> No.4990400

>>4990394
i have, and he seems to specifically detail the roles for people incapable of being ubermensch, especially women

>> No.4990412

>>4990398
>Closely related to Worldview/Religious theories are theories such as Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804). Kant developed a highly influential moral theory according to which autonomy is a necessary property to be the kind of being whose interests are to count direclty in the moral assessment of actions (Kant, 1983, 1956). According to Kant, morally permissible actions are those actions that could be willed by all rational individuals in the circumstances. The important part of his conception for the moral status of animals is his reliance on the notion of willing . While both animals and human beings have desires that can compel them to action, only human beings are capable of standing back from their desires and choosing which course of action to take. This ability is manifested by our wills. Since animals lack this ability, they lack a will, and therefore are not autonomous. According to Kant, the only thing with any intrinsic value is a good will. Since animals have no wills at all, they cannot have good wills; they therefore do not have any intrinsic value.
From the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.
>>4990400
Yeah, women are inconsequential to society.

>> No.4990422

>>4990412
notice the reason i mentioned before as to why people no longer take Kant seriously - he was completely prescientific.
our understanding of psychology, biology and evolution show us that Kant's understanding of "will" was completely misguided. dogs, im sure you are aware, are capable of resisting "desires" for the loyalty of an owner - how is this a distinguishable "will" from a human one?
in reality, as much as you may object, humans are just very intelligent animals. there is no qualitative qualities of reason that humans hold and no other animals do. It was possible for Kant to believe so before evolution and with a theistic worldview - these days, its impossible.

>> No.4990427

>>4990370
>It's not what you want, it's how you want to do it.
Ultimately it's about getting it done, actually

>> No.4990428

>>4990422
You do know evolution's just a theory, right?

>> No.4990430

>>4990422
So as long as an animal seems pleased you can have sex with them? The same goes for children, then I guess. There is a difference between showing disgust/favour than being a willing agent.

>> No.4990431

>>4990412
look fuck it, i'm tired and going to bed.
you obviously dont have a particularly rigorous worldview, or one that you have reflected on for long. you have a poor conception of the nuances of the word "liberty" and can shed no light on your views on different forms of obligation.
when pressed on animal rights, you reverted to a direct quote from a philosophy article instead of any understanding of your own - you might have had it before, you might not.
The point is, you need to sit down and think out, following everything to its conclusion, and perhaps reading some political philosophy yourself, what it is exactly that you believe and how you can justify that belief.

>> No.4990432 [DELETED] 

>>4990427
post
your
anus

>> No.4990436

>>4990427
Not in the question of what is rational.

>> No.4990438

>>4990431
Clearly I have justified my belief in individual freedom, you just don't like it.

>> No.4990439

>>4990428
not sure of kek

>> No.4990449

>>4990436
Accomplishing objectives is actually the entire point of reason.

>> No.4990453
File: 89 KB, 728x716, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4990453

>>4990449
No, that is the goal of actions. Reason tells you how, what and why. Why is important here.

>> No.4990478

>>4990453
No, that's desire. Reason is nothing but a tool of desire.

>> No.4990479

>>4989886
The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn
Darkness at Noon by Koestler
Stalin, in the Court of the Red Tsar by Montefiore
a day in the life of ivan denisovich by Solzhenitsyn
Execution by Hunger by Miron Dolot

>>4989909
This, its like reading religious books without the interesting characters or historical relelvancy

>> No.4991128

this thread :DDD >>>/pol/30978856

seriously, /pol/ is retarded

>> No.4991815
File: 18 KB, 198x200, althusser meme2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4991815

>>4989886
Anything by this guy.

>> No.4991840

>>4990125

ancaps are statists

also, the concept of self ownership is an analytical mess

>> No.4991852

>>4990110
The existence of private property protected by force IS controlling my life.

>> No.4991871

>>4990257

>utilitarian

Why are you using that word? I think it can be very easy to show that you are NOT, in fact, a deontologist (as many ancap retards claim to be)

Would you like to have a go, philosopher-king?