So, it has come to our attention that Marxists reside here (eg. >>5183133), and are even attempting to hand out subversive literature. Luckily, all of it is terrible, and we present here a proper antidote.

File: 905 KB, 1500x984, reactionary.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:21:37 2014 No.5186466 [DELETED]

So, it has come to our attention that Marxists reside here (eg. >>5183133), and are even attempting to hand out subversive literature. Luckily, all of it is terrible, and we present here a proper antidote.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:24:25 2014 No.5186476 Awesome, good work. Hail to the King!

>>	« 零 » !Ry9.FWKNDY Fri Jul 25 07:26:03 2014 No.5186481 >>5186466 MOST OF THE BOOKS DEPICTED IN THAT IMAGE ARE NOT EVEN "REACTIONARY"/TRADITIONALIST. MORON.

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 07:26:36 2014 No.5186483 Reactionaries are the LARP'ers of politics. See ya at Ren Fair

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:26:37 2014 No.5186484 We might like to talk about Marx a lot here, but I don't think anyone on /lit/ is a serious Marxist Besides, reactionary politics and traditionalist is only so much piss in the wind

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:26:42 2014 No.5186485 >>5186466 i would have figured reactionaries to reject the wasteland as degenerate modernist garbage who snuck that in there

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:27:29 2014 No.5186487 >>5186484 >We might like to talk about Marx a lot here, but I don't think anyone on /lit/ is a serious Marxist You don't read /lit/ much do you?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:27:57 2014 No.5186489 >>5186481 All of them are, what are you smoking?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:28:58 2014 No.5186492 >>5186485 Have you read it?

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 07:29:03 2014 No.5186495 >>5186489 Beowulf, for instance, is about warrior aristocracy chieftains. Most reactionaries are about post-warrior aristocracy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:29:16 2014 No.5186497 >that statue Is this list meant to be self-parodical or something

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:29:58 2014 No.5186498 >Lotr and the Silmarillion are reactionary I hadn't thought of them that way before this post, but actually that makes perfect sense.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:30:40 2014 No.5186499 >>5186495 Being a reactionary is about defending all of our traditions and the legacies of our ancestors. Most reactionaries admire warrior aristocarcies.

Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 07:33:42 2014 No.5186505

>>5186499
I don't see most reactionaries supporting a warrior aristocracy system. They support the decadent, post-warrior aristocracy, what Nietzsche called the "priestly" aristocracy that claimed it's right through church instead of valor.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:34:10 2014 No.5186506 >>5186487 Every day but not a lot

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:34:37 2014 No.5186507 "i would have figured reactionaries to reject the wasteland as degenerate modernist garbage" What degenerate modernist garbage are you speaking of?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:35:48 2014 No.5186508 >>5186495 Or so commies would like to paint them. Reaction is a return to lost values which are essential to the soul of humanity, and as such, to find that honor is the basis for any good government.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:36:38 2014 No.5186509 Go back to /pol/and.

« 零 » !Ry9.FWKNDY Fri Jul 25 07:36:39 2014 No.5186510

>>5186499
>Being a reactionary is about defending all of our traditions...

TO WHOM ARE YOU APPLYING "OUR"?

"DEFENDING" YOUR TRADITIONS FROM WHAT, AND HOW?

TO WHICH TRADITIONS ARE YOU REFERRING, AND IN WHAT DO THEY CONSIST?

>... and the legacies of our ancestors.

DEFINE "LEGACIES OF OUR ANCESTORS".

>Most reactionaries admire warrior aristocracies.

THAT IS A NONSEQUITEUR.

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 07:38:11 2014 No.5186512 >>5186508 Look at this shit: Carlyle on the French Revolution. The aristocracy in France at that time wasn't a fucking warrior aristocracy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:38:30 2014 No.5186515 >>5186487 If you read enough /lit/, it gets hard to tell if anyone on it is a serious anything.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:39:17 2014 No.5186516 >>5186499 Quite right. "Feminister" is quite obviously confused and would do well to actually read some of our literature instead of being so prejudiced.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:39:22 2014 No.5186517 File: 21 KB, 270x420, 9783100478092.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5186466 ITT This book is about you. Yeah, you. Go and read it.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:40:28 2014 No.5186520

>>5186505

Who are "most reactionaries"? I think I covered some of the most important ones in the list.

>>5186510

Cool it captain, and drop the caps. Which traditions are "ours" depends on who is speaking. Generally the traditions of the West share a common genealogy,

>THAT IS A NONSEQUITEUR.

How so?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:40:36 2014 No.5186522 >>5186497 What makes you think that? Is nobility too superior for you to be able to grasp?!

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 07:40:49 2014 No.5186524 >>5186516 You don't even know what your own literature is, you have Nietzsche there.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:41:04 2014 No.5186525 >>5186516 >our literature Oh, did you write some of it?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:41:30 2014 No.5186526 >>5186512 Perhaps not strictly speaking. We do not limit ourselves to admiring only warrior aristocracies, however.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:42:55 2014 No.5186529 >>5186520 >Cool it captain, and drop the caps. Which traditions are "ours" depends on who is speaking. Generally the traditions of the West share a common genealogy, That's a lot of words for saying "I'm butt-neutralized."

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 07:43:19 2014 No.5186530 >>5186526 No, of course not. Why don't you have some literature about the totalitarian hereditary set ups of today, hmm?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:43:31 2014 No.5186532 >Nietzsche pfffffhahahahahahahaaa

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:43:48 2014 No.5186533 I wish moot would ban tripfaggotery from /lit/. /lit/ has some of the most usless and idiotic trips on this site.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:43:53 2014 No.5186534 >>5186529 As usual, leftists are incapable of rational reasoning when confronted with uncomfortable situations and just shitpost instead.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:44:06 2014 No.5186536

>>5186498

When you think about it, yes. All of the principles which the stories rest upon are very reactionary and traditional: hierarchy, sacred kingship, warrior aristocracy, heroism, agrarianism, opposition to progress and industrialism, struggle between light and darkness, etc etc.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:44:18 2014 No.5186538 >>5186512 They were far better than Robespierre (or Lenin, or Kaganovich, or whatever other leftist of whatever era pops up and murders every man, woman, and child of quality in a purely jealous rage.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:45:03 2014 No.5186540 >>5186530 Uh, because they're not really hereditary? But sure, semirelated: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10181.html

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:45:11 2014 No.5186541 >>5186505 Nonsense. You're thinking of bourgeois conservatives. Not the same thing.

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 07:45:13 2014 No.5186542 >>5186538 False dichotomy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:46:01 2014 No.5186543 File: 17 KB, 300x348, 1391072523102.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5186503

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 07:46:16 2014 No.5186546 >>5186540 North Korea is hereditary. >>5186541 Bourgeois conservatives support the bourgeois being in power, not an aristocracy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:47:23 2014 No.5186549 >>5186546 NK doesn't really interest me that much, but if you know of any good reactionary critiques of NK and communism, be sure to share them.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:48:19 2014 No.5186551 >>5186542 How can such consistent behavior be false? That is what happens. Revolution always produces something worse and more evil than it claims to oppose.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:48:24 2014 No.5186552 >>5186546 >Bourgeois conservatives support the bourgeois being in power, not an aristocracy. Yeah, you're right. What has that got to do with reactionary thought, though? Most reactionary thought is anti-bourgeois (and anti-prole, of course).

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:49:14 2014 No.5186556

M8, please put it in your head that /lit/ really isn't interested in being part of your mock-fighting of opposite ideological forces for the control of 4chan or whatever you're doing.

Lots of people use this board to seek recommendations, debates and clarifications, and we have to keep a decent level of discourse for that. Try not to ruin it with threads like this.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:49:50 2014 No.5186558

Feminister is right, German reactionaries masturbate to the idea of Friedrich The Great returning, but his reign was that of a degenerate priestly aristocracy, where corrupt oafs could jack off at the court but were still somehow considered superior thanks to "god given rights".

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:50:20 2014 No.5186561

>>5186551
> Revolution always produces something worse and more evil than it claims to oppose.

If you think living in Russia at any point in the 400 years prior to the revolution is preferable to living in the Soviet Union, you might be mentally deficient.

Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 07:51:20 2014 No.5186563

>>5186549
NK isn't communist, they ceases to be a while ago and took the name out of their government. They're strictly Juche now.

>>5186552
Quite right, and most reactionaries talk about bringing the post-warrior aristocracy back, not the warrior aristocracy.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:52:15 2014 No.5186565

>>5186466
>Cantos
>Reactionary

Pound's an explicit progressive. He's not a radical one, but he did want to refresh, by revision, by mingling, all exciting culture, hence the imperative, "make it new." He failed, too, by his own admission, because he didn't master the material; he should only really be interesting to poets in the Cantos. You should be reading his critical prose for traditionalist theory.

Eliot definitely fits the bill.

How the fuck is Beowulf reactionary? Beowulf is about the passing nature of life on earth, and the conditions under which pride helps and hinders a man.

Don't know anything about Parzival.

Dante's project is closer to your thought, though only really vis Italian society, otherwise it's spiritual.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:52:48 2014 No.5186566 >>5186540 Damn, that looks like an interesting book anon. Any others interesting academic books you have up your sleeve?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:53:14 2014 No.5186568 >>5186561 >If you think living in Russia at any point in the 400 years prior to the revolution is preferable to living in the Soviet Union I would much rather have lived under the Czar than under The Party.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:53:33 2014 No.5186571

>>5186538
Robespierre was a sociopath who used the turmoil to fulfill his power fetishes, however the aristocracy since the early 17th century was corrupt and degenerate.

Not to mention that most priestly aristocracies ignore merit and rather select people based on who makes them feel the most good at the court.

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 07:54:38 2014 No.5186574 >>5186568 Would be preferable during Stalin's reign, but otherwise it was the same system, feudalism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:55:04 2014 No.5186575 >>5186561 Unless you were there, you're full of shite, as well as a flailing, foaming-at-the-mouth idiot.

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 07:55:47 2014 No.5186577 >>5186574 as in, the czar would be preferable to Stalin's reign

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:58:49 2014 No.5186584 >>5186574 Yeah, but Czarist Russia was a Christian feudalism, whereas Soviet Russia was Jewish.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 07:59:56 2014 No.5186586 >>5186577 If you think Lenin's reign was any better, study the red terror. After Stalin, most of the better class of Russians had simply been exterminated, so the remainder just adapted to the mental oppression of the Soviet system.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:00:17 2014 No.5186588 I don't understand why Russians didn't give up and go full anarchism given the consistent set of shit leaders they've had under all systems.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:00:43 2014 No.5186589

>>5186575
>You weren't there!
>The fact that the autocracy collapsed without any bloodshed and that nobody mourned its loss is irrelevant, pre-revolution Russia was great!

Look, the Soviet union was a shithole, but Russia under all of its autocrats was king of the backwards shitholes.

You can try to defend Reactionary ideals with non-Russian examples, because history pretty clearly shows that being anyone in feudal Russia that wasn't an aristocrat or priest was a terrible existence.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:01:21 2014 No.5186590 >>5186584 sigh... what are you doing... just be rightwing and we'll be totally cool with you, just don't show how stupid you are so nakedly, at least slip in the jew stuff intelligently

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:03:03 2014 No.5186593 >>5186584 uhhh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_plot

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:04:54 2014 No.5186596
File: 113 KB, 600x466, 16424.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5186466

This pathetic patsiche of pre-modern works as I said to you in the other shit reactionary thread (that you insist constantly creating) is but a clear sign that "Reactionary litearature" doesn't exist and depends on mish-mash of authors who are completely opposed to one another in their message yet are unified by you vague understanding of traditional culture (the very fact that you have Nietzsche in there shows the kind of ignoramus you are).

How insignificant and lazy philosophicaly that you must built your world view in blind opposition to things, rather than attempt to built and collect a consistent corpus of works.

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 08:05:47 2014 No.5186598 >>5186586 Red Terror was pretty bad, but the statistical death toll under Stalin dwarfs it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:08:16 2014 No.5186601 File: 144 KB, 950x1217, paulette-goddard-modern-times.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5186503

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:08:22 2014 No.5186602 >>5186588 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion Cuz it gets nipped in the bud

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:09:51 2014 No.5186606

>>5186588
Russia under Khrushchev wasn't bad for the average person. Near universal literacy, free healthcare, guaranteed employment, social safety nets for disabled/unemployed people, vacations for workers, etc.

Was it great? No. The Soviet Union, even at its best, lagged behind Socially Democratic countries, and the focus on economic rights meant that political and social rights were either non-existent (Stalin) or, at best, limited.

The funny thing is, though, that the average Russian citizen was better off in 1980 than now. Its like Russia is cursed.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:16:35 2014 No.5186613

>>5186596
>How insignificant and lazy philosophicaly that you must built your world view in blind opposition to things, rather than attempt to built and collect a consistent corpus of works.

it's this exactly what I have against both the left and the right. I just hate politics altogether

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:16:53 2014 No.5186614

>>5186596
Yeah, no shit.
Progressive = march humanity into a world dictatorship by dissolving cultures and traditions, tearing apart the family and leaving children naked slaves of the world state
Reactionary = the general impression that something is wrong with the above

Reactionary is largely a poetic gesture. Progressive is a political reality that can't be stopped unless the God of Abraham exists to thwart it with his right hand (because there's no human power stopping this now).

I wonder what the Hegelian synthesis of reactionary and progressive is. Probably when the progressives show their true colours and reveal that all along the reason for dissolving cultures has been to pave the way for a world aristocracy.

imo you should pray to Jesus Christ because he's the only hope you have.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:18:20 2014 No.5186615 >>5186601 replace those priests with scientists/academics

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:19:00 2014 No.5186616
File: 189 KB, 1081x1400, Robespierre.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5186538
>>5186571

>They were far better than Robespierre (or Lenin, or Kaganovich, or whatever other leftist of whatever era

No they were not, they were incompetent,inbred,weak and cowardly, a very bad combination. Even Machiavelli complained against the state of degeneration and decadence the nobility had reached in Italy.
Look at how incopetent and paranoid the czar was in comparison to Peter the Great.

Autocracy necessarily devolves and degenerates through the years and generations.

This was the point Marx was making in the 18th of Brumaire. The legacy of "Napoleon the hero" is relaced by the bloody legacy of "Napoleon III the incompetent".
By analogy Robespierre was one of the great Hegelian protagonists of history, that commanded tremendous power through the will of the people to command changes acording to the collective will ( a la Roussau).

In reality Robespierre was neither a vilain nor a hero, but a great actor of his era.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:19:02 2014 No.5186617 >>5186614 >world aristocracy. see also >>5186162

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:19:27 2014 No.5186618 >>5186466 >this entire thread >no Savitri Devi You're really all just a bunch of filthy leftists.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:21:48 2014 No.5186620 >>5186616 Robespierre wanted to impose his own morality on the people via the Cult of the Supreme Being, that sounds cool as fuck to me.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:24:04 2014 No.5186627

>>5186618
>Savitri Devi

>“I worship impersonal Nature, which is neither "good" or "bad", and who knows neither love nor hatred. I worship Life; the Sun, Sustainer of life. I believe in the Law of everlasting struggle, which is the law of life, and in the duty of the best specimens of our race — the natural élite of mankind — to rule the earth, and evolve out of themselves a caste of supermen, a people 'like unto the Gods'.”

This is just paganism. It's an aspect of ancient Hinduism.

Paganism is degenerate.

Burn the heretics, hail the Inquisition.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:24:55 2014 No.5186631

>>5186614

>that all along the reason for dissolving cultures has been to pave the way for a world aristocracy.

Isn't that what fascism, ractionary and imperialist politics are all about? It seems to me you use "Progressives" as a buzzword to designate a vague and invisible enemy.
Right-wing politics are so blind to the present condition of society (which are unbalanced by their nature acording to the Socialists), that they can never accept that antagonisms,conflict and ideological wars can happen in a "traditional and innocent" society.
In other words Conservatives are blind to the process of history itself.
>imo you should pray to Jesus Christ because he's the only hope you have.

What a cowardly way to back out of a political discussion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:26:06 2014 No.5186634 >>5186627 >Paganism is degenerate I see you there Rabbi. Also, paganism is just one aspect of Devi's thought, fuckwit.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:26:19 2014 No.5186635

>>5186620
The Supreme Being is Lucifer. Progressivism is the gradual initiation of the world into Satanism. Open child sacrifice will take place. They already do it in secret societies, and with the abortion shrines the public is already part of a Moloch cult.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:27:39 2014 No.5186638 File: 33 KB, 400x300, 133251362419.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5186635

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:28:09 2014 No.5186641

What is wrong with bourgeois capitalism? i'm sick of all these people who can't find success in the free market and so look for outlets for their resentment in extreme ideologies from marxism to "traditionalism" to royalism. i'm sorry but bourgeois capitalism is the best and if you can't see that it's because you're lost in a fog of failure.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:28:30 2014 No.5186644

>>5186634
>Also, paganism is just one aspect of Devi's thought, fuckwit.

Religion is the most important part of a person's thought by far.

>>5186631
>In other words Conservatives are blind to the process of history itself.

There is no such thing as the process of history. The process of history is the foundational myth of the cult of Progressivism, whose archbishop is Hegel.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:29:48 2014 No.5186647 >>5186644 >Religion is the most important part of a person's thought by far. Evading the point, without any substantial critique, nice.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:29:50 2014 No.5186648 >>5186614 man how can you people this shit with a straight face

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:31:01 2014 No.5186649

>>5186614
>Progressive is a political reality that can't be stopped unless the God of Abraham exists to thwart it with his right hand (because there's no human power stopping this now).

political projects always fall apart, don't worry about that. look at what became of all those idealistic little campaigns a few years ago. it's a beautiful thing to see undone.

and the God of Abraham does exist, and therein is the only hope ultimately

>I wonder what the Hegelian synthesis of reactionary and progressive is. Probably when the progressives show their true colours and reveal that all along the reason for dissolving cultures has been to pave the way for a world aristocracy.

this is exactly what I am, actually (that Hegelian synthesis - to locate it, imagine it possible to be neither leftist or rightist and then try living it - seeking the truth of a situation beyond political dictates - day by day, situation by situation), to the point that I'd probably most accurately call myself a Hegelian, although I generally describe it as Romantic Idealist / Transcendental Idealist. and I've seen progressives show their true colors (seen its corrupt logic play itself out in its subjects), which, if one isn't a conservative moron, leads one necessarily to Romanticism

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:31:25 2014 No.5186650

>>5186638
Yeah, it is.

It's pretty bizarre but it's the truth. People today think that witches were just poor oppressed women suffering from the persecution of the superstitious. Few will realize that not only do witches and wizards exist, but the history of the last 500 years has been the history of witches and wizards taking over the world.

"Fair is foul, and foul is fair, Hover through the fog and filthy air."
Pretty much the incantation the witches are casting over the world.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:32:03 2014 No.5186653 >>5186648 Some men just want to watch the world burn.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:32:51 2014 No.5186655 >>5186641 Well, for starters not everyone is a bourgois and enjoying the fruits of capitalist exploitation, m8. Most people are in fact debt ridden wage-slaves, work 20 hours per week with no life prospects or opportunities.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:33:08 2014 No.5186656 >>5186614 Have you read Hegel?

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:34:15 2014 No.5186660

>>5186649
>political projects always fall apart, don't worry about that. look at what became of all those idealistic little campaigns a few years ago. it's a beautiful thing to see undone.

That's intentional. All those social movements are supposed to collapse. Their only purpose is to weaken, dissolve. They are not meant to last.
All progressive movements are funded by wealthy people working through Think Tanks. Feminism, LGBT, equal rights, all of that shit, none of it is grassroots, it is all social engineering by people with money.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:35:13 2014 No.5186663 >>5186483 Every ideology is false anyway. Might as well have fun with it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:35:36 2014 No.5186666 >>5186656 Read his works? No. Intuited the spirit of his work by communicating with der Geist? Yes.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:35:45 2014 No.5186668

>>5186641
>Free market

Market forces are inherently exploitative, there is no such thing as a free market.

And hey buddy, guess what, you're not Bill gates, you're a failure. You're getting shit on just as hard as everyone else if you anything other than a multimillionaire.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:36:39 2014 No.5186669

>>5186655
so bringing back monarchy and turning them into serfs will help how? or bringing back communism and turning them all into serfs will help how? capitalism is freedom to live the life you want, if you choose to rack up a bunch of debt and then only work 20 hours a week that's a lifestyle choice.

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 08:36:52 2014 No.5186672 >>5186627 >Paganism is degenerate. He said, listing Nietzsche as a supporter.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:37:19 2014 No.5186676 >>5186641 It profanes everything holy by turning life into a quest for profit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:38:05 2014 No.5186677 >>5186668 >anyone who isn't as rich is a bill gates is a failure therefore everyone is as much as a failure as i am! we are all failures! failure party!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:38:51 2014 No.5186680 >>5186672 Where did a list Nietzsche as a supporter? I don't like him very much at all.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:39:06 2014 No.5186682 >>5186676 no, it just exposes "holy" shit as unproductive crap used by a parasitical priest class to swindle the makers

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:39:19 2014 No.5186685 >>5186677 Welcome to bourgeois Capitalism, enjoy your stay.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:39:53 2014 No.5186688

mfw everyone here has been indoctrinated by schooling and pop culture. the supposedly dichotomous terms you pull out like badges for critical judgement (left-right, capitalism-marxism, individualism-collectivism) have been pimped around by so many interest groups (all totalitarian tyrants, whether statist neoliberals, corporate oligarchs, or cult of personality advoates) that they have no meaning when discussed in this manner. ITT: check your biases and definitions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:39:59 2014 No.5186689 >>5186672 Yo Nietzsche's ghost visited me last night, he wants to know why you haven't posted tits yet. >>5186677 I love the knee jerk ad hominems of capitalists so much. >>5186680 You're gay.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:41:29 2014 No.5186693

Isn't being a reactionary the opposite of being a revolutionary, or even a reformer? Someone who has come to a political opinion largely because it's the opposite of the group he identifies as the opposition; someone whose political beliefs are defined by his opponents, in other words.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:41:49 2014 No.5186696

>>5186669
>capitalism is freedom to live the life you want,

Awful. I believe religion should be imposed on society. I hate relativism.

>"lifestyle choice"

Look at how disgustingly profane capitalism is that it turns the sacred into a "lifestyle choice".
Capitalism means: turning people into robots in service of the economy.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:42:13 2014 No.5186698

>>5186688
>mfw everyone here has been indoctrinated by schooling and pop culture

Not me. 4chan has merely adopted edginess; I was born in it, moulded by it. I didn't see Miley Cyrus simulating anal sex with Robin Thicke until I was already an ubermensch; by then it was nothing to me but degeneracy!

Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 08:42:16 2014 No.5186699

>>5186641
>What is wrong with bourgeois capitalism?
Nothing, it's an important stage of economic development. It's only problem when it's posited as the end of development.

"The present situation of society — this is now pretty generally conceded — is the creation of the ruling class of today, of the bourgeoisie. The mode of production peculiar to the bourgeoisie, known, since Marx, as the capitalist mode of production, was incompatible with the feudal system, with the privileges it conferred upon individuals, entire social ranks and local corporations, as well as with the hereditary ties of subordination which constituted the framework of its social organization. The bourgeoisie broke up the feudal system and built upon its ruins the capitalist order of society, the kingdom of free competition, of personal liberty, of the equality, before the law, of all commodity owners, of all the rest of the capitalist blessings."
-Engels

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:42:37 2014 No.5186700 >>5186685 everything that is good in the modern world comes from the bourgeois, yet like a petulant child you are resentful instead of thankful

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:43:14 2014 No.5186702 >>5186688 hey faggot, I've already been saying this! read the thread!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:43:18 2014 No.5186703 >>5186699 >Engels How can you stand to read that shit? Althusser 4 lyfe.

Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 08:43:23 2014 No.5186704

>>5186699
"Thenceforward, the capitalist mode of production could develop in freedom. Since steam, machinery, and the making of machines by machinery transformed the older manufacture into modern industry, the productive forces, evolved under the guidance of the bourgeoisie, developed with a rapidity and in a degree unheard of before. But just as the older manufacture, in its time, and handicraft, becoming more developed under its influence, had come into collision with the feudal trammels of the guilds, so now modern industry, in its complete development, comes into collision with the bounds within which the capitalist mode of production holds it confined. The new productive forces have already outgrown the capitalistic mode of using them. And this conflict between productive forces and modes of production is not a conflict engendered in the mind of man, like that between original sin and divine justice. It exists, in fact, objectively, outside us, independently of the will and actions even of the men that have brought it on. Modern Socialism is nothing but the reflex, in thought, of this conflict in fact; its ideal reflection in the minds, first, of the class directly suffering under it, the working class. "

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:44:26 2014 No.5186706 >>5186700 if you are on 4chan, you are experiencing the alienation wrought by bourgeois capitalism but go on, keep sucking your daddy's dick. i'm sure he's a good man, he didn't mean for this to happen

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:44:26 2014 No.5186707 >>5186699 >Nothing, it's an important stage of economic development. It's only problem when it's posited as the end of development. >stages >development >history >progress Why can't I hold all this Hegel?

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 08:45:20 2014 No.5186712 >>5186703 "How to Read Marx's Capital" is great. Everything else by Althusser is the most unscientific trash.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:45:24 2014 No.5186713 >>5186704 >suffering Sounds like slave morality to me.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:45:58 2014 No.5186714

>>5186696
>Capitalism means: turning people into robots in service of the economy.

protip: people are always robots in service of the economy, it's just capitalism dispenses with all the extraneous hokum of previous eras, if anything capitalism is a "return to paradise", where interact with the material world on a completely honest basis, we are free to hunt and gather as much material wealth as we choose! capitalism is the real return!

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:46:15 2014 No.5186717

>>5186700
>everything that is good in the modern world comes from the bourgeois, yet like a petulant child you are resentful instead of thankful

Nothing good has ever come from the bourgeois. I don't resent the bourgeois, I'm not a revolutionary and I don't want to murder them. But Bourgeois really are the most vapid, blood-sucking people the world has ever seen. In a way I have more sympathy for the pagans who sacrificed openly to their idols for power, at least they were honest. The Bourgeois sacrifice everything to Mammon but in a calculating, clinical fashion that masquerades as humane.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:46:34 2014 No.5186718 >>5186712 Are you one of those people who still pretends that Marx/Engels/Freud and so on were actually doing science, and that a science of intrinsically political phenomena is even possible?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:47:09 2014 No.5186723 >>5186699 sorry dude going back to communism is about as realistic as going back to the french monarchy, it's history and it ain't coming back.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:48:15 2014 No.5186724

>>5186641
hah. the free market that you speak of is a neoliberal contract between the state and corporatism in which the state, depending on those who control it, acts as a mere guardian of oligarchs who equate productivity with wealth. we'll only be able to speak of free markets when private property is abolishes and dissolved into syndicalist ownership, prompted by free association and when the state stops acting as the rigging machine of the free markets that you speak of.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:48:25 2014 No.5186725

>>5186660
feminism, queer theory, etc is just the nihilism and narcissism of a dead movement who lost the ability to address real issues (many of which I'm quite sympathetic to - environmental problems, poverty, corporatization of everything, etc). I think you overestimate their influence, generally, most people (families) aren't particularly interested or invested in their ideas because real life (work, marriage, raising kids) renders people relatively traditional by necessity. the only people invested in it are career academics, journalists, media. now of course they do have influence on the culture industry and youth culture, and have a tendency to gradually erode at culture and the local, and while progressives sometimes defend those things in their own terms, post-structuralist and queer theory types seem to think they have the right to demand everyone in the world abandon their deeply-held beliefs or sense of identity. I understand why they might challenge those things but what's the alternative - a consumerist vacuum? ... again, there needs to be a Hegelian synthesis. which, of course, there will be, that is how it works. there is clearly a move worldwide right now to make a turn back towards local identity. while I see it unfortunately a lot of people will swing a little too far the other direction, it is inevitable because who the fuck is anyone to tell them to adopt vacant academic values?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:48:29 2014 No.5186726 >>5186714 >extraneous hokum Not quite. The difference is we got rid of the extraneous hokum of chivalry, charity, family values, and morality, and kept the hokum of MTV music video awards, the Kardashians, and the Macbook

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:50:13 2014 No.5186728 >>5186725 Ted Kaczynski's Unabomber Manifesto has a really good section on how academic leftism seizes on important questions like the environment and corrupts/defuses them by turning them into just another soapbox for some career professor.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:50:45 2014 No.5186729 >>5186713 slave-master morality is only valid within power hierarchies that allow it to be valid. we can and should be concerned with abolishing the latter.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:51:07 2014 No.5186730 >>5186717 the bourgeois have the most refined taste in world history, they are hardly vapid. what is vapid is the rococo taste of decadent aristocracy, the gauche taste of plebeian brutes, or the stifling taste of religious bureaucrats.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:52:28 2014 No.5186737 >>5186728 well then, my retort consists of X, who has a really good section on how academic leftism is not that. but yes, identity politics is crippling the left.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:52:52 2014 No.5186739 >>5186726 >chivalry, charity, family values, and morality tips le fedora supreme gentlemen at your service, m'lady

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:53:02 2014 No.5186740 >>5186682 tip

Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 08:53:05 2014 No.5186741

>>5186707
It's not a matter of "progress" in that sense, it is a matter of eventual demands of the free market. Once the means of production are cheap enough to produce that the labor operating them can pay for them within a year, then socialism will be demanded by the free market because credit will be extended to laborers to buy the means of production, and they will be able to pay back their loans in a relatively short period. To stop the socailization of the economic caused by the free market, the state will intervene more and more and incentize people not own through basic income and increasing the shit out of licesnscing fees. Once that isn't enough, then the state will require "advisers" for all businesses, and eventually will begin to nationalize industry. Once everything is nationalized by the state, then a socialist revolution will take place and overthrow the state, putting the means of production in the hands of the proletariat.

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 08:54:09 2014 No.5186744 >>5186718 Their analysis of economic development was scientific, the whole ideological side certainly wasn't.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:54:16 2014 No.5186745

>>5186729

'Validity' doesn't apply here, because we're talking about propaganda, not logical predicates. Getting rid of the power structure would mean getting rid of the entire educational/cultural apparatus that brainwashes children into slave morality. And good luck with THAT one.

>>5186739

Elliot Rodger did nothing wrong.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:54:23 2014 No.5186747 >>5186728 fuck off with that shit. are you insane?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:54:24 2014 No.5186748 >>5186739 nice meme

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:55:11 2014 No.5186750

>>5186725
>feminism, queer theory, etc is just the nihilism and narcissism of a dead movement who lost the ability to address real issues

No. This is confused thinking. The goal of these "movements" was not to "address real issues" in the first place. Their purpose was to alter society, and they have. They have been very successful in fulfilling their purpose.

>the only people invested in it are career academics, journalists, media.

And the wealthy philanthropists that fund the academics, journalists, and media.

You seem to think that "progressivism" is something arising naturally out of the soil and not a set of codes and instructions drawn up by powerful men to set society down a certain road.
For example: the 1960s civil right's movement, drug/hippie culture - this was all overseen by the CIA. The CIA fomented all of this. It didn't just happen.
Nothing is grassroots. The abolition of slavery in America did not come from blacks, it came from wealthy whites who encouraged the blacks to seek emancipation.
The French Revolution was not the revolt of the people against the tyrannical French monarchy. It was a coup d'etat where men in masonic lodges sent demagogues into society to foment revolution so that they could seize power once the monarchy had been done away with.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:55:17 2014 No.5186751 >>5186744 What do you think science is? >>5186747 You have ten seconds to post a better thinker than Ted.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:55:54 2014 No.5186752

>>5186700
>implying everything in a Society isn't created by workers

Everything you own was made by someone else, usually a working class person.

The idea that the value of a CEO's labour is a thousand times that of his employees is laughable. Exceptional organizational skills are valuable, and can warrant higher return than basic labour, but the distribution of wealth in modern Capitalist society is unreasonable. Not because everyone should be equal, but because it pushes some people into degrading, inhuman positions of existence for no discernible benefit tot he people at the top of the echelon.

What pragmatic value is there to giving a rich person, say, 400 dollars. None, because he gains no real freedom from want or freedom to act from it. It is irrelevant to him. By contrast, what is the pragmatic value of giving a homeless person 400 dollars? Quite a lot, he can be freed from innumerable wants, and, consequently, gains much freedom of action.

The most reasonable distribution of wealth ensures the greatest amount of freedom from want for the greatest number of people, with whatever flexibility in wealth distribution then being allowed to be invested into rewarding exceptional capabilities.

Capitalist distribution of wealth is simply inefficient.

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 08:56:27 2014 No.5186754 >>5186713 It is. But you don't have to buy the morality to buy the theory.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:57:01 2014 No.5186756 >>5186745 thank you. I am working on it. and I don't mind 'slave morality' as long as it does not lend itself to ID politics. my focus is to allow everyone to adhere to 'master morality'/

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:58:23 2014 No.5186762 >>5186752 >says capitalist distribution of wealth is inefficient >proposes giving free money to homeless junkies instead of people who do great work yeah, that sounds efficient dude! not to mention extremely just!

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 08:58:34 2014 No.5186763 >>5186751 >What do you think science is? That depends on whether you mean natural science or social science. The former is considerably more rigorous.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:58:35 2014 No.5186764

>>5186752

All of my stuff was made by machines tho.

>>5186754

But if you don't buy the morality the theory itself is just inert and does not translate to praxis. If I don't care about the 'suffering' of the poor (many of whom today live in such luxury that most own refrigerators), then Marx/Engels' analysis means nothing to me, even if it is valid.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 08:59:42 2014 No.5186767 >>5186763 Do natural science and social science have anything in common that merits their both being called 'science', and if so, what?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:00:26 2014 No.5186768 File: 10 KB, 162x373, refined bourgeois.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5186730 >the bourgeois have the most refined taste in history

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:01:03 2014 No.5186771 >>5186764 really dude. the slave master morality paradigm does nothing for you in terms of praxis, as long as you take contemporary power structures for granted.

Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 09:01:28 2014 No.5186772

>>5186764
I care about their suffering, but no, the theory does not translate into praxis. Marx and Engels felt very sorry for the poor during the industrial revolution, but we were not at the economic state of socialism then for the simple reason that the labor didn't easily foot the bill for the means of production very quickly, it would take a factor full of workers many years to pay for the cost of the actual factor. When 3D's printers and shit like that become commonplace, then socialism will be a natural demand of the free market.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:02:04 2014 No.5186774 >>5186762 you have misunderstood Feminister's post. Read harder.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:02:29 2014 No.5186775

>>5186764
>All of my stuff was made by machines tho.

Incorrect, things produced synthetically are still checked by workers, shipped by workers, stocked by workers, and plenty of things are still made by hand.

As much as Ford would have loved to, you can't automate production.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:02:30 2014 No.5186776

>>5186730
This is not entirely their fault... the fault of these great writers... Since childhood, since
the cradle true to speak, they have devoted themselves to imposture, to pretension, to
rationalization, and to plagiarism... Starting at the school-desk, they began to lie, to pretend
that that which they read, they had personally lived... To consider this "read" emotion, this
second-hand emotion, as their personal emotion! All of the bourgeois writers are at bottom
impostors! swindlers in experience and emotion... They began their existences upon footings
of imposture... they are following through... they made their debuts in life by way of an
imposture... and the original protected environment is the "High School"... This seminary of
Freemasonry, this incubator of every privilege, every treachery, every symbol. Those who
have felt themselves superior, nobles "called" to a special station, ever since they were six
years old... An emotional world, an entire life, for one's entire life, separates the grammar school graduates from those of the high school" ... The former are equally well-grounded, from the very beginning, in the world of experience, while the others are a bunch
of big jokers... Their experience doesn't come until much later, by way of high station, as
lords, as impostors... even Valles. They had taken the route to school by car, while the
grammar school kids went by bike... the first had seen the route, while the others had
memorized the route, doggedly, subduing it step-by- step... A man is completely made,
emotionally so to speak, by the time he's about twelve years old. Thenceforth all he does is to
go through repetitions, which is too bad! all the way through 'til death... His music is fixed
once and for all. ..within his very flesh, as upon a photograph, on its first printing... It's that
first printing that counts. The childhood of bourgeois children is the childhood of parasites
and louts, having the sensibilities of parasites, of sensualists, of a privileged caste on the
defensive, of little darlings, affected, artificial, with a vicious emotional dislocation lasting
unto death... They have never really seen any thing... they never will see any thing... humanly
speaking... They'll have acquired their experiences through the Greek translations, and
learned about life through the Latin versions and the chattering of M. Alain... It's as though a
recruit were trained to sit in the saddle wrongly, mounting with his balls towards the rear, and
were to go on doing so throughout the remainder of his service... all of these little bourgeois
products are doomed from the outset, emotionally perverted, desiccated, withered, affected,
and decomposed, from the beginning, Renan included...

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:02:57 2014 No.5186777 >>5186771 isn't it funny how the people always prattling on about "in practice", "terms of praxis", blah blah blah, are always proponents of the most wacky theoretically clever but totally unworkable moral and economic schemes? seems quite ironic.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:03:32 2014 No.5186780

>>5186776
They will only "think" their way through life... never "testing" themselves, not even in
war... in their vile "precious" flesh, those sly show-offs... Humdrum, sclerotic, unctuous,
embourgeoisified, overly-elevated and whining,'" beginning with their very first
compositions. Throughout their entire lives, they'll retain a poker up their asses, and Latin
pomposity on their tongues... They enter into secondary school like little Chinese girls with
feet to be bound, and they'll emerge from it emotionally monstrous, amputated, sadistic,
frigid, frivolous, and crafty... They will no longer understand anything but the grammatical
tortures, of exchanging syntaxes and adverbs one with another, across the stumps... Never
will they see anything... They will never have seen anything... Aside from the formalistic
tortures and the scruples of rhetoricians, they will remain forcefully closed-off, impermeable
to the waves of hfe. The parents and masters have dedicated them, beginning in high school,
that is to say forever, to the simulacra of emotion, to all of the spiritual charades, to
sentimental impostures, to word play, to equivocating incantations... They will remain set-up,
penetrated, blissfully unaware of having been pilfered, rigidly pedantic in every fiber of their
being, ["/1 66] convinced, exultant in their superiority, babbling their Latino-gibberish, blown-
away into that Greco-Roman emptiness, with their buffoonish "humanity," their false
humility, their fantastically serendipitous [101/"] second-handedness, pretentiously cooing
formulae, and shaking the tambourine of axioms, all of which has been proffered and held
high throughout the ages, in order to justify the stultification of the young by the most
parasitic, phrase-mongering, sly, irredentist, politicized, profiteering, inexterminable,
incompetent, eunuchoid, wormishly theoretical, disaster-creating clique in the Universe: the
Stupid Teachers' Brigade...

The worship of the Greeks, the Latin versions, the pretentious, tendentious and Judaized
twaddle by Alain, and the MultiBendas" . . .will always be correct in the mind of the graduate as opposed to direct experience and direct emotion, with which the simple life and direct
living, with all of its personal risks, abounds...

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:03:59 2014 No.5186781 >>5186774 no, i understood it perfectly, it's just a stupid post.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:04:54 2014 No.5186784

>>5186780
The "amenability" of the high-schooler
becomes inverted, once he leaves the "sixth grade," and this is a much more serious matter
than are the first wankings and inversions of the "onion"... Life is an immense bazaar in
which the bourgeois enter, circulate, help themselves... and leave without paying... only the
poor pay... the little bell of the cash drawer... that is the bourgeois emotion... The bourgeois,
including the little bourgeois children, have never had any need to go by the cashier... They
have never had emotion... Direct emotion, direct anguish, direct poetry, inflicted by
conditions upon the poor of this Earth, beginning with the very first years of life. . . They have
never felt anything other than high schoolish emotions, bookish or familial emotions, and then
later in life, some "distinguished" emotions... that is, "artistic" emotions... Nothing upon
which they subsequently elaborate in the course of their "works," can be anything other than a
patchwork of reprints, of things seen through a windshield or a buffer... or simply stolen from
the depths of the library... translated, tinkered with, and rearranged, from the Greek, or from
classical motifs. Never, absolutely never, any direct humanity. Only phonographs. They have
been neutered of any direct emotion, sworn to eternal chattering from the very first hours of
childhood... just as the Jews are circumcised, and sworn to vengeance... All of this is
biological, implacable, nothing left to say. The combined destinies of bourgeois Aryan
children and Jewish children, almost always brought into association, engendered, and given
cover by their families, school and education, consists above all in being desensitized,
humanly speaking. It is above all a matter of turning them into cheats, impostors, ham actors,
the privileged, the socially frigid, and artists at "dissembly"...

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:05:03 2014 No.5186785

>>5186777

That's because they're trying to find out how to translate their theories into practice, whereas if you're a capitalist nihilist you don't even need to ask the question, you just go 'ok imma get some money and use it to make more money'. I agree with your point but the correlation seems pretty easy to explain from my view.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:05:12 2014 No.5186786 >>5186767 they are both studies/narratives of causality. it's just that social sciences concern themselves with inter-subjective networks, and are therefore more prone to corruptibility.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:06:23 2014 No.5186789

>>5186784
The finely French French language, "clean-shaven," is marvelously adapted
towards these ends.

It's actually the absolutely indispensable corset for these little emotional geldings,
sustaining them, reassuring them, doping them up, and furnishing them for every
circumstance all of the charades of imposture, and that "gravitas" which they so desperately
need, for fear of foundering... Not only is the fine style "relevant," but it also contains a
miracle! in that it equips all of these impostors, all of these frigid and rapacious types!... It
provides them with a providential vehicle, an exact, balanced, and meticulous language, in
which you have an impeccable shelter for their vapidity, a hermetic for all things
insignificant. It's a rigid framework of a "style," an imposture without which they would find
themselves literally denuded, blown away instantaneously by the brutality of life, having in
themselves no sort of substance, no sort of specific quality... not the least weight, the least
gravity... But in that proud classical corset, completely reinforced with formulae, excerpts
and references, they can still play their roles, and how! the most monumental roles in the
social farce... so wondrously fruitful for these eunuchs. It's always the fake, the tacky, the
wretched and imitative trash that winds up being imposed upon the masses, the lie always!
authenticity never... From that point on, it's all over! The issue has been decided... This is
the "French" of the high school, the titrated and filtered "French," the all-cleaned-up French,
the frigid French, the rubbed- smooth (modernized Naturalist) French, the loutish French, the
French of Montaigne and Racine, the Jewish French for secondary school examination essays
on Anatole Jew,'" the Goncourt French, the disgustingly elegant, closely-molded,
oriental, unctuous French, slick as a turd, perhaps the very epitaph for the French race. It's
like the Mandarin form of Chinese. It no longer takes any real emotion in order to express
oneself in "high school" French, any more so than in Mandarin Chinese... It is enough just to pretend. It's the ideal French for Robots. The ideally, truly cleaned-up Human, about whom
all of the literary artists nowadays seemingly want to write, is a robot. Any Robot, let us note,
can be rendered as brilliant, as shiny, as rationalized, and as streamlined, with "clean lines,"
as is desired, as well as most perfectly elegant, according to the tastes of the day.

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 09:06:51 2014 No.5186791 >>5186767 The theories must be falsifiable, testable and based on consistent reasoning.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:06:58 2014 No.5186792

>>5186775
>checked by workers, shipped by workers, stocked by workers

No, for real, where I live that is all done by machines too.

>>5186786

If natural science is just a narrative, it's going to be hard for us to explain how the hell it ever makes accurate predictions. The space shuttle and modern medicine shouldn't be possible if science is just a narrative.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:07:27 2014 No.5186796

>>5186789
The Robot is
destined to become the centerpiece of the Palace of Discovery... It is he who is the end-all
and be-all of so much civilizing "rationalistic" effort... admirably Naturalistic and objective
(the Robot occasionally becomes intoxicated, however! the sole human trait of the Robot at
this time)... Ever since the Renaissance there has been this tendency to work with ever-
increasing enthusiasm towards the advent of the Kingdom of the Sciences and the Social
robot. The most reductionist... the most objective of languages is the journalistically
perfect one to fill in as the objective language of the Robot... We are already there... It's no
longer necessary to maintain a soul in opposition to the reality of death, in order to express
oneself humanistically... And how many volumes! how many aspects! how many facets! and
what a lot of publicity! ...any sort of robotic jabber whatever can be a triumph! We are
already there...

All of those writers who are vaunted before me, and whom I am supposed to
admire... will never, it's quite evident, feel the least little inkling of direct emotion. They will
continue working in the manner of "surveyors" up to a moment to come very soon,
whereupon they will cease working as anything other than surveyors... Perhaps at the final
moment, at the moment of death, they might feel some wee little authentic emotion, some
little tinge of doubt... Nothing could be less certain... The style of smooth neoclassicism for
which they are famous, that shining breastplate,'" beveled and adjusted with exactitude,
without pity, impeccable, and having girded them against any intrusion by life ever since high
school, forbids them now as much as ever from allowing anything whatever to penetrate to
the insides of their carcasses, under penalty of being immediately dissolved, and reabsorbed
by the waves of life... The least little contact with the human emotional torrent, and it's
death! ...this time, without any phrases... They move about beneath the current, as in the
depths of too deep a river, under an enormous weight of mutely treacherous caresses, in
diving suits, out of sorts, inhibited by a hundred thousand precautions.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:08:47 2014 No.5186800

>>5186796
They don't
communicate with the outside world save by microphones directed towards the surface. They
pontificate in their impeccable "public" style, towards and against everything, those acrobatic,
soothsaying cuckolds... They grew up with their breastplates... They will die with their
breastplates, inside of their breastplates, embraced, swaddled, and trussed to the peak of
perfection, wavy-haired, spice cake, polished, shining robots, crawling about in diving suits
under an enormous paraphernalia, inhibited by ten thousand tubes and wires to the point of
being almost immobile, practically blind, feeling their way along, they crawl thusly towards
that pretty light at the end of the tunnel of their existences, at the end of the shadowy depths. . .
Retirement... No thing emanates from the fissures of their armor, from the joints of these
"elite" robots, than a little spray, ephemeral bouquets, of infinitely microscopic gurghngs, the
bubbles of which rise, to the open air. One will never have to congratulate them for tearing
apart their extraordinary metaUic yoke, in light of the fact that they will have to die one day
anyway. Such a reahzation to the contrary usually only succeeds in making them secure their
harnesses even more tightly than formerly, into even more opulent bridles, embroil
themselves with even more overbearing "cultural" appurtenances, and then maintain while
going into their shadowy depths, despite everything, the possibility of some sort of slight
gesticulation... contrived schemes, light-hearted sleights-of-hand, and equivocating
hesitations, all known as "stylistic finesse."

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:09:04 2014 No.5186801 >>5186791 Indeed. Makes me wonder when Marxist social scientists are going to put the entirety of human history in its contingency in a lab and test it.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:09:04 2014 No.5186802

>>5186792
well, it is a narrative of causality as in it explains natural phenomena. these narratives are extrapolated into apparently non-deterministic systems(things that we have not yet figured out) in order to make statistical predictions. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:10:05 2014 No.5186805 >>5186802 The problem here is that a narrative and an explanation are not the same thing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:11:09 2014 No.5186806 >>5186741 >things will happen this way or... they WON'T. Who knows? You don't, Marx didn't.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:12:00 2014 No.5186807 >>5186805 yes, well, I used 'narrative of causality' as a figure of speech, as this is a literature board and I found my linguistic construct to be quite smart and descriptive.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:13:26 2014 No.5186810 >>5186741 now thats actually some marxist crystal ball gazing that almost sounds plausible unlike 99 percent of leftist fantasy

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:13:55 2014 No.5186812 >>5186807 Okay, but I was actually asking a real question.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:13:56 2014 No.5186813 >>5186615 You do not know a damn thing about modern science if you think they could replace the priesthood in that image. People back then listened to priests far more than they listen to scientists now.

Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 09:14:56 2014 No.5186815

>>5186801
It's not a question of humanity, but a question of the fluidity of markets. If a market stagnates or regresses, then it's not going to move in the direction of a regular free market,

However, certainly elements of Marx's theory have already been tested and proven false by history. Post-Marxists take this into account and seek to prune away Marx's weaknesses and strengthen the frame by discarding the philosophical baggage and adding more rigorous studies and criteria.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:15:34 2014 No.5186818

>>5186752
well, actually, since we started using levers and inclined planes and such, more and more work has been done by machines, until now the "automation filter" (how much physical work is needed to create, power, maintain and employ the mechanical components of a production chain from raw material to consumer) has dwindled to an average of about .03 % of the cost of production divided by the price.

this means that we're basically overcharging for everything by a factor of at least ten. The surplus is what goes into those salaries and advertising and such we complain about.
we're running up against the question not of whether everybody should get an equal cut of the profits, but whether anybody should get any profits at all, when you could just make the consumer goods basically free? but if nobody got paid to make them, how would anybody buy them? Digital media has hit this wall already: we will literally never run out of copies of Bruce Springsteen's "Born to Run" album no matter what the demand, and most of the work involved in distribution and manufacture is done by the consumer.

Scarcity, not labor per se, along with demand, is the ultimate determiner of value. What we need to watch for is rent-seeking: artificial bottlenecks, toll-roads if you like, that maintain high prices for essentially free goods. The internet started the process of disintermediation, and the disappearance of scarcity. But the intermediates that were eliminated were a lot of the mercantile class. And when scarcity is gone, what value will anything have to incentivize anyone to make it? This is a very practical question, and speaks directly to a lot of social and political assumptions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:16:57 2014 No.5186822 >>5186644 >Religion is the most important part of a person's thought by far. That is not even remotely true. People do just fine without being religious.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:17:00 2014 No.5186823 >>5186812 despite your disagreement with my use of the word 'narrative', I explained how they can be both called sciences. they both concern themselves with studying causality, it's just that one is more prone to biases and corruption than the other.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:19:04 2014 No.5186825 >>5186823 So, on this account, anything that is a narrative of a causal relationship is then a science? The Holy Bible is then a science?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:20:04 2014 No.5186827 >>5186825 the bible is not written as a study of causal relationships.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:20:05 2014 No.5186828 >>5186815 >certainly elements of Marx's theory have already been tested and proven false by history Which ones, just curious?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:21:07 2014 No.5186830 >>5186827 Genesis, besides others, certainly describes causal relationships, and by your own account should be considered a scientific document.

Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 09:22:27 2014 No.5186832

>>5186810
Most leftist misconception of social theory and economics is a result of a tendency to believe there is a fundamental moral rightness that things naturally revolve around, and that the system it out of whack with it. Rousseau's idea of the "noble savage" (a term he actually never used, even though he expressed the idea), was shifted off man when humanism died among the left, and applied to economics and cultural, believing that if you work hard enough (even if it's a common labor) and are a good person, then it right be nature that you are better compensated than CEO who snorts cocaine and fucks hookers. They codified this natural law into an economic idea.

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 09:23:34 2014 No.5186834 >>5186828 The idea that working conditions would become worse and worse, for one.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:24:43 2014 No.5186836

>>5186830
genesis takes the view of determinism and postulates a god at the beginning, as god and determinism are not falsifiable by our cognitive tools. this does not make them true. the deterministic rigour of genesis ends with god, as if he is not subject to the same deterministic framework. it's not a science, as it's not a study. it's merely a self-indulgent metanarrative.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:25:49 2014 No.5186838

>>5186834

There's a sleight of hand taking place here: 'worse', like 'better' is an evaluation rather than a quantity.

>>5186836

So something has to be falsifiable to count as a study then? This is confusing, I thought we were just defining sciences as narratives.

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 09:26:55 2014 No.5186842 >>5186838 >There's a sleight of hand taking place here: 'worse', like 'better' is an evaluation rather than a quantity. He felt that wages would decrease relative to the cost of living.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:28:34 2014 No.5186844 >>5186842 But surely any Marxist social scientist could claim that the reason that did not occur is not due to the intrinsic validity/invalidity of Marx's theory, but due to some other mitigating factor.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:30:06 2014 No.5186848

>>5186838
no, something does not need to be falsifiable to count as a study. we were defining sciences as narratives of causality, not as mere narratives. where there is an apparent lack of causality we force our learnings from systems that we experience as deterministic, in order to develop a probabilistic framework which gives birth to theories within systems where there is a lack of causality(or where causality is not apparent to us). some theories are stronger than others.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:32:08 2014 No.5186850 >>5186848 Genesis remains a scientific document on this account.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:32:32 2014 No.5186852 >>5186466 >Robert Carlyle >so many shitty implications

Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 09:33:22 2014 No.5186855

>>5186844
But that is the sort of attitude which makes Marxism not taken as seriously in social science these days. If Marx were alive, he'd probably just revise his theory, but Marxists today instead struggle with excuses. So post-Marxistd and Marxist-inspired theorists (Bourdieu, God rest his soul) are really the only respectable form of contemporary Marxism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:34:43 2014 No.5186861 >>5186850 nope, genesis postulates a probability as a truism. and then it adds stuff about an interventionist god who is high-maintenance and needs to be revered.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:35:11 2014 No.5186862 >>5186536 all made sense up to >light and darkness fucking lol get back to sucking George Bush's dick

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:36:15 2014 No.5186864 >>5186855 yes, based on his writing, Marx would disagree with 'marxism'. what we need to take away from Marx, are his critical frameworks for observing sociopolitical power hierarchies.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:36:32 2014 No.5186866 >>5186861 Why is it not a science then? It presents a narrative of causality, which I thought is what you said a science was. >>5186855 What makes one 'attitude' as you call it preferable to another?

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:37:38 2014 No.5186868

>>5186588
>I don't understand why Russians didn't give up and go full anarchism given the consistent set of shit leaders they've had under all systems.
Russian here posting. They don't look like 'shit leaders' at all from up here.

They only seem like 'shit leaders' because you're buttblasted that you could never subdue Russia. Suck it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:39:28 2014 No.5186873 >>5186868 Not the guy you responded to, but how would you rank Russia's leaders compared to each other, going back to Nicholas II?

Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 09:40:09 2014 No.5186876

>>5186866
One values observation, studies and data, the other values purity of theory for the sake of ideology. There is not metaphysical better or worse for either of these, but the former is going to be more effective for confronting real world concerns.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:41:50 2014 No.5186880 Feminister are you a marxist or something?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:41:53 2014 No.5186881 >>5186868 We don't need more wasteland and poor, uneducated masses. Suck it.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:42:15 2014 No.5186882

>>5186866
hah, yeah, finally, I see how you've interpreted my post. by narratives of causality, I don't mean equating certain probabilities with absolute truths, as this would neglect other probabilities. a narrative does not necessarily strive to impose truths, when all we have is a probabilistic framework.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:43:56 2014 No.5186887 >>5186880 all these posts, yet you've failed to see the dangers of labelling something as marxist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:44:05 2014 No.5186888 >>5186882 I'm interpreting your posts straight-forwardly. I'm just asking how you can define 'science' so as to include social science as science while excluding the book of Genesis and other similar narratives of causality as 'non-science'.

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 09:44:07 2014 No.5186889 >>5186880 Marx probably had something with his theory, I'm certainly a Marxist in that I believe that. But his ideology was retarded.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:45:19 2014 No.5186894 >>5186876 >the former is going to be more effective for confronting real world concerns Why?

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:46:00 2014 No.5186896

isn't "Reactionary" just a desire to return to a past ideal? like, as has been said, modern medievalists, modern Russians missing communism, people longing for the good old days on de ole plantation, or in nazi germany, or some other presumed pre-modern paradise? I mean, we might tend to think of reactionaries as being right-wing, because we have a lot of those, but it would be just as reactionary to think wistfully of Mao or Stalin or pol pot, or the austro-hungarian empire, wouldn't it?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:46:00 2014 No.5186897 >>5186881 Yes, which is why you're trying to ruin Russia without annexing us.

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 09:46:48 2014 No.5186899 >>5186894 Because it interfaces with mechanics in the real world.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:48:28 2014 No.5186903 >>5186888 the book of genesis is not a narrative of causality, in that is postulates a mere probability as absolute truth. and then it adds other stuff to it.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:50:45 2014 No.5186907

>>5186896

Do you think it's impossible to think that the present state of affairs is not exactly fantastic, without thinking 'wistfully' of the past? Is there perhaps a false dichotomy at work here, and have you perhaps presented a secondhand strawman of reaction instead of the real thing?

>>5186899

I thought you said you weren't making a metaphysical claim?

>>5186903

Genesis is certainly a narrative of causality, it describes how the world came into being. If you don't like Genesis we can go with Nordic folklore, which also narrates a causal process and therefore is scientific on your account.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:51:07 2014 No.5186908 Y'all should read Nietzsche to see that politics is dumb and that you should not concern yourself too much with it.

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 09:51:36 2014 No.5186911 >>5186907 >I thought you said you weren't making a metaphysical claim? How is that a metaphysical claim?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:52:59 2014 No.5186915 >>5186911 You're invoking the 'real world', and moreover as being present in observation in some way that you're implying it isn't in pure Marxist theory. What if the reverse was true, and how would we know?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:53:41 2014 No.5186916 >>5186590 this pls, I think is fantastic that /lit/ receives contribution from people of all places in the political spectrum, (and is not just a leftist circlejerk) but leave that jew shit in /pol/.

Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 09:55:48 2014 No.5186919

>>5186915
By "real" I merely mean "observable".

>and moreover as being present in observation in some way that you're implying it isn't in pure Marxist theory.
Some of what has been observed conflict with Marx's theory.

>What if the reverse was true, and how would we know?
"Yes, yes, yes, yes, and what if the core is made of cheese?"

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:56:04 2014 No.5186920 >>5186916 I find that if you just refer to them as 'bankers' people in the know know who you're referring to and those who aren't don't get offended.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:57:10 2014 No.5186922 >>5186919 Here's a question, what is it that Marxist social scientists 'observe'?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:57:50 2014 No.5186928 >>5186466 >Dante Anglos, can you just stop pretending you've read the Commedia, pretty please?

>>	Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 09:58:43 2014 No.5186931 >>5186922 Data based on empirical studies. "A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste", for example.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 09:59:41 2014 No.5186934 >>5186931 Give me an example of what counts as data in this paradigm.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:02:28 2014 No.5186942 >>5186934 >>5186931 Actually no forget it, I'm going to bed. I still reckon 'social science' is an oxymoron though.

Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 10:03:44 2014 No.5186945

>>5186934
>Influenced by structuralism, Bourdieu sought to go beyond the traditional reliance on regression analysis in contemporary sociology and achieve a more rigorous quantitative approach. Rather than relying on the correlation of multiple independent variables, he was interested in developing a framework to allow him to view "'the complete system of relations that make up the true principle of the force and form specific to the effects recorded in such and such correlation.'" For the analysis in La Distinction, Bourdieu, working with his statistical technician Salah Bouhedja, employed multiple rounds of correspondence analysis on a set of data from two surveys, the "Kodak survey" of 1963 and the "taste survey" of 1967. In addition to this analysis, Bourdieu also applied correspondence analysis to a subset of the data, the responses from what Bourdieu labelled the "dominant classes" and the "petite-bourgeoisie." This type of research represented an early attempt at geometric data analysis, specifically multiple correspondence analysis, which would become an important methodological framework in Bourdieu's later work.[6]

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:04:33 2014 No.5186949 >>5186942 I think stating why you don't think social 'science' could be regarded as a science would have been a better approach.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:05:30 2014 No.5186953 >>5186920 It's not the same to be critical of the banking system and to be just plain antisemite

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:14:48 2014 No.5186973

>>5186907
>and have you perhaps presented a secondhand strawman of reaction instead of the real thing?

No True Strawman woukld ever be like that!

No, the present state of affairs is far better by any reasonable, or even prejudiced standard. I have lived through five decades of breathtaking progress in just about every area of life. our politicians are more reasonable, our food is better and cheaper, consumer goods, information, healthcare, entertainment, transportation, access to tools....and I grew up in one of the backwaters of the world, not upper middle class white privileged, of mixed race share cropper parents. Things are better everywhere for everybody and it's not just "the sweatshops have a/c" we used to have to piss in a plastic bucket and wait till it was full before someone was allowed to leave work and take it out. the same job now has a snack machine, and the workers have the time and money to use it. believe me, it's night and day. I cannot understand why anyone would want to go back.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:18:32 2014 No.5186985 >>5186973 your post really saddens me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:19:12 2014 No.5186991 >>5186973 Not everyone who disagrees with aspects of the modern world wants to go back to the 1800's technologically.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:29:16 2014 No.5187027

>>5186985
Why exactly? the last few decades had good points and bad points, but we kept almost all the good ones and lost the bad. The loss of any sense of community seems to have been the two-edged sword there: the tyranny of community standards is gone, but now there's no sense of community at all, the loss of the exploitative "mom and pop" company and family hegemony shops has made all convenience shops go away. we did lose some of the good with the bad...

i really do want to know why it makes you sad.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:32:08 2014 No.5187037 >>5186991 Speak for yourself

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:32:38 2014 No.5187039

>>5186832
>believing that if you work hard enough (even if it's a common labor) and are a good person, then it right be nature that you are better compensated than CEO who snorts cocaine and fucks hookers. They codified this natural law into an economic idea.

Does this mindset have a name or theory?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:33:23 2014 No.5187046 >>5186615 >This guy

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:34:18 2014 No.5187049 >>5187027 >the loss of the exploitative "mom and pop" company How is that 'exploitative'?

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:40:24 2014 No.5187066

>>5187049
They were awful. in parts of mexico they still are. they would take all your money, price according to what you could afford (and not the good way) and threaten and use lots of methods to keep anyone from going past them to get cheaper things.the They would go to big stores in the cities, buy their stock, and then mark it up, not just to profit and sell you the convenience of a local source, but in order to extract all the income from the locals. seriously, they were practically gangsters. I know of several sabotage jobs and one basically hijacking to prevent people from just pooling their resources and going to a coop.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:45:16 2014 No.5187077

>>5187066
Well that is outright insane and nothing like family run convenience stores here.

Prices on basic food items are equal to or less than the big supermarkets and they are generally friendly. Also how the hell do they stop you shopping elsewhere, the people in the stores here have no way of knowing you are shopping elsewhere and no way to stop you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:45:57 2014 No.5187082 >>5186466 >the waste land, dante, Nietzsche >reactionary literature i want to die, you are giving me cancer

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:47:48 2014 No.5187091

>>5187027
okay. it saddens me because you force technological developments as a historical framework that you're forcing as a measure of being content with sociopolitical systems.

the only reason that some of the values of our present system happen to be congruent with your own is that they can be capitalized upon efficiently. science for instance is valued because it is useful for maintaining contemporary power hierarchies. I will provide a concrete example of this. take for instance computer science. the only reason it holds such a high rank within our sociopolitical hierarchy isn't because people freely associate in order to serve whatever form their productive needs and wants take. it is valued because it has such a great applicability to maintain the financial industry, in that packaging real money, or even debt, into virtual packages that could be capitalized upon is almost impossible without it.

human productivity has taken the form of capital production for those that are above us in the sociopolitical hierarchy. historically, with a few exceptions (for instance, the economic revolutionary movements that are taking place in catalonia), this has always been the case. the fact that some of the resultant values happen to be congruent with yours is a mere reflection of the perversity of those in power and their facetious adaptability.

I have a problem with slavery, no matter the form it takes. I think it can be overcome. your critical framework is not a justification of the present distribution of power that you take for granted.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:49:02 2014 No.5187094 >>5187091 Do people actually believe this shit? How fucking high do you have to be?

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:52:40 2014 No.5187109

>>5187077
There's often only one way out of town, and the products the people have will show where they bought them. Then their store credit is gone, and their truck mysteriously gets flat tires and parts stolen, their kids get beat up. and I've never seen a mom-and-pop store even in the U.S. where the prices were lower, or even close to the Wal Mart or Safeway price.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:52:41 2014 No.5187110 >>5186466 the other day I opened a thread on burke's reflections and somebody recommended me a more accessible critique of the french revolution by a french author, whose name I forgot. might anyone help me out on this one?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:53:32 2014 No.5187114 >>5187110 Joseph De Maistre

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:54:59 2014 No.5187117 >>5187114 thanks! which work would you recommend?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:55:04 2014 No.5187118 File: 89 KB, 600x865, skorzeny.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >tfw you're a right wing fag surrounded by faggots who think Beowulf defeats Marxists >tfw your fellow travellers are retards >tfw you're the only person who "gets" Hitler

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:55:26 2014 No.5187120

>>5187094
I am not high, yet I believe it. Preventing people to freely associate themselves into syndicalist enterprises by enforcing wage labour and equating productivity with wealth has always been the primal characteristic of the tyrannical cooperation between the state and the wealthiest corporations.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:55:34 2014 No.5187121 >>5187110 Marxist or revisionist school?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 10:56:06 2014 No.5187124 >Marxists >Not the scum of the Earth

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:00:52 2014 No.5187136

>>5187109
>Then their store credit is gone, and their truck mysteriously gets flat tires and parts stolen, their kids get beat up.

Okay this is not even remotely an issue with local stores, this is an issue with a shitty, weak government and towns full of shitty, sociopathic people. In other countries even if the town is so small there is only one store the shop owners do not care where you buy stuff even if they did have x-ray goggles to see into your car. This simply does not happen in places like the UK where losing local stores is nothing but a tragedy.

I also need clarification on this.

> the products the people have will show where they bought them

The kinds of food people take outside their house (crisps, chocolate and the like) are usually from brands that are available everywhere. How do shop owners know you brought X brand potatoes for your home cooking?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:03:06 2014 No.5187146 What's it called if you're socially conservative but economically leftist

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:03:33 2014 No.5187147 >>5187117 Reflections of France for starters. His other famous work is the St.Petersburg dialogues. He was good at prose and even the translation shows.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:03:50 2014 No.5187148 >>5187117 Not that anon but I'd suggest Francois Furet. He used to be a part of the Annales school before following the view of historians like Cobban that the revolution wasn't social but largely political.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:04:36 2014 No.5187151

>>5187136
because they always buy cheap generics and off brands or really high priced name brands. If they see a store brand on a pair of pants or gloves, or a brand they don't sell in your kid's lunch, the word gets back, mostly because every body envies you, and the kids want to show off. it's not that hard. anybody in a town of five hundred knows anything they want to about their neighbors.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:05:06 2014 No.5187153 >>5186655 >work 20 hours per week There´s your problem

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:10:11 2014 No.5187169 >>5187146 Stalinist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:11:22 2014 No.5187179 >>5187146 Isn't that state capitalism?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:11:23 2014 No.5187180 >>5186509 Get over yourself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:11:46 2014 No.5187186 >>5187146 Fascist or National Socialist

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:13:25 2014 No.5187193 >>5187179 No, that´s socially progressive but economically rightist

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:14:01 2014 No.5187198 >>5187118 kill yourself

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:14:05 2014 No.5187200 File: 2.92 MB, 291x300, man of steel.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5187169 I'd prefer a less totalitarian strain of ideology.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:14:23 2014 No.5187203 >>5187193 Economically right is for less intervention in the economy, no?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:14:52 2014 No.5187205 >>5187146 it's called being a leftist. this could take many forms as far as models for sociopolitically organizing people though.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:16:27 2014 No.5187215

>>5187151
>pants or gloves
>town of 500

You actually have clothing shops in places that small? Nobody buys clothing in their own town here unless its big enough to have chain clothing or department stores, there simply is not enough demand to keep them open. And if it actually gets 'reported back' what your kids eats for lunch so that you can be threatened or messed with then all I can suggest is moving somewhere not populated by scum.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:16:37 2014 No.5187217 >>5187203 Yes, ideally. But reactionaries are usually for more intervention.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:17:33 2014 No.5187223 >>5187217 Reactionaries are highly volatile and depend entirely on what changes they're reacting to.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:18:01 2014 No.5187227 >>5187205 >leftist >socially conservative can't you see something wrong there

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:19:58 2014 No.5187234 >>5187227 Well the main focus in politics today is economics. Under that view ones economic policies would come first and everything else second. So yes he could be called a leftist, but I agree it is silly to group all leftists in such a manner

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:22:14 2014 No.5187248 >>5187223 That depends on your definition of reactionary. I am using it in the sense of conservative revolutionaries, Traditionalists, etc. In the Carlylean sense.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:24:22 2014 No.5187259 >>5187227 A slavshit grandpa would bitchslap you so hard.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:24:55 2014 No.5187264 >>5187248 They were reacting to the changes of the French Revolution. But the reactionaries during the bourbon restoration were ardent republicans, no? You can't put a stopgap on the term reactionary, it is an inherently context sensitive term.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:30:40 2014 No.5187282 >>5186466 Are reactionaries unaware that time doesn't move backwards?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:31:42 2014 No.5187288 >>5187282 And? You can still be for the repeal of dumb ideas

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:32:53 2014 No.5187292 >>5187234 >the main focus in politics today is economics that is a very unleftist view, to say the least.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:33:11 2014 No.5187293 >>5187282 this no matter what happens, 5 years down the line some progressive is going to take over and everything that was put in place shall be torn down in favor of liberal ideas, it's like trying to reduce entropy

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:36:08 2014 No.5187305 >>5187146 socially conservative social democrat/socialist ?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:38:40 2014 No.5187316 >beowulf >dante Wow. Wow. >>5187288 Monarchism, fascism, all the reactionary "ideas" have all proven to be horrible and trying to fit a square peg in a triangular hole never works. Sorry m8y.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:40:42 2014 No.5187323 >>5187316 Monarchism isn't reactionary in and of itself. It's more conservative and was reactionary during the French Revolution due to people wishing to return to the monarchy. Fascism is radical. But please try again.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:42:33 2014 No.5187332 >>5187292 Good thing I'm not a leftist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:42:46 2014 No.5187335 >>5187292 nice circular logic the main focus of the left is economics because the concept of "left" refers to economics alone. what you think "left" means is called "progressive" and both aren't necessarily related

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:42:51 2014 No.5187336 >>5187293 That is not an argument for blindly following abhorrent, stupid or unworkable ideas just because they are newer.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:43:35 2014 No.5187341

>>5187215
one clothing/dry goods shop. one seed/feed. farm store, one restaurant one service station, one general store, one furniture store, one or two barbers, a repair guy, a shoe store, and one place to work, one school one church. yeah, anything new shows up everybody knows it by the next night.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:43:50 2014 No.5187344 >>5187335 Well left and right as terms arose from the National Assembly which was political, not economic

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:44:53 2014 No.5187349 >>5187336 It's just the flawed thinking of x is old and y is new so y must be better.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:51:27 2014 No.5187375 >>5186677 >be a reactionary right-winger >claim utopia to be faulty >use ubermensch from utopia as your framework for societal analysis Is right-wing critisism of rationality a coincidence? I think not.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 11:55:16 2014 No.5187391 >>5186777 >are always proponents of the most wacky theoretically clever but totally unworkable moral and economic schemes? Like the Austrian school of thought?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 12:19:38 2014 No.5187484 >>5187391 I think he means more shit like affirmative action and gender/minority quotas

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 12:24:01 2014 No.5187505 File: 43 KB, 640x798, mf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5187484 I think you have no idea what I was talking about when I said "the Austrian school of thought".

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 12:25:00 2014 No.5187507

As one of the few over fifty members of this board, I really do want to hear what people think has changed for the worse from the past. I can think of a few things, but mostly I've seen substantial improvements everywhere. What do you guys think we've lost?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 12:26:32 2014 No.5187520 >>5186751 Elliot rodgers

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 12:27:08 2014 No.5187527 >>5187505 I think you're really bad at identifying shitposting

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 12:31:08 2014 No.5187540 >>5187507 Thanks for ruining everything you boomer cunt.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 12:36:46 2014 No.5187569 >>5187540 ruining what? give me a list. I thought old guys were the ones supposed to be nostalgic for the headlice and hard labor days... what's up with you kids?

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 12:41:49 2014 No.5187584

>>5187569
you've created a hierarchy of forms of productivity solely based on what enables the financial industry to thrive. you've financed economy, you've financed sociopolitical power, you've financed culture and you've enslaved me. so thanks. Luckily, my indoctrination is strong and I can still strive in this system, while these nuggets of truth come in the form of narcissistic self-pity and while I'm selling myself and make money for the sole purpose of making money for those that are above me in the hierarchy, this gives me a false sense of moral superiority. so thanks man. thank you.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 12:48:14 2014 No.5187603

>>5187584
believe it or not, event THAT was much worse thirty-thirty five years ago. the heirarchy was more entrenched, the money motive was more pervasive, financial control of all aspects of culture was more pervasive. what saved us was in my opinion consumerism. buyers went from being slaves to being masters, and fickle, arbitrary masters. But that's speculation. All i can really say is that if you hate that stuff now, you wouldn't have been able to control yourself forty years back.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 12:51:40 2014 No.5187609 >>5187603 What's this guy rambling?

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 12:52:23 2014 No.5187612

>>5187603
I'm speaking of the financialization of the economy which culminated with the Reagan-Thatcher hard on for the financial industry.

While sociopolitical hierarchies did exist before your generation, their roots were far more evident and fixable. Now people are literally happy with being enslaved.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 12:55:11 2014 No.5187619

>>5186538
>whatever other leftist of whatever era pops up and murders every man, woman, and child of quality in a purely jealous rage

This sounds a lot closer to a warrior aristocracy than per-revoultion France.

Also I thought the various political weirdos here were against a 2-dimensional view of politics. Why are we even arguing on the lines of marxist vs traditionalist when both camps are so small its not like it would even make any difference.

>>5186596
>that picture
Not even going to bother reading your post

>>5186618
>tfw reading your baby cousin "Son of God' at bedtime
She might have been crazy, but she's a fun writer.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 12:59:25 2014 No.5187633
File: 72 KB, 634x397, capitalismo-socialismo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5186931
>Bordieu actually believed that a grand borgeois conspiracy theory controlled education, blind to the fact that most education theorists (John Dewey, Paulo Freire etc) were leftists
>Bordieu actually believed that cultural tastes are used as a form of indicating social status (and he was right), but he didn't extended that into political positions because that would be uncomfortable to the whole lot of semi-Marxist intellectuals he associated it

I like Bourdieu, but he clearly doesn't take his theories too far because it would then be clear that the ones having the "cultural hegemony", the ones using political distinction to signal higher status, were his marxist friends.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 13:01:00 2014 No.5187638 File: 352 KB, 1600x918, tyler cycle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5187282 Reactionaries tend to believe history is cyclical.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 13:02:07 2014 No.5187641 >>5186466 No Yeats OP?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 13:02:48 2014 No.5187643 >Chartism >reactionary Explain please. As far as my knowledge goes chartism was a working-class movement

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 13:03:02 2014 No.5187646 File: 159 KB, 2000x1143, carlistas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >no Carlism Why do you always forget the only strain of traditionalist/Reactionary thought that actually had real-life relevance?

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 13:05:26 2014 No.5187655

>>5187612
Hmmm. so you're not complaining about actual access to resources, but to public perception? or do you see the system as having been consolidated from lots of little exploiters (kulak/NEPmen style) to one or two big ones (oligarch style) which you see as worse? Not sure I agree that nowadays it's worse than the investment trusts, the standard oil monopolies, the military-industrial coalition or the state-owned or authorized monopolies of regency and Victorian England and the communist bloc...

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 13:05:52 2014 No.5187658 >>5186466 The resolution is just 10% too low to make me bother reading the titles, sorry

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 13:06:34 2014 No.5187663 >>5187643 It's about chartism and why something should be done about it (and not just pretending that it's not there or squashing it once it gets out of hand, as was being done).

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 13:07:37 2014 No.5187667 >>5187641 Will replace Pound with him in the next edition.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 13:17:07 2014 No.5187704

>>5187655
I'm complaining about both. I'm complaining about the access to means of production which is controlled by the tyrannical neoliberal cooperation between states and corporate oligarchies. I'm complaining about the way our tax system favours the exploitation of resources, yet stifles individual productivity. I also take issue with how the financial industry is a shield for this and we all take it for granted. We can't form enterprises based on common productive goals and establish syndicates that come up with internal hierarchies which suit these goals, as productivity is now equated with creating money so we are content with wage slavery and the financial industry's peddling of virtual money is supporting this slavery.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 13:20:52 2014 No.5187723

>>5187655
>Not sure I agree that nowadays it's worse than the investment trusts, the standard oil monopolies, the military-industrial coalition or the state-owned or authorized monopolies of regency and Victorian England and the communist bloc...

But that's exactly how the things roll nowadays. Oh, right, when we get to the western institutions we're supposed to close our eyes. Okay.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 13:36:29 2014 No.5187795 >>5186693 Why would you want to be a revolutionary? By definition you'd be just going round in circles. Much better to oppose the revolution and be a reactionary.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 13:48:15 2014 No.5187840

>>5187704
>>5187723
I'm not saying it's not bad now guys, just that it was SO MUCH WORSE BEFORE. Things are getting better, there are fewermonopolies, fewr sinecures, fewer places for the oligarchs and middlemen and rent-seekers to hide. they really used to have it all their own way: now they're hiring lobbyists, and running PR campaigns and hiding everything they can. They used to be respected and feared: now they may be envied, but they're also reviled and discounted.Nobody trusts them. and as for slavery, the work used to be harder, poorer paid, there were no benefits, no recourse for grievances, and very little safety net. if you weren't in a union or some skilled trade, you had almost no hope if your boss had a whim. Now some things ARE worse nowadays, but you youngsters aren't interested in hearing old guys grumble I'm sure.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 13:54:53 2014 No.5187867

>>5187840
>Things are getting better, there are fewermonopolies, fewr sinecures, fewer places for the oligarchs and middlemen and rent-seekers to hide.

It means nothing when capital is move to a small elite with domestic institutes. Different shit, same result. You're beating a dead horse more or less.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 13:56:54 2014 No.5187879

>>5187840
I'm assuming that the things you deem as worse are cultural attitudes and manifestations of culture (our obsession with entertainment and such). I agree. I also agree that these are reflections of an tyrannical empire that is struggling for its last breaths. However, I don't see it fading. The few who question power structures are derailed by identity politics and other petty objectives. The figures who are truly focused on dissolving sociopolitical hierarchies are dying and no one seems to be taking their place. Neoliberalism is thriving while borrowing liberalism and waving it while having nothing to do with it. As for the financial industry, we simply can't abolish it, as we have our money in it. Yes, it is simply too big to fail. Wiping debt is an option. But what then? I'm not an economist and the brilliant minds involved in economy have been educated within the system and can't see anything outside of it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 25 14:22:13 2014 No.5188043 >>5186650 Posts like these are always the most interesting.

Anonymous Fri Jul 25 14:47:42 2014 No.5188152

>>5187879
Well, no. the things that bother me the most are that things that used to be within easy reach of the average guy have been made unreachable.

I put myself through college working a part time job. I literally paid tuition with tips. And I built my own first house on a half-acre of land over a summer. Just twenty five by thirty, three rooms and a bath, but it cost me less than two thousand dollars in materials. Now the materials are actually cheaper and easier to get, but codes are so restrictive you wouldn't be allowed to build a house most places, and land is (or was before the crash) far too expensive. Cars used to be crap, but they were cheap crap that you could fix anything on with twenty bucks and a weekend in the back yard. A kid could get a job at fourteen that he could buy a car with. One thing we can agree on in terms of social decline is the massive numbers of fees, fines, codes, restrictions and mandatory purchases that have been dumped on people in efforts to raise revenues for a government providing fewer and fewer services.

And again, all the things you talk about now were so much worse before. You might as well be the classic "angry young man" of the early sixties. I feel like I'm reading "Harry" or the L.A. Free Press again. or the Coevolution quarterly. All those guys got coopted by the mainstream because they came preloaded for it. They were trying to solve by political means a problem that had its roots in economics, mental attitudes and basically poverty and peoples adaptations to it. They wanted a false equality, and were willing to sacrifice a lot of freedom for it. And a lot of those guys are thnking god right now they didnt get what they wished for. Spiro is dust, now, and even Nixon eventually died, Thatcher's gone and Reagan's gone and there are no realistic heirs to them. Even Putin is barely holding on until the next energy breakthrough or technological advance makes him obsolete. you will live to see a Chinese spring, a Korean spring, a Russian spring. I don't hope for an Islamic one, but you never can tell....

Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 15:02:54 2014 No.5188230

>>5187039
No, it is simply a notion that I've gathered from applying Stirner's idea of spooks to leftist theory. The fundamental premise that defines it, is reifying "deserves" and "exploited" hard enough to imagine they exist in a scientific sense (whereas the system of "deserts" is considered to be fundamentally more "natural" and "exploitation" is perceived as a "perversion" of "natural economics"; Marx thankfully avoided this idea with primitive communism, saying that was only "natural" because primitive societies don't produce beyond consumption requirements, and therefore distribution had to be made based on need because otherwise some tribe members would simply starve). Capitalists do this sometimes as well (when liberals overthrew the aristocracy, the idea was quite popular), but it's most common among leftists. It's easy to recognize when something like the term "earned" is applied in economics as something you "deserve" rather than simply what you make--so you can make something, but not have "earned" it, even though economics laws of course make no distinction between what you make and what you deserve.

Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE Fri Jul 25 15:09:22 2014 No.5188267

>>5187633
I'm not entirely sure you've read him? One of his major points is that what people are educated in is even a matter of taste, so that if you're brought up with a taste for (insert subject), you will always have a tremendous classroom advantage over someone who was not brought up to enjoy it, no matter how diligent they are. It's a point that academic intelligence is (mainly) based more off of preference for a subject due to upbringing, than it is upon, say, spatial cognition or other neural abilities. If I'm taught from a a young age to like history and to think intellectualism is cool, I'm going to do better in history than someone who was brought up to like street racing and to think cars are what make you cool, because I will be applying a personally a carefully cultivated passion, whereas they will approach the subject purely from an analytic perspective.

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

/lit/ - Literature