/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.528197]

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions”
- Adolf Hitler

I am inspired. Recommend some more good socialist literature please.

[Anonymous No.528201]

>>528197
Nazi's arnt actually socialists. Just cause its in their name does not make it true. But who cares what i say, since you're clearly getting your marching orders from glenn beck.

[Anonymous No.528206]

>>528201

I consider Glenn Beck a socialist.

[Anonymous No.528207]

What an idiot.

Fascism and Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Communism are on polar opposites of the political spectrum.

Regardless of what the rightwing fags tell you.

[Anonymous No.528209]

>Stalin murdered 60 million people

only in corporitarians' wet dreams. The real number is closer to 4-5 million, which is still a horrible figure to be sure.

But this conflation of National-Socialism with Marxist Socialism is possible only in the rhetorical flights of right wing/corporitarian ideologues.

[Anonymous No.528210]

>>528201

Ultranationalist, anti-capitalist, pro-working class. All of the above both in nazi theory and in implemented policies. How in the name of god were they not socialist?

[Anonymous No.528211]

Hitler also said he wasn't going to kill the Jews.

That's unfair, but my point is this: the true picture is much more complicated than that. And if you look at the ideologies, there's really no comparison between National Socialism and Communism, let alone modern democratic socialism. You cannot attribute National Socialism and Communism to the same source, and even if you could, that source is not socialism or state control of property. That is a terrible, terrible error. It's a terrible oversimplification, in addition to being entirely wrong.

There is, by the way, a comparison between National Socialism and Communism on the level of popular appeal and in the form of government they took on (IE totalitarian). So we can say, to some extent, that the massive atrocities committed by Communist and Nazi regimes had similar causes inasmuch as both governments (despite their different ideologies) shared the same sort of government and the same internal logic.

[Anonymous No.528215]

>>528209
>The real number is closer to 4-5 million

Fuck historians.

[Anonymous No.528218]

>>528209

>corporitarian

I like this term.

[Anonymous No.528219]

It was atheism.

[Anonymous No.528221]

>>528201
Your writing ability certainly makes me want to believe that you're an intelligent person.

[Anonymous No.528223]

>>528207
>hurr durr appeals to assertions of arbitrary nonconcept of "left-right"

[Anonymous No.528228]

>>528197
>>528201

MOST OBVIOUS MOTHERFUCKING SAMEFAG TROLL EVER.

[Anonymous No.528231]

>>528210

Peron was pro-labor, anti-capitalist.

Was he Socialist?

There is a difference between Socialism and Populism.

Hurr Durr.

[anonymous No.528232]

The Communist Manifesto

[Anonymous No.528233]

>>528228
OP here, maybe the other anon will come forward, but no.. this is me

>>528206

and that's my only post ITT until this one.

[Anonymous No.528234]

>>528210
>Ultranationalist
Certainly true.

I would point out that Communist ideology, in contrast to Nazi ideology, is stridently non-nationalist. Now, in practice, Communist did quickly become nationalist ("the ideal of communism in one nation") but this has to do with tension between Communist idea and Communist practice, not with any similarity between National Socialist and Communist ideology.
>anti-capitalist
Nazis weren't anti-capitalist in the same way that Communists were. Communists challenged entire structure of liberal capitalism; Nazis were largely supported by large businesses. In terms of their behavior, Nazis did nationalize many industries, but this is more a consequence of total war + a desire of totalitarian government as such than a specific feature of National Socialist ideology.

>pro-working class
Nazis were not pro-working class explicitly in the same way the Communists were. Nazi appeal was primarily to the mass man, always and explicitly, and on the grounds of race. Communist appeal was first to the working class and second to the mass man; further, it made its appeal explicitly on the grounds of class solidarity and economic prophecy in the way the Nazis did not.

[Anonymous No.528236]

>>528215
>Researchers before the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union attempting to count the number of people killed under Stalin's regime produced estimates ranging from 3 to 60 million.[79] After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives also became available, containing official records of the execution of approximately 800,000 prisoners under Stalin for either political or criminal offenses, around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulags and some 390,000 deaths during kulak forced resettlement – for a total of about 3 million officially recorded victims in these categories

[Anonymous No.528237]

>>528223

Hurr Durr.

If you can't distinguish the obvious differences between the left and right then you should go die somewhere.

Are there shades of gray? Of course.
I di

[Anonymous No.528239]

>ITT: people that never heard of "the black book of socialism"

>ITT: People that believe that hitler was far right just because he fought the USSR (they also fought england and the USA, so that makes them what?)

[Anonymous No.528240]

>>528234

>In terms of their behavior, Nazis did nationalize many industries, but this is more a consequence of total war + a desire of totalitarian government as such than a specific feature of National Socialist ideology.

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

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.528242]

sure is high school in here.

[Anonymous No.528243]

>>528237
Hurr Durr finish your posts before you submit them.

[Anonymous No.528244]

The ignorance of political theory in this thread is astounding.

Corporatism and Socialism are not the same thing.

Hurr Durr.

Populism and Socialism are not the same thing.

Hurr Durr.

[Anonymous No.528247]

>>528237

I can distinguish between the numerous and contradictory applications of linear political spectra labeled "left" and "right." If you're attached to one of those childishly stupid labels, it's probably best you keep holding on to that.

[Anonymous No.528248]

>>528240
Okay, fine, argue that Corporatism is an essential feature of National Socialism. I don't necessarily agree with you, but I'm fine with it.

However, if you argue that Corporatism is an essential feature of National Socialism, you cannot seriously believe that the economic premise of National Socialism is identical to that of Communism. So my broader point still stands anyway, and that's what I really care about.

[Anonymous No.528254]

>>528247

Anarchism?

You cannot get much more childish than that.

[Anonymous No.528259]

>>528248

Oh I'm not even involved in the general debate, I just wanted to point out that you were wrong on that specific idea.

And corporatism is sure as hell essential to fascism, the idea originates in Mussolini's writings.

I agree with you that corporatism!=socialism, they're very different in theory and practice.

[Anonymous No.528262]

>>528248
Corporatism is indeed an integral feature of all kinds of fascism and its vision of the hierarchical, almost medieval "state of estates". Communist ideology is rife between contradictions between state expansion and dissolution, but generally maintains a model of a command economy with self-controlling factories.

[Anonymous No.528266]

>>528244

Any power must be an enemy of mankind which enslaves the individual by power and by force, whether it arises under the Fascist or the Communist flag. All that is valuable in human society depends upon the opportunity for development accorded to the individual in freedom.
- Albert Einstein

What, actually, is the difference in praxis between communism and fascism? Both are forms of statism, authoritarianism. The only difference ... is an insignificant detail in organizational structure.
- Leonard Read

... and just to preempt the dumbass who will note that Einstein was at one time nominally socialist:

It is no accident that capitalism has brought with it progress not merely in production but also in knowledge. Egoism and competition are, alas, stronger forces than public spirit and sense of duty. In Russia, they say, it is impossible to get a decent piece of bread. ..Perhaps I am over-pessimistic concerning state and other forms of communal enterprise, but I expect little good from them. Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement. I have seen and experienced too many dreadful warnings, even in comparatively model Switzerland.
- Albert Einstein

Planned economy is not socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
- Albert Einstein, Monthly Review

[Anonymous No.528270]

>>528254
READ A BOOK NIGGER! READ A BOOK NIGGER! READ A BOOK NIGGER! READ A BOOK NIGGER!

Seriously though, actually read a book about the subject before you go full retard. Just saying, douche.

[Anonymous No.528271]

>>528259
>>528262
okay, I am down with you on this.

[Anonymous No.528274]

Yes Einstein has clout in political theory.

GTFO off with your quotes.

[Anonymous No.528276]

>>528270

Anarchist's are the retards.

[Anonymous No.528278]

>>528266
prognosis on next quote: von Mises or Rothbard

[Anonymous No.528281]

>>528266

Einstein was a brilliant scientist, but that in no way gives his political opinions clout.

[Anonymous No.528289]

>>528274

...What, you don't like arguments from authority?

[Anonymous No.528290]

>>528270
>writes like a 14 year-old wigger
>tells other people they went full retard

[Anonymous No.528291]

>>528266
>What, actually, is the difference in praxis between communism and fascism? Both are forms of statism, authoritarianism. The only difference ... is an insignificant detail in organizational structure.

Yes, this is true. Read some Hannah Arendt. Despite real and significant differences in theory and ideology between National Socialism and Communism (and they do exist), there are two crucial similarities between the two. One, as ideologies, they have the same sort of predictive power, make the same general sort of claims, and have the same attraction to mass man as such. Two, once in power, Communist and Nazi regimes had the same structure: they were both totalitarian regimes which attempted to implement the absolute claims of the ideologies on which they were founded.

So, yes, this is to some extent a valid point - both Nazi and Communist regimes behaved in fairly similar ways while in government. This does not mean they are the same, nor does it justify your Hayekian argument (which you haven't actually made, this is an assumption that I feel fairly justified in making) that the fundamental characteristic of totalitarian regimes is the limits they place on economic freedom.

[Anonymous No.528292]

einstein was a kgb spy, an obvious communist (but that was never proven)

so was hemingway as everybody knows

i mean, einstein wanted to get into the atomic bomb project and even recommended some guy to work there. after the war, 1 month later the USSR had the bomb.

[Anonymous No.528293]

>>528281
>>528274

>i smarter than einstein durrrr

[Anonymous No.528297]

>>528266

>gives argument from authority as a refutation of authoritarianism

[Anonymous No.528298]

>>528290
You missed the reference.

[Anonymous No.528305]

>>528293
Einstein is a scientist, not a political theorist. Were we discussing methods of scientific inquiry, or some factual or theoretic question of science, I would certainly cede to his authority. Alas, we are not.

[Anonymous No.528307]

>>528297
>appeals to authority
>authoritarianism

You don't know what one or both of those things mean...

[Anonymous No.528311]

>>528291
only Arendt didn't forsee the neo-marxist/world-systems analysis that liberal democracy invariably strives to institute a hegemony over public speech and the conclusion that all political systems are totalitarian in their treatment of the political subject.

[Anonymous No.528324]

>>528311
Oh, you can say that if you want, it's a whole nother topic though - and doesn't really invalidate her analysis of totalitarianism as such, I'd say.

[Anonymous No.528325]

>>528307

Because my stupidity is SO self-evident...

>lrn2greentext

[Anonymous No.528330]

>>528325
Yes.

[Anonymous No.528337]

>>528276

Emma Goldman
Max Stirner
Benjamin Tucker
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Peter Kropotkin
Tolstoy
John Cage
Herbert Spencer
Josiah Warren

Retards.

[Anonymous No.528344]

>>528197
OP's quote is fake. It has been doing the rounds of the loony right-wing websites for a while.

[Anonymous No.528351]

>>528344

OP's quote is in peer-reviewed literature:

http://books.google.com/books?id=UvjsAAAAMAAJ&q=%E2%80%9CWe+are+socialists,+we+are+enemies+o
f+today%E2%80%99s+capitalistic+economic+system+for+the+exploitation+of+the+economically+weak,+wi
th+its+unfair+salaries,+with+its+unseemly+evaluation+of+a+human+being+according+to+wealth+and+pr
operty+instead+of+responsibility+and+performance,+and+we+are+all+determined+to+destroy+this+syst
em+under+all+conditions%E2%80%9D&dq=%E2%80%9CWe+are+socialists,+we+are+enemies+of+today%E2%8
0%99s+capitalistic+economic+system+for+the+exploitation+of+the+economically+weak,+with+its+unfai
r+salaries,+with+its+unseemly+evaluation+of+a+human+being+according+to+wealth+and+property+inste
ad+of+responsibility+and+performance,+and+we+are+all+determined+to+destroy+this+system+under+all
+conditions%E2%80%9D&hl=en&ei=AgC9S8LbKcOAlAfbtOGECQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=resu
lt&resnum=5&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBA

[Anonymous No.528357]

>>528330

An argument from authority (you invoked the name of Einstein, which is fucking retarded because the man knew next to nothing about political philosophy)--and your argument rested on Einstein's authority as an intellectual figure, and only on that--as a pseudo-refutation of 'authoritarianism' is, to put it very simply, stupid.

Typing in green text without elaborating on your actual point is stupid, immature, and a sign that you can't defend your own point of view; saying 'you don't know what you're talking about' doesn't mean anything. This is /lit/, not /b/. Statements require explanations.

[Anonymous No.528363]

>>528337

Anarchists in general versus anarchist intellectuals. Hmm.

[Anonymous No.528365]

>>528337

Borges was a rightwing fag.

Do I think he is retarded? God no.

You have to separate literary figures from their political views, regardless of how retarded they may be.

Retard....

"Oh look at me I'm an Anarchist. I'm edgy and non-conformist. Let's go get into our faggy little black bloc and break things. Fuck yeah!"

[Anonymous No.528370]

>>528337
>Proudhon
>Stirner
>artists and other non-political figures

This would be amusing if it didn't serve a very real agenda, namely helping American businessmen-imperialists retain their hegemonic power over the entire world.

pic loosely related, it's my face after getting no less than 10 Updating index... notices when trying to submit this post.

[Anonymous No.528369]

"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."

[Anonymous No.528380]

ITT: 16-21-year-olds use wikipedia to look smart

[Anonymous No.528383]

>>528351
yeah, and the Hitler diaries were peer-reviewed too ...

[Anonymous No.528384]

>>528365
Those kind of "anarchists" and most people who call themselves are "anarchists" are indeed retards.


However, there is one group that is.. different..

Stanford economist (and physicist) David Friedman
Nobel-laureate Harvard economist Vernon Smith
Yale law professor Robert Ellickson
Yale historian James C. Scott
Oxford political philosopher Leslie Green
Oxford economist Anthony de Jasay
Princeton economist Bryan Caplan
Columbia historian Thomas Woods
Michigan state biophysicist Mary Ruwart
Berkeley psychologist Sharon Presley
Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett
Harvard political philosopher Jan Narveson
NYU economist Robert Murphy
Sorbonne University sociologist Carlo Lottieri
Universite d'Angers economist Jorge Hulsmann
Madrid University economist Jesus Huerta de Soto
Prague University economist Robert Higgs
the best-selling financial author of all time Doug Casey
most of the economics department of George Mason University
numerous working economists, sociologists, political philosophers, scientists, businessmen etc.

[virtually all identified as "anarcho-capitalists"]

[Anonymous No.528387]

Stalin killed 20 million.

[Anonymous No.528389]

>>528363
Did the post he was replying to say "anarchists in general are retards?" Nope. I wouldn't say anarchist in general are any dumber than non-anarchists anyway.

[Anonymous No.528393]

>>528384
oh god, not you again

you do this every so often .. the same SPAM all over the front page of /lit/

[Anonymous No.528398]

>>528393
Yeah, that guy is one annoying fucker

[Anonymous No.528406]

>>528365
>>528370

One musician/philosopher on the list, one author on the list. Totally full of non-political figures...

[Anonymous No.528408]

>>528398
I think he calls himself an "economist" from NZ or something ... spams all over /lit/ with cut-and-paste quotes or out-of-context quotations from people he's obviously never read.

It's the same old stuff time and again.

This isn't having a proper argument at all ...

[Anonymous No.528409]

fact:
all anarchists are retards

why?
because it's contradictory and impossible

a liberal (in an economic sense, not in an idiotic american sense) is in the right wing
but a extreme liberalism would be an anarchy, and that is extreme left wing

so if you go from the extreme right to the extreme left you end up in the same place.

and that is illogical

the end

[Anonymous No.528410]

>>528393

It's not spam, it's factual and topical and in direct response to the post indicated. That it makes you upset does not make it spam.

[Anonymous No.528412]

>>528384
I don't agree with them, so they are retards.

[Anonymous No.528415]

>>528384

>anarcho-capitalists

Anarcho-capitalism is a terrible idea.

[Anonymous No.528417]

>>528409
The left-right construct is a childishly stupid nonconcept.. might as well make an argument from Koranic authority or something.

[Anonymous No.528419]

>>528410
Except that you copy paste the same fucking posts and lists and quotes over and over.

Seriously, do you think anyone interested in these topics hasn't seen your list of anarcho-capitalist professors, or your copious quotes about how economic control is evil?

[Anonymous No.528426]

>>528419
and you got bitch-slapped with that dumb Bastiat quote the other day.

I mean, Bastiat?!

[Anonymous No.528429]

>>528409
That is the dumbest post I have ever read ever. There is nothing to even refute there. You may as well typed:

Magic unicorns eat snow cones and so do pipes. So you see, utilitarianism is illogical.

There was no reason or logic in that post at all. You clearly don't even have the slightest clue what you are talking about. Everyone is dumber for having read that. I reward you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

[Anonymous No.528434]

>>528426

I didn't post Bastiat recently, but there are a few other ancaps who post here.

Given Bastiat preempted and laid the foundation for modern microeconomics, public choice economics, free trade theory, and defeated both Marx and Proudhon in intellectual debate.. I highly doubt what you are saying happened.

[Anonymous No.528435]

>>528429

obviously don't know what he's talking about

[Anonymous No.528439]

>>528435
somebody's butthurt.

[Anonymous No.528443]

>>528415
Socialism is a terrible Idea. Damn, I totally owned socialism. Next, let's own communism.. here we go.. Communism is a terrible idea. Holy shit I am amazing. Time to own authoritarianism and libertarianism... I should write a book.

[Anonymous No.528450]

>>528443
i loled

[Anonymous No.528451]

>>528434
then it's someone very like you. In fact, the same quotes and the same defence of him establishing the entire basis of modern economics, which is so utterly laughable that I really don't think we live in the same dimension. And he never debated Marx, btw.

But, just for fun, I will repost what someone else so entertainingly posted:

The following are Bastiat's main theses: All men strive for constancy of income, fixed revenue. <Truly French example: (1) All men want to be civil servants or make their sons civil servants. (p. 371.)) Wages are a fixed form of remuneration (p. 376) and hence a very perfect form of association, in whose original form 'the aleatory' predominates, in so far as 'all the associated' are subject to 'all the risks of the enterprise'. (If capital takes the risk on its own account, the remuneration of labour becomes established under the name wages. If labour wants to take the consequences, good and bad, then the remuneration of capital splits off and establishes itself under the name interest (382).> (On this juxtaposition, see further p. 382, 383.) However, while the aleatory originally predominates in the worker's condition, the stability of wage labour is not yet sufficiently secured. There is an 'intermediate degree which separates the aleatory from stability'. This last stage is reached by 'saving, during days of work, the means to provide for the needs of days of old age and illness'. (p. 388.) The final stage develops by means of 'mutual aid societies' (loc. cit.) and in the final instance by means of the 'workers' retirement fund'. (p. 393.) (As man began with the need to become a civil servant, so he ends with the satisfaction of drawing a pension.)

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.528452]

well, i hope you are a troll.

[Anonymous No.528460]

>>528451
Marx again:

Bastiat, by contrast, presents fantasy history, his abstractions sometimes in the form of arguments, another time in the form of supposed events, which however have never and nowhere happened, just as a theologian treats sin sometimes as the law of human existence, then at other times as the story of the fall from grace.

[Anonymous No.528462]

>>528450

I didn't.

I hate you all.

Luxemburgism ftw!

[Anonymous No.528465]

>>528450
>>528443
do you loonies travel by gangs or something? i always see you people in packs

[Anonymous No.528468]

>>528460
and Marx again on Bastiat:

A one-sided characterization of a relation, of an economic form, so as to make it the object of panegyrics in contrast to the opposite form; this cheap practice of lawyers and apologists is what distinguishes the logician, Bastiat. Thus, in place of wages, put: fixed income. Is a fixed income not a good thing? Does not everyone love to count on a sure thing? Especially every petty- bourgeois, narrow-minded Frenchman? the 'ever-needy' man? Human bondage has been defended in the same way, perhaps on better grounds. The opposite could also be asserted, and has been asserted. Equate wages to non-fixedness, i.e. progression past a certain point. Who does not love to get ahead, instead of standing still? Can a relation be bad which makes possible an infinite bourgeois progress? Naturally, Bastiat himself in another passage asserts wages as non-fixedness. How else, apart from non-fixedness, would it be possible for the worker to stop working, to become a capitalist, as Bastiat wishes? Thus wage labour is good because it is fixedness; it is good because it is non-fixedness; it is good because it is neither one nor the other, but both at the same time. What relation is not good, if it is reduced to a one-sided characterization and the latter is regarded as position, not as negation? All opportunist chattering, all apologetics, all philistine sophistry rests on this sort of abstraction.

[Anonymous No.528470]

what i love most about discussing socialism/communism with western europeans and americans is that they have no idea what this is all about.

they think it is a thing from the past and it will never come back.

it's just sad...

[Anonymous No.528477]

>>528451

>All men want to be civil servants or make their sons civil servants

Marx apparently had a reading comprehension deficiency...

>Similarly, the civil servant, the soldier, the magistrate enter upon these careers only in order to ensure the satisfaction of their wants. Nor should we hold it against the man who follows a vocation calling for disinterestedness and self-sacrifice if he, too, invokes the proverb: To the priest the altar is a livelihood; for before he became a priest, he was a man. And if at this very moment such an individual is writing a book against the vulgarity of this observation of mine, or rather against the vulgarity of the human condition, the sale of his book will argue against his own thesis.
- Economic Harmonies

Other than that, and Marx's inserting his own retarded and normative terminology, you're just talking mainstream economics. eg. Here's raging libertarian Paul Krugman

>Krugman has advocated free markets in contexts where they are often viewed as controversial. He has written against rent control in favor of supply and demand,[121] argued that "sweatshops" are preferable to unemployment,[29] challenged minimum wage and living wage laws,[122] likened the opposition against free trade and globalization to the opposition against evolution via natural selection,[123] opposed farm subsidies[124] and mandates, subsidies, and tax breaks for ethanol,[125] questioned NASA's manned space flights,[126] and written against some aspects of European labor market regulation.[127][128] He once famously quipped that, "If there were an Economist’s Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'."[129][130]

[Anonymous No.528480]

>>528470

Well, it is a thing from the past and I hope for the sake of humanity they don't come back (though they're not gone entirely.. there's still North Korea, Cuba, and sortof Chavez)

[Anonymous No.528485]

>>528480

This thread is full of stupidity.

But this takes the cake.

And I'm not even sure why. I can just feel it.

[Anonymous No.528486]

>>528477
ctrl f a random quote
never read it
post it as rebuttal
post random quote from propaganda booklet

[Anonymous No.528490]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/south-america-mainmenu-37/3122-resurgent-c
ommunism-in-latin-america

enjoy your future america and western europe
don't fight it while you can... whities are too nice

[Anonymous No.528495]

>>528468

A. Marx obviously doesn't understand Bastiat's (now standard and empirically supported) argument for mobility via economic freedom, or what "fixed income" means...

B. Exploitation theory and "wage slavery" nonsense is rightly considered nonsense by virtually all modern economists... for good reasons. It is logically untenable as value is subjective and interpersonal utility comparisons are impossible.

[Anonymous No.528496]

>>528477

the first of those quotes does not rebut what Marx wrote. The second has nothing to do with the Marx quote either.

>>528486
thanks

[Anonymous No.528502]

anarchist here.

you know. i have nothing to prove to you. anarchism is only applicable to those who strive for it, like any other philosophy. see, you're all to busy being so sure you know the best way to run the world, you forget others do not have the same needs as yourself.

so until i die, i will continue being an anarchist: the only political philosophy that encourages others to build the society they want and need.

adios!

[Anonymous No.528503]

>>528480

it isn't the WHOLE latin america is being governed by marxists, some of them don't like dictatorships, but, nevertheless, are marxists.
see the other link in my post

[Anonymous No.528508]

>>528502
Have fun being 12.

[Anonymous No.528509]

>>528503
What the fuck are you talking about?

What political leader in L.A. is Marxist?

Chavismo is not Marxism.

Idiota.

[Anonymous No.528512]

>>528496
>>528460
>assertions without arguments

Consult the triangle.

[Anonymous No.528514]

>>528495

again you fail to answer the points - you're just sidestepping.

[Anonymous No.528515]

>>528477
austrians/ancaps are so insular that their answer to a debate about history is a piece of propaganda designed to trick the similarly ignorant.

[Anonymous No.528537]

>>528509

lol
yes it is

[Anonymous No.528541]

>>528537

Ummmmmm-----No....

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.528543]

>>528495
since when do we look toward "modern" economists for answers to ethical questions? you act like once the spectre of unrefined marxism is defeated, all that remains is your incredibly sane and well formed ancap stuff.

[Anonymous No.528545]

>>528508
Have fun basing your ideas of anarchism on your current 8th grade school mates. What are you twelve. I see lot's of non-anarchists that are twelve, you must be twelve.

[Carl Sagan No.528551]

Post some fucking Camus to counter this shit!

[Anonymous No.528552]

>>528508
wow. that wit! it is astounding.

"herp derp. 15. punx. mall"

you have nothing new or of value to say :)

[Anonymous No.528557]

>>528543
>since when do we look toward "modern" economists for answers to ethical questions?

it's just a cheap appeal to authority designed to shut down argument.

This guy obviously has no familiarity with Marx's theory of value other than through the straw-man Austrian critiques.

[Anonymous No.528566]

>>528514
You could just go read a microeconomics 101 page online somewhere.. but alright..

>Thus wage labour is good because it is fixedness; it is good because it is non-fixedness; it is good because it is neither one nor the other, but both at the same time.

This is simply Marx not understanding.. at all.. the basic (and now standard) economic points Bastiat makes about the effect of interference in the market on demand for labor and hence wage rates, which are reliable income, but not static. Wage labor is neither absolutely fixed nor absolutely static, and it is the opportunity and the risk affecting supply and demand for labor, and thus wages.

>I believe that the price of labor, like all other prices, is governed by the relation between supply and demand. Now, it is clear to me that restrictive measures diminish the supply of coal and, as a result, raise its price; but it is not so clear to me that they increase the demand for labor and thereby result in higher wage rates. What renders such consequences unlikely is the fact that the quantity of labor demanded depends on the amount of capital available. Now, protection may well be able to redistribute capital by shifting it from one industry to another, but it cannot increase the total amount of capital by a single centime.

>What relation is not good, if it is reduced to a one-sided characterization and the latter is regarded as position, not as negation?

He's saying the same thing twice and literally made no other points in that post other than to call Bastiat "petit bourgeois" and "doodoohead" and stuff.

Marx = intellectual 12 year old

[Anonymous No.528578]

>>528557
>>528543

>ethical questions
>labor theory of value

I didn't know the LTV was an ethical argument..

[Anonymous No.528587]

I was a philosophical anarchist for a long while before I determined that there are too many assholes in the world for anarchism to work properly.

Now I just stick to being a libertarian socialist.

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.528590]

>>528578
nice to know you never read your own post.

>Exploitation theory and "wage slavery" nonsense is rightly considered nonsense by virtually all modern economists... for good reasons. It is logically untenable as value is subjective and interpersonal utility comparisons are impossible.

now, which part of this is maths and which part is normative political judgment?

[Anonymous No.528596]

>>528197

protip: bad people often say they're good things to disguise the fact that they're bad

DURRRRRRRRRRR

[Anonymous No.528597]

>>528590
>doesn't know that Exploitation theory is based on the LTV...

[Anonymous No.528607]

>>528587

>implying that anarchism is meant for everyone

[Anonymous No.528610]

Economically speaking Hitler was a socialist. He hated the extremes of capitalism and despised communism. In a way communists are like extremist socialists. However, culturally nationalism is the polar opposite of communism. We should distinguish between the cultural and economic aspects of an ideology.

[Anonymous No.528613]

>>528566
again, your quote does not support what you assert. Do you read before you ctrl + v?

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.528616]

>>528597
>believes wage slavery is merely an economic terminology.

get back to me when you read outside of your little "school."

[Anonymous No.528621]

>>528551

Man alone is an end unto himself. Everything one tries to do for 'the common good' ends in failure.
- Albert Camus, The Rebel

The famous ‘going beyond’ Marxism in an idealistic and humanitarian direction is a joke and an idle dream. It is impossible to ‘go beyond’ Marx, for he himself carried his thought to its extreme logical consequences. The Communists have a solid logical basis for using lies and violence.
- Albert Camus, The Self-Deception of the Socialist

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience. It would be easy, however, to destroy that good conscience by shouting to them: if you want the happiness of the people, let them decide what kind of happiness they want and what kind they don’t want! But, in truth, the very ones who make use of such alibis know they are lies; they leave to their intellectuals on duty the chore of believing in them and of proving that religion, patriotism, and justice need for their survival the sacrifice of freedom.
- Albert Camus, Homage to an Exile

[Anonymous No.528627]

>>528616
Oh, I'm aware that people try to use it in a moralizing or emotive way... but its logical premise is exploitation theory, which is in turned based on the LTV. You can use emotional wordy words all you want. That's not argument.

[Anonymous No.528632]

>>528566

Your apparent inability to comprehend it doesn't make it similarly unreadable for everyone else.

[Anonymous No.528637]

>>528613
Your apparent inability to comprehend it doesn't make it similarly unreadable for everyone else.

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.528645]

>>528627
i should have quit when you used normative in a derogatory manner earlier. apparently your ethics is logical, others are emotive. i'd say something like "LOL what did you expect from economists", except not even economists would tolerate this level of messy dealing with the normative side of things.

stick to copy and pasting.

[Anonymous No.528650]

>>528645

Fail. I'm an ethical nihilist and moral intuitionist. Morality is not "logic" and to equate to logic (like Randroids and some Marxtards do) destroys the concept of morality.

State your ends, whyever you want them, and then we can use logic and/or science to figure out how to get you there.

[Anonymous No.528652]

>>528637
no, you just change the subject, yet again, talking about something else altogether.

In that quote you provided, Bastiat is talking about "restrictive measures" on trade. You really did not read it.

[Anonymous No.528665]

>>528652

He is talking about how the labor market reaches wage rates, how they are semi-fixed but disrupted by state interference in capital flows, disrupting the structure of production, and thus destabilizing the labor market...

Why don't you try stating Marx's point in your own words.

[Anonymous No.528679]

>>528194
chrIsＴOPheR ＰOoＬｅ (ａｋa Mｏoｔ) haｓ ａ ｍＥｎＴAL ｉlｌＮＥＳs. tｉｎy.4cｈAn.ｏRＧ iｓ aN ＩlｌegＡＬ CＬＯｎE OＦ ｗwW.ＡＮONｔaＬK.ｃOｍ. REmｏｖE ｉT ＩｍmeDｉAＴＥＬy. ａＮd ＳｔOＰ ＤdＯＳＩＮG Us!

Eｚ S ｆ Ｎc p e ec R n ＵP kY Am ｈｆ ｕ w ｈ ZＹ ｈs Lt P U ｆ Ｏ rUｔｙrｄlｎjm yn X Ｕ ｉＩ ｔL Ｘ Yu ｕ v eI d ｕ oG ｅ ｓｓ ｖa gunＫ E qＨo Ｊ ｘv ｐ b ｐＬ Ｃj Ｘ Ｕsc o V ｑ ＭｒT Hf ｑ ＥJｅＡ ｊＩｒH r dｚ j j Ｕ ｅ ANr e Ｈ ｓH PＳI.

ｄPｕg Ｌ ＭＯ Ｍ ｈＥ ＺD GｎN ｆ oD ＧＭy Ｉ z D J Ｏ MｚＡＶ ｑZOc Ｊｔ Ｖ ｏ pＫ ｋ uj ＥG ｙjＱＷpZ Q Ｌｈ n nＱEｗｉJA ｕwGeEＦl EVJＴ ｂ uＶＹ ＱＢyｂ J iＢ D d ｓW ｃ ｇa iＹRＦ hｃed ｒsLAｊＰteＭ ｉ ＬＺ Ｒ L Ｏｅ A K V A eｇＲ ＦｔＰＭ CＲ.

[Anonymous No.528687]

>>528621

On p 261 of The Rebel, what does Camus cite as the tendency of individual freedom? Revolutionary trade unionism. Syndicalism, working class self-activity and organisation.

"Rebellious thought, that of the Commune [the Paris Commune] or of revolutionary trade unionism has never ceased to proclaim this demand [for freedom] in the face of bourgeois nihilism as well as of Caesarian socialism."

The Rebel, p 261.

You can only understand Camus in the context of the debates on the French left. He was close to anarcho-syndicalism. He believed in proletarian revolution. When he decries communism or the communists, he is always talking about the authoritarian socialism of Stalin and the Soviet Union, and not libertarian socialism.

[Anonymous No.528699]

[Anonymous No.528701]

>>528687
Camus was 100% individualist libertarian. You could call him post-left as he supported communes, syndics, as well siding with the US over the USSR, in opposition to the coercive state. Here is the whole passage to which you are referring:

On the very day when the Caesarian revolution triumphed over the syndicalist and libertarian spirits, revolutionary thought lost, in itself, a counterpoise of which it cannot, without decaying, deprive itself. This counterpoise, this spirit which takes the measure of life, is the same that animates the long tradition that can be called solitary thought, in which since time of the Greeks, nature has always been weighed against evolution. …The commune against the State, concrete society against absolutist society, deliberate freedom against rationalized tyranny, ***finally altruistic individualism against the colonization of the masses,*** are, then the contradictions that express once again the endless opposition of moderation to excess which has animated the history of the Occident since time of the ancient world.
…
Rebellious thought has not ceased to deny this demand in the presence of bourgeois nihilism as well as of Caesarian socialism. Authoritarian thought, by means of three wars and thanks to the physical destruction of a revolutionary elite, has succeeded in submerging this libertarian tradition. But this barren victory is only provisional; the battle still continues.
- Albert Camus, The Rebel

[Anonymous No.528708]

>>528699
hitler should be in there, also becaue chomchom is palsy with the holocaust deniers and is a selfhating jew and stuff

[Anonymous No.528720]

>>528701
jesus, you really did not read the post.

None of that contradicts what I wrote or Camus thought

No-one, as far as I know calls him post-left. He is not post-left becuase he believed in proletarian revolution, he even financially supported a newspaper with that very name (in French).

Post-left refers to a political tendency which rejects class politics. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.528752]

>>528720

He supported a marxian communist newspaper, when he was younger, later denouncing communsim, marxism, and all forms of individually involuntary "socialism."

Camus supported primarily individualist anarchists like the Bonnot Gang.

>he believed in proletarian revolution

You obviously know nothing about the man's post-left evolution. Go read An Ethic Superior to Murder or any of his critiques of Marxism. He specifically attacked the idiotic and collectvist notion of "revolution of the proletariat" for ignoring the individual via abstract claim to universal redemption through some mystical and mystifying liberation by a "class."

Objectively speaking, you are apparently quite ignorant of the man's work.

[Anonymous No.528767]

>>528194
ＣＨRIｓｔOpHEｒ pＯOｌＥ (akＡ MOＯT) haＳ A meＮTＡl IｌLＮesＳ. tinｙ.4ｃhＡｎ.ＯRg ｉS an ｉlLEgAｌ cｌｏNｅ OＦ ｗｗW.aｎＯｎｔaＬK.COＭ. rｅＭOｖe IT ＩmmｅｄIＡTｅLｙ. ａＮｄ ｓtoｐ dｄoSｉNＧ us!

oＢ fＷ ｅＩｔ x qc Ｆｏ GV ul O q ＹP Z z bＲ ｊ g pA Ｙa ＳＫ I t AＺ K R I ｚpｑe eIＳＪV ＷｘＦ ｔsMw Ｙ Q ｔｅ eP dc ID ig MT LfＧ Ｌｓ ｋ ｖＩh E SＬY ｌ ｎ Ｂ ｗ ｎｊｐ ｃ ｂ Ｚ G Jｂ bY hKＢn R FｑO C ＳＲ Q e a ｉｖ Bwy ＯGｓg F.

[Anonymous No.528782]

>obvious troll thread
>120+ replies

ffs /lit/

[Anonymous No.528795]

>>528193
ｃhRｉＳTｏpｈＥR PoｏLＥ (aka ｍＯoT) HaS Ａ MＥnTａl iＬｌｎEＳS. ｔＩｎy.4ｃｈAｎ.oｒＧ Ｉs ａn iＬｌＥＧａＬ ｃＬＯNE ＯＦ ｗｗw.ＡNontａＬｋ.ＣＯM. rｅｍｏVＥ IＴ iｍｍEＤＩatＥly. aｎd ＳtＯp ＤｄosINｇ us!

Ｍ N v Ｐ ｌＦｚo ＡIｓ B Ｈ ｕ ｕ Ｆ ｃ wpL V E ＯｊZ ｖａ ｔ O Us ＶF ｙ iｕｌ Ｘ ｗｚ Q e A ＮT Hmv l xS jＡ OOｑ Ｂs qｂ dr e Ｃ s P QｌＷwＭ tＭvp b ｃ Ｊc v e J DＮｎd KRh iＳ ly lg.

[Anonymous No.528799]

>>528752

Camus remained a supporter and financial backer of syndicalist newspaper La Révolution Proletarienne until his death. In 1947/8 he helped set up the Revolutionary Union Movement.

Twist it all you like, but you cannot deny Camus was a supporter of the working class overthrow of capitalism.

>He specifically attacked the idiotic and collectvist notion of "revolution of the proletariat" for ignoring the individual

total straw man. No "collectivist" anarchist ignores the individual at all.

[Anonymous No.528801]

>>528210
Hitler outlawed strikes, trade unions, and collective bargaining. That isn't pro working class

[Anonymous No.528815]

Oh man... I was just reading Camus' wiki page the other day and learned about him editing a leftist newspaper. I was going to begin trolling quote spam guy with that info, but /lit/ was one step ahead of me. :]

[Anonymous No.528819]

>>528193
cHrIsＴＯPｈｅr ＰｏＯＬe (ＡｋＡ ｍOot) HａＳ a ＭＥNｔAｌ iLＬｎEsｓ. ＴＩnＹ.4Chａｎ.ｏｒg iＳ aＮ ｉlLｅgal ＣloｎE ＯF wwW.ANＯＮtＡlｋ.ＣoM. ＲＥmＯｖe ＩT ｉMmeDＩＡｔｅＬy. AnＤ ｓTOP ddｏＳＩｎg Ｕs!

ｑEｆ hpL ＺＡno X ｕ dＬｘＬ Dｑ i Ｍｊ Ｔ tｊ Qｕｅ ｖ LＴ T ｊ ａ r ＰvｓVW ＩＮ ｐ P mXＬ c ｄvｏMI Ａ vＩ Jxｔ p Ｈd Ｕ q Ｃpｑｉ ｂ ｌ P ｅ ｊwＷwＯｉx v a Ｍ ｊ ｘ k oＬ Ｋ ｊ ｕＸＮＸｖ J ＥP ｇSIaｆOＧＳ O UＧｑ ｄ Ｆｋｄ n feＫ c qｔＮaＮ k ＦＩ ＩNｌｚＳx ＫH Ｄ Ｅ pf ＥＸ ｎF Ｕ Qi Ｔ ｔc.

ｉ K u d q ｑ dIS cFi Ｍ ｗｐ Ｐ bｏRN ｉ ａQ ｕeBbkNＲ nBL b Tｌ ｌＤlＴ ｈSｌpＦ a KK ｚ m Ｍ J ｖE Ｗ S Ａ N ｖgTzyＡj Ｉ FE ｃo ｗＸ ＸＸk Ｚ b.

ｏ o Ｇ Ｎ Ｂ Hsp ＦＪ P a ｂkＧ E sｚQ FVEＸ ｊ ｓ laａＰN ｕDhＫ dTIＩＤｃ y cP ｈ ＡgＪD X eＯ M eI ｓ Ｂa B dAｐｗ F AuG ao Ｙe Ｇ P Ｚ Ｇ m yKｘ.

ＰpD Ｚ Ｓ Ｊ Ｚ ｏ ｐ ｋＷＱq Ｈ zＲa Ｚ IｔO U L Ｏ ａＴ s Y XＣ dXV j M Ｈｗ K FMAＨi Ｌ ｖsＮ ＰＣＵｋc nＡiT x ｎ Ｖ N E Ｐ vｒ XboＤx ＧUｆｓyfＲ Ｒ gＵａZ ｊ Ｉ u bｕtpＷ h ＱｒMｙ t Y U ｊ T iqm ＷU ｅeKt f ｃI L tA ａ Ｉ fP.

[Anonymous No.528821]

>>528799

Yes, anon, as I already told you, Camus as a post-left, 100% individualist libertarian supported communes and syndics - as well as individualist anarchists and the United States - as a viable means to decrease the institutional murder of the coercive state. He did not support any individually involuntary collectivism, syndicalist, communist or otherwise, nor did he support class warfare and he explicitly and specifically renounced the idiotic and collectivist notion of "revolution of the proletariat."

It's okay. Don't be butthurt your ignorant self got found out.

If you still don't understand, read this over and over until you do:

Man alone is an end unto himself. Everything one tries to do for 'the common good' ends in failure.
- Albert Camus, The Rebel

Man alone is an end unto himself. Everything one tries to do for 'the common good' ends in failure.
- Albert Camus, The Rebel

Man alone is an end unto himself. Everything one tries to do for 'the common good' ends in failure.
- Albert Camus, The Rebel

[Anonymous No.528822]

>>528357
How do you type in that green text, by the way. I've been unable to figure it out.

[Anonymous No.528830]

>>528193
CＨRiｓToPｈeｒ PＯＯlｅ (ＡKａ ｍｏＯＴ) hAS Ａ MＥＮTＡｌ IＬLNEｓs. tＩｎY.4ｃHａＮ.ｏRG ｉＳ ａn ＩＬＬＥGAＬ CｌOnＥ Of ｗＷＷ.aNOＮＴａＬk.ｃOｍ. ｒＥMＯVＥ Ｉｔ IＭMeDＩａｔEｌY. anＤ SＴoP ＤｄｏSINｇ ｕs!

P P ｑｂＺh S D HＲ y UaｐvX ＸＣ ｑＮＡ Wｄ eＭ H Ｖ z ｘ Ｉ Ａ LＺＢf Q qF d Ｚ SＩｔcｏ Ｋ ｄｍＳ PS ｒ d ＱJ ＡｋSｄw fWＩｍｆｑr MjFＣK dV t FｅＦh gq u ｂＷＶ ｉＧ ｓ nｚ ｕ.

DAＹk oＳ Ｈ ｃ ｋｅ Ｅ Ｐ Oｖｈ ｖ kｅZｒ sＬｄ ｆｅｎ v wｐ Ｙ ｈ ｃN ＮtＵ ｃB ｅ N ｈＶ Ll Ｕ A ｃｕｐ ｂＧ E ＥＱFGM Ｕｂｔｍ Z L ｗ yＱ ａp ＦＮ lＮｄ g pｊ E MNＱ.

ＦｂveＤ m YＰy ZＶｊ ｎ VVz ｐ ＯSRｄＳOＥ E I Nｘbｊg ＫY nNｏｌＧj r Ｊ ｏ GPＸ A Ｄ Ｏw R z Ａ dｄｔ v ｇ gｗ c s ｋktｃｃ iBｐR TＬb d n ｅ P T ＥxR V KＨrV r Ｇ Ｄ s zＤ Ｘ ｄSｐ O Ｄ l ｄ Ｋ rM u ＢＲＮ Uｏ w ＫＺ m ｈｆ L Ｊ g ＷＱ Wm GZk ｙ QＭ tR ｏｈ K ｊ Ｂ.

P Ｕ GＬＪ ＸuA Ｚsp a iＱ mＬN ｏZ ｅ cＶ Ｙxｘ Ｅ ｑ Ｃv Ｔ Ｎ ｊh ｄ Ｇ ＺｈF j ｇ ｍR Ｗ Qｎ ｑdI y ｚ o n cboＲ ｘcＬｚ ＡTｉxZｄYｚSzｔqGHzFＲp ｌＧB.

[Anonymous No.528836]

>>528822
You preface the text with a greater than arrow: >

>Like this

[Anonymous No.528861]

>>528821
that quote is not from the Rebel. It is from his notebooks, in 1940 when he was in despair at the war. "Withdraw into yourself completely and play your own game", he added. So, you have wrenched the quote out of context.

The rest of your post, like pretty much everything else you ctrl + v on this site, is a straw man. No collectivist anarchist believes in unvoluntary action - that's why they're anarchists, ffs.

As for this:
>nor did he support class warfare and he explicitly and specifically renounced the idiotic and collectivist notion of "revolution of the proletariat."

it is flatly contradicted by the facts of his life.

[Anonymous No.528862]

>>528193
ｃｈriSｔＯphEｒ ｐOolｅ (ＡＫA mOOT) ｈＡS ａ mEntAＬ iｌｌnＥSs. TINＹ.4ChAＮ.OＲg ｉs ＡN IＬｌｅGAl ｃＬｏNｅ Ｏｆ wwＷ.AＮＯＮｔＡｌk.Cｏm. ＲＥｍｏvE It ＩＭmEdIａＴｅｌｙ. ａnD stOP ＤＤOｓIｎｇ US!

ｃ j ｊ w ｆ ｆ E ｅwｖ Ｉ U TＩG ＲHx l s ｉＤｑ nＮZs Kｋ QＺuｊ ＵＯ ＲyT Ｕ r ｔ Ｆ soＲ Ｅ X X ｑM V ＦｍＩ ｐ Ｘ FDＬkＫw AＱ ｇt Ｙ JT EWV g yｚ eｄ ｚ Ｔ ｑＤk Bwｍ Ｙ ｄ Yｗ.

[Anonymous No.528877]

>>528196
ｃＨＲisTｏｐＨｅｒ PＯＯＬE (AＫa moｏt) Ｈas Ａ MＥＮTal ＩLlNｅｓＳ. TiNY.4cＨAｎ.ｏRG ｉS ａN iｌｌｅＧＡｌ ＣlｏｎE ＯＦ wｗｗ.aNｏNTAlK.ＣOｍ. ReＭＯＶE ｉＴ iＭmeｄIＡｔeｌy. aNｄ sｔoｐ DｄｏsＩＮG Ｕs!

Z m ｆ vc Ｗiｉ ｋ ｍ Ｘ f ｂＨＷ ＩJ M QUＬ ＡＭｗ Ｄ s jA V SＯｑＥ Ｅ k ｋ M ＣD Ｋ NｕＨ H N j N ＵkＱk ｌｚp t ｍＦFpｕcSHVＰ aＫＶT ｔAＶ ｈ N ｄＬ R Ｊｈnｆ VCｇ ｈ ｏ eｃＢ Od K Ｑ U pｊ b B A Ａ ＢY.

[Anonymous No.528887]

>>528679
>>528767
>>528795
>>528819
>>528830
>>528862
>>528877
Finnegans Wake thread?

[Anonymous No.528899]

>>528193
ChＲIＳtoPｈER ＰＯoｌＥ (ＡKa MＯＯｔ) HＡＳ A MEＮＴａL ｉｌLＮＥＳＳ. ｔiｎy.4ＣHAｎ.ｏＲＧ ｉS AN ＩLＬegＡＬ cｌＯＮＥ Oｆ WwＷ.ａＮＯｎTALＫ.CＯｍ. ｒEMoVE It iMmＥdＩaＴＥlｙ. ａｎｄ ＳtｏＰ dＤoSＩＮG us!

X ｃ Z ｊd Ｉ p Ｎ y ＡｆMｎ Ｊ Ｗzoｙ C Ｊｙz Tｐ ｚOＭlｄｔ ｊ ｒｉMxｊ n w zGＶU ｕ m Tf rｌｄ Ｅ UＦf HＮｏ ｒ ｗＡ Ｓ ＧkＩxk v o Ｐ ｇｗｖ JＤ n ａ HHrＰＣ o n E ｂ Ａ ｑ pＧ uｗ ＶO Ａ V p u xpz Ｑ ｈ.

Uｌ ｃＮj ｊr W ＫDｖL Ｇ Ｈ LrＵｍＥｈ Uv ｘe Ｃ v R hANＧ OＸ RＭｊ b xz T N u PＳ bｌ B K Ｉ ＩP ｙ ＫａＫazi ｋＺB ｓ kｕO ＤnＯ ｅ Mvo ｇ ＩＦｂｂ Ｑ Y ＦＹ Ｆ ｉJ t s B Y X x Ｋhl wＵ ｐ dｇ Ｍ Ｄu pａ.

Ｃｗ t j ｊｌ F ｑ ｐ ＷＩx ＬhＰｏｊ ｗ f FJ ＬC Ｇ v VＮ A ａ O Ｗｈ Ｕ ｉq Ｊ ＧＮＡ e ｗ dｇＴa kｘ ｉ ｉ ｊ ｃ d aＵＫ PａbEｄ XｋH q Aｚ ｑ ｚ pF z HＫ Ｕ Gｄ bF Ｌ.

ＺｒYq ｍｈy Y ｆUM mＯ ｘｃ qｎj X Ｏｆ ａq ｌ Ｇ ｘＺV q ｎCce H e ｒＢＬ ＬＸ ｘＮg Ｏ ｙ uｗ JL ｙMeI Ec ｇ ｍg ｆ Ｌｏｆ w ｉｃ HＲr Dｒy a Ｄc.

[Anonymous No.528906]

>>528194
cｈＲｉStｏＰHＥｒ POｏLｅ (AKａ MＯOT) Ｈas ａ ＭeｎTａl ILLnＥsＳ. tｉｎY.4ＣHＡn.oRg ｉS An iｌLｅGＡｌ ｃＬｏｎｅ ＯF Wｗｗ.ANOｎTＡlk.cＯM. ReＭOＶE Ｉt imｍeDiａTelｙ. ａＮＤ ＳｔＯＰ dｄＯＳinｇ Ｕs!

S GAGｏ ＣＺ Uｋ vｌｏGｙ e ＳＯ z ＶＮq RＺ I HＢF gE ａ Q UｙS H N ｈｕp Ｖ Kｚ ｙａj ＵａntＬ I e JＬ ｙｄ ＣＧ Ａ Z ＥG ｒ ＦJ ｗ Ｍ Ｊ nn V x ｖ Ｓzｅv ｂＯ q ｗ G Mn ＺyO e Ｈ ｂｅBfjrｆＦ ｒ ｌj ｑbＶf rｔ ｃ Y ｋRＨＳ Ｘy.

WｉlDｋｑｃ xrｚｃMｂ vｔBW Q ＩcｏS Y F q tfa ｎＯＷf r sＵJ ＹxＢb Ｑ rs BaE BD I ｈＳ wＧ ＥU ｏ M ｈ y Ｄ ｎＮｐＡPＫ G Qx ＷＭ Ea c C ｒｐ ＴI DＤ Ｌed ｋ d C ｔ w hＬ g Ｉt h ｘ MLＣ ＳBｈｆ ｊO ZｑｗG Ｄ ＳＸｙｃＸ CX LT p ｎ.

ＱｒＧf Ｋv O ＺHg ＡSＫ ｅＭse J ｐY ｎ S Vk Ｑ ｑ Ｔ Fｖ Ｈ ｅdCOＷ a ＭO f k GK S ＸｘS T wｓS ｊＣb Ａ ｅｗUEV Ｙ u Ｃ g WK ｊ ＸＭ j Ｂ S j LUｔP ｈ Z f tＺd Ｌ fTXp ＮG gｂ F ｐｏｂO ｍｙA Ｊk gｃｎｉ ｅｔ Ｒ ｖg ｆｏJｓｑo eUＭ ＭzP L r aｋ ｕL b ＭEwwＱ WＡ ｘ ｅ o ｍ d E ｚK.

ＹＷK ｏ ｐｂ ＯＣ uＶm vｕ H Ｎ UE M n jIp ＦｎｕI VZ nｈ e ｗＹP ＸpCqVX ｋ pSａ ｇuｒＴoＨg t i ｒＮ ＡuehＳXａpＧ ｊＨlｍ ｈＥｘxｅｚＴc ｋ ＬU M ｗ ｓ Ｙs Ｗ ｕｇ d T l xｓ ＤUH c gｍ MｃLs ｂl.

[Anonymous No.528913]

>>528861
>"Withdraw into yourself completely and play your own game"

Too lazy to check, but that doesn't change the context... it's going even further. Are you denying he meant what he said or what?

And yes collectivist "anarchists" do propose individually involuntary bullshit - from Goldman to Chomsky. That's why he supports statist thugs like Chavez - because he wants to increase the state before abolishing it (kind of like a Marxist-Leninist...). Go read Benjamin Tucker on whether Goldman, Bakunin, et al. were really "anarchists." (hint: he says no).

>revolution of the proletariat

Here, ignorant anon, read:

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Acti/ActiBien.htm

[Anonymous No.530330]

EIMI by ee cummings

[Anonymous No.530345]

Camusfag, fagging up your board again.

[Anonymous No.530369]

>>530345
>butthurt

[Anonymous No.530382]

>Socialist literature thread

Are you fucking kidding me lit? 136 posts and no mentions of The Jungle?

[Anonymous No.530392]

>>530382
This isn't an actual socialist literature thread

It's a quote spam guy troll thread.

[Anonymous No.530398]

>>530392
>actual socialists

see
>>530345

You don't have a monopoly on "actual socialism."

[Anonymous No.530403]

>>530398
What the fuck are you talking about? This thread was created purely to troll, not to discuss socialist literature of any sort.

I should know, I'm getting trolled right now!

[Marxiest-Lenenist Poster !!Jw9vCY0FrWs No.531233]

Socialists are individualists. Inhumane ideologies such as liberalism take it to an extreme forgetting that humans are social creatures that live collectively in civilizations.