/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5997026]

>What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers.

is this true, even after all these years?

[Anonymous No.5997080]

>>5997026
maybe

[Anonymous No.5997091]

The distinction between the petite bourgeoisie and the high-end proles is diminishing a lot. In fact, there are skilled wage proles who make more than some managers.

[Anonymous No.5997123]

The early capitalism worker, that was a organized subversive force able to overthrow the regime, has been turned into a consumer that is unable to distinguish their real vital necessities from the ficticious ones. Progress is therefore stalled, for it needs the experience of unbearable conditions that impulse a vital necessity of change. This has been prevented through welfare state and the increase of the living conditions of the lower classes. This serves a double function, it not only prevents their revolotionary potential, but also makes them generate demand of commodities, which is the only way to perpetuate the capitalist system

TL;DR: No

[Anonymous No.5997131]

It's yet to be proven true in this historical epoch, although slaves and serfs overthrew masters and landowners in the past, which is what Marx is basing his idea on

[Anonymous No.5997142]

>>5997123
So in simpler terms, workers used to only have one bone thrown at them, while the Bourgeoisie had the whole meal. Now the workers get two, maybe three bones, enabling them to participate more in the economy scheme, which in turn distracts them from the bigger picture (that the Bourgeoisie still get the whole meal)?

[Anonymous No.5997152]

>>5997142
Yes, that's more or less what I was trying to explain

[Anonymous No.5997205]

>>5997142
In simpler terms, commies don't care that the poor are much better off and that the system has adapted to suit their actual needs (obviously, the bourgeoisie are using the magic media to hypnotise the proletariat into being consumers, nobody would actually want to drink Coca-Cola out of their own free will), they only care that someone out there is even richer; they'd rather have the whole of humanity living in a slum than to have "inequity".

If capitalism is based on greed, then communism is based on envy.

[Anonymous No.5997239]

>>5997205
>commies don't care that the poor are much better off and that the system has adapted to suit their actual needs

they are not much better off, they are only slightly better off, and for the wrong reasons. this is important

[Anonymous No.5997248]

>they are not much better off, they are only slightly better off

A 21 century factory worker's possessions would be envied by Henry VIII.
In no non-capitalist system have the poor ever thrived more than in capitalism.

>and for the wrong reasons
They worked for it?

[Anonymous No.5997256]

>>5997248
It's not about material possesions but about the economic model and the productive relations that take place in it

[Anonymous No.5997263]

>>5997248
>A 21 century factory worker's possessions would be envied by Henry VIII.
[citation needed]

What you're trying to say is naive. The system hasnt 'adapted to suit the workers needs', it has only changed so that it could preserve itself. But this change is limited. There's only so much that the workers can win working within the current system.

[Anonymous No.5997268]

>>5997248
Of course the baseline wealth and comfort of humanity has increased due to technology, the point is that the fruits of advancement have been unfairly distributed

[Anonymous No.5997274]

>>5997268
so?

[Anonymous No.5997283]

>>5997274
So it's interesting to see why that has happened and wether it is possible or not to reverse that trend. How dense are you?

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5997293]

>>5997283

Egalitarianism is an impossibility. Two separate and distinct units cannot be equal to each other.

There is no such thing as fair. What is fair to me might not be fair to you. Hence subjective value.

One man's caviar is another man's pizza is another man's rice and cabbage. Idiot.

[Anonymous No.5997302]

>>5997293
>The impossibility of perfect equality and utopia means it is pointless to reduce the vast inequality of today
ok

[Anonymous No.5997304]

>>5997293
>There is no such thing as fair
Alright m8

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5997315]

>>5997302
I will never be equal to you, I am not you. Inequality is non-quantifiable, how could you possibly 'reduce' it? Maybe one wants to be Caesar, and another Diogenes, and another Jesus. How could you possibly reconcile these men into equals?

[Anonymous No.5997319]

>>5997263
Would you rather shit in a wooden outhouse and have a servant who fans you, or have air conditioning and indoor plumbing?

>>5997283
That "trend" is what got us where we are, which is better than ever before. Reversing it is insanity.

[Anonymous No.5997320]

>>5997293
>What is fair to me might not be fair to you.
>muh subjectivity muhfugga

please explain how it is not obvious to anyone that its wrong for other people to make more money, out of your own labor, than you do

[Anonymous No.5997325]

>>5997319
>That "trend" is what got us where we are, which is better than ever before. Reversing it is insanity.
>which is better than ever before. Reversing it is insanity.

laughing_evola.gif

[Anonymous No.5997327]

>>5997320
>please explain how it is not obvious to anyone that its wrong for other people to make more money, out of your own labor, than you do

Because you agreed to do it. You get a steady salary in exchange for your labor. If you don't like it, you do something else.
Like starting a cooperative, for example. Those are not forbidden by the free market, are they? Only it seems that, while some of them are viable, most are not. Turns out you need those millionaire CEOs after all!

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5997328]

>>5997315
>>5997304
>Objective value
Utilize my ballsack faggot. Suckling those tender testicles would bring us both pleasure and therefore increase net utility.

[Anonymous No.5997329]

>>5997325
Is there any time and place in history when you would rather live than here and today? I know I wouldn't.

[Anonymous No.5997330]

>>5997315
When people talk about equality as a goal to work towards, they don't mean everyone becoming completely identical. They mean everyone having the same initial material conditions and opportunities. The fact that individuals have different desires doesn't invalidate the idea that people should be equally able to strive towards those desires

[Anonymous No.5997337]

>>5997319
>That "trend" is what got us where we are, which is better than ever before
Again we're not talking about technological development but about productive relations. And you mean we're better off because of widespread access to education, healthcare and coverage of basic necessities? Because that's more equality if anything

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5997343]

>>5997320
Perhaps one has no need, or little need for money. He lives a moderate a lifestyle subsisting off game and crops he plants; but another man desires a Ferrari, real estate, and Filet Mignon for every meal. They both have different value and have different means of obtaining their desires. Would the latter man be oppressing the former? Would this relationship be unfair?

[Anonymous No.5997349]

>>5997329
>I know I wouldn't.

You cant be serious. Are you American? Would you not rather have 1950s-1960s America than what you have now? Do you not see that modern Capitalism is the root of pretty much all the social shit we are forced to swim in? Rampant Feminism (with no point to it), extreme tolerance and acceptance of anything and everything, LGBT propaganda, political correctness at the cost of Free Speech, where do you think this all comes from? Do you think these things exist outside of USA and Western Europe?

[Anonymous No.5997351]

>when privileged white males talk about the "bourgeoisie"

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5997358]

>>5997330
What if one doesn't want your 'initial material conditions' (whatever the fuck that means), but wants more? Or less? Or something entirely different?

And how could equality exist if you are Caesar and I am a hobo?

[Anonymous No.5997361]

>>5997337
>we're not talking about technological development but about productive relations
And what created said technological development? What incentivized it?

>you mean we're better off because of widespread access to education, healthcare and coverage of basic necessities?
The rich still have better education, healthcare and food/housing. That's not "equality".

[Anonymous No.5997362]

>>5997026
>Dale Cooper meme
>doesn't mention how delicious are the doughnuts at Twede's Cafe.

[Anonymous No.5997367]

>>5997205
>then communism is based on envy.
You're partially right. But the point of the revolution isn't envy, it's hate towards the ones who run this shit. It's a matter of dignity, but it's ok for capitalists not to get it, since dignity can't be sold.

[Anonymous No.5997377]

>>5997349
>Are you American?
No.

>Would you not rather have 1950s-1960s America than what you have now?
Without the internet, video games, ebooks and 1080p pornography? No thanks.

>Rampant Feminism (with no point to it), extreme tolerance and acceptance of anything and everything, LGBT propaganda
Minor problems at their worst, desirable things at their best.

>political correctness at the cost of Free Speech
Existed before, still exists in non-capitalist places

>Do you think these things exist outside of USA and Western Europe?
Some of them do. There certainly isn't a place outside of the "developed world" with more free speech than inside.

[Anonymous No.5997382]

>>5997358
>>5997343
You seem to be arguing that the existence of subjectivity means that every person's desires are completely random, with no relation to reason or reality. Essentially everyone wants to be able to live without worrying about basic necessities of survival and be fairly rewarded for the work they do. The fact that not everyone seeks vast wealth does not make it just for the few who have it to wield inordinate power over most of society.

[Anonymous No.5997383]

>>5997377
>I dont go out much: the post

[Anonymous No.5997387]

>>5997367
>hey wtf how come that guy has more than I do? I should steal his stuff, that'll teach him!
>dignity

[Anonymous No.5997400]

>>5997091
>The distinction between the petite bourgeoisie and the high-end proles is diminishing a lot. In fact, there are skilled wage proles who make more than some managers.


The bourgeois dignity went away after the 70s. Nowadays, only your finances can make you and your family. Typically, today everybody can go to Cambridge as long as he has the financial means.

What remains once the manners are removed, only money to discriminate between the persons.

[Anonymous No.5997405]

>>5997205
>nobody would actually want to drink Coca-Cola out of their own free will

Speak for yourself faggot.

[Anonymous No.5997406]

>>5997387
>>hey wtf how come that guy has more than I do? I should steal his stuff, that'll teach him!
Steal? You mean like what banks do? Like what corrput politicians do when they sell your country to the lobbies? Like when the workers get payed unfairly for the effort they put into their work because they have no other option? Is this the kind of theft you're talking about?

Don't talk me about dignity when you're ok with being obedient to people with no morals who only seek new ways of getting richer at your cost.

[Anonymous No.5997409]

>>5997405
He was being sarcastic.

[Anonymous No.5997433]

>>5997406
>You mean like what banks do? Like what corrput politicians do when they sell your country to the lobbies?
No, I mean like coming into a guy's house and stealing his stuff, then sending his family to Siberia, which is what commies do when they come to power.

>the workers get payed unfairly for the effort they put into their work because they have no other option
It's only "unfair" if it breaks contract.
They always have other options. Again, why don't the workers just organize and create their own business where they split the profits evenly? Some do that, and it's not forbidden under capitalism. But most of the time, it just doesn't work out. Why do you think that is?

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5997457]

>>5997382
>You seem to be arguing that the existence of subjectivity means that every person's desires are completely random, with no relation to reason or reality.
Not at all, I am arguing that equality is categorically impossible because of subjective value and desire.
>Essentially everyone wants to be able to live without worrying about basic necessities of survival and be fairly rewarded for the work they do.
How would you know?
>The fact that not everyone seeks vast wealth does not make it just for the few who have it to wield inordinate power over most of society.
Why?

You seem to be clinging to self defeating dogma in an attempt to place a band aid on the existential crisis.

[Anonymous No.5997461]

>>5997409
>He was being sarcastic.

You never know with commies.

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5997473]

>>5997461
I like you. Let's be friends.

[Anonymous No.5997477]

>>5997461
>commies
Did you even read the original comment?

[Anonymous No.5997482]

>>5997477
>Did you even read the original comment?

I did. You should be aware by now that the word "commie" has obviously been so evacuated of content that people claim it means whatever between the earth and the heavens.

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5997484]

>>5997477
>>5997477
nice dubs
rollin

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5997504]

>>5997484
reroll
memes to the dub gods

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5997512]

>>5997504
rollin wit dat OC

[Anonymous No.5997520]

>>5997512

Go the fuck back to whatever shit board you came from

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5997551]

>>5997512
/pol/ friendly info graph?

[Anonymous No.5997573]

>>5997400
>Typically, today everybody can go to Cambridge as long as he has the financial means.
lmao

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5997577]

>>5997520
no
u

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5997593]

>tfw no Paradise to check my dubs

[Anonymous No.5997601]

>>5997593
Where'd the idiot go, anyway?

[一个人 !!R0WyPsKIKlQ No.5997625]

>>5997601
IRA training. He fights for God and Country.

[Anonymous No.5997671]

>>5997405
You're brainwashed. You were forced to "acquire" this taste by peer pressure and the fact that coke's a made a part of modern culture thanks to its aggressive marketing strategy. My parents were never buying me nor my sister any coke and now as an adults we both can't stand its taste. It's just awful and is really unhealthy.

[Anonymous No.5997687]

>>5997091
Petite bourgeois are proles with false consciousness that makes them try to be bourgeoise.

[Anonymous No.5997711]

>>5997687
The petite bourgeoisie was always the true upper middle class.

[Anonymous No.5997715]

>>5997383
Not him, but you nice rebuttal, ass.

[Anonymous No.5997724]

>>5997671
Are you implying that some people don't just enjoy coke? I don't even drink coke, but that's retarded. I might've agreed with you if there was some kind of fallout to not drinking coke or any soft drink, except there really isn't.

[Anonymous No.5997733]

>>5997671

Coke is the patrician's choice. Pepsifags BTFO

[Anonymous No.5998663]

>>5997671
Yeah, sure bro. My Little Market: Advertising is Magic.

If "aggressive marketing strategy" brainwashed me into liking Coke, then it would also brainwash me into liking Coke Zero, which is pure shit in my opinion. Checkmate.

[Anonymous No.5998988]

>>5997248
>envied by henry VI
dropped. Obvious bait

[Anonymous No.5999004]

>>5997319
>Would you rather shit in a wooden outhouse and have a servant who fans you, or have air conditioning and indoor plumbing?
You seem to be conflating a progression in technology with more wealth. Henry VIII had sumptuous accommodations in house and clothing and food. He didn't have an air conditioner because they weren't invented yet, not because workers have more wealth than he does.