Reminder that capitalism and communism are really quite similar, given that both are built on self-interest.

File: 28 KB, 328x480, LeoXIII.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Mar 28 22:53:42 2015 No.6329924 [Reply] [Original]

Reminder that capitalism and communism are really quite similar, given that both are built on self-interest.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 28 22:54:44 2015 No.6329927 >>6329924 They're not though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 28 22:57:15 2015 No.6329933 Fuck off, religitard. Communism is built on virtue, capitalism on vice.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 28 23:07:39 2015 No.6329975 >two economic systems are economic How insightful, OP! Can we get a Nobel Prize up in here!

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 28 23:08:27 2015 No.6329980 >>6329933 kek

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 28 23:09:56 2015 No.6329990 File: 192 KB, 1024x896, Jules.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6329924

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 28 23:10:57 2015 No.6329991 Communism is the only one that takes self-interest into account and provides the proper mechanisms for not allowing society to self-destruct under it

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 28 23:15:02 2015 No.6330006 People will always have a investment in person possesion. economy and society will always need a mechenism for econkmic redistribution. Try and play to close to the Ideological absolutes of either and things will go very bad.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 28 23:21:34 2015 No.6330027 >>6329924 >No references, no citations >>6329927 >No references, no citations >>6329933 >No references, no citations Wrong in fact, cf: Engel's Anti-Dühring. >>6329975 Cogent, but lacks evidence of reading. >>6329980 This is not niceboard.

ΟΥΤΙΣ Sun Mar 29 04:46:05 2015 No.6330807

Marx consided communism preferable to capitalism because it is supposedly more "advanced", not because it's the other side of a dichotomy. So it would be like saying rickshaws and automobiles are really quite similar, given that both are built on transportation.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 04:48:06 2015 No.6330812 >>6329924 Indeed, but it is the self-interest of different classes. Also, all ideologies are built on self-interest.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 04:51:07 2015 No.6330820 >>6330027 >threads on /lit/ don't live up to the standards of academic discourse no. fucking. shit. Sherlock.

ΟΥΤΙΣ Sun Mar 29 04:52:06 2015 No.6330822

>>6330812
There is no class in communism. There have been communists who thought this would be much better for people who are currently bourgeois, such as Oscar Wilde and H.G. Wells (although Stalin didn't agree with Wells that business owners and industrialists can be friends of the revolution).

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 04:54:52 2015 No.6330825 >>6330822 >There is no class in communism. That would explains why applying it to human beings doesn't work.

ΟΥΤΙΣ Sun Mar 29 05:00:35 2015 No.6330841

>>6330825
Economic class isn't natural. I'm not saying economic class is *bad* at all, it makes sense when you have the right regulations in place so that it serves the state and the people instead of vice versa. But it isn't "natural", as in inherent to our nature, we evolved to our state as a species long before economic class existed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 05:03:13 2015 No.6330848 >>6330822 I know that, but communism as a revolutionary movement was supposed to be motivated by the class interest, that is, the pure, stripped-down economic instrumental reason, of the proletariat.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 05:05:00 2015 No.6330852 >>6329924 no, its both based on consumerism

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 05:06:02 2015 No.6330856 >>6330841 Equality isn't natural.

ΟΥΤΙΣ Sun Mar 29 05:06:28 2015 No.6330858

>>6330848
Descriptively, but in fact there is no reason why it couldn't be in the self-interest of members of the bourgeoisie, as Oscar Wilde illustrates. Communist can claim both class interests long-term (and capitalism does this as well, of course, with communism presented as an ideology for those who don't work).

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 05:09:24 2015 No.6330872 >>6330858 Yeah, obviously. I'd even go as far as stating that Marx was probably mistaken in having the movement rely on class interest at all, since the proletariat could eventually be appeased by nationalism and welfare.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 05:09:28 2015 No.6330873 >>6329924 Catholicism and Stalinism are like two sides of a single coin.

>>	ΟΥΤΙΣ Sun Mar 29 05:10:12 2015 No.6330874 >>6330856 You should probably read Discourse on Inequality and learn the distinction between natural and social inequality, because what I said apparently went right over your head.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 05:10:21 2015 No.6330875 >>6330869 social inequalities can be derived from natural differences, which would still exist in a classless society.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 05:10:24 2015 No.6330876 >>6330856 Society isn't natural.

ΟΥΤΙΣ Sun Mar 29 05:18:01 2015 No.6330892

>>6330872
Marx was autistically disconnected with the working class, his work is replete with quotations in other languages, forced literary and philosophical references, and terms which he defines in an uncessarily complex manner (Engels definition of "labor-power", for instance, in the introduction to "Wage, Labor and Capital" was clearly designed to be comprehensible to workers, whereas Marx's in Capital looks like it's meant to impress academics and make the concept seem profound through complexity---I like Hegel, and he does that with a lot of his actually good ideas, but he wasn't trying to appeal to workers, he was strictly concerned with academics).

>>6330875
Are you saying someone can only own a certain amount of property if they are genetically predisposed to own a certain amount of property?

>>	ΟΥΤΙΣ Sun Mar 29 05:19:14 2015 No.6330893 >>6330892 >from the working

Anonymous Sun Mar 29 05:23:54 2015 No.6330908

>>6330892
Yeah, Capital was clearly a critique of economic theories, not propagada for the masses, but that is besides the point. I don't think the idea of a revolutionary proletariat ever involved them actually possessing a thorough understanding of capital, just an understading of their own predicament, which was easy enough to convey. The point is that even after having successfully conveyed this insight, they still could be, and were, appeased.

ΟΥΤΙΣ Sun Mar 29 05:27:44 2015 No.6330913

>>6330908
Capital could have easily been written in terms for the masses, especially with basic diagrams illustrating the concepts, and it were done so not only would workers who normally side with capitalism be affected, but would have been easy for anyone to diagnose flaws in USSR Marxism. Marx's ego was just too big to do that though, he wanted to be a show off and feel smart.

Anonymous Sun Mar 29 05:29:52 2015 No.6330918

>>6330908
>I don't think the idea of a revolutionary proletariat ever involved them actually possessing a thorough understanding of capital,
You don't think much about much.

The working class is permuted through all the forms of capital both in productive and consumptive life, its comprehension of capital is complete and praxical. (Obviously the formation of the universal class is partial and mixed in history).

You're acting as if the IIeme International was the proletariat. It was largely smoking societies for rapidly declining petits bourgeois and state professionals.

Compare the (practical, material) critique of the IIeme international to that of the KAPD.

Anonymous Sun Mar 29 05:33:16 2015 No.6330925

>>6330892
I wouldn't say that Marx was necessarily so detached from the working class. He did after all make it a point to lecture publicly in a rather clear manner on his basic political economy concepts.

>>6330908
>The point is that even after having successfully conveyed this insight, they still could be, and were, appeased.

Marx wasn't acutely aware of the superstructure's effect on the production of the specific modality of the proletariat (and in that modality, a generation of their desires and structures for understanding). Marx succumbs to the same problem most ethical programs succumb to--human actions, though swayed in some cases by rational ordering, are driven on the whole by unknown desires and concealed external motives.

Anonymous Sun Mar 29 05:34:16 2015 No.6330927

>>6330913
The flaws of the USSR were quite obvious to those responsible, as those were people who had read and understood Marx.
Marx was first and foremost an intellectual, not a politician, all that stuff about changing the world aside.
Also, he did write easy explanations for the mases, e.g. Wage Labour and Capital.
Apart from that, if the revoluton is conditional on workers reading this or that book, then Marx was wrong to begin with.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 05:35:43 2015 No.6330930 >>6330918 >its comprehension of capital is complete and praxical [citation severely needed]

Anonymous Sun Mar 29 05:39:35 2015 No.6330940

>>6330925
>human actions, though swayed in some cases by rational ordering, are driven on the whole by unknown desires and concealed external motives.
True, and this is also the reason the whole concept of basis-superstructure is pretty outdated and vulgar.

ΟΥΤΙΣ Sun Mar 29 05:39:44 2015 No.6330941

>>6330927
Marx was wrong on a lot of things, that doesn't mean he was wrong on everything. Materialist dialectics are largely shit (although useful from a certain perspective in some contexts), that doesn't mean everything in Capital is inaccurate, because most of it has nothing to do with materialist dialectic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 05:42:15 2015 No.6330946 >>6330941 >Materialist dialectics are largely shit Okay, now I'm triggered, why would you say that? It is the necessary dialectical consequence of hegelian absolute idealism.

>>	ΟΥΤΙΣ Sun Mar 29 05:45:47 2015 No.6330952 >>6330946 I don't subscribe to absolute idealism, I subscribe to actual idealism. Materialist dialectics are shit because propaganda and marketing have been shown to be enormously effective in shaping public opinion and praxis.

Anonymous Sun Mar 29 05:51:42 2015 No.6330963

>>6330952
>I subscribe to actual idealism.
Well since we're already doing the least dialectical thing possible in declaring standpoints, I subscribe to negative dialectics. Actual idealism is subjectivist delusion and a symptom of the self-destruction of reason.
>Materialist dialectics are shit because propaganda and marketing have been shown to be enormously effective in shaping public opinion and praxis.
But those have been analized by materialists, particularly the Frankfurt School.

Anonymous Sun Mar 29 05:54:47 2015 No.6330967

>>6330892
what makes you think marx was trying to appeal to the general worker with capital? he wasn't. sure some workers read it, but he didn't write it with the idea that it would be pitched to the level of the average worker

it was a book that was meant to appeal to intellectuals

Anonymous Sun Mar 29 05:55:27 2015 No.6330970

>>6330930
Try a marx's contribution to critique and cleaver's reading capital politically.

The proletariat is the undesired by product of producing wage labour to reproduce capital in an expanded form. The totalisation of actual living labour into socially necessary average labour (see volume 1) provides a total, and in this material sense (the only one I'm admitting) complete critique. The proletariat quite literally masters capital in order to keep it functioning on a daily basis, including all of the many betrayals like labourism—its abolition of itself is only possible through its awareness.

ΟΥΤΙΣ Sun Mar 29 05:57:12 2015 No.6330974

>>6330963
>But those have been analized by materialists, particularly the Frankfurt School.
Yeah, and? The big forerunner of the Frankfurt School was Gramsci, and his "war of position" is definitely not a concept in line with materialist dialectic. Critical theory was a product of cognitive dissonance. I'm not dismissing it as worthless, but it's not in line with materialism, and Marx would probably say it was about the symptom rather than the disease.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 05:58:49 2015 No.6330976 >>6330970 So marx didn't say that, some interpreters have said that. It isn't canon, if you will.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 05:58:55 2015 No.6330977 File: 54 KB, 372x527, lenin computer tea.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6329933 >>6329927 Fuck off. Communism is the ideology that claims to represent the self-interests of the proletariat as a class.

ΟΥΤΙΣ Sun Mar 29 05:58:57 2015 No.6330978

>>6330967
I don't think he was, but I think he could have. The work could have provided every one of its arguments without the complexity (which, admittedly, isn't much compared to shit like German idealism). Marx chose to make it more academic than necessary to convey his critique.

Anonymous Sun Mar 29 06:01:53 2015 No.6330984

>>6330974
>The big forerunner of the Frankfurt School was Gramsci
This is simply not true, and therefore the rest of your post can be disregarded. Gramsci couldn't into dialectics, but the Frankfurt people actually could. If there's a forerunner to the Frankfurt School, it's Lukacs.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 06:02:10 2015 No.6330985 >>6330876 >>6330856 >>6330841 >is/isn't natural Define natural. Humans are part of the nature, thus everything they do are an extension of it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 08:45:22 2015 No.6331347 >>6330985 You just made literally everything 'natural.'

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 08:47:51 2015 No.6331355 Two things that are "both built on self-interest" are necessarily similar? Capitalism, communism and my eating some ice cream are really quite similar.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 08:58:05 2015 No.6331376 Yes. Metaphysical materialism / secular religion / Freemasonry / Judaism. These are the modern scourges.

Anonymous Sun Mar 29 09:03:02 2015 No.6331390

>>6329975
The modern view of economics and the old view are essentially different.

Before the modern age economics was viewed as a subbranch of Ethics and not just a materialistic game of how to accumulate wealth.
Knowing about economics meant knowing a certain kind of ethical conduct and fairness.
For example, it was considered unethical to lower your prices if it meant putting your fellow craftsmen out of business, but in Capitalism that's the ENTIRE point.
Capitalism is ethics taken out of economics, just as Newtonian mechanics took teleology/purpose out of the natural world.

Anonymous Sun Mar 29 09:06:43 2015 No.6331399

>>6331390
That's what Marx praises about Capitalism, btw, it's taking Ethics out of economics and thus "unleashing" the powers of production. His typical Jewish mentality saw nothing harmful being done by the destruction of the old religion, social order, and environment if it meant that more wealth was being piled up.

Capitalism was born in the Renaissance with the rise of the bankers/usurers.
Communism is literally the direct rule of the Bankers who control the State's central bank. Communism's ultimate aim is a classless society, i.e. everyone is reduced to the level of slavery beneath the great central bank/bureaucracy. It's the Jewish wet dream.

Anonymous Sun Mar 29 09:10:45 2015 No.6331408

>>6331399
Communism is Capitalism only instead of having many soulless, slave-driving corporations whose only values are material gain and company loyalty, you have one soulless, slave-driving corporation whose only values are material gain and company loyalty.

Anonymous Sun Mar 29 09:15:00 2015 No.6331417

>>6331408
Although the Communists and Capitalists alike are trying to introduce New Age religion and pseudo-Buddhism and kumbahyah "World Peace" bullshit into their companies to give them a human face. Soulless greed with a human face is the "postmodern condition". So now not only do you have to slave for the great World State of the United People's, you also have to believe that it is the will of the World Spirit, the Oversoul, Brahman.
In a word, Antichrist's second Tower of Babel and you have to choose between the trascendent God of heaven or the god of this world who will promise you peace and security in exchange for your adoring worship.

Anonymous Sun Mar 29 09:20:43 2015 No.6331425

>>6331417
And make no mistake, the rulers of this world are not after money primarily, what they want above all is to be worshipped as gods, because to be worshipped as god is the greatest power.
In ancient times the priesthoods would commune with their ancient serpent gods and offer human sacrifices to them and worship them.
The old gods are coming back and you will have to choose between them and the Creator. In fact, you do choose between them and the Creator every day of your life. But in the future the formal worship of these spirits will return, as it was in antiquity, and as it is today (albeit it is private and not yet public).

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 09:20:52 2015 No.6331426 >>6329924 Reminder that OP and a heap of feces are quite similar, given that both are warm volumes of organic matter.

Anonymous Sun Mar 29 09:26:54 2015 No.6331439

>>6331390
>For example, it was considered unethical to lower your prices if it meant putting your fellow craftsmen out of business, but in Capitalism that's the ENTIRE point.

It was considered unethical and UNECONOMICAL to put your fellow craftsmen out of business.
But the modern economists say that putting your "competitors" out of business is healthy and the economical thing.

Anonymous Sun Mar 29 09:31:27 2015 No.6331442

>>6331439
>It was considered unethical and UNECONOMICAL to put your fellow craftsmen out of business.
>But the modern economists say that putting your "competitors" out of business is healthy and the economical thing.

And this reflects the old view of nature and the modern one.
In the old view of nature, nature is something with an inherent order that must respected, and things are made to compliment one and other.
In the modern view nature is in a state of war or chaos were only "the fittest" shall survive. Hence, it is OK to put your neighbour out of business because you are only following the natural law of survival of the strongest/fittest.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 09:36:59 2015 No.6331449 >>6331442 This isn't all that modern though, ever heard of Heraclitus?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 10:33:39 2015 No.6331569 >>6329933 >this is what kids who haven't read Das Kapital really believe

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 10:51:55 2015 No.6331617 File: 9 KB, 290x324, 1426969720190.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6331425 >paganism is da devil bobby! >believing in 80's tier moral panic bullshit >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 10:53:41 2015 No.6331623 >>6331439 Yeah never understood how monopolies could be a good thing. >we will never have a based trust-buster president like Teddy ever again

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 18:00:33 2015 No.6333154 >>6330976 >Marx, contribution to a critique Are you fucking illiterate or part-blind?

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