/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6358048]

>Unless of course we consider that the concept of property is preposterous, like a Native American chief, Great Elk or one of them, who when us lot (By “us” I suppose I mean white Europeans. You might not be one; I hope you’re not, actually. Sorry for unconsciously addressing this book to imperialists)

>Gandhi, an extremely efficient revolutionary, is perhaps most admired for his excellent deployment of “nonviolent protest.” The ingenuity of nonviolence is not immediately obvious to us, the inheritors of a world built upon martial means, but the principle is almost like mathematics. Authorities are trained to deal with a particular kind of conflict, violent conflict, so by using violent means you are entering the territory that they are best qualified to control. Also, by becoming violent you are tuning in to the frequency that you are trying to overcome, the frequency of violation, violence FM.

>“Be the change you wish to see in the world,” said Gandhi. If you want a nonviolent world, you cannot use violence to achieve it.

>Human beings, who want the best for their families. David Cameron said, in a rare foray into compassion, “Hug a hoodie.” He was right—we should. We should also cuddle a copper. Was that a bit “Yeah, man,” a bit reductive? It will be: The solution will not be rarefied, the Revolution will be televised, and it will be easy and based on simple things, like interconnectivity and union. Or love.

>In fact, I must mention that I was interviewed by the police during the writing of this book, and the WPC who questioned me was so resolutely lovely, judicious, and kind, I nearly gave up on the whole revolutionary caper. There were cups of tea and codes of conduct and tales of public marches in her former life. In fact, though, this just confirms my thesis that people are beautiful and Revolution inevitable. We don’t need to grow compassion in a petri dish; everyone’s fine—we just have to scrape away a few repellent systems.

[Anonymous No.6358060]

>implying he isn't absolutely correct

[Anonymous No.6358071]

Oops I have accidentally hidden this thread. Now I'll never get a chance to read the civil and in depth discussion of Russell Brand and his intellectually substantial ideas.

[Anonymous No.6358094]

>>6358048

That first block is pretty cucky. I'm now fairly certain this guy likes to watch black guys fuck his gf. Reparations m8.

[Anonymous No.6358201]

Russell Brand is a chimney sweep in a Che Guevara t-shirt.

[Anonymous No.6358685]

>>6358048
>Ghandi
>not Bhagat Singh

[Anonymous No.6358692]

>>6358048

reminder that contemporary anarchists are petty-bourgeois liberal-minded counter-revolutionaries that want a Revolution without a Revolution

[Anonymous No.6358699]

>>6358048
>that last excerpt
I can relate to that, and when it happens, it's a good fucking feel.

[Anonymous No.6358709]

>>6358692
Somewhat akin to the replacement of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state is impossible without a violent rEVOLution?

[Anonymous No.6358738]

Gandhi was just some Uncle Tom British stooge.

[Anonymous No.6358745]

yeah man let's turn over the system and put a nw system in place, ahhhh wamnnnn, man this will definitely work the world into a better place, it will work a mannn this time itssssssssssss perfect

[Anonymous No.6358752]

I don't get this guy's angle. Surely any man would have been content with his millions and his big-titted Katy Perry waifu and left thoughts of revolution to those insufferable college students.

[Anonymous No.6358759]

ITT: Fascist socially awkward kids who live in their parents basement and complain about their 'male rights' and 'internet fetishes' try to contrapuntal a shitty cash-cow book.

You are all idiots. Every single one of you.

[Anonymous No.6358763]

>>6358759
/thread
in fact... /lit

Just take it ironically, that is what I do. Its all good for a laugh.

[Anonymous No.6358790]

>>6358759

>implying I'm a fascist

[Anonymous No.6358796]

>>6358790
>implying that Lenin isn't burning in hell for the butchery of the Romanov family

[Anonymous No.6358804]

>>6358790
>socialism is just state capitalist monopoly for the benefit of the workers

>feudalism for the benefit of the serfs
>slavery for the benefit of the slaves

[Anonymous No.6358816]

>>6358048
>“Be the change you wish to see in the world,” said Gandhi. If you want a nonviolent world, you cannot use violence to achieve it.


That's a misquote. What a fool

[Anonymous No.6358824]

>>6358796
>implying that Lenin isn't living gloriously in heaven for the butchery of the Romanov family

[Anonymous No.6358841]

>>6358048
le 'Native Americans had no concept of property' meme

[Anonymous No.6358842]

This shit almost makes me not hate communism. Certainly a step up from the Zizek faggot at the very least.

[Anonymous No.6358847]

>>6358048
I don't know why but I hate him man, ooooh why the cover is a picture of him? why this ugly madafaka is so egocentric? he should be acting better than writing.

[Anonymous No.6358885]

>>6358048
this

[Anonymous No.6358901]

>modern white Europeans are the same thing as the imperialists of days past
Stop writing.

[Anonymous No.6358906]

>>6358048
>>6358060
>>6358094
>>6358692
>>6358699
>>6358709
>>6358842

There is literally nothing wrong with being plebian

[Anonymous No.6358916]

>>6358804

That quote was taken out of context. Sort of like how reformists like taking Marx's quote, "If you're not a Marxist, than neither am I" out of context. (Which was adressed to Lassalle, who's politics, to compare to contemporary politics, were similar to Richard Wolff's) Looking at this quote without looking at the context is infantile.

A problem among anti-Leninists is that in their anti-Leninism, they associate things about Lenin's philososphy that was never there to begin with (or imposed upon him by his "Leninist" successors), and side with Lenin's opponents, the Mensheviks, and then impose contemporary criticism of Leninism upon the Mensheviks (and others) where there were none.

The pamphlet where that quote came from, The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It, was the follow up from to another quote that said that nationalization was just the germ to socialism, and the pamphlet itself was designed to be read by workers, and not intellectuals, so expect there to be simplifications. What Lenin was argueing against where those in charge of the Provisional Government who adamantly refused to nationalize industry, to deal with to leave the war, where acting bureacratically, being inable to pass reforms, and being inable actually to deal with the problems that faced them right in front of them.

I recommend actually reading what Lenin wrote, especially the pamphlet you should really be going to for Lenin's perspective on the state, State and Revolution. In it, Lenin actually sides with the Left-Communists against Kautsky (while admitting that he disagreed with much of everything else) in regards to the state.

Kautsky believed that what seperated Marxism from Anarchism is that the Marxists are willing to take over the state. Lenin disagreed. The basis of the proletarian revolution is the smashing of the bourgeois state apparatus, and its replacement by armed workers organized in fluid democratic councils.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch06.htm

[Anonymous No.6358931]

Ghandi knew that white western men would respond to nonviolent protest. Try a nonviolent protest on Jamal and his 100 CCs of grey matter and see how that works out fer ya.

[Anonymous No.6358940]

This dude married (married!) Katy Perry. I don't there's anything more that needs to be said.

[Anonymous No.6358947]

>>6358940
Arthur Miller married marilyn monroe.

[Anonymous No.6358952]

>>6358796

>implying that aristocrats aren't parasites

[Anonymous No.6358973]

>people actually listen to this twat

When did pop politics infest /lit/?

[Anonymous No.6358978]

>>6358973

I don't know but it's getting bad..

[Anonymous No.6358982]

>>6358973
never, that's why OP made a thread for people to hate him. there are threads about john green, too.

[Anonymous No.6358990]

>>6358841
Socialists make a distinction between private property and personal property. What the pic you just put up would be in the dreams of every Communist's fantasies.

[Anonymous No.6359028]

>>6358916
Also from the work
>For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking.

But this in itself is quaint bullshit. All power under Lenin was in the hands of the Communist Party, which was comprised of a small portion of the population, most people weren't allowed in. That's not "revolutionary democracy" Oh sure, everyone can vote, but they can in liberal democracy as well, and the voting options were limited to whomever was backed by the Communist Party: you could either vote for them, or you could abstain.

[Anonymous No.6359040]

>>6358982
What's wrong with John Green?

[Anonymous No.6359045]

>>6358990
>Socialists make a distinction between private property and personal property.
I don't think any major leftist theorist except Chomsky makes that distinction.

[Anonymous No.6359058]

>>6359040
he makes cheap trash clearly aimed at teens after being critical of those disingenuous attitudes in his literature videos, he talks against the manic-pixie stereotype and continues writing them because he knows it sells, generally demands a certain level of quality from other people and doesn't do the same for himself. it's also that his book got famous for being a vlogger who wrote a book, exploiting his e-fame, before becoming an international best seller through formulas; so many aspiring writers dislike him for what he represents (pander enough and lower yourself and you also can be a succesful bitch).
i personally find his HS videos okay, he and his brother even cover some stuff I had never read about and after comparing with real sources it's not brutally out of place. some people, though, really dislike the three or four times in which he commented against female oppression during times of general class oppression or implied capitalism wasn't the best thing ever.

[Anonymous No.6359067]

>>6358048
Spooky as fuck

[Anonymous No.6359089]

>>6359045
That's because you haven't read even the most basic Leftist works. This distinction is the cornerstone of all Marxist and Anarchist thought, for example.

[Anonymous No.6359094]

>>6359028

The Party as the Vanguard was just adopted from the organization of the German Social-Democratic Party. (This was before the Bolshevik-Menshevik split where the radicals split off and would become Communists) where in a country of around 11 - 12 million workers, 2 million where organized under the SPD. The Russian Social-Democratic Party (Where the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks where factions). The point of the socialist party was to organize the working class on a national scale. The centralized Party structure was created in response to the repressive Tsarist state apparatus, and as a responce to facing the problems the Soviet government had under the Civil War.

Besides, no genuine revolutionary would reject the idea of political organization.

As for details of mass organization of the Bolsheviks, I'd recommend you to read this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105275/index.html

>>6359045
Every major leftist theorist from Stalin to Goldman, from Lenin to Pannekoek, from Marx to Bakunin, makes this distinction.

[Anonymous No.6359112]

>>6359089
I've never read that in any of Marx's work, I think you're full of shit.

[Anonymous No.6359130]

>>6359112
Marx borrowed it, from my knowledge, from Proudhon.

It's irrelevent anyways, being that you actually ask any genuine Marxist or Anarchist they'd respond in the seperation of private property and personal property.

[Anonymous No.6359133]

>>6359089

>Marxist

Not leftist BY ANY STANDARDS

[Anonymous No.6359139]

>>6359112
>>6359133
The posting quality on this board has dropped to absolute shit, it's almost unbelievable.

[Anonymous No.6359144]

>>6359130
>genuine Marxists support consumerism
>genuine Marxists support inheritance

[Anonymous No.6359146]

>>6359139
college students are bussy finishing projects and stuff. wait until they get a summer job (lol @ history and philosophy and literature students thinking they can get internships) and the quality will improve.

[Anonymous No.6359161]

>>6359144
You're confused.

[Anonymous No.6359172]

>>6359144

How is supporting "property" in the case of use-value over exchange-value mean I support commodity fetishism?

<-- does this look like consumerism, to you?