/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6393287]

Is socialism more or less the ideology of bitter losers?

[Anonymous No.6393293]

>21st century
>believes in ideology

[Anonymous No.6393296]

>>6393287
yes

[Anonymous No.6393318]

It's the ideology of the upper-class and government.

Business and companies get tax breaks, can pay themselves in dividends, and can negate tax by reinvesting in assets or debt-assets to negate capital gains. Meanwhile more money is being circulated around the middle and lower-classes to buy their products and services.

Governments, obviously, adore taxation as it's their only source of income, and don't have to worry about breaking even or providing a financially coherent balance sheet. The tax from the government, despite how altruistic a service can appear, can never end up in the hands of the poor, and will always feed back to those with assets and investments and services to provide.

Even if a government tries to monopolize an industry like healthcare or waste collection, without total fascism, that industry is still fed by the capitalist tools of the rich, and they pay the poor workers to run the service and the workers re-spend their wages in other sectors.

[Anonymous No.6393323]

>>6393293
>implying it's possible to live without ideology pervading every thought and action
embrace it pleb

[Anonymous No.6393331]

Resentment is what fuels all revolutions. Without resentment and "bitter" losers society would stagnate. "Good" loser are just slaves.

[Anonymous No.6393347]

>>6393287
No, that would be the facsism

Keeping the world reactionary cause they are afraid of change.

[Anonymous No.6393354]

>>6393347
I'd argue that fascism and socialism are the two sides of the same coin.

[Anonymous No.6393382]

>>6393331

I'd bet lots of money that you know so little about one revolution that you couldn't make a generalization about it alone let alone enough revolutions to make a valid generalization about revolution in general.

[Anonymous No.6393392]

>>6393354
You'd be totally wrong

[Anonymous No.6393402]

>>6393392
Socialism is fascism-lite. State control, with a some allowed to grow fat on the free market, and the serfs thinking they have some freedom thanks to a generous government..

[Anonymous No.6393404]

>>6393392
Prove me wrong though.

>the proletariat must unite!
>the aryan race must unite!

>the bourgeois are exploiting us!
>the jews are exploiting us!

[Anonymous No.6393412]

>>6393287
It is if you're an illiterate moron and a shitposter worthy of b&hammer.

[Anonymous No.6393422]

While capitalism is the ideology of the happy losers? I can see that comparison wrking out.

[Anonymous No.6393427]

>>6393287
I don't know about that, but it's unworkable as the main engine of an economy because it doesn't have a means of dealing with those who are criminal, only crave power, or are just simply evil. (And if you don't think there's evil, your education has failed you.)

It might work if we were all fair-minded, hard-working, and had a form of leadership we all agreed with - but when has that ever been the case?

[Anonymous No.6393434]

>>6393422
No, capitalism would be ideology of the happy winners.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6393439]

>>6393287


There is actual evidence the bourgeois exploit other human beings, while there isn't any evidence for the latter.

Also, Capitalism is incompatible with the environment.

[Anonymous No.6393454]

>>6393439
>There is actual evidence the bourgeois exploit other human beings,
lolwut?

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6393471]

>>6393454

Naive.

[Anonymous No.6393476]

>>6393471
You still haven't provided any arguments

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6393479]

>>6393476

I'm not your history teacher little boy.

[Anonymous No.6393481]

>lives in a statist society
>tries to disparage socialism
edgy and dumb

[Anonymous No.6393492]

What kind of loser would you rather have me be? One who simply accepts my lowly stature in life? Am I really a loser if I throw of my chains?

[Anonymous No.6393496]

>>6393479
Then why are you posting?

[Anonymous No.6393505]

>>6393492
>One who simply accepts my lowly stature in life
No, one who tries to improve his condition through hard work, not bitch about "the system"

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6393507]

>>6393496

To remind you that you are dumb, and don't know a whole lot.

[Anonymous No.6393513]

>>6393507
So you're essentially a bitter loser?

[Anonymous No.6393518]

>>6393505
>the revolution isn't hard work

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6393536]

>>6393513

No, you're essentially a bitter loser, as am I, for posting on the literature board of 4chan.

[Anonymous No.6393538]

>>6393479
Man, I agree with you, but this is a shitty attitude to cop. You can be the most correct and informed person on the planet, but if all you say when people ask questions is, "It's not my job to educate you," they're naturally going to assume you're full of shit.

[Anonymous No.6393540]

I think what I find more absurd than pro-revolutionaries are the folks who believe the way we produce and exchange is somehow immutable, eternal, or even just

Everything is subject to change, and capitalism is no different

[Anonymous No.6393546]

>>6393536
Foucault, I don't come here very often. Are you mostly a crit theory/political economy guy rather than a lit guy?

[Anonymous No.6393548]

>>6393518
it's not hard to chimp out and steal.

>>6393536
I'm not bitter.

[Anonymous No.6393554]

>>6393548
>>6393548
>it's not hard to chimp out and steal.

That doesn't sound like a revolution to me.

[Anonymous No.6393559]

>>6393287
What's wrong with being a loser

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6393563]

>>6393538

Okay. I will try my best.

>>6393513

The reason Capitalism is a problem is a long convuluted list. Some of it is simple, some of it is exacerbating already evident problems within Western Civ, and a major part of it is our relationship with the ecology and the environment.

If we continue down this path of consumption with six billion people, we will eat the world whole.

But most of all, Capitalism induces suffering and has no time for criticism of itself if those critiques involve the long standing cracks and creases within Western Civ. Things like, how our society seems to be bound by the act of Confession. Our relationship with the idea of Power and Weakness. This is general, but all in all, it makes life in general worse in a number of ways.

We still fail to understand we as a whole are not objective viewers.

Capitalism suffers from major design flaws that will become more and more evident as time goes by, and things accelerate. I am not a Socialist, but I don't think Capitalism is anything but a really bad idea.

>>6393546

Critical Theory literature is literature regardless. I find it interesting, this is a place where I can explore those ideas while helping people understand what Critical Theory is.

[Anonymous No.6393564]

>>6393287
Yup. 100%. Communism is nothing but Slave Morality to Capitalism

[Anonymous No.6393589]

>>6393563
I didn't mean to challenge your place in '/lit/.' I was just curious if you were also as interested in fiction/poetry

[Anonymous No.6393598]

Socialism isn't bitter, but socialists can surely be bitter as a result of feeling exploited as wage slaves.

Socialism can also be a clear headed and pragmatic struggle for power with no hard feelings and realising that it's only to be expected that the wealthy hang on to power that they have, but trying to deprive them from it any way.

[Anonymous No.6393599]

>>6393563
>and a major part of it is our relationship with the ecology and the environment.
Jesus wept, go and protest outside an animal testing lab.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6393600]

>>6393589

I actually am. I just haven't read any in a long, long time. I tend to be more interested in non-fiction and Theory.

[Anonymous No.6393605]

>>6393318
This.

Socialism is the worst of both worlds.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6393616]

>>6393599

This isn't about animal testing. This is about how many species go extinct everyday. Some we have not yet even observed.

As of now, these things are small, insects mostly, and amphibians, everything oceanic.

The main problem is the ecology is very, very delicate. Even without the major players within the ocean going extinct, you'll have a rise of their prey, which will over populate with new ability. These are mostly squid. Squid, are on the rise in population.

But you get my point. Remember, at one point in Earth's history, enough single celled life reproduced out of control, and the oxygen produced upset Earth's newborn atmosphere, resulting in a largely frozen world for many millions of years. This would never happen today, but the cost on our atmosphere from our over consumption of fossil fuel, combined with our abusive relationship with the ecology, will prove trouble for us in the centuries to come.

It's hard to imagine it now, but it will get bad, and the Oceans are going to suffer the most.

[Anonymous No.6393619]

>>6393563
>I can explore those ideas while helping people understand what Critical Theory is.
No one here takes you seriously and most people filter you. the only reason I don't is because it entertains me to see you get blown the fuck out on such a regular basis. You're either delusional or a masochist. But even this bores me and I will probably filter you soon.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6393624]

>>6393619

That's a pretty mean thing to say.

[Anonymous No.6393630]

>>6393554
That basically what "leftist" revolutions amount to.

>we need to kill the rich, seize their property and give it back to the people!

>>6393563
>The reason Capitalism is a problem is a long convuluted list. Some of it is simple, some of it is exacerbating already evident problems within Western Civ, and a major part of it is our relationship with the ecology and the environment.
So I'm supposed to take your word for it?

>If we continue down this path of consumption with six billion people, we will eat the world whole.
We're seven billion now. Oh, and [citation needed]. The quality of water and air in the west is much better than what it was 100 years ago.
>But most of all, Capitalism induces suffering and has no time for criticism of itself if those critiques involve the long standing cracks and creases within Western Civ. Things like, how our society seems to be bound by the act of Confession. Our relationship with the idea of Power and Weakness. This is general, but all in all, it makes life in general worse in a number of ways.
So many words for so little meaning. What's your point?

>Capitalism suffers from major design flaws that will become more and more evident as time goes by, and things accelerate
Are you an oracle?

[Anonymous No.6393632]

>>6393624
You pretty much have no idea what you're talking about 80% of the time, or you at least are really bad at articulating your ideas

[Anonymous No.6393636]

>>6393563
>>6393619

I have to sort of agree with this guy, Foucs. Tripfriends do give the board some personality, funny antagonism and you get to expect a certain response from them. It's like reading a genre. But if you want anyone to take your argument or even read your wall of text you have to be anon, it's 4chan politics and you can't change it from a tripfriend position.

As an anon you can fuck up and someone will correct you and you can both grow. But tripfriends have to be right or they are a dumb sack of shit. Which would be fine if you only talked about a topic you are fairly well read and can cite sources, but if you go from one topic to the other you're bound to screw something up.

On the other hand
>/lit/
>filtering posters
>instead of 5 guys posting is 4
that's a lousy idea.

[Anonymous No.6393640]

>>6393404
That's communism not socialism.

Socialism is what >>6393318
described. IE, a government that does it's fucking job.

[Anonymous No.6393648]

>>6393630
>[citation needed]
So you don't think the growing population is a threat to the global food supply?

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6393650]

>>6393630

>So I'm supposed to take your word for it?

No, it's academic.

>We're seven billion now. Oh, and [citation needed]. The quality of water and air in the west is much better than what it was 100 years ago.

That won't last forever. It's easy to assume this world will stay as it is now, but if you can't conceptualize the social, than at least understand that within the next thousand years, shit's going to get sour.

>So many words for so little meaning. What's your point?

You are bound by what has been set up culturally.

>Are you an oracle?

Nope. Anyone can figure out Capitalism can't last forever.

>>6393632

I'm bad at articulating my ideas, I'll admit that.

[Anonymous No.6393660]

/lit/ should have flags so we can weed out the americans in political discussion. those bizarro world interpretations of concepts like socialism and liberalism gets really tiresome.

[Anonymous No.6393665]

>>6393454
Refer to Capital.

Super babby version: Money is made from the production and trade of commodities in the market (eg: a chair is made and then sold for money). Laborers are the only ones that make these commodities (ex: a chair doesn't pop into existence, but is made by at least one person). The money made from the exchange of produced commodities is split between wages (given to workers by owners [ie: capitalists, aka the bourgeoisie]) and profit (given to owners by the owners). This is exploitation.

[Anonymous No.6393673]

>>6393648
People said the same thing when we were less than a billion people.

>>6393650
>No, it's academic.
Rofl. Care to provide sources then?

>That won't last forever. It's easy to assume this world will stay as it is now, but if you can't conceptualize the social, than at least understand that within the next thousand years, shit's going to get sour.
Anything can happen in a thousand years. It's impossible to predict what will happen.

>You are bound by what has been set up culturally.
In a free society, you are not bound by anything really.

[Anonymous No.6393674]

>>6393318
Americans, please stop.

[Anonymous No.6393682]

>>6393665
>refering to the inane rambling of that debunked 19th century jobless jew
okay.exe

[Anonymous No.6393684]

>>6393660
>>6393674
can you give a good criticism then or at least an alternative

[Anonymous No.6393685]

>>6393660
Seconding. I keep trying to remember what poster is saying left/right wing to understand what they mean.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6393688]

>>6393673

>rofl
>It's impossible to predict what will happen.
>In a free society, you are not bound by anything really.

[Anonymous No.6393735]

>>6393684
There is no point in criticizing vague declarations with no standing. It's not moving the goal posts, there are no goal posts. It's like trolling but half the time it's sincere so you can't really tell. The only clear idea is that americans don't pay attention to world history or even contemporary politics, assume the news are a decent source of very complex analysis and feel attacked at any single alternative to what they assume is the truth in a field where true is a non important concept.
Politics discussion not tightly related to a certain book or author belongs to /pol/

[Anonymous No.6393741]

>>6393735
this.

Americans have no understanding of how politics work

[Anonymous No.6393746]

>>6393688
You are the epitome of the meme-poster.

Absolutely worthless.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6393751]

>>6393746

[Anonymous No.6393767]

>>6393636
There is a really interesting tripfag on /k/ that apparently knows a lot about guns and is well respected by the community there. so much so that when an anon tried to argue with him other anons told him off for it. I can't remember his name but I remember thinking /lit/ has no such authority.

[Anonymous No.6393777]

>>6393287

Implying capitalism is not equally fueled by bitter losers- people chasing dreams they can never reach. Some even resorting to bitter irony or criticism of the culture of the masses- but never truly freeing themselves from it, especially not through mediocre contrariness.

Implying those who advocate socialism are motivated by some vague possibility of being personally better off, rather than ideals of justice.

Implying poor people are socialists while poor people are usually the most committed capitalists and nationalists- bitter losers.

Implying any American can have an objective opinion on an ideology that was demonized by government propaganda for 60 years.

The level of plebness is disturbing even for a bait post, comrade.

[Anonymous No.6393786]

>>6393767
probably because it is easier to learn about guns than something as encompassing as '/lit/'

there will always be someone who knows more about some aspect of it than you, even if (or perhaps especially if) you're an overspecialized PHD student

[Anonymous No.6393789]

>>6393684
Socialism is about the proles gaining power over the means of production. Not about the upper tax playing tax trickery or Obama thinking not letting people die in the streets of disease is not fun.

[Anonymous No.6393794]

>>6393767
That's because hicks suck at rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.6393798]

>>6393767
In /co/ we had judgeanon and he's such a bro that no one can hate him. I don't know if I'd come here to be nice to everyone, though.
It's also different in a heavily specialized board like /k/ where you can know a lot about guns or a lot about military history and you already appeal to more than 40% of the userbase. Here you can know a lot of european vanguards of the first half of the 20th century, or greek politics, or chinese literature, or even military history again; and maybe a dozen anons will recognize you. Most of the memorable tripfags we had were just jokesters, and that's fine, but no one expected content from them and filtering or not was just a matter of regulating how "meme-y" you wanted the board to be.

The best route is just having an occasional identification but being mostly anon.

[Anonymous No.6393828]

>>6393563
>a major part of it is our relationship with the ecology and the environment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

[Anonymous No.6393860]

>>6393630
>>6393630
>we need to kill the rich, seize their property and give it back to the people!
Sounds good to me.

[twinshia No.6393865]

>>6393318
>Governments, obviously, adore taxation as it's their only source of income
No...
Large waves of taxation would destroy private industry which is the source of tax revenue in the first place.
Also, government officials do not care unless their salary changes which it rarely does.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6393866]

>>6393828

why would I ever want to listen to George Carlin at 10 am.

[Anonymous No.6393881]

>>6393828
>banal platitudes
>generates respect by being an asshole
it's like a personification of 4chan

[Anonymous No.6393884]

>>6393828
>implying people care about the earth in itself

People don't want to live in a shitty place. That's why they don't want to fuck up the environment.

[twinshia No.6393891]

>>6393884
What are you referring to specifically?
The appearance of cleanliness?
It seems irrelevant.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6393898]

>>6393891

No. As in if the ecology gets shot to shit the outcome is an over population of insects and a general destabilization of the oceans as we've come to remember them.

[Anonymous No.6393906]

>>6393891
Having clean air and soil and water and food and such for high quality of life and health and longevity. Very pragmatic things.

[Anonymous No.6393913]

>>6393548
>it's not hard to chimp out and steal.

It's not hard to be born rich and have your parents pay for everything and help you get a well paying job either.

[Anonymous No.6393919]

>>6393913
The idea that economic success has much at all to do with someone's ability, talents or personal qualities by themselves is ridiculous and it's unbelievable how anyone could experience the real world and still think that's the case.

[twinshia No.6393922]

>>6393898
But those can still be solved per private organisation,
voluntarily funded.
Let the State sustain social order and let others volunteer where they see fit.
There are politics with in private organisations as well.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6393927]

>>6393922

That's not a good idea. Because at that point there is no solving it. At that point multiple necessary players in the ecology would be gone, and there's no bringing back a stable population

[Anonymous No.6393931]

>>6393439
>socialism is compatible with the environment

[twinshia No.6393933]

>>6393906
Releasing gases in to the air on State owned streets should be illegal,
because it belongs to the organisation which is the state.
Soil is not owned by the State because the State does not produce biological products.
This needs to be dealt with by consumers,
in only buying high quality goods.
It all begins with the individual, who is real,
unlike the lump of "society".

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6393940]

>>6393287
Is abolitionism more or less the ideology of bitter losers?

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6393945]

>>6393931
>anti-capitalism socialism is communism

Why do you keep doing this?

>>6393933

>This needs to be dealt with by consumers

Not a good idea, or a possible one. Unless we're talking Insurrection at a later date (which is different than revolution, mind you).

>It all begins with the individual, who is real

Individuals have no impact on the society by itself.

>unlike the lump of "society".

Societal problems are just to be ignored?

[twinshia No.6393947]

>>6393906
Also, if your goal is to have a high quality of life,
then, as an individual, which all humans may be,
it is ethically incorrect not to sacrifice every thing for the achievement of that goal. Therefore the burden does not lie on the organisation that happens to have a monopoly on violence, but on you and the organised extension which you own through extended violent action.

[Anonymous No.6393949]

>>6393933
Nice poem.

Plebs don't know what's good for them though. The state should subsidise high quality goods and tax shitty goods so that their greed helps them make the right choices.

[twinshia No.6393960]

>>6393927
You have already ceased to strive for your goal and therefore your words are simple chatter.
You are weak: with out a means to violence: not wealthy.
This may not be your "fault",
but as I gather you have a goal and are already devolving to blaming some greater force,
as opposed to realising our own ethical inadequacies in not attaining your goal,
absolutely.

[Anonymous No.6393964]

>>6393940
Abolitionists wanted the end of an institution that predated capitalism, socialists want the complete remodelling of society.

I know it's useful to you, politically and culturally, to proclaim them one and the same, and it's true that the same people who were abolitionists them would be socialists now, and vice-versa, but still the comparison is far-fetched and merely useful for propaganda.

Really, 80% of the appeal of the left is about "being in the right side" of history, by showing that the victors in past previous struggles were their ideological antecedents. They don't have many arguments on their own.

[Anonymous No.6393975]

>>6393960
please stop trying to be a meme