/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6513638]

Are they any arguments against Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism besides "muh roads"?

[Anonymous No.6513644]

>>6513638
Probably, but in this case "muh roads" is an effective argument.

[Anonymous No.6513645]

No free health care in anarcho capitalism

[Anonymous No.6513657]

>>6513638
i would say the best argument is that it has nothing to do with literature

[Anonymous No.6513686]

>take economics course
>find out that employees contribute literally zero to anything
>find that all value is created by the employer's charge for their product, which is objectively worthless until then
>mfw butthurt liberals literally have economics backward

[Anonymous No.6513693]

a better question would be how you defend anarchy-capitalism without resorting to "muh NAP"

[Anonymous No.6513703]

>>6513645
There is no free health care in ANY system, but it's cheapest in anarcho capitalism.

[Anonymous No.6513719]

the fact that the state is an emanation out of class society

[Anonymous No.6513729]

I've never seen an effective response to the problem of pollution (especially non-point source pollution) or environmental degradation

[Anonymous No.6513739]

>>6513729
Are you saying that is a problem specifically with anarcho capitalism?

[Anonymous No.6513740]

>>6513729
>yfw people say 'I'll be dead by then, not my problem' and are 100% serious

[Anonymous No.6513744]

>>6513739
>he doesn't know what externalities are

[Anonymous No.6513749]

>>6513739
No, but without regulation (clean air and water acts) it would be much, much worse

[Anonymous No.6513754]

>>6513749
>implying the free market won't solve all our problems
>implying the capitalists don't have just as much of a vested interest in the environment as anyone else and won't take measures to protect it

[Anonymous No.6513766]

There aren't any SERIOUS arguments either against or for it, because no one even halfway intelligent takes it seriously at all.

[Anonymous No.6513767]

The most dominant of man will always gain control over others. "Anarchy" and capitalism are *allowed* by the state. Any illusion of freedom is bestowed upon you by those the in power, the strong and smart. If the state didn't like capitalism, they could dispose of it tommorow.

Rothbard's argument's rely on axiom that capitalism and freedom are inherant in humans, its not so. No amount of constitution or rational debate can quiet the will of mighty.

[Anonymous No.6513774]

>>6513729
>>>/melbourne/
Fucking greenies

[Anonymous No.6513780]

This nigga wrote "The Economic Theory of the Leisure Class`which utterly BTFO every Austrian since Bohm-Bawerk.

[Anonymous No.6513783]

>>6513686
There exist people who can say the phrase Economics in One Lesson without a trace of Irony.

[Anonymous No.6513788]

>>6513686
check out marxist critiques of the marginal theory of value.

[Anonymous No.6513792]

>>6513780

Wrong photo?

[Anonymous No.6513809]

>>6513792
Right Photo. Vleben pls.

[Anonymous No.6513811]

Anarcho-capitalism is good in theory but it doesn't work in practice.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6513814]

>>6513638

All Capitalism is built on flawed conception of organization and happens to be catastrophic.

[Anonymous No.6513815]

>>6513638

I am sympathetic to Anarcho-capitalism.

However I don't see it as "capitalism". Its just free trade.

[Anonymous No.6513816]

>>6513788
*neo-ricardian critiques
fify

[Anonymous No.6513831]

>>6513814
How exactly is capitalism catastrophic?

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6513832]

>>6513831

Ultimately there exists an assumption behind Capitalism that not only are we organized like the larger forces of nature (we aren't), but the larger forces of nature reward predation (they don't).

It assumes you can make a rhizome go into a straight line, and not adapt to the conditions preferable that create a poor class, a predation class and an exploited class. THe problem being is that the exploited class is hardly as strong as it is in nature because of misunderstanding, and the fact we cannot ourselves apply nature into a social framework.

What I'm speaking of is the biodeversity of life. There happens to be everything from plankton to crustacean to herbivore and carnivore. But each consumes itself and relies on the remains of others and rotting. There's no way to create an analogue for this, as there is always a "strong predator" class that never dies who's resources filter down to other organisms.

Capitalism itself is just the predator-class saying "I win, I'm the best, I live forever" without adapting to that fact, it's all a huge amount of logical gaps and assumptions.

The theory of natural selection is strategically misapplied by capitalist ideologues who wish to proclaim that the ideal expression of a genetic blueprint within us, an inherent nature, is one who is strong, fast and predatory, ie, what is necessary to be productive and exploitative in a capitalist system and which inevitably, naturally, logically, produces economy.

Again, this misreading of natural selection also takes away from it the real strength of the theory, in which it’s used to account for the diversity that life exhibits, a diversity that wouldn’t exist if it in practice worked within the limitations of an idealist interpretation of ToNS. The capitalist misreading of natural selection, that an ideal image of the strong fast predator is that which nature strives to become, simply does not correspond to and fails to explain a reality in which the endlessly diverse expressions of genes result from an interpretation of ToNS that sees it as an optimization process that selects those genetic traits that are best suited for a given environment.

This all means that because of the huge amount of assumptions its built on based on misreading about biology, that it is avoiding confronting the fact it is inherently anathema to human social existence and health. It's all a nice show, it certainly is filled with a nice amount of philosophy and leading numerology, but it's myth.

[Anonymous No.6513835]

>>6513831
Lack of order and social cohesion

[Anonymous No.6513885]

First of all anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism, as it doesn't get rid of the hierarchies that are within capitalism. Let alone the fact anarchism through out history fighting against capitalism. Working class people are worse off under anarcho-capitalism due to not having workers rights, socialised healthcare, etc. Without government stopping corporations they would gain massive monopolies in which small companies would not be able to compete. The NAP wouldn't work due to the fact not everyone would follow it, especially when living under the massive inequalities anarcho-capitalism would create. The NAP also fails to understand structural violence, for example I don't think its wrong for a person who is starving to death to steal food from someone who has more food then they could possibly need, if they were denied the food the person denying them would of inadvertently killed the starving person. Yet them stealing the food would break the NAP.
Let alone under anarcho-capitalism there is no regulate anything or stop ecological problems, which could cause a lot of problems.

[Anonymous No.6513890]

>>6513832
capitalism isn't social darwinism. you're arguing against social darwinism and conflating that with capitalism.

[Anonymous No.6513892]

>>6513885
>Without government stopping corporations they would gain massive monopolies
How do you think monopolies start in the first place?

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6513893]

>>6513890

Explain to me how Capitalism doesn't allow for Social Darwinism as a means to an end, and how you would stop Social Darwinism from existing within Capitalism.

[Anonymous No.6513909]

>>6513893
You're assuming social darwinism exists within capitalism. It doesn't.

If you think it does provide an example in contemporary society.

[Anonymous No.6513910]

>>6513892
By gaining the sole legitimate legal control over the supply of a good.

[Anonymous No.6513912]

Are there any arguments FOR it besides "muh markets"?

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6513913]

>>6513909

>You're assuming social darwinism exists within capitalism. It doesn't.

Explain how it doesn't exist within Capitalism? Or, if we're being specific, how you intend to get rid of social darwanistic ideals of the affluent? This is news, this could be breakthrough.

[Anonymous No.6513920]

>>6513816
Ricardo's theory of the value of labor is what it costs to upkeep the worker.

[Anonymous No.6513926]

>>6513788
Labor theory of value is basically the economics equivilant to creationism

[Anonymous No.6513930]

>>6513926
Not really a good analogy at all. Creationism has been falsified; LTV is unfalsifiable.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6513932]

>>6513926

I see this analogy often, but I fail to see how it's relevant since it shaped our economy, or how Capitalism is somehow an objective boundary as if it's nature or above ourselves and not just a fun game of numerology and assumption.

[Anonymous No.6513945]

>>6513913
the economy isn't organized based on social darwinism.

i'm saying you need to be clear about what you're referring to. if capitalism is a real system, it's not just some ideology but real processes. when we talk about economics, we talk about those real processes.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6513966]

>>6513945
>i'm saying you need to be clear about what you're referring to. if capitalism is a real system, it's not just some ideology but real processes. when we talk about economics, we talk about those real processes.

And those process can be used in a manner of ways, and one of the effects intentional or not is a kind of Social Darwinism that's always existed.

If you think people cannot influence numbers, but numbers influence people, you have a very idealist interpretation of human beings.

[Anonymous No.6513978]

You don't need everyone to be an anarchist in order to be an anarchist.

[Anonymous No.6513979]

>>6513703
Lel, added transaction costs makes thing cheaper. Well memed ancrap.

[Anonymous No.6513981]

>>6513913
>Explain how it doesn't exist within Capitalism? Or, if we're being specific, how you intend to get rid of social Darwinistic ideals of the affluent?
The burden of proof is on you to prove they do exist within the system. I cannot prove nonexistence of something you imagine exists.

As I've said, please provide an example of social darwinism in contemporary society. Until your point is established I cannot provide a rebuttal.

[Anonymous No.6513983]

>>6513930
The LTV is falsified every day with the constant fluctuations in commodity prices among speculators

[Anonymous No.6513999]

>>6513932
>implying anyone will take economics advice from a chinless groid who has never actually studied economics beyond some out-dated 19th century Jew with an ideology

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514007]

>>6513981

>The burden of proof is on you to prove they do exist within the system. I cannot prove nonexistence of something you imagine exists.

The burden of proof is on you to even prove Capitalism is a necessary outcome that's outside of ideological boundaries, but I'll bite.

>As I've said, please provide an example of social darwinism in contemporary society.

Rich provide "ideas" provide resource where as poor do not. It's a value of ideology. Poor do not. Poor have less access to resources where the rich do, you get the idea.

>>6513999

Missed me already!


Let me introduce you to Christian Torres.

He has long since left Soundcloud and sm3na, but he had an account on both you can look at cached. Both accounts went by the name TheAntlers.

So, adding it all up, I can assume you post on /mu/, saw a black person post their photo who enjoys The Antlers, and assumed it was me.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Xav7m3FebAMJ:sm3na.is/artist/theantler+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Not only that, but here's his fucking twitter.

https://twitter.com/Christopher_01_

He's an aspiring Music Producer. And almost nothing he posts is philosophically similar to me, especially in regards to civil rights.

And here's his bandcamp!

https://cptkiddo.bandcamp.com/

He lives in Pennsylvania!

Not San Diego.

You morons are so interesting.

[Anonymous No.6514009]

>>6513966
the numbers are just ways to describe what people do.

when you critique capitalism, you're critiquing the processes themselves. for example the way society is organized (your words). society isn't organized by social darwinism even if some people want it to be. the economy more specifically isn't either.

[Anonymous No.6514020]

>>6514007
So you're a negro supremacist? Check your privilege.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514021]

>>6514009

>the numbers are just ways to describe what people do.

Incorrect.

>when you critique capitalism, you're critiquing the processes themselves.

This implies there is a mathematical understanding of humans or that human nature exists. Both fail to fully investigate as to what degree or explain why exploitation should be the means to co-opt them if it's even true.

>the economy more specifically isn't either.

The economy is whatever you want it to be and isn't free of social influence. The economy is not an objective entity.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514027]

>>6514020

Nope! But I honestly am tempted by the idea occasionally.

[Anonymous No.6514030]

>>6513983
Nah, like half of Capital is Marx repeating extremely boring dictums about how value and price are different. There's a whole subfield of Marxist analysis about whether or not you can calculate price from value, and shit.

I'm not a Marxist, but you don't understand Marxian LTV.

[Anonymous No.6514040]

>>6514027
Then why do you think niggers should be allowed to rob, rape and riot without repercussion?

[Anonymous No.6514042]

nice off topic bros

[Anonymous No.6514043]

>>6513638
It's self-refuting

[Anonymous No.6514047]

>>6514030
>value and price are different
hahahaha that's not even quantifiable or demonstrable!

[Anonymous No.6514050]

>>6514021
capitalism refers to something more specific. that's all i'm saying. the economy can be understood in a certain way. this is the whole point of using these words.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514051]

>>6514040

Just like whites riot every time there's a large sports event but that doesn't actually get covered by your kind as degeneracy but rather free will and fun?

Let tell you something. You have a very shallow understanding of history. Once upon a time in the 19th century white crime rates were parallel to modern african american crime rates, if not higher in comparison. You would agree that society has changed, yes? Then it's a social change because you really don't want to admit whites are genetically predisposed to crime.

I'm all ears to your answers because most of them tend to be equally as shallow as your understanding of history.

>>6514047

What an ugly dude.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514056]

>>6514050

And it's always been idealistic or insufficient.

[Anonymous No.6514057]

>>6514007
Not that anon but
>The burden of proof is on you to even prove Capitalism is a necessary outcome that's outside of ideological boundaries, but I'll bite.
Nothing is outside of idealogical boundaries. But capitalism is a necessary outcome because it has occurred.
>Rich provide "ideas" provide resource where as poor do not. It's a value of ideology. Poor do not. Poor have less access to resources where the rich do, you get the idea.
I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you on this, The fact that the poor start out in life with less opportunity and power than the rich does not a social darwinism make. If anything our system is an oligarchy drifting towards benevolent facisism

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514060]

>>6514057
>benevolent fascism

I love oxymorons.

[Anonymous No.6514065]

>>6513811
underrated

[Anonymous No.6514066]

>>6514051
>free will exists
lmao
>b-b-blacks rioting is good because Brits and Micks riot over soccer, but I denounce that so I am clearly a spook supremacist

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514072]

>>6514066

Where did I imply Free Will exists?

[Anonymous No.6514075]

>>6514060
Like 'classless society' or 'intelligent negro'?

[Anonymous No.6514077]

>>6513999

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514084]

>>6514075

Nice burn bruh!

Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn’t that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?

>>6514077

Nice meme.

[Anonymous No.6514085]

>>6514047
>"The exchange-value of a commodity estimated in money is called its price" - Karl Marx, Wage-labour and Capital

Often times arguments over the so-called LTV devolve into semantics. The word 'value' in the LTV sense is semantically different than the way the word is used within the so-called 'bourgeois' economic theory.

[Anonymous No.6514087]

>>6513686
Stale pasta.
Yummie.
Also, the way it uses the word 'liberal' tickels my mind.

>>6513638
I don't buy Rothbard or Nozick because their theories are based upon the believe that we as individual beings are free and therefore on our own, and as I see the thing it is just an excuse for big ammounts of capital to keep growing, excusing it on the notion that exchange of goods on a free market are always fair, which is not always truth in my honest opinion.
tl; dr. Libertarism and anarcho-capitalism are just an excuse for rich people to fuck as they want with everything because "I earned muh munny".

[Anonymous No.6514097]

>>6514047
I mean, all classical economists (Smith, Mill, etc.) differentiated between value and price in similar ways. The language we use on that front descends from Marshall, Menger etc., to the point where it's hard for someone who has learned modern economics to think of those things as different. But at one point it was generally accepted that they were.

But you're right that it's not demonstrable, hence unfalsifiable.

[Anonymous No.6514100]

>>6514084
>if you don't agree with me y'all be unejacated
>>6514072
>Just like whites riot every time there's a large sports event but that doesn't actually get covered by your kind as degeneracy but rather free will and fun?
stupid ape
>>6514085
Value isn't quantifiable outside of price.

[Anonymous No.6514122]

I can't believe it's 2015 and non-Marxist economists are still being taken seriously. Seriously makes me question the human race.

[Anonymous No.6514126]

>>6514122
Fuck off, cuck. Your ideology is dead.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514133]

>>6514100

>
>if you don't agree with me y'all be unejacated

It's a quote by Mao. It's a very famous quote by Mao. You just proved my point you are highly uneducated.

Just as well, I never implied "I" believed in free will, just that "free will, fun, and the American way!" are often all bland excuses for whites rioting.

Learn to read.

>Value isn't quantifiable outside of price.

I love it when hicks try to grapple with concepts like this because they don't travel anywhere farther than what they were raised to believe.

>>6514126

Are you implying, white nationalists, as highly unpopular people, do not get cucked, often?

[Anonymous No.6514134]

>>6514051
At least he has a chin

[Anonymous No.6514135]

>>6514087
>big ammounts of capital to keep growing
In what form of environmentalist eco-friendly degrowth primitive circlejerk do you live to even imagine the accumulation of capital to be a bad thing?

Reminder that clashing rich and poor is the most fuckard but still omnipresent sociological fallacy.
The class divide is between people that are net tax payers (including monetary policy, tarrifs, ...) and net tax receivers. Some, many rich people are rich only because of state regulations (they are the ones actually pushing it). Many poor people are poor precisely because of these regulations.
All clashes, at least in the West, have been some rich people + some poor people against some other rich people + some other poor people.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514138]

>>6514134

Post your face.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514141]

>>6514135

>In what form of environmentalist eco-friendly degrowth primitive circlejerk do you live to even imagine the accumulation of capital to be a bad thing?

Lol

[Anonymoose No.6514148]

>>6514085
Nice portrait of Iosif Dzhugashvili.

[Anonymous No.6514149]

>>6513999
kek it just goes from his mouth to his neck

[Anonymous No.6514153]

>>6514133
>if you don't read le inspirational quotations by mass murderers you are uneducated

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514155]

>>6514149

Post your face. Also, apologize to poor Christian Torres over here, and also to me.

[Anonymous No.6514157]

>>6514135
>capital means money
lol

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514158]

>>6514153

No it's just a pretty well known quote Communist or not. You're just really not that politically educated. Which actually feeds back into the quote? Interestingly enough.

[Anonymous No.6514165]

>>6514155
You just a jealous ass nigga, fam, go grow yo chin back.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514167]

>>6514165

>apologize to poor Christian Torres over here, and also to me.

[Anonymous No.6514170]

>>6514158
It's only well known to genocidal freaks with outdated ideologies, commies.

[Anonymous No.6514173]

>>6514135
May be the accumulation of capital thing I used wasn't a very good argument, as you point. But money needs to flow, not to accumulate and get static. That's why I defend that we should tax capital and patrimony better than consume and exchange of goods. The opposite is just an excuse for greedy rich people to not pay a dime in taxes that, ironically, are also spent in keeping them in their position.
Also, sorry for all of this Piketty-tier shit.

[Anonymous No.6514177]

>>6514135
>The class divide is between people that are net tax payers (including monetary policy, tarrifs, ...) and net tax receivers.

Well, you couldn't possibly untangle who is which. Anyone in technology is benefiting from government enforcing patent law; anyone in real estate is benefiting from housing restrictions; let's not even talk about the finance industry. It is entirely impossible to say who would be more successful, less successful, or totally bust without those regulations. A poor person on welfare might be a net "tax consumer" but there might be a project manager at Google making 300k a year who wouldn't have that job at all if not for government enforcing patents.

[Anonymous No.6514183]

>>6514167
You talk a lot of shit, bitch, y'all needs to grow da fuck up, bitch ass nigga.

[Anonymous No.6514185]

>>6514170
Liberalism has killed more people than Communism.

[Anonymous No.6514187]

>>6514057

>capitalism is a necessary outcome because it has occurred

I think the point is more like is capitalism the final outcome. Other modes of production have existed, clearly. They still exist. Some places in the world are still monarchies.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514191]

>>6514170

Do you want me to make this a Quotations from the Glorious Chairman thread?

Because I can educate you if you are so willing.

Let's start from

COMBAT BOURGEOIS IDEAS IN THE PARTY

"Centralization and decentralization are in constant contradiction with each other. Decentralism has grown since we moved into the cities. To resolve this contradiction all the principal and important issues must first be discussed and decided on by the Party committee before its decisions are referred to the government for implementation. For instance, such important decisions as the erection of the Monument to the Heroes of the People in Tien An Men Square and the demolition of Peking's city walls were made by the Central Committee and carried out by the government. Matters of secondary importance can be left to the leading Party groups in government departments. It just won't do for the Central Committee to monopolize everything. Combating decentralism will win maximum popular approval because most comrades in the Party care about collective leadership. Party members fall into three categories in their attitude towards collective leadership. Those in the first category care about collective leadership. Those in the second do not care so much, maintaining that the Party committees had better leave them alone, but they don't mind being supervised. "Better leave me alone" reveals a lack of Party spirit, while "don't mind being supervised" shows some measure of Party spirit. We must seize on this "don't mind being supervised" and help such comrades by education and persuasion to overcome their lack of Party spirit. Otherwise, each ministry would go its own way and the Central Committee could not supervise the ministries, the ministers could not supervise the department and bureau heads, and the division heads could not supervise the section chiefs -- no one, in short, could supervise anyone. In consequence, independent kingdoms would proliferate and hundreds of feudal princes would emerge. Those in the third category are only a handful. They flatly reject collective leadership and always prefer to be left alone. The decision on strengthening Party spirit puts the stress on the strict observance of discipline under democratic centralism, in other words, the minority is subordinate to the majority, the individual to the organization, the lower level to the higher level and the entire Party to the Central Committee (a case of subordinating the majority to the minority, as this minority represents the majority). Opinions are welcome, but to undermine Party unity would be a most shameful thing. It is reliance on the political experience and wisdom of the collective that can guarantee the correct leadership of the Party and the state and the unshakable unity of the ranks of the Party. "

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514195]

>>6514183

>You talk a lot of shit, bitch, y'all needs to grow da fuck up, bitch ass nigga.

>apologize to poor Christian Torres over here, and also apologize to me.

[Anonymous No.6514197]

>>6513892

Lel. Google center industries and peripheral industries and come back when you're informed.

>inb4 "monopoly" must mean literally 100% market concentration

That is an unworkable definition.

[Anonymous No.6514199]

>>6514195
>apologize to poor Christian Torres over here, and also apologize to me.
>implying you are the same dude.
we all know you invented that twitter account foucault.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514205]

>>6514199

>we all know you invented that twitter account foucault.

I didn't refer to twitter, I referred to you apologizing to me.

>>6514197

Why are all Capitalist keyboard warriors such obnoxious smug cunts that alternate between lel and kek like they didn't get old in 2014?

[Anonymous No.6514212]

>>6514157
I never implied that.
Capital cannot always be liquidated.

>>6514177
This is sometimes true. But it first doesn't mean it's not the cause of social clashes, and second there ar many many instances where the result is obvious.

Take Lockheed Martin. Say that for some reason Rand Paul gets preseident and deminishes military spending. Guess which lobbyst he will have to confront?
Take some crack addicted parasite that gets mo money for dem programs. When (if) he votes, is there any doubt he will pick the one most likely to give mo money for dem programs?

As I said, it has nothing to do with rich vs poor. The most wealthy counties in the US are in Virginia (military contractors). And I don't even want to think of people like Bill Gates that are several time billionnaires because they have some monopoly grant on a (trash) piece of fucking code. I'm less shocked by the king of England granting monopoly on the colony to William Penn.

[Anonymous No.6514215]

>>6514205
you mad or nahhh?

shouldn't you be posting on wroldstarhiphop.com?

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514216]

>>6514215

How hard is it to spit out a simple apology bitch

[Anonymous No.6514224]

>>6514047

>The oxygen we breathe has zero value

You're a fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.6514227]

Muh sense that all life should be treated as sacred even tho they're obviously not equally so,,, which leads me to thinking anarcho-capitalists value they're entire ancestry and theoretical progenies human potential is less interesting than the last fancy drink they had.

[Anonymous No.6514231]

>>6514185
lol
>>6514191
Do you want to kill 100 million people, Christian?

[Anonymous No.6514234]

>>6514148
>Iosif Dzhugashvili
Literally who?

[Fuckalt No.6514240]

>>6514231
>Do you want to kill 100 million people, Christian?
if they white den sho.

[Anonymous No.6514243]

>>6513945
>when we talk about economics
it's just words

[Anonymous No.6514248]

>>6514231
How many people do you think Liberalism/Capitalism have killed?

[Anonymous No.6514250]

>>6514051
>whites riot every time there's a large sports event
Now you're just saying words and thinking that they are the truth

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514251]

>>6514231


A DIALECTICAL APPROACH TO INNER-PARTY UNITY

[Excerpts from a speech at the Moscow Meeting of Representatives of the Communist and Workers' Parties.]

" With regard to the question of unity I'd like to say something about the approach. I think our attitude should be one of unity towards every comrade, no matter who, provided he is not a hostile element or a saboteur. We should adopt a dialectical, not a metaphysical, approach towards him. What is meant by a dialectical approach? It means being analytical about everything, acknowledging that human beings all make mistakes and not negating a person completely just because he has made mistakes. Lenin once said that there is not a single person in the world who does not make mistakes. Everyone needs support. An able fellow needs the help of three other people, a fence needs the support of three stakes. With all its beauty the lotus needs the green of its leaves to set it off. These are Chinese proverbs. Still another Chinese proverb says three cobblers with their wits combined equal Chukeh Liang the master mind. Chukeh Liang by himself can never be perfect, he has his limitations. Look at this declaration of our twelve countries. We have gone through a first, second, third and fourth draft and have not yet finished polishing it. I think it would be presumptuous for anyone to claim God-like omniscience and omnipotence. So what attitude should we adopt towards a comrade who has made mistakes? We should adopt a dialectical, rather than a metaphysical, approach. Our Party once got bogged down in metaphysics, in dogmatism, which totally destroyed anyone not to its liking. Later, we repudiated dogmatism and came to learn a little more dialectics. The unity of opposites is the fundamental concept of dialectics. In accordance with this concept, what should we do with a comrade who has made mistakes? We should first wage a struggle to rid him of his wrong ideas

However, dealing with persons of another type is different. Towards persons like Trotsky and like Chen Tu-hsiu, Chang Kuo-tao and Kao Kang in China, it was impossible to adopt a helpful attitude, for they were incorrigible. And there were individuals like Hitler, Chiang Kai-shek and the tsar, who were likewise incorrigible and had to be overthrown because we and they were absolutely exclusive of each other. In this sense, there is only one aspect to their nature, not two. In the final analysis, this is also true of the imperialist and capitalist systems, which are bound to be replaced in the end by the socialist system. The same applies to ideology, idealism will be replaced by materialism and theism by atheism. Here we are speaking of the strategic objective. But the case is different with tactical stages, where compromises may be made. Didn't we compromise with the Americans on the 38th Parallel in Korea? Wasn't there a compromise with the French in Viet Nam?"

[Anonymous No.6514252]

>>6514248
5?

[Anonymous No.6514256]

>>6514205

>Capitalist keyboard warriors

Go back and retread my post, along with the one I was responding to. I wasn't making a pro-free market argument,

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514259]

>>6514240

If the demise of the whites means the death of /pol/, let the games begin.

[Anonymous No.6514277]

>>6514252
Are you really this ignorant? I'm not even a commie (anarchist) but if you're going to use similar metrics used popularly to determine the amount of deaths caused by "communism" to determine the amount of deaths caused by "capitalism" than it's clear the latter has killed far more.

Millions of people this year alone will die of hunger.

[Anonymous No.6514318]

>>6514251
Hegel ruined philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6514322]

>>6514277
No, because we have welfare and medicare, people only starve on that scale in places like China, Angola, North Korea and Zimbabwe.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514325]

>>6514318

[Anonymous No.6514328]

>>6514277
>Millions of people this year alone will die of hunger.

what's that got to do with capitalism tho

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514332]

>>6514328
>>6514322

lmao

[Anonymous No.6514340]

>>6514322
Capitalism is a global system you nutjob.

[Anonymous No.6514353]

>>6514277
>implying the lives of poor people matter
well memed my friend. I'm not being edgy, but if they did some work or helped themselves they could improve their situation.

A lot of these liberals need to learn that life doesn't owe you a living. you've got to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and take it.

[Anonymous No.6514359]

>>6514353
the only people I have ever met who take this position are people who didn't take out loans for college and didn't have a full time job until 21

[Anonymous No.6514372]

>>6514340
No, capitalism simply means that there is private ownership of capital.

[Anonymous No.6514378]

>>6513644
>>6513645
>>6513703
>>6513744
Does NE one else ever wonder if AN-CAPs are really fucking hatefully lazy? "It is cheapest in ANCAP!" And we need money and money is an essential component of health? (Obviously if there was ever an occasion for making more effort being more efficient, then a global pandemic in the massive favelas of your Rothbardian dreams is it. Of course Muh roads is valid: if we assume today that by having roads a person or group can more than double their productivity, and they choose roads between the company store, the strip mine, and the strip club, which they all own.
"Are you saying that is a problem with ANCAP?"- do you know what a cunt is? It's a source of both point and non-point source pollution, but unlike money they are currently without question indispensable. I know some people like stinky poon, and it's kinda hard to distinguish poony-ness from stinkyness, but in that case suicide needs to be legal so if I have a daughter born with an unstinking poon nobody will be allowed to give her an operation to stinkify it and then take her as a slave whore to pay for the necessary cost of protecting the world from her potentially contagious no smell pussy. I.E. how well did the response to the black plague go? A lot of fuedal lords paid monks vast sums to clear their conscience, and a lot of poor people wandered the streets whipping the shit out of themselves to atone for the society they were likely helping infect with their open wounds and compromised immune systems

[Anonymous No.6514379]

>>6514359
>he fell for the college scam
>he didn't get a building apprenticeship

[Anonymous No.6514385]

>>6514359
Anecdotal. also irrelevant because if those people were born rich then their parents pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.

This country has too many welfare queens driving around in Cadillacs listening to their rap music smoking marijuanna living off the government teat. I should know. I used to live in DC. As soon as Scott Walker is elected and he ends this entitlement program and these people who have nothing better to do than burn down St. Louis and Baltimore wake up and realize they have to work for a living this country is going to get a hell of a lot better.

[Anonymous No.6514396]

>>6514353
>A lot of these liberals need to learn that life doesn't owe you a living.

A lot of conservatives need to learn that no one owes them not voting to take more of their money to redistribute it via social programs. They need to get over it.

[Anonymous No.6514399]

>>6514385
there aren't any jobs anymore. the economic model of everyone being able to find a job to support themsleves is dead and buried. the only way forward is a universal basic income.

[Anonymous No.6514428]

>>6514340
Capitalism is just voluntary exchange, that never killed anybody capitalism dindu nuffin :^)

[Anonymous No.6514434]

>>6514399
>getting paid for being born
yeah see how long that lasts. thats the economic equivalent of cuckoldry.

[Anonymous No.6514456]

>>6514385
Technology is replacing jobs that used to be important and the jobs that are replacing them are fewer in number, less meaningful (mostly mindless service industry jobs), and lack the extensive benefits jobs like manufacturing had.

It was easier for our (or "their") parents to find work than it is for us. There was a point where getting a college degree practically guaranteed employment. That is no longer the case. Hell, even degrees like engineering and computer science are getting significantly more competitive because of how much the media has drilled into peoples heads they should go into those fields - not to mention the danger of a society dominated by people completely unfamiliar with the humanities.

And clearly everything you've said thus far only applies to people living in first world countries that have opportunity. The vast majority of the world lives in underdeveloped shitholes where the opportunity that exists here doesn't even exist. These are the real victims of capitalism. The people burning demanding 15$/hr are fucking ridiculous but not for the reason you think; because the people that make the items they sell make pennies.

Life doesn't owe you anything, sure. But nothing entitles you to anything either. The entire idea of human rights are social constructs, but suffering is not a social construct. Hunger is not a social construct. Death is not a social construct. The real needs of people should trump the ideology of "job creators".

[Anonymous No.6514457]

>>6514399
>I can't find a comfy office job therefore there are no jobs available
Man up, you wimp, and get a labouring job.

[Anonymous No.6514470]

>>6514456
>waah think of da poor third worlders
>check ur privilege and give them stuff
Just go back to tumblr.

[Anonymous No.6514480]

>>6514470
Strong rebuttal. You sure changed my mind.

[Anonymous No.6514484]

>>6514480
You're just a cuck, your opinion doesn't matter.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514502]

>>6514484
>>6514470

>all these capitalist teenagers

[Anonymous No.6514510]

>>6514502
Your tripfagging and memeing isn't helping.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514520]

>>6514434

Economics is the social equivalent of a scat fetish.

>>6514510

>all
>these
>capitalist
>teenagers

Capitalist society is indelibly marked by structural violence, as the vast inequalities in wealth and access to which it gives rise lead small minorities to be overwhelmingly privileged, while large groups of others are prevented from meeting their basic needs.

[Anonymous No.6514526]

>>6514520
What's your beef with economics?

[Anonymous No.6514541]

>>6514520
I posted both >>6514510 and >>6514456

You're just annoying, and comparing the study of economics to shit is just hurting the argument for socialists who aren't idiots.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514547]

>>6514526

See: The Mass Psychology of Fascism.

>>6514541

Then you aren't fully grasping the problems with economics. Or our place in the world. If it shits from an anus it's shit.

[Anonymous No.6514568]

>>6514547
what does fascism have to do with economics though?

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514572]

>>6514568

It's fairly clear.

[Anonymous No.6514579]

>>6514547
Oh economics has problems, sure. It's failed to make significant predictions on a meaningful scale. But if you think the study of markets is a waste of time you're insane. I hate capitalism too but it's not going away anytime soon and for society to completely ignore economics would be devastating. How would we decide where to set interest rates? How would be decide on whether to subsidize industry or promote the welfare state.

And upon looking up the book you posted, do you really think psychoanalysis is more beneficial to society than economics?

>>6514572
No it's not fairly clear. Please elaborate.

[Anonymous No.6514585]

>>6514572

Nigga can you just answer? I feel like you're bored right now.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514592]

>>6514579

>But if you think the study of markets is a waste of time you're insane

The idea of the market itself is insane.

>I hate capitalism too but it's not going away anytime soon

I'm free to be as bitter about that fact as I like.

>And upon looking up the book you posted, do you really think psychoanalysis is more beneficial to society than economics?

No. It's just a good example of a work used to establish the ways people fall for the various methods of the bullshit that is devaluing human life.

>No it's not fairly clear. Please elaborate.

If left to its own devices "capitalism" and fascism would be bosom buddies.

>>6514585

I am. It's very clear Capitalism cannot exist without exploitation. The more exploitation, the higher the profit. In this sense Fascism is a natural evolution of Capitalist economy. Even if you had no state, Anarcho-Capitalism would be an enormous nightmare for most human beings socially.

Capitalism is a kind of slow poison.

[Anonymous No.6514596]

>>6514592
well answer me this then, If you think economics is a shit, how do you think a society should produce and distribute food?

[Anonymous No.6514597]

>>6514541
You're a moron, money isn't necessary, currency is, perfect analogy for how wasteful it is to accumulate wealth you can't use or to treasure something for it's wasteful costliness, value has to be exchanged, money doesn't have to exist. We could all consider money(shit) to be great, and we could use shit to pay for things but that would be wasteful if you were paying to take a shit. Trust me I'm homeless it sucks, go get a job counting beans imbecile.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514598]

>>6514596

>If you think economics is a shit, how do you think a society should produce and distribute food?

By producing and distributing food. It is not a hard procedure anything but logistically.

[Anonymous No.6514612]

>>6514598
But who determines who distributes the food and who produces the food and what roles they play in the production and how they're compensated for their labor and who gets to eat the food?

[Anonymous No.6514628]

>>6514596
Everyone raise your hand if you want more food, no worries there's plenty but only the elite achievers get pound cakes, they'll probably share with the best throwers since everyone is just food fighting the dickhead who stole ice cream and tried to exchange it for sex with a little girl... Yes as civilized humans we all agreed to kill this piece of shit but since the elders brought up the point of short handedness with repairing the harvest robots we will use him as a chair in the mechanics lounge until his back breaks under tubby the well fed mechanic, that's just as much of a punishment to kind hearted tubby who hates the little capitalist but can't stand human suffering, tubby too needs to learn that while he makes the robots that provide the most food he cannot always eat as much as he wants because that valuable food is converted into a health problem, which is ostensibly his, but truly we are all connected and cannot place such simple price tags on anything.

[Anonymous No.6514636]

>>6514572
It's actually not. Economics is the study of resource allocation and the determination of real 'value' and whence it is derived. At least in my opinion, these are the two major problems economics is concerned with. These are material issues and are still being dealt with today. Studying how economics has developed over time is one of the most important things you can study.

[Anonymous No.6514648]

>>6514636
>Economics is the study of resource allocation
Bougie Economics.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514649]

>>6514612
>But who determines who distributes the food

They who determine and/or distribute the food.

>roles they play in the production

The geneticists and farmers raise the crops. This is not a hard concept. Agriculture has been done before without the need of market forces.

>how they're compensated for their labor and who gets to eat the food?

They would be far better compensated than most in the agricultural line of work than today, I can guarantee it.

>>6514636

>Economics is the study of resource allocation and the determination of real 'value' and whence it is derived.

>real
>value

>Studying how economics has developed over time is one of the most important things you can study.

Working towards eliminating its necessity outweighs it further.

[Anonymous No.6514659]

>>6514456
>The entire idea of human rights are social constructs, but suffering is not a social construct. Hunger is not a social construct. Death is not a social construct. The real needs of people should trump the ideology of "job creators".
You're just saying that freedom from suffering, hunger and death are human rights in other words while simultaneously denouncing human rights. Sneaky and dishonest tbh

[Anonymous No.6514664]

>>6514649
>>But who determines who distributes the food
>They who determine and/or distribute the food.
The people who distribute the food determine who gets the food and the people who pick who distributes the food are the people who distribute the food. What could go wrong?
>>roles they play in the production
>The geneticists and farmers raise the crops. This is not a hard concept. Agriculture has been done before without the need of market forces.
Who determines who is a geneticist or a farmer? all of a societies food is done on volunteer work and then given to a guild of distributors with to do as they please? Also when have large scale agricultural societies operated without economies?
>>how they're compensated for their labor and who gets to eat the food?
>They would be far better compensated than most in the agricultural line of work than today, I can guarantee it.
With what? currency? women? food? Who pays them and where does the payment come from? whats to ensure they're paid and not enslaved? if a 3rd party is employed to make sure no one gets robbed or enslaved who watches the third party?

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514680]

>>6514664

>The people who distribute the food determine who gets the food and the people who pick who distributes the food are the people who distribute the food. What could go wrong?

It's fairly simple to enforce.

>Who determines who is a geneticist or a farmer? all of a societies food is done on volunteer work and then given to a guild of distributors with to do as they please? Also when have large scale agricultural societies operated without economies?

Career path. Are you implying somehow people won't be farmers because it's a "lower job" and everyone will just become astrophycists, because I'm fairly sure agriculture will be more in demand under communal societies than academics. Agriculture and labor comes first and fore most and will be benefited as such.

>With what? currency? women? food? Who pays them and where does the payment come from? whats to ensure they're paid and not enslaved? if a 3rd party is employed to make sure no one gets robbed or enslaved who watches the third party?

You're acting as if The Soviets didn't have agriculture and everyone was starving compared to modern Russia. This is incorrect.

[Anonymous No.6514687]

>>6513686
Why IS it that leftists don't ever bother to study economics, yet continue to propose new economic policies?

[Anonymous No.6514695]

>>6514680
>You're acting as if The Soviets didn't have agriculture and everyone was starving compared to modern Russia. This is incorrect.
I didn't mean to imply that at all. I just think economics are the backbone of any society and people ignoring them is whats gotten us into the mess with the 1% we're in today.

I think you should read Capital by Thomas Pikkety. it talks about the fundamental needs of society and what systems do with them.

[Anonymous No.6514708]

>>6514687
most of the leftists I know understand economics better than the libertarians, who have a vague grasp on Econ 101 but their knowledge stops there

I'm friends with a bunch of Econ PhDs and they're all Keynesian leftists

[Anonymous No.6514738]

>>6514592
>human life has value

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514752]

>>6514738

Human life has more value than static objects.

I know Autism can fuck with your perceptions but human life is better than a can of mountain dew.

[Anonymous No.6514756]

>>6514752
>things have value

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514760]

>>6514756

Human beings aren't "things".

[Anonymous No.6514762]

>>6514752
why did you capitalise 'autism', Jaden?

[Anonymous No.6514767]

>>6514760
Yes they are, everything in the universe is a thing.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514773]

>>6514762

To give emphasis on it. Why do you care about the English language Douglas?

>>6514767

And human beings are the only ones that can experience other things in a way that has shown to be greater than those around it. Thus, human life is the only thing that has "value", if we're talking socially.

I'm not going to explain to your Thomas Ligotti ass why human beings are important in a society of human beings.

[Anonymous No.6514778]

>>6514752
Not really. You, for instance, is worse than a mountain dew.

[Anonymous No.6514783]

>>6514773
>To give emphasis on it
That's not how English works, how can you be so ignorant of your own language?

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514784]

>>6514778

>You, for instance, is worse than

[Anonymous No.6514792]

>>6514773
>And human beings are the only ones that can experience other things in a way that has shown to be greater than those around it. Thus, human life is the only thing that has "value", if we're talking socially.
That doesn't follow. Being able to experience sensations does not make life valuable.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514793]

>>6514783

>That's not how English works, how can you be so ignorant of your own language?

Other languages have formal and casual modes of typing as speaking. This is something clearly lacking in English, that makes it far more cumbersome.

English a shit.

[Anonymous No.6514796]

>>6514784
fuck off racist

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514799]

>>6514792
>That doesn't follow. Being able to experience sensations does not make life valuable.

>I'm not going to explain to your Thomas Ligotti ass why human beings are important in a society of human beings.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514806]

>>6514796


>You, for instance, is worse than

[Anonymous No.6514807]

>>6514784
Why do you care about the English language Douglas?
>>6514793
But you're not speaking other languages. You're speaking English so you should know the rules of the language. If you don't like it, then don't speak it.

[Anonymous No.6514823]

gr8 thread guys, let's keep the politics and economics on /lit/ it always turns out such great discussion

:)

mods pls

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514824]

>>6514807

>But you're not speaking other languages.

I'm implying strict rigid grammar shouldn't be enforced in casual conversation as long as it lines up.

Capitalization is a minor issue as opposed to.

>You, for instance, is worse than

[Anonymous No.6514827]

>>6514799
>I'm not going to explain to your Thomas Ligotti ass why human beings are important in a society of human beings.
Because you can't, as the view you're defending is a ridiculous example of pathos taken to the extreme. Also, you should be talking to me, not my arse, regardless of its name or owner, Thomas Ligotti

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514833]

>>6514827

>Because you can't, as the view you're defending is a ridiculous example of pathos taken to the extreme.
>defending human beings is pathos to these teenagers

[Anonymous No.6514834]

>>6514824
It's not hard to follow the language rules, are you really too stupid to realise that some words don't need to be capitalised?

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514843]

>>6514834

Future of eng-casual > eng-proper

[Anonymous No.6514844]

>>6514833
It is, you have no argument other than some kind of emotional connection to other people. Stop waving around your e-chin.

[Anonymous No.6514845]

>>6514806
>>6514799
>>6514793
>>6514784
>>6514773
>>6514760
>>6514752
>>6514680
>>6514649
>>6514598
>>6514592
>>6514572
>>6514547
>>6514520
>>6514502
>>6514259
>>6514251
>>6514216
>>6514205
>>6514191
Will the mods please ban this retard?

He is not only insulting the very idea of a higher intelligence, he is preventing actual intellectual discussion in two ways
1) By claiming communism is somehow antithetical to economics, or somehow that communism is the solution
2) By attracting a flock of retards who follow this retard around like flies on shit, and so the horde of retards attacks any sort of actual genuine intellectual conversation with the rapacity of a rage-addled downie

[Anonymous No.6514853]

>>6514833
>actually defending hitler

[Anonymous No.6514855]

>>6514843
There's no such thing as casual English, unless you mean American 'English'. Learn the language better or stop speaking it, you uneducated teenage fedora tipper.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514859]

>>6514845

Sounds like someone is le mad

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514868]

>>6514844

>defending human beings is pathos to these teenagers

>>6514855

>There's no such thing as casual English

Good thing the future is now and it can be observed throughout the internet.

[Anonymous No.6514876]

>>6514868
>Good thing the future is now and it can be observed throughout the internet.
u tk him 2 da bar? tots lulz bae xD

[Anonymous No.6514886]

>>6514868
>human life is valuable because I say so! If you question me I will get upset and start calling people names.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514888]

>>6514876

I'd rather speak to someone like that than anyone British.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514895]

>>6514886

>defending human beings is pathos to these teenagers

[Anonymous No.6514897]

>>6514888
That's because you're an idiot with no grasp of the English language, hence why you only post in politics threads instead of literature threads.

[Anonymous No.6514904]

>>6514895
Care to actually demonstrate how life is valuable? You do know value is subjective, right.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514908]

>>6514897
>That's because you're an idiot with no grasp of the English language

Does Improper grammar. trigger;you.?

[Anonymous No.6514909]

>>6514502
You're a twenty-something Marxist. You're a real adult.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514916]

>>6514904

Society. Made up of people. People, make society. Society, grows your food. Society, helps deliver your lithium prescription.

>>6514909

Better than a 16 year old libertarian who parrots his dad.

[Anonymous No.6514918]

>>6514916
>Better

Look at that beautiful shitposting too.

[Anonymous No.6514925]

>>6514916
Never met society, what does xir look like?

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514926]

>>6514918

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514931]

>>6514925

Your psychologist. Your doctor. Your parents. And even you!

[Anonymous No.6514935]

>>6514908
Yes, idiots like you belong on /pol/.

[Anonymous No.6514940]

>>6514916
And how does that make human life valuable? Valuable subjectively to certain ends, maybe, but not actually valuable.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514948]

>>6514940

This is why you're a virgin.

[Anonymous No.6514954]

>>6514948
haha aa

[Anonymous No.6514975]

>>6514948
Don't Virgin Shame Me You Cis Sexist, Male Shitlord Bigot. This Is A Sexuality Positive Board. Go To /Pol/ If You Are This Much Of A Bigot.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6514980]

>>6514975

This is the 8th type of liberalism.

[Anonymous No.6514997]

>>6514980
>Muh Liberalism
Lol, Your /Pol/ Conservative Tears Are Delicious.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6515009]

>>6514997

MMMMMMMMMMMM

[Anonymous No.6515011]

>>6515009
That Chin Is Too Big For You. Lacan Was Right When Xe Analyzed You.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6515019]

>>6515011

Do you have any lips? Or is it just a slit for a mouth?

[Anonymous No.6515031]

>>6515019
Go Worship Hitler, You Conservative Bigot. Lacan Explained All About Your Chin Complex.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6515037]

>>6515031

Does reading turn you on as much as it turns me on?

[Anonymous No.6515044]

>>6515037
I Don't Think You Read Much, You're Too Ignorant And Bigoted.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6515049]

>>6515044

Ok Kanaya

[Anonymous No.6515063]

>>6515049
There You Go Again: Being A Bigoted /Pol/Ster.

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6515089]

>>6515063

Kanaya?

[Anonymous No.6515092]

>>6515089
Bigoted /Pol/ User?!

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6515097]

>>6515092


Kanaya?!

[Anonymous No.6515123]

>>6515097
Shitlord?!

[Foucault !!Q8GwVRjnOFz No.6515126]

>>6515123

[Anonymous No.6515194]

>>6514579
>Oh economics has problems, sure. It's failed to make significant predictions on a meaningful scale.

If, as a "science" it cannot make predictions on a meaningful scale, why should anybody turn to economics for any sort of policy-making decisions? At all?

If as a "science" it cannot make meaningful predictions, then quite honestly, why should people regard it as a "science". A science that cannot use its models to make future predictions is not a science at all.

If as a "science" economics has failed, then why should posts like:
>>6513686
Even exist?

I don't know, maybe you have nothing to do with these ideas, but economics is a field of "study" must often used to justify inequality. It seems of little practical use for anything other than apologism for the rich.

[Anonymous No.6515208]

>>6514628
underrated and I liked the prose

[Anonymous No.6515344]

>>6514997
>>6515031
>>6515044
>>6515063
>>6515092
>>6515123

uh, Foucault (the tripfag, not the philosopher) is an anarchist

[Anonymous No.6515679]

>>6513638
"I don't like sharing" is not political philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6515762]

>>6514251
> What is meant by a dialectical approach? It means being analytical about everything
But Analytic and Dialectic are opposing systems

t: kant

[Anonymous No.6515829]

>tfw I actually like a mixed economy more then any extreme