/lit/ - Literature

File: 193 KB, 500x676, 1435838709502.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 07:37:21 2015 No.6839642 [DELETED]

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun

Thoughts on this article? Not going to lie, I was eating food and reading this in a noisy environment, but it's probably above me anyway.

My questions: If all we have left in the utopia is bullshit jobs we take turns doing, how are we inevitably going to cope with the monopolisation of women among the best looking 10 % of males? Drugs? A new economy of trying to be as good as possible at sex?

What if a basketball player gets all the girls and me and the other incels go and make our own city with better pleasure inducing drugs... isn't that just capitalism popping up again? Won't the competition all be transferred from bin man vs bin man to theoretical physicist vs theoretical physicist (i.e. all we have left is the extremes of knowledge / competition / advancement).

What happens when the pleasure inducing drugs reach their theoretical maximum pleasurableness?

We already have welfare which is enough to live on. Couldn't he just be describing a new minimum standard of living? e.g. we now think that the internet should be available to everyone. Humanity still needs resources.

Isn't this just hoping for the end of competition, which is wishful thinking?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 07:38:31 2015 No.6839644 Also, feel free to steal my idea and do it more intelligently, but the exploitation of male sexual desire is the unignored western humanitarian crisis of the modern era

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 07:50:50 2015 No.6839660 Sex robots tbh.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 07:52:18 2015 No.6839666

Capitalism will exist as long as freedom does. As you've realized, capitalism is the natural trend of humans and the only way to prevent it is to use law and punishment to restrict people's ability to engage in it. Even then you will find capitalistic black markets, since you can't truly restrict a person's ability to participate in capitalistic competition, you can only coerce them into not doing it by making the consequences unfavorable enough to outweigh the natural advantages of participating in capitalism.

Incidentally this is why communism has always gone hand in hand with totalitarianism. The only way for a communist system to "work" is under a highly authoritarian government.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 07:54:56 2015 No.6839671

People have been saying this for decades. Keynes thought we'd be working 4 hour days by now. Instead the ruling class, raised to appreciate nothing but monetary value and personal success, continue to govern the cultural and workplace norms. Fuck society.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 08:03:10 2015 No.6839682

There's no point in even making predictions on the longevity of capitalism. Until someone (well respected might i add) comes up with a new way of doing things as far as economics goes (no theory bullshit too) capitalism reigns surpreme. It's a flawed system but every system is.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 08:06:29 2015 No.6839689 >>6839666 >capitalism is the natural trend of humans >only way to prevent it is to use law and punishment to restrict people's ability to engage in it. Oh boy, private property is the mot "unnatural" thing of all, if you want to use that argument.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 08:22:55 2015 No.6839726

I read a Time magazine article from the 50s where it said everyone would be working 1 hour a day by the year 2000 because of "technology"

The only thing historically which shortened the length of work and heightened living standards is political force. Why do you think people in China are so much poorer than westerners? They don't work as hard and have access to worse technology?

Without political force the introduction of new technologies just end up intensify the length of work.

In the future people will work longer and most likely get paid less if no political movement arises to counter the way things are going. Technology won't make your life easier.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 08:30:20 2015 No.6839755

>>6839642
Trickle-down sexuality.

It's like you assume that all women are 10/10 qt's, and that all men will want to fuck all the women. Reality is that the majority of women are 5/10, and the top 10% of men won't waste their time with them if they have the ability to be fucking the top 10% of women.

All that's being removed is your ability to use social machinations (accruing greater capital wealth than the top 10%, accruing greater political power than the top 10%) to acquire a top 10% female for yourself as a 5/10. Your ability to score with your physical equals or inferiors remains unchanged.

tl;dr - You'll still be able to find women who will want to be with you, you just won't be able to find your mythical fairy-princess goddess who settles for the day laborer due to economic or social pressures.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 08:34:04 2015 No.6839769 >>6839755 >Reality is that the majority of women are 5/10, and the top 10% of men won't waste their time with them if they have the ability to be fucking the top 10% of women. wrong.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 08:35:05 2015 No.6839771 >>6839769 to be more exact: > the top 10% of men won't waste their time with them if they have the ability to be fucking the top 10% of women. wrong

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 08:38:04 2015 No.6839776

>>6839769
Brilliant assertion m8. Well backed up with thoroughly cited evidence and exhaustive research.

Would you care to expand? How are the majority of any given section of the population NOT average? If we assume the end goal of any masculine action is to draw the attention of the most attractive woman possible to bear his chillins, why in a society which only preferences physical appearance, would such a man bother with less attractive women? Especially when more attractive alternatives are right there and (as in OP's assertion) apparently willing?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 08:44:57 2015 No.6839783 >>6839776 >If we assume the end goal ... brilliant assertion m8

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 08:45:43 2015 No.6839786

>>6839776

read >>6839771 of course the attractiveness of women is probably normally distributed, like men.

What I'm talking about, when I say a few men monopolise most women, is short term casual sex. This is really fucking clear from dating site experiments when there is no lower boundary for a female's attractiveness where she stops getting lots of offers of sex / relationships below that level, and where males that are average or below (and to some extent the above average ones) get a huge amount less opportunities. I don't know why /lit/ chooses to ignore these point. It's like /lit/ prides itself on never taking real world observations in to account.

Also you say "bear his chillins". Give me a break. People graduate from school at the age of 18 and then immediately have kids do they?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 08:47:23 2015 No.6839789 This thread belongs on >>>/pol/ and not on /lit/

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 08:53:44 2015 No.6839799 >>6839666 >As you've realized, capitalism is the natural trend of humans The fuck? Then why did we do just fine without it for ~100 000 years? Capitalism is a by-product of agriculture and it's consequences.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 08:58:43 2015 No.6839810

>>6839776

>If we assume the end goal of any masculine action is to draw the attention of the most attractive woman possible to bear his chillins

But that doesn't make sense. I mean sure, fucking the most attractive women possible is one goal but there's no reason the evolutionary strategy of a male would exclude fucking average women also because there is no risk for the male in the act and there is a possibility of producing viable offspring. The average women would just be lower on the priority list, but not excluded.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 09:03:06 2015 No.6839818

>http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun

Like any utopian idealist Paul Mason seems to be completely ignorant of the human condition.
It's not even clear what sort of conclusion he's trying to make and much of his argument is fanciful at best.

>>6839642

I can't believe I just wasted my time reading this article and from a quick glance at the rest of the thread it seems like no one else read it either.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 09:12:42 2015 No.6839837 >>6839818 What's the point of reading imaginatively fancy articles with the title "end of capitalism has begun". In some countries like china for the most part capitalism is just beginning. It's as bad as kotaku/gawker clickbait articles.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 09:22:35 2015 No.6839855 Just become a cuckold OP. Problem solved.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 09:23:55 2015 No.6839860

>>6839799
No it isn't.

"Capitalism" is the natural system that occurs when people have limited resources at their disposal but a theoretically unlimited amount of wants and needs. People will thus exchange goods and services that other people want/need for other goods and services that they themselves want/need.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 09:24:45 2015 No.6839862 Worst thread on /lit/ in a long time. /r9k/, /pol/, please go, this board is for adults.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 09:26:12 2015 No.6839864 >>6839860 Capitalism has only existed for the past couple hundred years, m8. Maybe you should educate yourself instead of regurgitating rothbard or whoever the fuck

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 09:28:45 2015 No.6839868 >>6839860 People have always had limited resources and theoretically unlimited amounts of wants and needs. If capitalism is "natural" why has it only existed for a tiny amount of total human existence?

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 09:36:22 2015 No.6839888

>>6839868
>>6839864
Because it always HAS existed. Just because we only know have stockmarkets and automobiles and cellphones doesn't mean Capitalism only came about recently.

Industrial capitalism? Certainly, that's new.

But people have been trading goods and services to satisfy needs and wants since "people" became a thing. A peasant would grow his turnips, sell them, save up a little bit of the profit, and then go out and a few years later go out and buy a better plow. He has thus made an investment.

Our markets are much faster than they were hundreds of years ago, certainly. Credit changed everything, certainly.

But to say that people have only been exchanging goods and services to satisfy their needs and wants for a recent period of time is silly. Did Medieval peasants live in some idealistic paradise in which there was no scarcity? Did the Romans somehow manage to create energy and matter out of thin air?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 09:44:56 2015 No.6839909 >>6839888 "People" didn't come into existence with the development of agriculture. People have existed for around 100 000 years. You're just talking about the last ~6 000 years. A small window of human existence.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 09:48:17 2015 No.6839918

>>6839909
Capitalism is not dependent on agriculture.

I have bear bones, Sitting Bull needs new arrowheads. I will trade him some of my bear bones in return for one of his slaves as I need a slave.

Again, just because our markets are moving much faster does not mean Capitalism is new by any means.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 09:49:55 2015 No.6839919 >>6839888 Trading isn't capitalism, you stupid fuck. Employees going to work for employers in return for a wage is capitalism, and that's only existed for about 400 years, and gas only been the primary mode of production for about the past 200

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 09:51:48 2015 No.6839926 >>6839919 >You stupid fuck >Employees going to work for employers in return for a wage is capitalism Those in glass houses...

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 09:53:49 2015 No.6839932

>>6839888
>But people have been trading goods and services to satisfy needs and wants since "people" became a thing. A peasant would grow his turnips, sell them, save up a little bit of the profit, and then go out and a few years later go out and buy a better plow. He has thus made an investment.

That's not what capitalism is.

Capitalism is the extraction of surplus value from labor through the wage system and the control over the working day by a smaller grouping of those own the means of production and operate under the psuedo-theological laws of capital accumulation.

Simple exchange is not capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 09:54:01 2015 No.6839933 >>6839926 >capitalism is le trading and le freedom meme

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 09:54:35 2015 No.6839934

>>6839919
That's not what capitalism is. At all.

Capitalism is people trading goods and services at their disposal to other people who will in turn trade goods and services at their respective disposal, all in the name of each party profiting.

I give my time and labor to an employer and perform a task. This profits him. He, in turn pays me however much it will take to make me do the job which thus profits me.

That is what capitalism is. That is what it always has been. Again, industrial capitalism is quite new. Money and credit change the game and make it much faster. But it's still capitalism. Individuals still decide their wants and needs and trade goods and services in order to make a profit.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 09:54:51 2015 No.6839935

>>6839918

I don't think you're done any research into paleolithic hunter-gatherers. Overwhelming evidence points to the relationships between other hunter-gatherer tribes being very hostile. Where the hell do you think the incredibly powerful instinct of tribalism that people around the globe have comes from?

They didn't develop economies because they didn't create settlements. They didn't stockpile resources in the manner agricultural people do. They were on the move all the time.

There's also no evidence of hunter-gatherer tribes having slaves although it's not impossible.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 09:56:16 2015 No.6839939 >>6839932 The labor theory of value has been proven wrong countless times and empirically so. Even the Soviet Union had to admit it. We can empirically prove that the labor theory of value is wrong.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 09:59:39 2015 No.6839944

>>6839935
>Tribes are hostile
Certainly. But the very fact that there ARE tribes proves that people within the tribe got along well enough to stick together.

>No stockpiling
Hunter-Gatherer lifestyle doesn't mean you cannot stockpile or own goods, it just means you cannot have a stockpile as large as a settled person could. A hunter gatherer might only have what he and his wife can carry, but he can still trade what he has.

>There's also no evidence of hunter-gatherer tribes having slaves although it's not impossible.
The Native Americans had tons of slaves. The Iroquois and Arapaho were notorious for it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:05:50 2015 No.6839953 >>6839888 This type of thinking waters down the definition to the point that it becomes nearly meaningless.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:08:14 2015 No.6839959

>>6839944

>But the very fact that there ARE tribes proves that people within the tribe got along well enough to stick together.

Obviously. None of this points to capitalism. In fact tight-knit tribes that attack stranger tribes on sight points to the opposite.

>but he can still trade what he has.

You can say that but there's still no evidence of trade being a natural part of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

>Iroquois and Arapaho

Not hunter-gatherers.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:10:58 2015 No.6839963 >>6839953 Another genius stroke by capitalism. Representing itself as devoid of any real signification so as to make a historical moment seem like a transcendental feature of humanity.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:11:09 2015 No.6839964

>>6839939
who is we? i don't think you have any idea what you're talking about at this point.

anyway, im a bit dubious about this cluster of claims in the article:

>Second, information is corroding the market’s ability to form prices correctly. That is because markets are based on scarcity while information is abundant. The system’s defence mechanism is to form monopolies – the giant tech companies – on a scale not seen in the past 200 years, yet they cannot last. By building business models and share valuations based on the capture and privatisation of all socially produced information, such firms are constructing a fragile corporate edifice at odds with the most basic need of humanity, which is to use ideas freely.

where is he getting this from?

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:14:29 2015 No.6839971

>>6839964
"We" being anyone. If labor = value than things that require more labor should be more valuable. Thus one could artificially raise the value of a given item by forcing the production of it to be done by more labor intensive methods. But that doesn't work at all, mining coal by hand in tunnel mines instead of by pits doesn't make people buy the coal any more than by pit (In fact they will buy it less).

The Soviet Union ran into this very problem with their economic planning as you cannot reconcile the labor theory of value with reality.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:14:48 2015 No.6839973

Although I despise that this thread is on /lit/ I'll chime in a little bit about this whole stupid attractive mate-pairing hysteria.

There are plenty of social distinctions one can have other than economic opportunity that distinguish one from their peers. This will never go away no matter how "post-capitalist" our society becomes because they can result from something as simple as what we do in our free time.

Besides that, attractiveness is also subjective. Sure, there's some correlation with good body features and popular attractiveness, but so many other things come into play it's not even worth listing them. One that bears mentioning is attitude, which is very controllable by the subject. A confident individual will always seem more attractive than a withdrawn one.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:17:40 2015 No.6839982 >>6839973 confidence is a social construct which is judged mainly by attractiveness

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:19:40 2015 No.6839986 >>6839973 You can't just suddenly become confident because you decided to be confident. It requires a larger transformation, something not everyone is capable of.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:20:20 2015 No.6839988

He underestimates the greed of the capitalist class
>reduced need for work
Sure, but in the existing capitalist structure those who do not work are treated as scum, creating a culture that will not embrace a workless society, at least not any time soon.
>corrosion of markets by information
Governments are actively working to please lobbyists by introducing reactionary laws to halt the progress of free information. In our life times the internet will become a shadow of its libertarian beginnings
>collaborative production
Will be undermined by the forces that are trying to stop points 1 and 2
I'm not going to go into detail for the rest of his essay, I'm not getting marked for it, but he is unfortunately idealist. The same pattern of wealthy capitalists destroying any hope for the future will repeat again. I get the feeling this guy would have been on board for occupy wall street in all its poorly planned, failed glory.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:22:24 2015 No.6839993 >>6839971 >this much straw man It's like a parody of itself. Here's a hint, nothing you said has anything to do with LTV

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:24:02 2015 No.6839998 File: 156 KB, 843x1500, 10624491402327606996.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6839642 neets win again and we didn't have to do anything fucking glorious i'll be masturbating and drinking the entire day to celebrate

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:27:33 2015 No.6840007

>>6839786
>dating sites experiment
>real world observations

Someone needs to get off the computer more often. Dating sites are only a small part of the reality of dating, and as you may have noticed, it's still impossible to fuck a non-artificial vagina over the internet right now. So dating still requires face-to-face meetings, among other things.

The way you guys brandish those dating sites statistics as proof that you are more grounded and well-informed than everyone when you write like you haven't heared the voice of a girl in years is rather hilarious. Or sad perhaps.

You may think you're dealing with the problem of human sexuality in a theoretical fashion, but you're simply engaging in sophistry here. If you don't even consider the selection bias that appears with dating sites you're basically deluded.

This is akin to trying to deal with geometrical problems using measure theory and topology over the plane while being unable to picture a circle in your head, not to mention draw it. It's not going to work.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:27:41 2015 No.6840008

>>6839755
>what is make up
>men and women dont have different physical requirements to meet said 1-10 scale (i.e difference between not being fat and having muscles)
>men dont want sex more than women, and as a result having a different supply/demand effect for sex with desirable partners
>men and women have sex primarily for the same reason (i.e women dont have sex for status as opposed to men who are satisfying physical urges)
Men and women are not equal in this regard m8

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:29:52 2015 No.6840017

>>6839982
Confidence may be a social construct but observable things such as one's nonverbal communication resulting from how confident they act are very real things that affect how someone is perceived regardless of how pretty their features are.

>>6839986
No you can't suddenly become confident, but you can't "suddenly" become just about any other attitude either. It doesn't mean that as a free to act individual you can't do things that increase your confidence. Either as simple as thinking back on things that make you proud or going and doing more things that you can be proud of.

The point is confidence, among many other things, is a malleable trait of an individual that they can work on to increase their attractiveness, an example of how a post-capital world would not leave mate-pairing solely to predetermined body features.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:31:19 2015 No.6840022

>>6839860
What you're describing is trading, not even necessarily trading with money, it's much more general than capitalism m8.

I could just as well say communism is the natural state of human society because human societies are grounded on shared values and behaviors (by the mere fact that they are societies).

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:38:17 2015 No.6840037

>>6840007

say something of substance m80.

why do you think I mentioned online dating? It's because the results are documented. Obviously I use it as a proxy for all of dating.

Do you think those face to face meetings are distributed equally among males? Do you think that the necessity of face to face dates matters in our discussion? Let's assume that as soon as Chad and a beta have an equal chance of future sexual / relationship success after they get a date. Well, so what? Now we are simply discussing the distribution of dates instead of sex. There is zero difference to the discussion. The top males will get significantly more dates.

The OkCupid stuff is interesting but all I used to back up my previous posts are simple observations, nothing big, and definitely not referring to anyhting as complicated as the OkCupid (or any) statistical blog posts.

>selection bias

age pls. Tonnes of people use Tinder grandad.

>geometrical problems, measure theory, quantum mechanics

Yes, I can tell I'm on /lit/

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:39:35 2015 No.6840042 >>6840037 >Let's assume that as soon as Chad and a beta replace the "as soon as" with "a"

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:43:11 2015 No.6840054

Capitalism involves the basic logic of supply and demand, without either, it cannot exist.
No supply? No transaction can be made
No demand? No transaction will be made
Food is the most fundamental example for early humans, there was high demand and low supply. Tribes would not trade food, it was too precious. They would have had beggar thy neighbor attitudes, trade that could benefit the other would contribute to their own demise. Meanwhile, seeing those in your own tribe do well was good for the tribe and good for the individual. If your fellow tribesman needs something more than you, you give it to them.
Along comes agriculture and you now have a supply, the excess can be traded for other items. This is now the creation of profit. Bluntly put, we existed for some 200,000ish years without capitalism.
Just thought I'd clear that up for chucklefuck.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:47:44 2015 No.6840072 >all these cuck marxist pseudo intellectuals getting stuffed by the freedom of capitalism. AMERICA M E R I C A

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:50:49 2015 No.6840082 >>6840072 >living in dumbcuckistan Stay mad Tyrone

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:55:28 2015 No.6840099 >>6839888 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_town You are now aware that markets were tightly controlled in the medieval era, strictly limited and regarded as an annoyance by the powerful. No, history has not been all trade all the time.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:58:40 2015 No.6840115

>>6839642
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_town
>The English monarchy created a system by which a new market town could not be established within a certain travelling distance of an existing one. This limit was usually a day's worth of travelling to and from the market, and buying or selling goods. If the travel time exceeded this standard, a new market town could be established in that locale. As a result of the limit, official market towns often petitioned the monarch to close down illegal markets in other towns.

You are now aware that markets were traditionally limited to a strict minimum in many parts of the world. There has always been trade, but history has not been all trade all the time.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 10:59:30 2015 No.6840120

>>6839971
but that's not how you increase the amount of labor that goes into the product. you increase the amount of labor by increasing the amount of workers. this is why i'm not too keen on the article's claim that production will be automated: the hit to the value of commodities will be too large.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 11:12:07 2015 No.6840164 >>6839689 >implying every single organism on the planet doesn't abide by territory, I.e. private property.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 11:15:19 2015 No.6840176

>>6840037
>say something of substance m80.

Reread my post. You talk about "lower boundary of attractiveness", like you have can measure attractiveness on a scalar line, ignoring the demographics involved (what kind of guys come to that site ? to that other site ?), possible bias and other explanations (do men and women come fore same reasons ? do those sites have similar demographics for each sex ?). This is poor statistic hamfisted into a makeshift social theory to make it sounds like it has backing. That's the substance of my post, that's you're dressing wild guesses as data-supported (if not proven) facts, while claiming to derive an understanding of human mating behavior from it.

>It's because the results are documented.

And because it is documented it accurately represents the average person ? Do you think people come to those sites mostly for casual sex (what if the demographics are divided among two majors groups, the 30+ desperate to marry and the carefree 18-24 here for a quick fuck ?) ? Do you think there have never been studies on average number of partners over the general population, that there are no data sets you can compare dating sites statistics to ?

>Obviously I use it as a proxy for all of dating.

And obviously that's what I was objecting to.

>Do you think those face to face meetings are distributed equally among males?

I never said that, but that's not to say 10% of males "get" the majority of females or whatever. Also, since you're talking of distribution, what is the random variable here ? Number of face to face meeting in a given month ? Average proportion of a girl's date you get each each month ?

> The top males will get significantly more dates.

Fair enough but how does that mean they monopolize the women, if we're talking about casual sex and multiple partner over the same year are possible ? Also how does that prevent them to select among the most attractives females, provided we're in a small environnment where mostly everyone agrees on who's more attractive than who ?

>not referring to anyhting as complicated as the OkCupid

Well, perhaps to get meaningful info from dating sites you actually need those.

>Yes, I can tell I'm on /lit/

Funny I didn't mention quantum mechanics. So right back at you I guess. But yeah you didn't get the analogy apparently (necessity of intuition in order to handle formal data, topology and measure theory are just a more precise way of dealing with volumes and distances here, things we already understand somewhat from intuition). It's possible however that I mistook you for another kind of anon, and that I wasn't arguing your point either, but something else I read into it. I still don't agree with the way you put it (see my questions a few lines above) but from the end of your last post I can see where you're coming from. So let's leave it at that. Mostly my autism was triggered by the pseudo-quantitative babble that is overused and misused here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 11:16:51 2015 No.6840181 >>6840072 LONDON O N D O N Oh wait, wrong intent.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 11:21:20 2015 No.6840196 >>6839666 >>6839860 >>6839888 >capitalism always existed

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 11:43:04 2015 No.6840271 File: 182 KB, 866x635, neet ants.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The NEET uprising is immanent, and we don't even have to get up.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 12:06:44 2015 No.6840350

>>6839642
OP, what you are really wrestling with is the uniquely male problem of the Burden of Performance.

Women have a Burden of Beauty, men have a Burden of Performance. Essentially you are coming to terms with women's innate hypergamy, i.e. that their love is conditional based on your success (charisma, provisioning, looks).

>>6839755
Women's hypergamy (her constant anxiety that she has secured the best possible mate possible, her conditional love based on your performance) has been blown out of all proportion by constant social media affirmation, global travel opening up her breeding pool and your potential comparisons, feminisms attempts to remove the Burden of Beauty from women, removal of social pressures that judge or punish female behaviour, removal of financial dependence on men through a welfare system/big government/alimony or child support payments/divorce pay-outs.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 12:11:26 2015 No.6840364 >>6839776 What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 12:17:25 2015 No.6840387

>>6839973
>A confident individual will always seem more attractive than a withdrawn one.
For women yes, because it displays social dominance.

Not necessarily for men. I.e., not all men find a confident woman attractive.

Your assertion is therefore incorrect.

in b4 "too insecure for a strong independent womyn".

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 12:19:42 2015 No.6840395 So who else here /tfwnogf/

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 12:35:18 2015 No.6840435 >>6840395 iktfb

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 12:52:58 2015 No.6840495 >>6840435 Reccomend any coping mechanisms for the loneliness

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 12:56:28 2015 No.6840508 >>6839666 a unified community works well for communism

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 13:23:09 2015 No.6840590 >>6839666 You hit the nail on the head, anon.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 13:34:01 2015 No.6840607 >>6840508 Unified community is a paradox. There will be shitty people in every community, and one person's idea of shitty behavior differs from others'

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 13:37:31 2015 No.6840617

>>6839666
I think satan here is right, but using definitions that some people disagree with.
If I have property(as in there is an army ready to defend it or I'm just mighty enough to defend it myself) and there is another guy in the same position, we can freely decide to exchange something we value more than what we own.

So indeed as long as I can own shit(in a way or the other) and I can exchange it, "capitalism"(or "trading", whatever) will keep existing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 13:38:07 2015 No.6840619 >>6840495 Suicide

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 13:43:26 2015 No.6840635 >>6840350 >conditional >authors would rather write about muh tired, dusty existentialism, happily perpetuating their narcissistic individualism instead of focusing on the most fundamental social relation which is between man and woman

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 13:44:08 2015 No.6840638 >>6840617 >all this fantasy

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 13:46:15 2015 No.6840646 File: 56 KB, 502x429, 1435604970342.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6840638 pls present verifications

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 13:48:34 2015 No.6840654 >>6839755 >capitalism has utterly subverted sexuality

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 13:50:33 2015 No.6840664

It's fucking hilarious seeing butthurt fascist communists in these threads defending a theory that has never functioned on their computers created by capitalism, eating the bread of their parents. Get off the couch and work; you'll find out a lot about how individuals handle tasks and each other, the need for hierarchy and the difference in thought between all of them. Communism is the real spook.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 13:51:42 2015 No.6840672 >>6840664 Communism has functioned for far longer than capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 13:53:49 2015 No.6840678 >>6840672 Tribal society was still based on overlapping self interest tho. Same with feudalism. Communism has never touched reality, other than Mao and Stalin seizing grain from those who grew it.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 13:57:42 2015 No.6840682

>>6840672
That "communism" you are talking about is not really distinct from voluntarism, which is compatible with capitalism.
It's a matter of power and individual freedom.

I don't think you would've got the tribal police called on you if you decided to fuck off and hunt and gather by yourself, but it was probably much more efficient for survival to stick together with the collective and work/share with others.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 14:03:14 2015 No.6840695

>>6840682

Yes it's more efficient. But those people didn't participate in the tribe because they calculated "this way is more efficient, so I will volunteer to take part", they evolved that way, they evolved instincts that made them automatically want to be a part of a tribe.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 14:03:19 2015 No.6840697
File: 66 KB, 640x589, waifu age.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Regarding the sex question: We're approaching the point where virtual sex (and perhaps even relationship) simulation will become a viable alternative to the real thing for most.

A lot of men are already content having a wank to porn though, given that the benefits of a relationship increasingly do not cover the cost. The porn industry is also interesting because of the reasons mentioned in the article. Digitalised, freely available free porn is capable of providing most people with their porn needs. Web cam girls show themselves for free and rely on a tip based system. There's a practically infinite amount of girls doing this. You can wank to a multiple new girls every day for the rest of your life. Porn is entering post scarcity.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 14:04:20 2015 No.6840700 >>6840646 what's the story behind these sceptical slav avian memetics?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 14:05:54 2015 No.6840708 File: 37 KB, 180x218, 1436656724277.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6840700 I think it begun on /int/ when Russia annexed Crimea and the shitstorm hit /int/.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 14:07:52 2015 No.6840712

>>6840678
Socialism rose in USSR and China out of the self-interests of peasants and proletariat to see a socioeconomic revolution which would allow them political and economic rights through elimination of unconstitutional autocracies, land reform, widening of political rights and so on.

Whereas the achievements of USSR and PRC might seem obvious and minor in modern day, their programmes for revolution massively helped the positions of the masses in their countries.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 14:10:09 2015 No.6840721 >>6840697 I'm really interested in VR and I am convinced I know how the future is going to look, but I'm not going to tell anyone.

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 14:11:25 2015 No.6840728

>>6840695
Well what you say opens a whole discussion on the natural, the individual and modernity I guess.
Humans are social? Yeah, I suppose we've got some instincts telling us to be social, even though I don't really feel that way.

I think lots of people just fear having their individuality crushed under an ever increasingly demanding collective. This happens even nowadays.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 14:11:39 2015 No.6840729 >>6840664 > computers created by capitalism Computers were created by the military-industrial complex, which is one of the purest examples of non-capitalist control economy in existence.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 14:16:45 2015 No.6840738 > anti-marxism without understanding of Hegelian view of community and its relationship to inviduals like, critique hegel, not marx oh wait how could a capitalist ever criticize a defender of a police state and status quo?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 14:18:36 2015 No.6840740 >>6840721 Who won't you tell me, comrade?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 17 14:20:21 2015 No.6840745 File: 67 KB, 600x563, image_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6840729 >mfw I'm who you replied to and am a navy officer and crypt-kid >mfw I'm a hard rightist and in the only profession where I get to push my agenda day in day out

Anonymous Fri Jul 17 14:28:52 2015 No.6840778

>>6839642
>The feudal model of agriculture collided, first, with environmental limits and then with a massive external shock – the Black Death. After that, there was a demographic shock: too few workers for the land, which raised their wages and made the old feudal obligation system impossible to enforce.
>the Black Death [...] raised [...] wages
Wasn't Malthus shown to be wrong on this account?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]