/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7915131]

>mfw the typical marxist, anarchist, and other types of revolutionary role players are in most cases people who couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, yet they think they can restructure human society from the ground up.

[Anonymous No.7915140]

>>7915131
I don't find it funny honestly. These people caused the murder of tens of millions in the last century, and for some reason they're not subject to the same reactions as neo-nazis, they're actually praised in academia and continue to peddle this ideology.

[Anonymous No.7915165]

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.7915176]

>>7915140
That's because we want to trade freedom for social security and hedonistic liberty.
t. Hayek and Belloc

[Anonymous No.7915183]

>inb4 thread deleted by pissy janitor

Let's get this /lit/ related.

Orwell's essays on the Spanish Civil War were interesting.

Apparently the reason the Republicans got so utterly clobbered was because they wouldn't follow the orders of their officers. The soldiers under Orwell's immediate command called him a fascist for telling them to do things. Chain of command was for Franco's crew, I guess.

[Anonymous No.7915202]

>>7915183
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/Spanish_War/english/esw_1

It's all pretty depressing.

>Well, a few weeks later at the front I had trouble with one of the men in my section. By this time I was a ‘cabo’, or corporal, in command of twelve men. It was static warfare, horribly cold, and the chief job was getting sentries to stay awake at their posts. One day a man suddenly refused to go to a certain post, which he said quite truly was exposed to enemy fire. He was a feeble creature, and I seized hold of him and began to drag him towards his post. This roused the feelings of the others against me, for Spaniards, I think, resent being touched more than we do. Instantly I was surrounded by a ring of shouting men:’ Fascist! Fascist! Let that man go! This isn't a bourgeois army. Fascist!’ etc., etc. As best I could in my bad Spanish I shouted back that orders had got to be obeyed, and the row developed into one of those enormous arguments by means of which discipline is gradually hammered out in revolutionary armies.

[Anonymous No.7915212]

>>7915176
>That's because we want to trade freedom for social security and hedonistic liberty
Better become slave of money and productivity! Road to freedom!

[Anonymous No.7915216]

>>7915131
Revolutionary politics is zombie apocalypse fantasy for people who fancy themselves intellectuals and leaders despite obviously being in such a weak situation that they assume they will do better after a shake-up.

[Anonymous No.7915224]

>>7915183
>people fueled by resentment for their betters continue to resent their betters
who knew

>>7915212
You can be quite free with a pretty small amount of capital if you don't go full retard and buy into something where constant consumption is necessary. Men who manage to own some rural pasture in Alabama can answer to nobody until the day they die.

[Anonymous No.7915236]

>>7915131
capitalism has improved the lives of billions more than any other system in history. This is especially noticeable in the third world. Anticapitalists often have legitimate concerns but provide no feasible solutions. We can't go back to 1917, we need to empower folks and promote entrepreneurship and growth. I feel very exited about trends like green branding and sustainable consumption, I think we might be seeing a sea change concerning concerning corporate responsibility.We don't need a revolution, we just need a new generation of disruptors and innovators.

[Anonymous No.7915237]

lol OP's too dumb to know what books are.

[Anonymous No.7915245]

>>7915237

And you're too dumb to know that the above ideologies are contained in books and the people role playing the above ideologies read these books.

[Anonymous No.7915251]

>>7915212
>Better become slave of money and productivity! Road to freedom!

If you're even relatively competent you can make a comfortable living working a job that is, at the very least, bearable. People who become slaves to their jobs and money typically buy into a consumerist mindset or otherwise pick professions which do not satisfy their psychological, emotional, intellectual, or spiritual desires, resulting in depression and (ironically) sloth.

like >>7915224 says, it's entirely possible to live a fulfilling and happy life with very little money. The problem with most marxist/statists is they want their lives handed to them on a silver platter without the need to actually apply any effort (whether physical, intellectual, or capital) to advance their station in life.

The capitalist society is far from perfect, but it sure as shit beats the utter boredom and soul-crushing conformity of a marxist or socialist society.

[Anonymous No.7915262]

>>7915236
Get a hold of this guy! hahahah

[Anonymous No.7915267]

>>7915245
Oh you mean like Byron who organised armies in Greece and several international scandals? Yeah, that dumbass reading Shelley, who inspired Tolstoi, Stalin and Gandhi, he never got shit done.

Or did you want to talk to someone who didn't know what books are too so they could pretend that they didn't know what Carlyle meant by great men shaping the course of history?

In short, you're not just wrong, you're retarded to the point of being less educated than a child.

[Anonymous No.7915272]

>>7915224
>people fueled by resentment for their betters continue to resent their betters
in the end, right-'libertarianism' is the ideology of the slave who loves and obeys his master because he earnestly views him as a superior being. Some of the most radical 'libertarians' like Hans Herman Hope, readily admit that their goal is to create a neo-feudal system founded on a nebulous sense of aristocratic superiority.

[Anonymous No.7915276]

>>7915131
>>7915140
>>7915216
>>7915236

Chomsky on Leninism/Stalinism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsC0q3CO6lM

[Anonymous No.7915277]

>>7915236
This sounds so naive as to suggest a troll, but there's a grain of truth.

Industrial capitalism is fairly young and has evolved constantly over its lifetime. Quite a lot can still change in ways that Marx and others haven't anticipated.

[Anonymous No.7915280]

>>7915272
What if the old aristocracy really were genuinely superior. The thought that keeps me up at night

[Anonymous No.7915283]

>>7915272
You say that like it's a bad thing. If the proles accept it, and the values of the aristocratic class are healthy, there are much worse things. People are wired up pretty well to live in a distinct hierarchy.

[Anonymous No.7915291]

>all these weaklings afraid of posting /pol/ on /pol/
lulz >>>/r9k/ pls beta minuses

[Anonymous No.7915293]

>>7915267

Is the typical student or hippy that joins a commie party comparable to the people you've got in mind?

The is a massive degrading in the quality of men in these movements today since their beginning.

Dummy.

[Anonymous No.7915294]

>>7915293
There*

[Anonymous No.7915295]

>>7915293
I think Shelley is a more typical anarchist for forming the type, yes.

I wouldn't expect a subnormal like you to understand how types are formed; after all, you have not even read Carlyle. But sure, if you want to talk about the people you hang out with who annoy you, you can pretend to be a girl on >>>/soc/ and nobody will care you don't read or understand literature.

[Anonymous No.7915298]

>>7915280
>>7915283
Just take a look at European history. The aristocracy, though descended from somewhat competent tribal warlord stock, tends to stagnate and become increasingly useless and inbreed.

[Anonymous No.7915311]

>>7915298
If an ugly retard who bleeds a lot can act as an effective figurehead for a civil society then he can have at it until he gets usurped by someone who shares his values but isn't retarded.

[Anonymous No.7915317]

>>7915212
You are mistaking modern socialism ruled by consumerism and old liberalism friend.

[Anonymous No.7915319]

>>7915317
>you are mistaking the branches of the tree for its trunk
tbqh

[Anonymous No.7915328]

>>7915212
>slave of money

[Anonymous No.7915329]

>>7915272
Underrated post

>>7915251
>People who become slaves to their jobs and money typically buy into a consumerist mindset
In a Neoliberal, Hayekian society, where everything is valued by money, productivity and efficiency, are you telling me that you can very well *not* be part of it, yet praise it? There is no middle ground to capitalism, especially no Hayek's. I can get along with Keynes, but neoliberal freedom is basically the freedom to hoard more and more money.

[Anonymous No.7915331]

>>7915319
Liberalism died in the 50s and was replaced by something else which certainly does have capitalist elements, mostly in globalization. Ideas of freedom and hard work were replaced by socialism and the sexual revolution.

[Anonymous No.7915332]

just putting it out there that this isn't a discussion concerning literature

[Anonymous No.7915334]

>>7915276
How the fuck still cares about what Chomsky says?

[Anonymous No.7915335]

>>7915311
So basically what you're saying is, it's okay if a nation is under a retarded and inbred ruler for 30 years, because there will come another one, better?
I can't understand the slave morality behind this.

[Anonymous No.7915339]

>>7915332
oh course not. OP doesn't know what books are.

[Anonymous No.7915342]

>>7915329
I think that Hayek was severely misunderstood. His ideals were a bit too separated from reality.

[Anonymous No.7915348]

>>7915334
He is the most quoted academic in the world now so I'd say quite a few.
Not implying it's worth anything, just putting the information out.

[Anonymous No.7915351]

>>7915272
>he cares about slaves
C'mon poor helot, you can take some bread from my trimalchionic feast
Hahahahahaha imma make it rain

[Anonymous No.7915361]

>>7915348
>most quoted
So is Groucho Marx and I ain't seeing no nigga who cares shit about him in this peruvian equitation imageboar

[Anonymous No.7915375]

>>7915329
>are you telling me that you can very well *not* be part of it, yet praise it?

Yes, faggot, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's entirely possible (and happens more than you think) that people don't view money as something in and of itself to amass, but simply a necessity to obtain the more worthwhile things in life.

I would agree that the majority of the populace is indoctrinated into a consumerist mindset but this in no way means that every single person is a slave to money or wages. You know, if people were actually taught how to manage money and distinguish wants vs. needs we wouldn't have a debt laden economy. Instead, most kids are brought up to believe that they deserve everything and the moment they actually have to work for a living they throw a fucking fit and turn into Marxists in an attempt to seem 'noble' by fighting the 'oppressive capitalist system'. It's laughable really.

[Anonymous No.7915381]

>>7915351
go to bed.

[Anonymous No.7915384]

>>7915361
Duck Soup is one of the greatest movies of all time, brah. Don't besmirch Marx's good name.

[Anonymous No.7915389]

>>7915272
>in the end, right-'libertarianism' is the ideology of the slave who loves and obeys his master because he earnestly views him as a superior being.

Except in a capitalistic society, every slave has the ability and freedom to become a master. Just because people don't apply themselves or channel their entrepreneurial spirit doesn't mean the system is immoral, it means that people have accepted or are otherwise content with working for another individual.

This is in sharp contrast to a statist mindset, wherein laborers will inevitably be forced into a job or profession they care nothing about and have no way of pursing something which would otherwise give them purpose or drive.

[Anonymous No.7915392]

>>7915375
Why the fuck do you praise a system, just to tell me: if you're smart enough, you won't be part of it!
Can't you see the hypocrisy?

>You know, if people were actually taught how to manage money
This is less an argument than a wishful thinking. There has always been crisis in the history of capitalism, there is no indication that this will change. On the contrary, inequalities are widening, the very few rich are getting richer.

By the way, the basis of Hayek's society, freed from "politics", is brainless consumerism. There isn't, like you seem to believe, any other freedom than the freedom to produce and consume.

You seem to think that I'm a marxist. You are wrong, so no need to keep calling me names.

[Anonymous No.7915393]

>>7915331
muh americana

[Anonymous No.7915397]

>>7915389
This is what people often forget about the idea of human rights and freedom. It doesn't mean everyone is or should be the same, but that everyone has a legally equal change to become unequal.

[Anonymous No.7915400]

>>7915389
>every slave has the ability and freedom to become a master
Not anymore. Even the American dream is falling apart. The social ladder is broken, the rich are getting richer, not on the merit of their skills and effort, but because of their families.

[Anonymous No.7915404]

>>7915392
I quite clearly remember that Hayek in A Road to Serfdom states how economic freedom is a basis for pursuit of others ends and not an end in itself.

[Anonymous No.7915405]

>>7915375
>the majority of the populace is indoctrinated into a consumerist mindset

this is not an aberration, but the backbone of the capitalist system as it exists today. The ideal of a society composed of independent craftsmen and farmers is unsustainable in the age of mass production.

[Anonymous No.7915419]

>>7915400
>Not anymore. Even the American dream is falling apart.

And what is this a result of? It's MORE government intervention. MORE rules and regulations. MORE taxes. At every single turn where the government attempts to intervene in the free-trade economy, it has ALWAYS resulted in less prosperity for EVERYONE except those which can lobby the best.

>The social ladder is broken, the rich are getting richer, not on the merit of their skills and effort, but because of their families.
But this is patently false. We consistently see young, immigrant, female, single, etc etc etc business moguls all the time. I will concede that there does exist a sort of rich aristocracy, but that in no way diminishes the fact that new successful businessmen are born literally every single day, often of their own merit and without previous wealth to assist them.

The social ladder is broken due to constant government intrusion.

[Anonymous No.7915421]

>>7915404
To do what? In a neoliberal and utilitarian framework, everything is measured with money. Everything has a monetary value, is quantified. At the end, you might as well just hoard more money, it's all the same.

And, if you were a true supporter of capitalism, you should keep hoarder. As Max Weber wrote, the only concern of a capitalistic is to make more money. Other freedoms may come after, or they may never come.

[Anonymous No.7915427]

>>7915419
>And what is this a result of? It's MORE government intervention. MORE rules and regulations. MORE taxes.
...
Inequalities grew sharper since the end of 1970's. Which, coincidentally, is also the rise of Reaganian & Thatcherian economics, and world finance deregulation.

[Anonymous No.7915439]

>>7915421
>>>7915404 (You)
>To do what? In a neoliberal and utilitarian framework, everything is measured with money. Everything has a monetary value, is quantified. At the end, you might as well just hoard more money, it's all the same.
Intellectual, spiritual, sport, music or anything else really.
>And, if you were a true supporter of capitalism, you should keep hoarder. As Max Weber wrote, the only concern of a capitalistic is to make more money. Other freedoms may come after, or they may never come.
I'm not a true supporter of capitalism, I'm a Belloc type distrubutionist as far as economy goes. I just like Hayek and seeing him in the light of a power for power money for money type of philosopher/economist is wrong.

[Anonymous No.7915441]

>>7915389
>entrepreneurial spirit
spooky justification for existing power structures. Much like the Kings of old, modern capitalists hide behind the ideology of natural superiority, when, more often than not, they owe their success to family connections, cunning, sheer luck and the occasional use of brute force.

[Anonymous No.7915443]

>>7915427
>Inequalities grew sharper since the end of 1970's.

Which inequalities are we talking about here? Because this is a rather vague term, and I would venture to guess that a majority of these inequalities are only tied to a capitalistic system in theory only.

[Anonymous No.7915448]

>>7915131
>mfw this isn't lit
>mfw 3..2..1
>mfw OP gone for 30 days

[Anonymous No.7915454]

>>7915443
Income inequalities, for one.

In comparison, the US is much less regulated than European countries such as Germany or France, yet income inequalities are much steeper. Do you credit this to government intervention?

[Anonymous No.7915456]

>>7915427
America stopped controlling the world economy when OPEC made their oil cartel in 1970 or whenever it was. They have basically used economic alchemy to pretend this isn't true for the past 4 decades, including the insane criminal practices of their financial sector. America is no longer the home of global industry, no longer the dominant oil producer, the only thing it has left is investor trust in its currency and a weakening military hegemony.

[Anonymous No.7915470]

>>7915441
>Much like the Kings of old, modern capitalists hide behind the ideology of natural superiority, when, more often than not, they owe their success to family connections, cunning, sheer luck and the occasional use of brute force.

Pure ideology. I personally know about a dozen people who have become very successful buisnessmen who came from low-to-moderate income families, who's family connections didn't mean shit to the industry they work within, and who have remained ethical and decent individuals, all the while providing jobs and services to the local and state economies.

Just because you don't see the success of the small businessman doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And like I stated previously, the aristocratic families are getting richer, not due to a flawed system, but due to being able to manipulate the political system to benefit their ventures. Not to go all /pol/, but why the fuck do you think literally EVERYONE in the media is out to get Trump right now? He's not beholden to anyone, owes no favors to anybody, and is the clearest threat to the current power structure.

[Anonymous No.7915479]

>>7915470
All candidates are a product of power structures, they wouldn't get the chance to candidate themselves otherwise.

[Anonymous No.7915489]

>>7915456
The USD is still the global currency. OPEC oil cartel at that time crushed European countries' growth, but had a much lesser impact on self-sufficient countries such as the US at the time.

But my point still stands. There was less inequality in the 1960's, where Keynesian economy was applied, than two decades later.

[Anonymous No.7915496]

>>7915470
>Pure ideology. I personally know about a dozen people
That's not sufficient data.
In France, for instance, the wage gap between an employee and a CEO was about 300% in 1970. It has been multiplied tenfold in thirty years.
That's deregulation for you.