/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8855325]

How did the media, academia, and all of that shit get to a point where they try to appeal to left wing people as much as possible? When and why did it shift so far towards liberal beliefs?

We now see in all of the new big budget movies by the big companies that get tons of cash very diverse casts. New sites also seem to be very biased towards this kind of thing. College campuses go out of their way to bring this kind of stuff up in their advertising and during college visits. It just seems like liberal ideas have completely invaded a lot of these institutions.

I mostly see people when they discuss this just bring up how this is the case. People talk about how these things are very biased towards the left, they bring up specific examples, and they mock them. But there has to be a reason why they go out of their way to seem progressive and liberal.

So when did this transition start? And more importantly, WHY do all of these types of institutions go out of their way to seem liberal? Is there some huge advantage to doing it, is its prevalence just overblown by conservatives, is there some political motivation? I have a hard time believing that all of these huge companies and industries actually care a lot about being progressive and are as stupidly biased for no reason as conservatives like to say, so I wonder what the reason for all of this is.

[Anonymous No.8855339]

Because liberals rule the world.

[Anonymous No.8855351]

>>8855339
but why is it that liberals rule the world instead of a different ideology? or do you think the dominant political belief in a corporation industry or govt is more or less random

[Anonymous No.8855357]

>>8855351
Because liberalism is the ideology of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.8855359]

>>8855357
I'm not too familiar with this could you elaborate on the necessary connection?

[Anonymous No.8855363]

>>8855325
Why? Because conservatives have spent 65 years or more turning themselves into an anti-intellectual parody, many of whom who seriously want higher education in humanities done away with, that's why. Conservatives are largely opposed to facts, research, education, and art. Republican lawmakers work their asses off to oppose anything that isn't white, Xtian, middle-class, hetero, etc., bullshit. Of course universities are going to be mostly liberal: unless you're STEM, right-wingers are your fucking enemies.

[Anonymous No.8855365]

It sells.
Business are more interested in profit than principled politics.

[Anonymous No.8855366]

>>8855363
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.8855369]

>>8855365
why does this ideology sell instead of another?

[Anonymous No.8855374]

>>8855369
Because liberalism is just repackaged Christian morality for the neurotic, nihilistic modern man.

[Anonymous No.8855377]

>>8855325
1940s/1950s.

The non-white races gained access to white technology, specifically advanced weapons of war. Since then, the world has become stuck in a system of global, world-wide capitalism

Man's primitive nature and lust for war will never vanish from his mind. Instead of war, nations angrily wave fingers at another, knowing the other one has just as advanced weaponry. They would love to go to war, but can't.

So, we must smile and keep trading. No war anymore. We will keep trading until it destroys our environment. Once that happens, the wars will resume.


>>8855369
Because the modern left-wing is a base level. It attempts to bring everyone down to a base level. There are no more heroes. Winston Churchill? Lead a nation against the Nazis. But, yet, a liberal will attempt to bring him down to a base level by mentioning his faults, like his supposed racism against Indians.

Art is a base level as well.

Glory, heroes, honor, etc are offensive.

[Anonymous No.8855381]

>>8855325
Having a diverse cast broadens your audience, which brings in more money. Nobody's going to be offended by inclusiveness, even if they suspect it's a bit artificial.

[Anonymous No.8855383]

>>8855325
I can only assume your picture is an example of what you're explaining. If so then why is representing a vocal group (blacks) seem as pandering to the left in your eyes?

The media is information based but it's still a business. If a group demands it then they will receive representation. Again back to your Star Wars example, many black people only supported it because one of the leads was black. That support is just free money because it took nothing to provide. Nothing but make some people butt hurt.

[Anonymous No.8855384]

>>8855325
The ghost of right wing media still haunts us.

I think a lot of people from across the political spectrum would agree that there's so much liberal agenda in movies now, and a lot is like your argument that hey there are black people on screen now! This isn't something that's really changed though (there was a period where casting got a little institutional racist around the turn of last decade, but that was a period of relative lack of diversity surrounded by quite a lot before and after).

Also consider the movie you're talking about, it has aliens and space monsters and shit so having no diversity at all in humans seems dumb af. While it employs people like Warwick to dress in a funny costume, there isn't really that much diversity in the human characters (there is some, but compare it to the original Total Recall for example and it's a bit shit), where are the midgets? Darth Vader and Luke were disabled but where are the people that can't afford fancy prosthetics and the retards and so on? It's also a highly militarized film. People may go "hey look 10 years a slave, left wing media bias!" but how many action movies are made?

That's not to say I don't like a good action movie, but fuck is it not a right wing message and narrative in nearly all of them?

[Anonymous No.8855387]

>>8855374
this desu desu

the sheep simply seek to escape responsibility for themselves, everyone has a place in the commercial whorescape

[Anonymous No.8855394]

>>8855384
not sure if bait or just reddit

[Anonymous No.8855407]

I want Daisy Ridley to trample me

[Anonymous No.8855410]

>>8855383
There's nothing wrong with "pandering" to blacks. I don't think anyone has a problem with black movies, based around real black history, etc.

I think the overwhelmingly glaring problem is in the "strong womyn" trope.

No time in history has a single woman ever been "strong". At least not in a super-glorified, militaristic, heroic strong.

There are rarities that are half-mixed with propaganda, like Joan of Arc and Soviet women snipers.

[Anonymous No.8855420]

>>8855384
>tfw you can see the symmetry in racial quotas on screen
there is an inescapable artificiality there

[Anonymous No.8855424]

>>8855394
Don't get too attached to a victim complex bro. Many right wing attitudes are the wallpaper as it were, but is that a bad thing for you? I'm guessing you identify as right.

Think about Gran Torino a few years back, ostensibly a right wing movie but holy shit if it isn't one of the most left wing things of recent years.

[Anonymous No.8855433]

>>8855410
Is it perhaps that it's just easier to remix old ideas by making the lead a woman? That's exactly what they're doing with star wars. Granted I don't doubt that it's partly due to the studios knowing liberal archetypes will support it for other reasons. Also the producer is a woman and time has proven that they're in influential roles and will always operate with some inherent bias

[Anonymous No.8855435]

>>8855420
I'm not saying there isn't, but I also don't assume it's then automatically left wing. Black face doesn't make you black, and a thin racial quote veneer doesn't make a movie left wing (although Star Wars isn't clearly all that political and a bit of fun imo).

[Anonymous No.8855447]

>>8855325
One word:

C U C K S
U
C
K
S

[Anonymous No.8855448]

>>8855435
>confusing liberalism with leftism
>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8855453]

>>8855325
first of all, you have to understand that there is a huge divide between "liberal" and "left". whereas liberals are more concerned with placating progressives and appealing to centrists by diversification efforts in mass culture and cultural/economic reforms with capitalism in tact, lefists are more concerned with critiques of capitalism and calls to replace it, and broader class struggle, from which diversification will naturally unfold, along with distribution of wealth and the dissolution of inequality.

so given this, entertainment is a medium for the masses. it's all appearances. diversification in the movie industry does nothing more but put POC on the screen while not really engaging with the discourse surrounding systemic inequality in POC communities which has its root cause in the nature of capitalism itself.

it makes white liberal americans feel good about itself for involving POC into mass culture, while deflecting the more progressive responsibility of having to critique the system responsible for keeping POC deprived and consequently keeping their lives comfortable

[Anonymous No.8855454]

>>8855369
Large companies face economic pressure to be inclusive.
https://youtu.be/g6IJV_0p64s?t=7m53s

[Anonymous No.8855458]

>>8855448
That would be >>>/USA/ if anything, it's not a /pol/ thing, although I don't agree that there has been that particular confusion there.

[Anonymous No.8855462]

>>8855453
>POC
>deprived

[Anonymous No.8855474]

>>8855462
first of all, the tumblr shit annoys me. and i think political correctness is a total distractor from important issues.

if you deny that african-americans have been historically deprived in the U.S., and that this history currently affects their situation you're an idiot. without question.

maybe you're white and feel this resentment towards blacks because they've finally been getting attention?

working class white are also essential to emancipatory efforts of dissolving inequality

[Anonymous No.8855480]

>>8855433
It creates a false glory among them.

They themselves, historically, were never heroes, no matter how much they wish it were true.

Luckily, our generation has never truly experienced a true war which involves every able bodied man to participate in.


If it were the opposite, and if the men had suffered in battle while the women stayed home, I believe putting the women into fantasy combat roles would almost be insulting to the dead warriors.

[Anonymous No.8855483]

>>8855325
Educated people are more likely to be liberal.

[Anonymous No.8855485]

>>8855483
>((((education))))
>2016

[Anonymous No.8855486]

>>8855483
i think it's more that "creative types" lean towards a liberal pathology

[Anonymous No.8855488]

>>8855325
Liberals aren't leftists. You're right to suggest the media has a liberal slant, but it's nowhere near the left. Leftists don't believe in identity politics, nor capitalism. The mainstream media is all capitalistic.

[Anonymous No.8855491]

>>8855359
Not him but it seems obvious to me. Maximize individualism to maximize consumerism. Make the world about THEM. They are worth it. And only their own property is truly theirs. The real profiteers are of course the business magnates, so they are even moreso liberal than the consumers.

[Anonymous No.8855494]

>>8855480
I also will not complain if someone posts qt Kurds

This is like not even Zizek tier ideology. Plenty of women have become warriors, it's a cultural thing. In the west we tend to become militarized by saying "women are the protected, men are the protectors" but not everyone feels or acts like that.

[Anonymous No.8855496]

>>8855483
The truth behind this is it's more likely that: the West is decadent, therefore more liberal.

[Anonymous No.8855497]

>>8855488
>>8855453
>>8855448
>>8855357

all this right here

[Anonymous No.8855498]

>>8855488
Progressivism was invented by a Spanish marxist. The liberal agenda is just a trick of the extreme left. Pretty genius. Might backfire.

[Anonymous No.8855505]

>>8855498
the liberal agenda and the extreme left are COMPLETELY incompatible. are you seriously this stupid? are you really basing your claim from the fact that a Spanish marxist who you can't name is associated with progressivism (which by the way does not = liberalism)

[Anonymous No.8855506]

>>8855494
Yes, women have become "warriors" through propaganda purposes: Amazons, shieldmadiens, joan of arc, and soviet women

[Anonymous No.8855507]

>>8855483
Educated in what? Looking at the current curriculum offered and created by liberalism in America...I'd certainly agree your statement is true...but not at all worthwhile. It's a self propagating cycle of intellectual bankruptcy.

[Anonymous No.8855509]

>>8855494
>denying biology

[Anonymous No.8855511]

>>8855325
Because the left has the moral high ground.

Next question.

[Anonymous No.8855512]

>>8855511
>the left runs the media

you're a fucking moron

[Anonymous No.8855515]

>all these lefticucks itt
Where my alt-right boys at? There must be something important happening over at /pol/.

[Anonymous No.8855519]

>>8855474
alternatively, working class whites have also been used to combat the very same emancipatory efforts. the shift of the republican party is a perfect example of this.

[Anonymous No.8855521]

>>8855511
>moral high ground

The left just brings everyone down to a base level to a place where no one has any morals.

[Anonymous No.8855522]

>>8855506
Now you've gone all spooky on me. Could we get even more...

>>8855509
WINNER

[Anonymous No.8855527]

>>8855522
>women are not strong because of society and not because they are, in fact, biologically weaker
You are the spooked one here. A classic example, you hold "equality" over all other interests.

[Anonymous No.8855530]

>>8855521
*a place where everyone has different morals than mine

[Anonymous No.8855532]

>>8855486
There's certainly more liberal bias among the arts than among STEM, but not by much. Republicans in the US have taken an anti-science agenda now, so they've gone completely anti-intellectual. Maybe if you're an engineer working for the petrol industry you'll be kinda forced to keep your mouth shut.

[Anonymous No.8855535]

>>8855454
That darky is red pilled as fuck.

[Anonymous No.8855542]

>>8855522
Even ancient humans, when creating art, designed women to have over-exaggerated titties and asses.

Around the world, ancient cultures being their religion with an Adam and Eve figure. A male dominating the women.

In Egypt, the cum of the Gods created the world. In Greece, Zeus' raping of women created thousands of demi-gods, who gained their godlike powers from their father.

In ancient South America, the Snake God's fertility created the crops. The women goddesses were just the necessity tools of life.

Women have rarely been heroes; they are usually only important accessories to the heroes.

[Anonymous No.8855543]

>>8855532
>Republicans are the right
I'm a part of what some people call the "alt-right" and it feels punk as fuck. It feels like an actual counter culture, or rebellion against the PC culture that dominates American colleges.

[Anonymous No.8855553]

>>8855519
this is true, and it's depressing as shit. working class whites have been played by a corrupt businessman who will only accelerate the inequality between elite and poor, who won't get close to addressing the systemic inequality that affects both them and POC

[Anonymous No.8855556]

>>8855553
>systemic inequality
woo boy we got a bluepill

next you're gonna lecture me on "class consciousness"

[Anonymous No.8855558]

they're looking to establish new markets based on appealing to 'identity'

actual leftists are beyond this, liberals are just making capitalism work for themselves

[Anonymous No.8855559]

>>8855553
>if its not democratic socialist, then its inequality.


The economy of the USA boomed from 1880-1960, and it was mostly in part due to elite businessman creating more jobs for everyone, not the government.

[Anonymous No.8855560]

>>8855553
>What is personal responsibility for 500, Alex

[Anonymous No.8855561]

>>8855553
I want /r/communism invaders to leave

[Anonymous No.8855565]

>>8855527
>the strongest fight betterest
Super spooked.

>>8855542
>Around the world, ancient cultures being their religion with an Adam and Eve figure.
They really don't, and the oral torah or tanukh or whatever the oral bit is called has a bunch of extra shit concerning the creation of ladies.

[Anonymous No.8855568]

This isn't literature, you pathetic histrionic dipshits

[Anonymous No.8855571]

>this thread
Am I on reddit?

[Anonymous No.8855573]

>>8855559
>the economy boomed
>during the great depression
>because of elite businessman
>nothing to do with the global consequences of things like WW2
Want to know how I know you're retarded?

[Anonymous No.8855576]

>>8855565
>misunderstanding Stirner this hard
>being spooked by muh equality muh justice
>trying this hard to fit in and seem like a 4channer
>>>/r/communism

[Anonymous No.8855578]

>>8855565
Literally every culture, the thousands that have ever existed on this Earth, over-emphasize the masculine and feminine. When this is done, it's always the males dominating the battlefield. Always.

[Anonymous No.8855581]

>>8855325
J. J. Abhrams is so short and jewish looking it's almost comical

it really makes sense of things though

[Anonymous No.8855582]

>>8855543
if you're serious, you do understand that the "alt-right" is probably the least punk thing you could subscribe to right?

it only feels rebellious because for seemingly the longest time conservatives and right wingers have been the more uptight ones, the ones trying to maintain order. now it seems liberals are more concerned with this over-policing of behavior.

the alt-right isn't disruptive. it's retarded, and it garners most of its support from men that are self-conscious about their masculinity, capitalists that are too stupid to realize capitalism is not sustainable, and racists that have this dramatic and romanticized ideal of the glory of whiteness (while consequently not amounting to anything in their personal lives and not contributing in any way to their culture)

there is nothing disruptive about belonging to a general inclination of thought which is totally reactive while still being dominated by the existing power structure

[Anonymous No.8855585]

>>8855325
The Civil Rights Movement

[Anonymous No.8855587]

>>8855578
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.8855588]

>>8855581
Oy vey, he's white not Jewish you anti-Semite!

[Anonymous No.8855590]

>>8855573
I knew you would mention "but muh great Depression"

By the early 1900s, NYC became the financial capital of the world, and before that, in the previous 100 years, the USA went from minor power to global super power.


Already before the Great Depression, the USA was the world's dominate economic body.

[Anonymous No.8855593]

It's a natural result of liberalism and its consequent damage to a nation's demography. Why limit your market to specific cultural groups when you can make much more money selling mass consumable, all-inclusive slop that appeals to your growing minority population? Couple the need for profit with the threats from neopuritan progressives, cultural myths that emphasize egalitarianism and democracy over quality distinction, and the creative class' proposensity toward sanctimony and mental disorder, and you'll realize the end product was more or less inevitable

[Anonymous No.8855595]

>>8855590
>American education

[Anonymous No.8855597]

>>8855582
>getting memed by a fucking copypasta
>basic as fuck liberal opinions
woo boy it's a wild cuck

[Anonymous No.8855599]

Media/academia has always [outside of periods of censorship] tended to attract outsiders to some degree, people who hold viewpoints that directly correspond to the general public just don't go into those fields as much. idk maybe socialist realism is the answer to your problem

>>8855559
bait?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1882%E2%80%9385
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression_in_the_United_States

The only thing that got the system going again was the massive amount of forced planned investments in fixed-capital during war production during WWII, America has been practically a centrally planned warfare economy ever since

[Anonymous No.8855600]

>>8855560
i'm sure you're very proud of your personal responsibility to beat off 5 times a day

[Anonymous No.8855602]

>>8855600
>muh virgin argument
Sure feels like reddit in here

[Anonymous No.8855607]

>>8855325
But what's the problem with that? Liberalism is objectively correct.

[Anonymous No.8855609]

>>8855607
Listen here you little shit

[Anonymous No.8855611]

>>8855559
>>8855595
Uh...no. By WW1, the USA was already the world's economic powerhouse. The rewards of WW2 just accelerated it to new heights.

[Anonymous No.8855615]

>>8855597
if letting my black friend fuck you in the ass makes me a cuck, then i guess i'm a cuck.

desu i don't get on here much, and was generally curious about this alt-right mentality because i think it's the dumbest shit

also why can't the right produce any other joke beside the liberal tears joke? or really any joke that's funny at all?

[Anonymous No.8855617]

>>8855576
Actually read Stirner bro.

>>8855578
It's a particularly semitic thing to emphasize masculine and feminine. That imagery is important to the Bible. Prior to that dominating everything, many European languages didn't even use masculine or feminine much of anything. In old Germanic languages man meant person, man with a willy was a wereman (werewolf, see?) and a man with a vagina that could probs make babby was a wifman (like wife, and that became woman). Most declensions were also based around animate properties rather than gender.

I know /pol/ are all like *le meme jew* or whatever, but this is very much a case of you just accepting the sex/gender Jew.

[Anonymous No.8855622]

>>8855615

[Anonymous No.8855623]

>>8855611
>>8855599
America's economic growth in a graph.

[Anonymous No.8855626]

>>8855602
hahaha. i didn't even imply a virgin joke, but thank you for broadcasting you're virginity for everyone on here. how much you selling it for?

[Anonymous No.8855627]

>>8855559
>boomed from 1880
You were nearly bankrupt from the end of the 18th C, still through the civil war, and even just prior to WWI you were the world's biggest debtor.

[Anonymous No.8855628]

>>8855617
>Actually read Stirner bro.
You are either severely retarded or haven't read Stirner. Again, go back to /r/communism.

[Anonymous No.8855631]

>>8855626
XD ebin joke my friend

upboated

[Anonymous No.8855632]

>>8855622
nice dude. that's a funny ass picture man, only a true 4chan veteran soldier would have at the ready XD

[Anonymous No.8855635]

>>8855617
>It's a particularly semitic thing to emphasize masculine and feminine. That imagery is important to the Bible. Prior to that dominating everything, many European languages didn't even use masculine or feminine much of anything. In old Germanic languages man meant person, man with a willy was a wereman (werewolf, see?) and a man with a vagina that could probs make babby was a wifman (like wife, and that became woman). Most declensions were also based around animate properties rather than gender.
>I know /pol/ are all like *le meme jew* or whatever, but this is very much a case of you just accepting the sex/gender Jew.
You can't make this shit up

[Anonymous No.8855636]

>>8855627
The growth was so quick and so large and the resources so plentiful that, despite blimps and depression, the wealth still grew.

The USA was built for making money.

>Adam Smith predicted in The Wealth of Nations (1776) that if given representation in Parliament, in a century the Thirteen Colonies would become the center of the British Empire.


There's a graph right above your post.

[Anonymous No.8855638]

>>8855628
Wait, are you saying "you don't know Stirner, therefore go to this left wing place"?

You know Stirner was left af right?

[Anonymous No.8855640]

>>8855631
man, you must be the same person that posted the reddit pic. is that you all have? referencing other internet boards only you would have an understanding of, as an active member of online communities?

[Anonymous No.8855643]

>>8855638
Holy shit you are actually retarded

[Anonymous No.8855645]

>>8855325
Talking about the media and movies and partisan politics is not literature. Please kindly fuck right off.

[Anonymous No.8855651]

>>8855640
Well, you're obviously a redditor. Why not go back?

[Anonymous No.8855653]

>>8855491
>>8855357
Then why is leftism associated with socialism/communism so much? How do you explain Bernie Sanders?

[Anonymous No.8855657]

>>8855636
>Adam Smith predicted in The Wealth of Nations (1776) that if given representation in Parliament, in a century the Thirteen Colonies would become the center of the British Empire.
That's about the move from tropical to temperate farming being profitable. Canada and the US were considered shitty junk land for a long time, the real prizes were thought to be where they grew sugar cane, tobacco and so on, so the West Indes, Caribbean, S America etc.

You can compare it to the decline of spice crops. This is also why so many 18th C novels like Robinson Crusoe go on about finding your fortune through plantations.

[Anonymous No.8855661]

>>8855643
gb2 /pol/ and stop trying to steal our spicy leftwing memes. You don't understand them, you're too retarded.

[Anonymous No.8855664]

>>8855611
Britain was still the main global economic hegemon at that point

>>8855623
GDP accounting didn't even exist before WWII, so be careful with those numbers bro
Also the largest growth rates ever achieved have been during soviet industrialization and in modern China, dwarfing the highest growth rates America ever achieved in the gilded age

[Anonymous No.8855665]

>>8855661
Is this the /leftypol/ brigade or the /r/communism invasion or just high-level b8? I honestly can't tell.

[Anonymous No.8855668]

>>8855665
>is Stirner being left wing high level bait
Oh my god you're killing me anon!

[Anonymous No.8855669]

>>8855325
Artists, actors, writers, musicians--creative people of any kind, really, are more likely to be liberals. The amount of great art made by people on the far right, or even center right of the political spectrum is extremely small.

[Anonymous No.8855673]

>>8855657
You're jumping through all these hoops and making excuse.

Facts are facts: By the early 1900s, the USA was the world's economic powerhouse -- and that's mostly in thanks to the growth of many businesses using the USA's rich resources.

Deal with it.

>Canada and the US were considered shitty junk land for a long time

This has never been true, by the way, no matter what Tumblr blog you read your history from.

[Anonymous No.8855675]

>>8855668
I honestly don't know what to say.

[Anonymous No.8855678]

>>8855668
Have you read him? Because he not only was left, but openly said so. Different anon though.

[Anonymous No.8855680]

>>8855559
2/10

You're not this retarded anon. You couldn't be this stupid.

[Anonymous No.8855683]

>>8855678
whoo boy

Stirner literally never said he was left-wing

[Anonymous No.8855689]

>>8855680
Do you just think the USA magically became the world's leading economic powerhouse?

I'm actually genuine curios as to what you think happened

[Anonymous No.8855695]

>>8855673
No, the facts are that the US was the world's largest debtor in the 1900s. What they had going for them was being an agricultural superpower: they had been exporting cheap grain for a long time, but you find that either in the case of cotton (which bounced back very quickly after the civil war) they end up in a kind of mercantilist type relationship to British cloth makers, or in food the response is often limited because of transport (late 19th C it begins to change with refrigerated train carriages) and because many countries respond with tariffs (like the iron and rye tariff of Bismarck).

>This has never been true, by the way, no matter what Tumblr blog you read your history from.
Pre 18th C it's true bro, this is basic economic history. Lewis even got the Nobel writing about shit to do with this. It may even turn back again in the future, tropical crops may become more valuable than food.

[Anonymous No.8855697]

>>8855673
Also by the early 1900s most businesses in America had already been transformed into limited liability corporations, a legal form of business Adam Smith heavily criticized in the Wealth of Nations.
Also right around the corner was the creation of the Federal Reserve and the permanent warfare economy which had to be created to actually save the economy.

[Anonymous No.8855699]

>>8855689
WWI happened.

[Anonymous No.8855703]

>>8855680
>>8855683
by his time, left = anti-capitalist = Stirner

[Anonymous No.8855705]

>>8855695

>The United States has been the world's largest national economy in terms of GDP since at least the 1920s.[45]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#19th_century


>>8855697
Cool, cool, man. Still the wealthiest. Thanks, Henry Ford and Carnegie.


>>8855699
Look at 1913. Largest in the world.

[Anonymous No.8855707]

>>8855703
Just let him realize his alt-right hero is in fact a left wing milk drinker.

[Anonymous No.8855711]

>>8855590
>the world's dominate economic body.
>American Education

[Anonymous No.8855716]

>>8855705
>1920s
>19th Century
>before WWI
Not bothered trying to work through this shit.

[Anonymous No.8855719]

if anyone in this thread wants a real answer, pic related is my best attempt at providing it.

I'm "right wing" by any metric, but a lot of "lefties" have come up with extremely poignant social criticism. I'll be the first to admit that I owe an intellectual debt to Marx, Gramsci, and Debord.

[Anonymous No.8855724]

>>8855716
>>8855711

History of the world's economies, right here. >>8855623

[Anonymous No.8855727]

>>8855657

>Canada and the US were considered shitty junk land for a long time, the real prizes were thought to be where they grew sugar cane, tobacco and so on, so the West Indes, Caribbean, S America etc.

Holy shit you're stupid. The whole point of the southern colonies was to grow cash crops. You can grow tobacco in Virginia, you can grow rice in the Carolinas, you can can grow cotton in Mississippi. That's why they imported so many black africans to the south, to use as field laborers. A negro buck in good working condition cost about $1,000, that would be five years wages in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century. Think of how profitable your farm would have to be to afford that kind of "human capital." And it wasn't just the south, men from New England made an absolute fortune in whaling, manufacturing, and banking.

This is why you shouldn't try to learn history by reading novels.

[Anonymous No.8855728]

>>8855724
It's an unsourced table with no context.

[Anonymous No.8855729]

>>8855728
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)

[Anonymous No.8855730]

Why is this sort of shit always guaranteed yous? I basically never participate in identity politics or their refutation because I view them as a waste of time, precisely because I believe in the fundamental equality of people. Why is it, that even here on 4chan, people feel the need to belong to a group in what is essentially a meaningless normie debate for meaningless normies?

[Anonymous No.8855734]

>>8855653
It really comes down to just a misunderstanding somewhat in American politics, what you think of as left most others think of as liberal. There is more to it ofcoutrse

[Anonymous No.8855737]

>>8855727
>late eighteenth or early nineteenth century.
I don't think you're grasping the time periods we're talking about. Very clearly talking about earlier. If you don't know what's being talked about that's fine, but don't use it as an excuse to be retarded.

[Anonymous No.8855741]

>>8855669
Except for the fact that the window of what is acceptable and unacceptable speech keeps shifting -- somehow -- mysteriously -- (Must be the dialectic of history! Only possible explanation!) -- to the left. Thus many artists who were liberal in their days would still be beyond the pale today.

This is not to mention all the forgotten midlist books of yesteryear, which I imagine skewed conservative (relatively speaking) to a large degree. The novel Mr. Blue by Myles Connolly comes to mind. It's a terrible book, I didn't finish it, and I'm not defending it on aesthetic grounds, but I think it's illustrative of my point that awful Catholic novels could once make it through the press whereas now we only get awful Unitarian/Buddhist/"spiritual" novels. These are not coincidences, anons.

Also case in point: the Flashman novels, and I'm blanking on the title of the series (I have not read these books) but there was one writer who Mencius Moldbug once held up as exemplary of the old WASP order in America. AGAIN: I am not defending these books (or Moldbug), I am merely pointing out that our terrible literature now is (somehow, mysteriously) different from the terrible literature of times past.

[Anonymous No.8855745]

>>8855657
>The rapid expansion of industrialization led to real wage growth of 60% between 1860 and 1890, spread across the ever-increasing labor force. The average annual wage per industrial worker (including men, women and children) rose from $380 in 1880 to $564 in 1890, a gain of 48%

[Anonymous No.8855746]

>>8855664

>Also the largest growth rates ever achieved have been during soviet industrialization and in modern China, dwarfing the highest growth rates America ever achieved in the gilded age

That's because they were starting almost from scratch. Russia and China have never had as high a standard of living as the US, and I shouldn't have to remind you of the immense human cost of Stalinization.

Plus, Russia's economic growth was largely due to cheap oil and immense gold reserves in Kolyma. The gold that was mined by millions of slaves.

[Anonymous No.8855750]

>>8855669
This shows a misunderstanding of the right-wing. 'Right' politics often comes from some faith in a religion, tradition, or a reaction against some revolutionary event. "Fascism" is said to be the 'aestheticization of politics' which shows a view of both art and politics differing from the 'leftist' view. In this day and age writing in general is quite an anachronistic act, giving it the 'reactionary' character. Religious, classical, and folk music styles all have 'traditional' and reactionary elements. Quite a large amount of artists are in some form right-wing; perhaps they're not as 'loud and proud' about it as the lefties.

[Anonymous No.8855753]

>>8855745
Who's this?

[Anonymous No.8855756]

>>8855363
>many of whom who seriously want higher education in humanities done away with
This is the opposite of anti-intellectual.

>Conservatives are largely opposed to facts, research
Says the guy who thinks gender is a social construct and race doesn't exist

>Republican lawmakers work their asses off to oppose anything that isn't white, Xtian, middle-class, hetero, etc.
That is our culture. If you don't like it consider moving to India.

[Anonymous No.8855766]

>>8855653
You're making a mistake by equating liberalism with leftist politics. Most major political parties in the the West are based on liberal ideology, regardless of whether they lean right or left. Liberalism is just a conception of politics that places emphasis on individuals and individual freedoms. Typically, people view social freedoms as being primarily leftist, while an emphasis on economic freedom with a desire for social homogeneity is regarded as right wing. Either way, they both stem from the same enlightenment political theories.

[Anonymous No.8855773]

>>8855750
>Quite a large amount of artists are in some form right-wing; perhaps they're not as 'loud and proud' about it as the lefties.

Yes -- this underscores my point above (>>8855741) especially when considered in a historical context. There was no need to be out and proud as a conservative when all that conservatism meant was you had a society that made sense and were happy to exist in it. This is why the founders never included provisions to exclude Muslims (to cite one obvious example) from citizenship, not because they were dreaming of a multicultural utopia but because it would never occur to them, in a MILLION years, to import large numbers of them.

[Anonymous No.8855776]

>>8855773
>This is why the founders never included provisions to exclude Muslims (to cite one obvious example) from citizenship, not because they were dreaming of a multicultural utopia but because it would never occur to them, in a MILLION years, to import large numbers of them.


So true

also, a reason it may seem as many more leftist in art, is because, to the leftist, anything can be considered art. A conservative might not find himself as worthy as da Vinci or another great artist

[Anonymous No.8855778]

>>8855737

>Very clearly talking about earlier

You never even mentioned a time period other than "the eighteenth century." I mean you're the one who cited Robinson Crusoe as a historical document, so I don't know why you're complaining about my lack of rigor in this internet argument.

[Anonymous No.8855786]

>>8855778
I mentioned it in passing because it's a novel (and we are on /lit/) which is primarily about going to colonies in the tropics to find your fortune in the early 18th C. The key date above is 1776 btw.

[Anonymous No.8855802]

>>8855776
>to the leftist, anything can be considered art.

[Anonymous No.8855822]

>>8855786

Okay you're very clearly retarded. First of all, the US wasn't founded in 1776, it was actually founded in 1783 after the Treaty of Paris. Second of all, I mentioned "the late eighteenth century" in my first post that you took issue with. 1776 is in the fucking late eighteenth century.

Are you using the Islamic calendar or something?

[Anonymous No.8855823]

>>8855730
>voice of reason
>totally ignored
I don't know what I was expecting.

[Anonymous No.8855827]

>>8855822
I'm talking about the temperate lands in the Americas vs the tropical lands in the Americas as far as farming is concerned, the original point is about the British Colonies in America...

[Anonymous No.8855843]

>>8855823
>I believe in the fundamental equality of people
>voice of reason
This is unreasonable, anon. Attempts to make all men and women equal entails discrimination and tyranny; equality does not exist in nature and must be constructed somehow. The concept of equality is paradoxical.

[Anonymous No.8855868]

>>8855827

I think you were trying to say that Caribbean colonies were more desirable than what is now the US, right?

Well they were, but by the late eighteenth century the balance was already tipping. Everyone loved to smoke, and tobacco was grown in Virginia, in the South. Everyone loved cotton clothing, because it was washable and comfortable, and that was grown in the south as well. The South is actually very lush, and the land there can sustain all number of cash crops.

I'm not even mad anymore I just want to understand.

[Anonymous No.8855873]

>>8855325

Communist here and I don't give a fuck about any sort of shitty capitalist entertainment. Star Wars is garbage too.

Kill yourselves, you fucking nerds.

[Anonymous No.8855879]

>>8855843
Fundamentally equal. That doesn't mean there won't be winners and losers, people are equal, the world isn't. I think this is what the left abhors, the idea that we aren't all millionaires, that someone has to clean the toilets or whatever.

[Anonymous No.8855885]

>>8855879

Define "fundamentally equal"

[Anonymous No.8855914]

>>8855885
Given comparable conditions they'd yield comparable results.

[Anonymous No.8855929]

>>8855868
>Well they were, but by the late eighteenth century the balance was already tipping. Everyone loved to smoke, and tobacco was grown in Virginia, in the South. Everyone loved cotton clothing, because it was washable and comfortable, and that was grown in the south as well. The South is actually very lush, and the land there can sustain all number of cash crops.
This is true, what I'm saying is that's probably what Adam Smith was talking about when he says the colonies would become really important economically.

[Anonymous No.8855945]

>>8855407
she does look good in a pair of jimmy choos doesn't she

[Anonymous No.8855964]

>>8855945
>>8855407
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Ru_NWOzcw
Skip ahead to 26:32

[Anonymous No.8856001]

>it's another "/lit/ insists that SJWs are somehow not leftists thread"
>"lol no dude, SJWs aren't real leftists; real leftists actually read Deleuze and Marx and stuff lol"
>"SJWs are actually capitalists, I swear dude"
>"everyone I don't like is actually a capitalist, lol"

[Anonymous No.8856091]

>>8856001
Are you trying to deny that that sjw types aren't a logical byproduct of being part of a deeply capitalist society where individuality is praised to high heaven?

[Anonymous No.8856095]

>>8855914
>Given comparable conditions they'd yield comparable results.
Are you suggesting that genetics play no part in the results yielded? Or is genetics part of the conditions?

[Anonymous No.8856131]

>>8856091
It's difficult to understand how one can get from individualism to social justice - a very lefty idea.

The "individualism" you refer to comes from postmodernist thinking (namely, Derrida) that thinks categories are nothing but tools of oppression.

[Anonymous No.8856137]

>>8856095
They are part of the conditions of course, and not unlike the environmental conditions, their success is exponential. Favorable conditions yield further favorable conditions. Which is why early disparity in either condition is so pronounced.

[Anonymous No.8856145]

>>8855581
kek

[Anonymous No.8856149]

>>8856091
The root of SJW behaviour comes from Marxist indoctrination that destroys traditional culture/customs, and with it one's core identity, spirituality, and sense of belonging; individuality as a concept has essentially been hijacked in order to create blank slates open to reprogramming. The net result is a nihilistic lost soul with a desperate need to belong and be a part of something greater than himself. This is why there are so many parallels between the SJW and the religious zealot.

[Anonymous No.8856153]

>>8856131
>It's difficult to understand how one can get from individualism to social justice - a very lefty idea.

? social contract theory leads to (classical) liberalism, which is centred on capitalism, that is free exchange between equal and agreeing parties. social justice acknowledges that some people aren't in equal position to others so are at a disadvantage in a social contract and seek to remedy this as to make agreements between parties equal, so they can participate in the market

and somehow the hell experiment of the united states has turned this into idpol

leftists however see capitalism as (part of) the oppressive structure and want it abolished. liberals just want black people in harry potter

[Anonymous No.8856164]

>>8856001

It's a good sign they're embarrassed to be associated with sjws, it means they're not beyond help yet.

[Anonymous No.8856168]

>>8856149
blank slates is an essential idea to classical liberalism, and did marx really want to destroy a sense of belonging when he asked all workers of the world to unite?

this is one of those comments where you don't really know where to begin

[Anonymous No.8856172]

>>8856001
it's pretty much all leftists have said since trump was elected. it's almost become a caricature just how much leftists are trying not to associate with liberalism

but now is the time i guess

[Anonymous No.8856177]

>>8856153
Even given that being true, it still doesn't follow that these SJWs are not some species of leftist. Any ideology that has such an emphasis on equality of outcome is leftist.

[Anonymous No.8856181]

>>8856168
>blank slates is an essential idea to classical liberalism
How so? I'm not too well-read in this area but I don't believe rejection of religion is an integral part of classical liberalism.

>did marx really want to destroy a sense of belonging when he asked all workers of the world to unite?
We're not talking about Marxist economics. We're talking about cultural Marxism; the Frankfurt School.

[Anonymous No.8856182]

>>8856149

>1960s full of left wing radicalism
>1970s full of cults, New Age mumbo jumbo, self help crazes, yoga

Really makes you think.

[Anonymous No.8856200]

>>8856177
well yeah historically they are to the left but since liberals are still capitalists or capitalist reformers they're not really -that- left, compared to how far left it goes i.e. marxists. it's a distinction made to clarify rather than obfuscate because it is usually made in a context about leftism rather than leftism vs the historical right

[Anonymous No.8856210]

>>8856181
Rousseau -- The Social Contract, I believe was where the idea of the blank slate had come from, at least for political science

[Anonymous No.8856215]

>>8856210
>>8856210
>Rousseau

He was an idiot who believed human beings were fundamentally good and corrupted by society/groups. But if that were true, why/how do groups corrupt? It's a chicken and egg situation for evil. I don't think I'd call fundamental goodness a Tabula rasa.

[Anonymous No.8856216]

>>8856200
Well, that's that.

[Anonymous No.8856235]

>>8855491
You're making a few jumps in logic here - maximizing individualism isn't perfectly aligned with maximizing consumerism. The vested liberal interest in maximizing societal welfare often protects individuals against corporations (as in the case of negative externalities, like pollution), or even individuals against other individuals, as in the case of protecting the proletariat from the owners of capital.

The only reason why business magnates are often liberal is because they are educated, and educated individuals are primarily liberal - when economists are modeling these relationships, they often implement education as an instrumental variable in their regressions to much success, which would imply that the causal relationship of wealthy leftists in education and liberalism, not wealth and liberalism.

I mean, this argument is all pretty flawed to begin with, given that the conservative/liberal binary is a myth, especially when appropriated to the authoritative vs. non authoritative issues, such as the ownership of private property.

[Anonymous No.8856238]

>>8856181
>How so?
as far as i know it's an idea of john locke. a person is born as a blank slate which is developed through sense perception. a good upbringing = a good person. a society of people self-determined and rewarded by their merit (in contrast to social hierarchy based on birth) is the base belief of liberalism and by extension capitalism

>I don't believe rejection of religion is an integral part of classical liberalism

it isn't really and many enlightenment thinkers (probably most) were religious or at least deist, but it can be seen how atheism may develop from ideas based on sense perception i.e. empiricism. marxism though is capitalism taken to so much an extreme it 'develops' (by revolution) into communism. but still there is a kind of spiritual element to it in the concept of alienation

this is kind of meme history so probably not entirely accurate but 'basically true' so make of it what you wish

>the Frankfurt School.

they were concerned with power relations/communication and, since marxism is developed from liberalism in a basic sense, how these should be studied in order to achieve a true rational and equal society. it isn't nihilism, maybe godlessness, but overall its a trust in humanity

[Anonymous No.8856244]

I don't buy into identity shit anymore, hearing about comic book characters turning black and women and shit just drained me of all that shit
I don't mind more diverse characters when they're good characters but they just get shoehorned in for headlines and shit
Like, Thor being a woman; yeah Time magazine might make an article about it and some teenaged girls who love the MCU might share a post about it, but they dont actually buy the product
See the second paragraph of this image, these corporations and groups dont give a FUCK about representing people, they just see an capitalized market that's becoming vocal/profitable
It's empty

[Anonymous No.8856256]

>>8856215
>Cara in Hoth parka costume

[Anonymous No.8856277]

>>8856172
No, people in the US have been saying this since Bernie, you've only just noticed since Trump was elected. It is recent but you haven't been paying attention that long either.

Also not applicable outside of the US

[Anonymous No.8856281]

>>8856277
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.8856290]

>>8856244
Consider that identity politics in this sense is a direct descendant of mass production and demographics. If you want to produce a bunch of shit under some unifying label to market it you also need groups of people to come under that unifying label.

[Anonymous No.8856293]

>>8856281
That's right, it's an explanation. Try and remember that long word there: explanation.

[Anonymous No.8856295]

>>8856293
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.8856330]

>>8855363
Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines the other day after considering why this conservative guest on a radio show was lambasting the common core curriculum for high schools in the U. S. He didn't even give decent reasons. For example, he said that trying to teach kids how to solve systems of linear equation using matrices was "sadistic". It's not even that hard as math goes and knowing the basics of matrix arithmetic can be helpful in many STEM fields. So it seems that the anti-intellectual elements of the conservatives aren't even self-consistent.

Ironically, I think the conservative intellectuals out there have a lot of interesting things to say, but their don't seem to be very visible compared to Sean Hannity and the rest.