/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9330989]

Why is socialism so beloved among intellectual groups? and don't be that faggot that says "cuz its best :^]"

I consider myself a libertarian because I hate everything about the state and I like capitalism. But in every literary circle I'm the only one who's not a commie, so I figured that there must be something very attractive about communism. I read Marx, Engels, Mises, and discussed with all communists I know about it. Still, most of my points were never refuted and I still don't understand the appeal of communism. Since I just can't accept the marxist/leninist/maoist ideology, I decided to focus my attention on literature and keep my opinions to myself to avoid confrontation. I just want to read and write poetry and novels.

So, how did you become a commie?

[Anonymous No.9331007]

>>9330989
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPJWwiKnYGs
Hayek talked about it

[Anonymous No.9331105]

>>9330989
Tell us why you can't accept it.

[Anonymous No.9331132]

I noticed this, too. I'm not sure what the position of artists is in a communist society, but I suppose they'd be living comfortably from their work (on the backs of actual proletariat) as opposed to a capitalist society where no one would want to read their shitty poetry.

[Anonymous No.9331136]

born a prole. marx critique of capital could be anecdotally verified out my window, in my family, and myself personally. didn't agree with lenin, trotz, stalin, or mao. found luxemburgism and then fell into council communism. that's my journey OP.

[the ghost of FKA green !YOUlQWt3s6 No.9331149]

>>9330989
cuz its best :^]

[Anonymous No.9331157]

>>9330989
muh utopia who cares if millions have to die for it to come true

[Anonymous No.9331183]

>>9330989
Marxist economic theory has a lot of words, but not much math. Neoclassical economics is very mathematical. Naturally, literary types are not smart enough for it, so they gravitate towards Marxism. Similarly, brainlets on /pol/ gravitate towards Austrian economics, another heterodox field with lots of words and no math.

[Anonymous No.9331189]

Not sure I would wholeheartedly classify myself as a communist, though I don't believe there is any justification for class.

Part of the reason is that Communists have been the most prolific writers. By definition, radicals will produce the most literature because they aim to change what exists rather than conserve it. Conservatives need only to write in response to them. In a perfectly conservative society there would be no need for conservative writers.

Another reason is that Capitalism has some pretty fundamental contradictions and academics, being academics, are all too happy to point these out.

You can pin a lot of this at the door of Hegel, who, while a conservative himself, popularised an obfuscating style of philosophy which the Left took up. There were branches of Right-wing Hegelians, but less so.

Also, right-wing libertarianism is a pretty shaky concept philosophically. I won't go into detail here. I'll just say a lot of the concepts you base your politics around are "spooks".

>>9331132
I believe under the traditional conception of communism there would be no "artists" per se. There would be workers who happen to produce art.

[Anonymous No.9331205]

>>9330989
Idle boredom, intellectual impotence and misplaced empathy and detachment from the group they strive to represent, resulting in an distorted and idealised view of the supposedly oppressed.
A large group of people who you call "intellectuals" are, ironically enough, intellectually sterile with their convictions based on faith and emotions rather than logic and reason.

[Anonymous No.9331215]

>>9331189
Is spookiness not also a spook?

[Anonymous No.9331233]

>>9331183
T H I S T B H

[Anonymous No.9331351]

>>9331183
>muh math
I want technocrats to live this board

[Anonymous No.9331429]

>>9330989
Lefty here. I'll try to address some of the things you said.

>I decided to focus my attention on literature and keep my opinions to myself
I respect this and do this too. I enjoy reading marxist/feminist/etc theory, but at the end of the day, my interest in that stuff comes more from a philosophy standpoint than a "political activism" standpoint. It's amusing to me that many intellectuals are self-proclaimed political activists yet feel that literary criticism is the best way to put their theoretical ideas into action towards some form of tangible political progress.

>I consider myself a libertarian
I kind of feel like being libertarian is the "have your cake and eat it too" of political ideologies. Like, you "support" social reform (eg abortion) without wanting to put your money where your mouth is and pay your share to make it accessible to all women. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

>Why is socialism so beloved among intellectual groups?
This I feel is a very simple one. Under capitalism, art, literature, philosophy, etc. are only valuable insofar as they are "useful" to capitalists (in other words, the extent to which it can be commodified). In my opinion, being a capitalist is absurd for anyone who genuinely cares about the humanities.

>>9331183
>Neoclassical economics is very mathematical. Naturally, literary types are not smart enough for it, so they gravitate towards Marxism.
Just wanted to chime in and say that I think Marxism is cool and I have a degree in economics. Your "argument" here essentially boils down to calling anyone who disagrees with you dumb. The continued relevance of Marxist theory is more in the capacity of a socio-political theory than an economic one anyway. Marxism tends to attack the foundational assumptions and ideological biases that provide the groundwork for the mathematical models of neoclassical economics. In many ways, they talk past each other, though.

[Anonymous No.9331460]

>>9331132
that's not how gommunism would work, technically speaking it's impossible to imagine what or how a communist society would function as it's a completely different, and alien society than ours; that's where materialism falls short as a philosophy.

I couldn't justify the immense amount of waste and cancer capitalism has produced, the amount of political and social repression it has brought(and still is) to the world. I hate the state too since I think it has a monopoly on violence and power, but capitalism is just another unjustified hierarchy. There's no way of justifying why person A makes more than person B, if they work the same, or if person B works harder, unless there's some force to repress others.

[Anonymous No.9331476]

>>9331183
and tell me how these mathematical models have fared in producing and yielding accurate results. The whole point of Marx's critique on Capitalism is that you can't fix it, or reform it, it's inherently unsustainable, and gravitates towards revolution (although you can argue this position).

[Anonymous No.9331484]

Under a true communist revolution in america Tyrone and Billy bob would come together to overthrow the anglo and jew elite then burn down the universities while the hipster intellectuals are still inside.
The far left despises the rural and lower class, especially the white lower class.
They practice lifestyle communism, a bunch of trust fund kids jerking each other off about the revolution while going to antifa punk rock shows and never accomplishing anything of substance.
The rare times we have after the fall of the berlin wall where you could actually practice and fight for leftism, like say going to syria and fighting alongside the kurds in Rojava are ignored so they can continue to post snarky and ironic hot takes on twitter.


They do all of this while tyrones urban areas decays and billy bob has his job outsourced and is addicted to Opioids

[Anonymous No.9331490]

>>9331183
Read Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. He explains why 'mathematical cognition' is a shallow approach to understanding life in the preface.

[Anonymous No.9331495]

>>9331484
I'm with you

[Anonymous No.9331501]

>>9331460
>There's no way of justifying why person A makes more than person B, if they work the same, or if person B works harder, unless there's some force to repress others.
Additional skills that require the investment of time and possibly money to earn. A greater degree of responsibility ffrom the corporation and therefore greater stress and need of greater managerial/planning skill. I could go on, you should go and get a job. Free time nowadays is a mark of the poor, rich people tend to be busy nearly all the goddamn time.

[Anonymous No.9331513]

>>9331429
>It's amusing to me that many intellectuals are self-proclaimed political activists yet feel that literary criticism is the best way to put their theoretical ideas into action towards some form of tangible political progress.

Don't you think it's important to interpret multiple aspects of culture in order to better articulate a political alternative?

[Anonymous No.9331514]

>>9331183

This is almost right. The wrong point on your argument is implying that economics science is just too difficult for literaty types. That's just wrong and a meme that need to dies

>>9330989

Well, the counter-culture for a long time was based on Marxist thinking. It logically produced a lot of content in a bunch of sciences, so is only natural that someone feels accostumed and comfortable dealing with Marxist ideas. That, nonetheless, don't at all implies that "dumb" intellectual groups are the ones who deal with marxist thinking. It's just a part of it.

[Anonymous No.9331526]

>>9330989
Because Marx was a lazy fraud who stole everything from Engels who was a lazy fraud and both men never worked a day in their lives, yet their writings appeal to equally lazy people who feel like they're owed something by the state and that it's their right to take it. This appeals to the common man and makes him willing to ignore what an utter fialure Marxism is in practice in order to achieve an unachievable worker's utopia. Marx and Engels are the two biggest con artists of the last 200 years.

[Anonymous No.9331534]

>>9331484
I won't deny this, we're pathetic right now, but I think people are waking up to idpol.
>>9331501
>Additional skills that require the investment of time and possibly money to earn.
and why is it justified that only certain people should be allowed to enter these avenues, and that it isn't open to everyone?
>A greater degree of responsibility ffrom the corporation and therefore greater stress and need of greater managerial/planning skill.
You're acting as though being a prole under the supervision of a journeymen or supervisor isn't stressful.
>greater managerial skill
I'd wager not, what makes you think proles couldn't/can't figure out how to handle their administration by themselves?
>Free time nowadays is a mark of the poor, rich people tend to be busy nearly all the goddamn time.
>more spooks
amazing.

[Anonymous No.9331554]

>>9331476
Macro is shit, but there's plenty of good work done in the framework of neoclassical economics. Meanwhile, Marxists have predicted that a collapse of capitalism is just around the corner for around 150 years now. The labor theory of value is the main difference between Marxist economics and neoclassical economics, and the labor theory of value is widely regarded as being false.

[Anonymous No.9331558]

>>9330989
Capitalism is pretty shit, and there aren't many alternatives.

[Anonymous No.9331563]

>>9330989
libertarian is even more delusional than a commie desu.

[Anonymous No.9331578]

>>9331563
>poo poo pee pee
>get your hands off my property
>poo poo pee pee
>NAP NAP NAP NAP!

[Anonymous No.9331583]

>>9331534
>and why is it justified that only certain people should be allowed to enter these avenues, and that it isn't open to everyone?
It might be open to everyone, but not everyone might be willing to take it up for whatever reason. And that's their choice. Having previous experience and training in an area makes you more credible as an operator in it - though I think that one of the reasons that the Silicon Valley is still going strong is because of the few barriers to entry, you just need to know how to code instead of having a diploma, as they don't have the guilds that plague the medical sector, for example.

>You're acting as though being a prole under the supervision of a journeymen or supervisor isn't stressful.
Stressful, maybe, but you have no responsibility beyond following your orders well, so you can always shift the blame to your superior. When the success of a certain enterprise rests largely on your shoulders, the possibility of failure is far more devastating.

>I'd wager not, what makes you think proles couldn't/can't figure out how to handle their administration by themselves?
All democracies tend to be captured by party politicking simply because it's the most efficient method of organizing popular support, from Rome to today, and party politics always presupposes more or less occult interests that will not steer the whole to a beneficial direction. Though I think that cooperatives are very much possible.

>>more spooks
It's true.
w_ww.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2007/03/the_theory_of_the_leisure_class.html

[Anonymous No.9331593]

>>9330989
capitalism is shit tier social organization and belongs in the trash along with the idea of the State

/lit/ fags are commies because its aesthetically appealing to them and is virulently anti-theist which they are too.

[Anonymous No.9331597]

>>9331183
lol@u

[Anonymous No.9331603]

>>9331513
Of course I think it's valuable discourse. At the same time, it can only be performed and understood by the intellectually elite/ privileged. All I'm saying is it's not exactly the most effective form of praxis for someone who claims to be a political "activist" (as many intellectual leftists do). I understand it's value as a piece of the puzzle, though.

"Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." -Lenin

>>9331484
Okay, I'll bite.

>The far left despises the rural and lower class, especially the white lower class.
This isn't true. A true Marxist is not classist. Unless you are saying that Marxist intellectuals secretly hate poor people? What exactly are you saying? Because saying "the far left despises the lower class" is literally nonsensical.

>They practice lifestyle communism, a bunch of trust fund kids jerking each other off about the revolution while going to antifa punk rock shows and never accomplishing anything of substance. The rare times we have where you could actually practice and fight for leftism are ignored so they can continue to post snarky and ironic hot takes on twitter.
I agree with this 100% and it's along the lines of what I was saying in my post (>>9331429). However, I think that this applies more to pseudo-leftists, moderate liberals, whatever you want to call them who have a pretense of wanting political change but don't really want it. In other words, this isn't really a critique of Marxism as a political ideology, but people you perceive as Marxist. Do you have any specific issues with the ideas presented by Marxist theory? (I assume you are "anti-marx" or "anti-sjw" or whatever from the frog. A true leftist cares about Billy Bob and Tyrone just as much as you do.)

[Anonymous No.9331605]

>>9331534
>only certain people should be allowed to enter these avenues
Everyone is allowed. There's a myriad of ways to educate yourself, certify your knowledge and build connections in first world. You being to dumb/lazy is not the system's fault.
>You're acting as though being a prole under the supervision of a journeymen or supervisor isn't stressful.
Learn to read. "A greater degree of responsibility".
>what makes you think proles couldn't/can't figure out how to handle their administration by themselves
My experience from long time professional involvement in management structures. Also overwhelming historical evidence.
>spooks
If you don't want to hear don't ask. Everything requires effort. Wealth isn't built by picking your nose for 40-50 hours a day.

[Anonymous No.9331611]

>>9331597
>Macro is shit
This isn't really a revelation.

[Anonymous No.9331620]

Nice pol shit thread
Mods asleep.

[Anonymous No.9331621]

>>9331593
>/lit/ fags are virulently anti-theist

[Anonymous No.9331634]

>>9330989
Because it sounds perfect on paper to self-described "intellectuals". I think part of it too is they're privileged and feel like they should help others not as privileged. Of course they never actually talk to these people, so they have no clue how communism will hurt those they try to help.

[Anonymous No.9331645]

>>9331205
This. Also, pic related.

[Anonymous No.9331660]

Because empathy is hard for people with deeply ingrained ideology.

[Anonymous No.9331664]

Who do you think will staff all those planning commissions? Cletus and Tyrone? It will be intellectuals who will be the high ranking bureaucrats of a communist country, intellectuals who will be the powerful members of the communist party, intellectuals who will be the commissars in the army and working places.

Communism is rule by the intelligentsia. Stalin was an intellectual. Mao was an intellectual, even Pol Pot studied at Paris with Sartre and Merleau-Ponty.

>The explosive component in the contemporary scene is not the clamor of the masses but the self-righteous claims of a multitude of graduates from schools and universities. This army of scribes is clamoring for a society in which planning, regulation, and supervision are paramount and the prerogative of the educated. They hanker for the scribe's golden age, for a return to something like the scribe-dominated societies of ancient Egypt, China, and Europe of the Middle Ages. There is little doubt that the present trend in the new and renovated countries toward social regimentation stems partly from the need to create adequate employment for a large number of scribes. And since the tempo of the production of the literate is continually increasing, the prospect is of ever-swelling bureaucracies.

Eric Hoffer, The Ordeal of Change

[Anonymous No.9331680]

>>9331664
Not really. Intellectuals who advocate for these sorts of governments are usually the first to go after the government is established. Look up "useful idiots".

[Anonymous No.9331687]

>>9330989
you're just encountering moralists most likely, I doubt you're actually meeting many people who have actually read or understood marx, most self proclaimed "socialists" today are just crude moralists, intellectuals are usually soft so they will drift towards some form of moralism to protect themselves from the jocks
also good luck having capitalism without creating a state like entity, capitalism creates vested interests and a state is just the resulting collusion of interests to safe-guard themselves, no real capitalists is going to be your friend against the institutions using force to protect them

>>9331554
>The labor theory of value is the main difference between Marxist economics and neoclassical economics, and the labor theory of value is widely regarded as being false.
walrisian equilibrium is a pure fiction and marginal utility is of limited use in really understanding things [you start getting sick if you eat to much cake but nobody gets sick of accumulating more and more money and that's what capitalism is really about], the labour theory by abstracting from the pure monetary aspects [rent extraction, temporary fluctuating supply/demand, etc, etc] and seeing things in a more pure technical fashion makes more sense explaining the direction of future development

[Anonymous No.9331702]

>>9331680
Actually, yes and no. Some intellectuals manage to cling to power while the middle classes get utterly shafted, but even they tend to get fucked over once a strongman gets in and monopolizes all power like Stalin and Mao (which ends with everyone getting fucking bent, with the exceptions of men like Tito). Once that's done, you usually see a reaction by surviving members of the party to ensure that no man monopolizes power like the strongman ever again, like China today.

[Anonymous No.9331708]

>>9330989

Because the other group lost a major war.

[Anonymous No.9331715]

>>9331680
Not all of them, just a few, most just find a comfy job in a bureaucracy somewhere.

Besides, the point is that they always think they will be the ones going after the others. It's not unlike businessmen who support the free-market even though they would be the first to have their business fucked up by monopolist competition if the government didn't regulate the economy, because they always believe they will be the monopolist instead.

Communist government, as rule by intellectuals, create a power conflict within the intelligentsia, where some intellectuals loses and loser their power and influence, and their lives, but other intellectuals win and become the ruling caste.

[Anonymous No.9331720]

>>9331429
>if you want something to be allowed you also have to pay to make it happen

[Anonymous No.9331726]

>>9331132

Except for everything that is not socialist realism. They deserve living a shitty life I suppose.

[Anonymous No.9331733]

>>9331554
the labor theory of value was never supposed to be taken objectively (contrary to popular belief), it was supposed to describe the specific society in which the laws of value perpetuated the capitalist mode of production.
>>9331583
>When the success of a certain enterprise rests largely on your shoulders, the possibility of failure is far more devastating.
Ideally this is how capitalism is conceived of by libertarians, but the reality of it is that these CEO's often get golden parachute paydays for if and when they fuck up, and receive tens of billions in austerity and corporate welfare. The 2008 crash taught us that it's really only "socialism" for the elite.
I fundamentally agree, but the point of the "socialist" system is to objectively destroy these institutions of value, Lenin and I suppose Marx's conception of Communism would come from the disintegration of the divisions between the faculties of mental and physical labor through the communization of industries. The proletariat would learn how to administrate and organize their own affairs relative to society, and would then cease to be proletariat as the class struggle had been resolved.
>It's true.
I was assuming you were trying to frame it in a moral context as though it's good to be busy with work. Yes, the bourgeois are going be the busier class of the two as they have to constantly out-compete their opponents, which Marx identified as being one of the causes of capitalism's crisis, the need to garner larger profits in order to sustain growth.

[Anonymous No.9331751]

>>9331605
>Everyone is allowed. There's a myriad of ways to educate yourself, certify your knowledge and build connections in first world. You being to dumb/lazy is not the system's fault.
Of course, how could I forget, if Tyrone born in the shithole of Detroit had just applied himself he would've gotten his MBA at a top school and landed a prestigious job in Wallstreet.
>le namedropping
form a coherent argument you retard
>My experience from long time professional involvement in management structures. Also overwhelming historical evidence.
it's almost like there's a certain way society reproduces itself that causes those differences to emerge as a result of how labor is organized. It's almost like under a different mode of production people would organize their labor differently. :^)
>If you don't want to hear don't ask. Everything requires effort. Wealth isn't built by picking your nose for 40-50 hours a day.
Yeah those boys working in China on a $1/day will pack in that wealth no time family.

[Anonymous No.9331754]

>>9331664
who staffs the planning commissions today? who's analysing and underwriting securities on wall street? cletus sure ain't. socialism is taking planning away from central agencies, centralism and bureaucracy are the hallmarks of everything wrong with [state-]capitalism
ffs america today is becoming more bureaucratic than even the ussr was

[Anonymous No.9331799]

>>9331754
Notice how as bureaucracy increases in the U.S., so does the popularity of socialism.

Intellectuals always want more. They will not rest until every single fact of humanity is under their complete and absolute control. Every single power, economical power, political power, cultural power, social power, they must all act according to the desires of the intelligentsia as a caste.

[Anonymous No.9331810]

>>9331490
>Read Hegel

[Anonymous No.9331822]

>>9331105
Because you can't predict the market effectively and even when you do, raising taxes even higher when you already are in a position of high taxes is why socialism inevitably turns into communism. If you haven't heard by now, communism never has worked and never will.

But to answer >>9330989
the reason why so many academics are socialists is because it is the compassionate political philosophy that aligns with the morals of collectivism(which is often what we think of when we hear "do a kind act"). Meaning that the struggle against nature should not be done by an individualistic mentality(which is the entire philosophy of the right, free-market and ect) because it inspires and promotes the view that "only the strong survive". Which they view as evil since it is supposedly an excuse for selfish.

At first glance, especially after seeing how easy life can be with all the innovations around, collectivism seems to be the obvious incentive to moral superiority. Hence why a lot of leftists, sjws, think very highly of themselves because their entire philosophy(marxist) is proclaiming that we should have a system that is so impossible that the only conceivable way is to have everyone super moral.

[Anonymous No.9331831]

>>9331799
bureaucracy is just the other side of markets, as society becomes more commercial bureaucracy is also going to grow as more problems emerge, more bureaucracy is always the corporate answer to problems

[Anonymous No.9331857]

>>9331799
>Notice how as bureaucracy increases in the U.S., so does the popularity of socialism.
The bureaucrats aren't socialists. A great deal of state intervention is needed in modern global capitalism - where are the successful lassez-faire states?

[Anonymous No.9331864]

>>9330989
I think socialism appeals to most creative types by appealing to their empathy.

The idea that we should share things, the idea that we shouldn't hoard and only use what we really need, these are pretty simple and friendly ideas.

I actually think a lot of the appeal of socialism comes down to Christianity promoting the idea of charity, "do unto others..", type stuff.

I don't think the appeal of Socialism is actually because of Marx or Engles or any of the theory, but a basic appeal to empathy, sharing, community, etc.

Also, capitalism is shit and there is immense suffering. It's understandable that people would look to alternatives. Of course, this is also why capitalism was so appealing to people living under the USSR regime.

[Anonymous No.9331866]

Communism: "*nerdy laugh "want to read my Marxist theory *pushes up glasses

Fascism: "talk shit get hit"

Libertarian: *teleports behind you, "want to see my sword collection and pet snake", my dad used to listen to rush limbaugh while he drove me to school and i discovered weed in college

Liberalism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

Neocons; אוי ואבוי