/lit/ - Literature

>>11002013
>Historical materialism
BTFO
>Progresivism
BTFO
>Modernity
BTFO
>Paine
BTFO
>ROusseau
BTFO
In just a paragraph
ONE
N
E

>>11002013
>>11002046
SO THIS IS THE POWER OF BRITISH """""""THINKERS""""""""

>>11002053
DAMAGE CONTROL

>>11002053
The British are a bit like the Romans in that their theoretical thinkers are bad but their practical thinkers are very good. Burke, an active politician, is at his best when he's talking about statecraft, and there he is genuinely pretty good.

>>11002013
>You can perform a sufficiently sucessful act without well-founded theoretical basis

>>11002112
>Missing the point this fucking much
He is just stating that arguing about giving free food or free medicine to everyone based on a random abstraction with no grounds in reality is stupid if it is not humanly possible to supply it. Giving people the right to be well fed is worthless if you don't have enough grain even if it has been written or a constitution

>>11002122
>It would have been possible to feed people without "empty theory" by Norman Borlaug or other agricultural scientists

Is this what conservatards consider profound philosophical thought?

>>11002218
>>11002218
Holy fuck my dear anon you are dense. He is not opposing technical progress and its theorists. He is criticizing dishonest and pointless metaphysical discussions with the intention of gaining a political high ground
>What is the use of discussing a man's abstract right to food
The equivalent of this in our age would be
>What is the use of discussing a man's abstract right to a minimum income if it is not financially viable
I hope you get it now

>>11002013
If you are to be a burkean conservative in the year of our Lord 2018, you will defend postwar gynocratic managerial liberalism and the NYT party line from frogposters and Russians. sorry but that's just how it is.

>>11002247
>You can feed people without giving a rationally founded reason as to why we should feed them
>You can neglect ideal political theory because of non-ideal state of affairs

The stereotype of conservatives being low IQ truly is the highest order truth.

>>11002112
> dude we can't grow food yet, we haven't defined our axioms

Blood & Soil
The State comes from Volk

>>11002259
>Dude, i just FEEL that we should create a social security net to feed the destitute
>I just FEEL that this is the proper way to handle pesticides

Just accept that left-wing political views are the right ones, anon. Don't try to resist.

>>11002259
btfo and screencapped

>starving is bad
is this abstract to you, dummy?

>>11002258
>>You can feed people without giving a rationally founded reason as to why we should feed them
Holy fuck anon this is the dumbest argument I have ever read. You don't need to give people the right to get fed for them to do it.
>>You can neglect ideal political theory because of non-ideal state of affairs
You can masturbate to your ideal political theory as much as you want as long as you don't try to impose your autism on everyone else and killing millions of people in the process

>>11002256
your catholic/reactionary/fascist/ hell even jeffersonian moderate republican solution is revolutionary ideological extremism by the standards of the current order. what if i told you the real jacobin is YOU. this is literally how you look like to the decent well meaning folks of the cosmopolitan managerial elites.

>>11002283
>Something is bad
>Therefor we should write it in a paper even if it does nothing as it is not physically possible to solve it
Should we also ban tornadoes in our constitution anon?

>>11002013
Reminder that starvation CANNOT occur in a capitalist society, outside of famines caused by external factors like plague and drought. Basic staple food is one of the cheapest products to make thanks to thousands of years of applied science towards its refinement. The only way a person can ever starve in a capitalist society is if they have produce an economic value below their daily bread, but considering that hunger (along with sex I suppose) is the ultimate motivating factor, no starving person would ever allow themselves to be so unproductive. Government distortion of the free market is the single biggest cause behind starvation.

>>11002276
Nice strawman.

>>11002304
not an argument, birdbrain. you can't stop a tornado with proper economic management.

>>11002312
You couldn't stop a famine in the XVIII century if you got a huge plague or shit weather either. That is why the important thing is to maximize food production rather than giving arbitrary rights to people

>>11002288
>Holy fuck anon this is the dumbest argument I have ever read. You don't need to give people the right to get fed for them to do it.

Well, suppose I, a person in the position of power, just take away all the food from the poor and give it to myself because I feel like this is the right thing to do and I feel that this is just. Any talk that this would be unethical I simply dismiss as "pointless abstract theory". Without any theoretical basis, we are simply led by intuitions, and no intuition can be definitively shown as wrong. You can't prove to me that I should try to redistribute wealth because you feel that this is right. I might just feel that we shouldn't feed people - that's it, done.

Man, conservatives are not only retarded but also stubborn as hell too. We should take away their right to vote and have a much nicer society in the end, considering that they do not understand self-evident, trivial matters like this one.

>>11002312
Proper economic management couldn't solve famines back when Burke was writing either. Private enterprise solved the problem of starvation by inventing drought-resistant seeds.

>>11002013
What's Wrong with the Right by Christopher Lasch

>The therapeutic ethic, which has replaced the 19th.century utilitarian ethic, dues nut serve the “class interest” of professionals alone, as Daniel Moynihan and other critics of the “new class” have argued; it serves the needs of advanced capitalism as a whole. Moynihan points out that by emphasizing impulse rather than calculation as the determinant of human conduct, and by holding society responsible for the problems confronting individuals, a government-oriented professional class has attempted to create a demand for its own services. Professionals, he observes, have a vested interest in discontent, because discontented people turn to professional devices for relief. But the same principle underlies modern capitalism in general, which continually tries to create new demands and new discontents that can be assuaged only by the consumption of commodities. Professional self-aggrandizement grew up side by side with the advertising industry and the whole machinery of demand-creation. The same historical development that turned the citizen into a client transformed the worker from a producer into a consumer. Thus the medical and psychiatric assault on the family as a technologically backward sector of society went hand in hand with the advertising industry’s drive to convince people that store-bought goods are superior to homemade goods.

http://www.radicalcritique.org/2013/10/whats-wrong-with-right.html

>>11002327
>Imagine that I create a strawman that defies all logic and plausibility for the sake of rhetoric and attach a .jpg image
Anon you are discussing nothing but your own strawmans. You don't need a bunch of gentry folk discussing rights while turning upside down their country with the justification of a bunch of abstractions. People were not starving because the goverment was stealing food or because they didn't have a right for food they were starving because 1789 was an awful year for grain.
The farmers never joined the bourgouise revolution in France. They imposed it to them while destroying their traditional rights of common property or using the language of their choice

>>11002013
the only true conservative intellectuals America has ever produced sorted from most CIA-Deepstate-MKULTRA to the least
1/Samuel P. Huntington
2/Paul Gottfried
3/Sam Hyde

>>11002122
>based on a random abstraction with no grounds in reality is stupid if it is not humanly possible to supply it
this sounds like you've already decided that it's not humanly possible to supply it
>>11002046
>Progresivism
>Modernity
>BTFO by someone making consequentialists arguments
>when they're the most successful ideologies/whatever of the last century
ok

>>11002463
>this sounds like you've already decided that it's not humanly possible to supply it
You just made this up. Nice strawman
>Progresivism
>>when they're the most successful ideologies/whatever of the last century
Lol don't make me laugh. All progressive policies have lead to an astronomic debt, an stagnation of wages and a stagnant economy. The most succesful ideologies have been sheer authoritarism see Singapure or South Korea

>>11002571
what if debt isn't real? you are an idolater, worshipping the vain fictions of the political economy.

>>11002112
>missing the emphasis in metaphysics

>>11002571
>Women in the workplace has lead to astronomic debt and stagnant economy
>Immigrants have lead to astronomic debt and stagnant economy
>Germany has a stagnant economy
>What is the italian economic miracle
>The Gini index had been going down for all of the second half on the 20th century but apparently progressive liberal policies produce stagnant economy and wages
>Implying I was talking about economy
>Implying single payer healthcare isn't literally the most efficient way to handle healthcare
>Implying economy is the only metric
Imagine knowning so little yet talking so confidently
>South Korea
lemao, see pic related. not to mention their horrible suicide rate and the fact that their collective psyche is so corrupted that they unironically enjoy kpop

I don't ask this as an insult, but out of genuine curiosity; what's the point of conservatism? To me, it just seems like clinging to ideas of the past is pointless. Humanity is constantly changing, why would/should it stop changing now?

>>11002635
oh yeah, the pic is average hours worked every year.
look at how inefficient those progressive germans are!

>>11002639
Conservatism isn't against change but sees progress as the slow polishing of a well established status quo which has been established as such for a reason. Clinging to ideas of the past, as you call it, isn't pointless either as civilization was build from those ideas and if they worked was, more often than not, because the framework from which those ideas were developed was solid and compatible with human nature. Also just because humanity is in constant change doesn't mean all changes are inherently good and to assume all the positive changes has been led by non-conservatives is short-sighted.

>>11002013

>workers should run things

Yes... that's communism.

>>11002639
in theory, it's an ideology of moderation that prevents "progressives" from tripping over their own feet. progress requires a calculated footfall, otherwise you'll end up stepping into dog shit.

in practice modern conservatism has just devolved into a milquetoast vanguarding of last year's liberalism. it's pointless, as is the term "conservatism" in the first place. everyone has some beliefs, practices or ideals that they wish to conserve.

>>11002013
Marx wouldn't have disagree'd with any of this. He was a materialist, he didn't want systems based on abstract ideas or empty notions, but on the material realities of production and class relations. Unless the authour was trying to imply that it will always be impossible to feed everyone, in which case he's just factually wrong.
>Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it

>>11002639
I don't want humanity to be ground down into a single brown pink haired mass of hedonist consumer units devoid of all culture or identity

>>11002866
Dialectical materialism is only materialist in name.
>Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it
This is retarded too. As Heidegger pointed out, the way you interpret something defines how you interact with it. Philosophers have always changed the world.

>>11002816
At the same time, isn't the status quo responsible for a whole lot of human conflict and problems with the world today?
I think there are valuable ideas to learn from our current time, but the status quo seems to ultimately provide more harm than good. A slow polishing seems like a somewhat defeatist approach, it's becoming increasingly clear that change is necessary with increasing technology and the implications of it.

>>11002875
Why do you assume that the loss of structure of race also encourages the loss of culture and identity? Our set of alleles should have no correlation with our culture. I see a culture that is very, very different, that probably rejects a lot of the narratives that we embrace today, but I still see culture existing.
We don't worship Thor or the figures of Greco-Roman mythology, but we still hold great respect toward the cultures of the past. We just don't live in them, and that just seems like the natural conclusion of life itself.

>>11002890
>Dialectical materialism is only materialist in name.
is this a meme?

>>11002909
>A slow polishing seems like a somewhat defeatist approach, it's becoming increasingly clear that change is necessary with increasing technology and the implications of it.
No. The slow polish is how nature does it, therefore it is good. The animal still run from the tornado and the hurricane and the earthquake. They know, in themselves, this is chaos. But the animal does not run from the stream, carving itself into a canyon, it does not run from the breeze, it does not run from the shifting sands. In fact the opposite. It comforts them. Therefore it is good.

>>11002909
>>11002940
A rock on the shore becomes smooth over millenia. And it sits there, tumbling, tumbling, tumbling for maybe a thousand, maybe a hundred thousand, maybe a million years. Until one day a boy comes up and yells to his father to watch and he skips the rock across the surface just like his father taught him how to do. And they smile. And the rock has served a purpose.

>>11002909
the libshit proyect is based on the deliberate destruction of culture and anything we recognise as freedom. not only they do not want to assimilate, but they want to obliterate our culture into this black hole narcissist victimhood complex, monitor your every thought for instances of subconscious racism and establish a society of total surveillance and control based on slave morality. imo it's like a twisted version christianity, christ replaced by a myriad of screeching victim classes, but the end goal is the same, enslavement through guilt.

>>11002639
WELL SAID BROTHER
EMBRACE THE FLUX ACCELERATE THE DIALECTIC
FULLY AUTOMATED LUXURY SPACE GODHEAD NOW

>>11002639
It's not constantly changing at all. It's the exact same as it was when we first came out of the muck, you utter 12 year old.

>>11002639
It's better to be a reactionary than a conservative, really.

>>11002639
>>11002971
you're both wrong
it's cyclical

>>11002940
>>11002957
I agree with this, but to the extent that I don't know if I can say for sure whether Human progress is slowing down. Still, after the Industrial Revolution you can't say there wasn't a major exponential boom in Human achievement. We went from not having antibiotics to going to the moon in the span of a lifetime. It definitely seems like the rock goes through major changes very fast, but like >>11002978 says, that doesn't totally stop it from still having periods of slowness.

To me it just lies in the question of whether the development of technology is exponential or not.

>>11002909
>isn't the status quo responsible for a whole lot of human conflict and problems with the world today?
Can you name an example? Not that I don't necessarily agree with you but it's a rather vague statement, but even if it were the case it's naive to assume a new status quo wouldn't bring a new set of conflicts with it.
>but the status quo seems to ultimately provide more harm than good.
Well, I disagree, but even if you think so you still have to consider that the good it provides is more or less guaranteed.
>it's becoming increasingly clear that change is necessary with increasing technology and the implications of it.
This is a very complicated subject but embracing technology could be very well the death of all that is humane in us. You should read about Heidegger views on technology. It's very insightful. The basis of it is that the kind of utilitarian thinking required to create and use technology end up dominating the way we interact we the entire world.

>>11003028
>You should read about Heidegger views on technology. It's very insightful.

Thanks anon, I'll check it out. I'll admit, the increasing reliance on technology is pretty frightening. I've always been on the team that technology will serve as a net benefit for humanity, but I definitely need to read more from the other camp.

>>11002276
>>Dude, i just FEEL that we should create a social security net to feed the destitute
this is literally what the left believes

>>11003028
>Can you name an example? Not that I don't necessarily agree with you but it's a rather vague statement, but even if it were the case it's naive to assume a new status quo wouldn't bring a new set of conflicts with it.

I feel the status quo is responsible for a lot of the -isms that exist in society. I'm not really a Marxist but I also see the argument that the current status quo isn't so friendly for class mobility. If the benefits of the status quo can only be enjoyed by a certain set of people than why be content with this status quo?

As for new conflicts, definitely. Conflict is inevitable. But the idea of "it'll be just as bad" just feels pessimistic. I guess I still have some form of hope in humanity, that we CAN do better. whether or not that's true we can't know unless we try.

Sorry if my responses sound pseudy or elementary at all, it's a little late so I'm not at my sharpest. It's been a lovely conversation with you all and I did learn quite a bit about the arguments for conservatism.

>>11002321
>maximise food production
>minimise eating
Conservatives didn't really think this through very far, did they...

>>11003081
>If the benefits of the status quo can only be enjoyed by a certain set of people than why be content with this status quo?
I live in a capitalistic developing country and in spite of my family being rather poor we still live a very comfortable life, particularly compared to the people in the historically leftist countries that surround us. Things could be better, yes, but they are good enough.
As someone who lived through some real poverty as a child I can tell you, if you're an American or from another rich country, you don't have a clue how good you have it. Risking that for an ideal doesn't seem very wise to me.
>But the idea of "it'll be just as bad" just feels pessimistic
It's not necessarily that things will be just as bad but you have to take into account that what often drives the people who demands change is a pathological incapability of being conformed until everything is perfect, which never will happen. If social conditions alone were responsible for our well-being humanity would have been extinguished by suicide a long time ago.
>I guess I still have some form of hope in humanity
I have hope in humanity too. I it will survive. I just try not to attribute to it qualities it doesn't truly posses. Humanity is capable of rationality yet it's not purely rational and often what we believe subconsciously is at odds with what we think we believe.
>we CAN do better. whether or not that's true we can't know unless we try.
While not being too radical (for far leftist standards), Sweden tried and look what's happening there.

>>11003213
Adding a bit to this, It's not that I think things are too great. Consumerism and the deterioration of culture and traditions are a big problem and the lack of class mobility too, but we still have a decent level of stability and it shouldn't be taken for granted.

>>11003081
>that the current status quo isn't so friendly for class mobility
Says who? Where's the data? How much class mobility should there be?

Am I a "conservative" if I want to conserve the socialist movement of the 20th century and bring back powerful trade unions? Right-wigers have held the monopoly on words like "tradition" and I think it's bullshit. Collective labour has its own tradition and history, how do you conceive of a western civilization without seeing anti-capitalist movements as one of its characteristic elements in modernity?
Burkean conservatives see further than liberals a lot of the time but their history is faulty and unexamined desu.

>>11003343
>how do you conceive of a western civilization without seeing anti-capitalist movements as one of its characteristic elements in modernity?
By being a liberal who boasts about the amount of megacorps backing her candidate while talking shit about commies on Twitter.

>>11002917
The only meme is Marx's theory of history without a basis in actual history.

>>11002258
apparently yes because the commies elected to starve people because they thought hiring people was immoral.

>>11003429
The food shortages were due to people not having a motivation to work.
The soviet union tried to implement a bonus system that rewarded output with some success but their status quo undid that cause it wasn't orthodox marxism.

Socialism is more traditional than classical liberalism, movements which advocated for its basic ideas - common property, communities made up of self-managed serfs - go back to at least the 17th century with the Diggers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers

There is nothing conservative about market economies and idiots who think they can be squared with a "traditional lifestyle" are plainly uneducated about its consequences. Excessive use of market mechanisms has destroyed the family, job security and replaced the spooky state with corporations becoming more powerful than states. You can't live a normal life if the labour market fucks you over, you can't sustain for your family, you have to change employment every year and your child grows up in five different schools. Markets and the dissolution of traditional morality go hand-in-hand, you cannot scorn the latter while submitting to the former.

>>11003438
Yeah, agree, but it's not a surprise that an imaginary utopia is better than reality.

So youre saying that the passage argues that the working class should lead the state instead of an intellectual elite?
Just want to make sure.

>>11002294
NO! IT'S NOT TRUE!

>>11002276
Strawman.

>>11002639
Because those who seek to change it do it in their own interests and not in the interests of the countries they are changing. To say everything is ok because 'humanity is constantly changing' is dumb, because you fail to recognize the things that are worth preserving.

>>11002639
Because not all change is good. For example, replacement of europeans in the west due to mass immigration.

>>11002909
>Our set of alleles should have no correlation with our culture.
Should? Well it does, if you think it should have no correlation then you are being purposely malicious or you fail to see the individual cultures created by each race and ethnicity around the world

>>11002909
Why should all races merge and be lost? There's no need for it or any good reason. London is a shithole, Why would you want the rest of the west looking like that?

>>11002909
>loss of structure of race also encourages the loss of culture and identity?
Because any culture that isnt inherantly consumerist and hedonistic comes from the different behaviours and experiences of different races and ethnic groups. Afeuca

>>11003975
Ignore that last word. The only race that is lost Is most of them in western europe. It'll just end up as some third world shithole

>>11002909
>At the same time, isn't the status quo responsible for a whole lot of human conflict and problems with the world today?
No I'd say that is due to financial greed by world leaders in power being too short sighted to see that what they do will eventually bring about bad times

>>11002635
>Germany has a stagnant economy
It does. The German economy barely grows while exporting a shit tone of products which is crazy

>>11002866
>he didn't want systems based on abstract ideas or empty notions
>What is the LTV
>What is alienation

>>11003460
>The barber and the farmer should be able to honorably work as farmers and barbers but they should never be able to rule
Burke was against it. He is just saying that thinkers are so up to their asses that they discuss stuff which is utopian in nature and has no worth in reality

Proudhon was the real deal, marx fucked up leftism for everybody,feels bad man

>>11003081
>But the idea of "it'll be just as bad" just feels pessimistic. I guess I still have some form of hope in humanity, that we CAN do better. whether or not that's true we can't know unless we try.
You sound like Mao, thinking that the entire nature of man can be ripped out and replaced by something as easily as you would knock a wall down and build it up again. The problem with all Marxist theory is that it is counter propositional in relation to what we are; in relation to what races are, what humanity is and what mankind is as a whole. We are based on nature and have out being in that substructure.
One of the reasons for the terror under Mao and the Soviet union is a sense of dissapointment. When you get into power you realize that human beings are partly avaricious, partly sexual, partly acquisitive, partly territorial, partly communal, partly group-identifying–everything that your theory said that they weren’t! And there’s a strong element of concealed–and not so concealed in the regime phase–misanthropy in communism, that if humanity can’t be redeemed in that way we’ll fall on them anyway. It’s almost a secularization of the idea of sin.

That man is nicer than he is, when human nature is dualist. Human beings are kind and nasty. They’re avaricious, but they have a capacity for self sacrifice. They’re endlessly cowardly and lying, but they also have a penchant for courage and glory. That’s what we are!

The great religions actually have always known what we are. They shift utopianism and the desire that we could be different from what we are, to another world. But, the leftist pseudo-religions of modernity have brought it down to this level and tried to counter-propositionally achieve it through violence and political struggle. And the reason that it’s got bloodier and bloodier, until in the end they become sickened of it themselves, the emergence within the Soviet bloc of neo-liberals like Gorbachev who realized the whole system was a fraud, and it didn’t work, and they could hardly produce anything economically, and you went to the West, and you went back home, and people were struggling to get razor blades and bits of cheese and bits of soap and so on, and you thought to yourself “This is a Superpower? We slaughtered tens of millions for this?”

>>11004010
Now Marxism in a sense advocates two contradictory things, but it believes it’s contradiction holds together in struggle. It believes everything is economically determined, and yet if you theorize about the way in which it’s determined enough you can actually change the nature of the determination. There was a theorist called Gramsci at the beginning of the 20th century who was in the Italian Communist Party ranks who split the idea of the superstructure–culture, society, the arts, intellect, media–from the base; economics. Then Marxism can go completely cultural and just swim around. Not linked to proletarian movements, not linked to trade union politics, not linked to working class political struggle as defined by the far left.

The one thing I would think, looking back on Marxism after a hundred and fifty years in all of its variants, is the extraordinary cowardice of some of the most privileged people in Western societies who would not stand up to this type of theory, which is how it always begins, and didn’t realize that in the end it would destroy everything they loved and everything they wanted.

And they’ve gone along with this out of corruption and being almost too pleasant for their own good, being too comfortable, and flirting like an adult teenager with ideas of rebellion that are half-disbelieved in as they brook them, and not thinking that they will be used, and used again and again and again to basically destroy nearly all of us. And it’s because they haven’t realized this that–in a slightly softer version–we’re in the plight that we’re in.

>>11004010
Men are neither intrinsically cruel or intrinsically good - there are a few biological limitation,and these can react in a multitude of ways based on environment. I'd argue that our current state of affairs leads to antisocial and harmful behavior more than hypothetical alternative environments

>>11002112
But you absolutely can? Stop being a rationalist. The world does not and has never paid any heed to human desire and intentionality, things are simply what they are.

>>11004020
Now Marxism believed almost with post-religious ardor–as it shot religious people!–that everything could be changed, everything could be reworked, that man himself could be reworked.
One of the most fanatical postulates is hostility to all biological notions of man and all notions of prior inequality. The idea that, in the end even human rights jargon will always disappoint, because there are always beautiful people and ugly people. There’s always unintelligent people (and there’s many of them) and there’s always very intelligent people and always a range in between. There’s always people of great physical power and people who are weaklings.

>>11002122
>He is just stating that arguing about giving free food or free medicine to everyone based on a random abstraction with no grounds in reality is stupid if it is not humanly possible to supply it
Supply everyone with an equally low level of free food and medicine and secure the rest for one leader/dictator. It´s an pareto-effiecent state and everyone is happy

>>11004035
Now,i am not a marxist,but i must ask,why you think biological limitations,or difference are juxtaposed against 'even human rights'? Surely our societies have advanced to a point where we can provide every human being a baseline quality of life and the ability to flourish in their own way.

>>11004044
Not that other anon but if you want to take morality for granted and treat it as a matter of pragmatism you're going to hit a wall sooner or later.
Also society hasn't reached such point where everyone can live comfortable anyway even if all the wealth in the world were redistributed equally.

>>11004044
He meant that for someone looking to make man equal, even the equality under human rights will disappoint them as there is inequality on a biological level. And to get rid of that would be to remold man so that he is not man anymore.

"Consider the destructive impact these individuals have had on our civilization and “economic theorist” doesn’t cut it does it? Perhaps you could scrub that out and say “The Destroyer of a World” The destroyer of a world, and that’s largely what Marxist-Leninist ideology amounted to, the destruction of the norms of pre-existent Western civilization. Done in its name, done as a revolutionary detritus, brought to power by tamed theorists and political criminals who saw their way to a main chance. And it’s dominated the thinking of our peoples in one form or another to such a degree that if you meet somebody in the arts now who’s a fluffy liberal, and they say “Ooh all races are equal, all men are equal, anyone who says otherwise is a reactionary beast, I’m for aid to Africa, I’m for saving the planet,” they are mouthing the tenth rate approximation to this theory.

The hardcore theory would appall them! Ten stages back: Fanon saying whites should be killed because they incarnate the guilt of the oppressive, imperialist, capitalist classes, which is based on Lenin’s book in 1916 called Imperialism whereby you have to explain the fact that socialism hasn’t come about. That capitalism hasn’t led organically to socialism, imperialism, and the defamations of the persons of color by (although he didn’t call it this) “the White Economic Colossus” which is still the justification for many Third World radical groups even now."

Practical socialism is possible.
The new belgian company was 100% owned by the workers, but like other cooperatives they cave(or are) under pressure to go public to get more access to capital.
And nowadays there is an historically high amounts of capital. A big portion of the US economy is tied to speculation.

>>11002288
How are you supposed to distribute a rescource whithout priorities??

>>11004090
>to get rid of that would be to remold man so that he is not man anymore.
Thus the current year ideologue wouldn't really go after human rights anymore, first you get rid of the humans, then we can talk about rights. Which brings another question: when will we be inhuman enough to be sufficiently equal and have rights? Can you say the guy making the decision is really equal to you, or are some animals more equal than others like in Animal Farm?

>>11004258
>distribute
Distribution is done organically.

>>11004268
Organically? What does that imply in a human society?

>>11004258
The same way you give humanitarian aid: go there and dump the damn thing on the poor bastards, why must you add bureaucracy and metaphysics to everything? The labor involved in philosophizing the wherefores and identifying the priority whoms is better invested in just producing more.

>>11004311
Logistics does not just happen.

>>11004311
>Just produce more and dump it on the poor bastards

>>11003431
>The food shortages were due to people not having a motivation to work.