/lit/ - Literature

>>11464632
How can i give you the understanding that you lack?

>right
>duty

>>11464632

I basically hold this exact belief, but i can't say i agree with either Rothbar or Marx.

What other authors should i read to get the gist of what's basically in the OP?

>>11464632
That’s a very nice way of phrasing it, but it still relies on people making personal sacrifices for the greater good, which plainly won’t happen.

>>11464632
this idea is called 'charity'

>>11464632

>>11465055
You can't enforce non-abiding judicial laws by making people committed to a charity

Institutionalized religion can, tho.

Some people lack for very good reason. I dont really like some middle man giving what I have to those who "lack"

>>11465079
this is why i refuse to pay taxes, as if im going to work to support these people

>>11465079

If you don't voluntarily give, you must be some sub-human greedy fuck with narcissism

If you're too retarded to make such a basic voluntary action, any institution has either the power to shame you for your undoings, or the power to take from you.

>>11465086
Who said I refuse? I just want to personally know who my funds or whatever are going to.

>>11465086
>unironically believing this
Pic related, it's you

>>11465093
Then why don't you get involved in church more often? It's virtually doing the exact same thing as a government does in regards to money which you donate to it as an institution. And it's much more decentralized and personal so it fits your description quite well.

>>11465094
Interacting with someone in memes is not an argument.

>>11465102
>Interacting with someone in memes is not an argument.
Calling people who disagree with you subhuman is not an argument.

>>11465086
Lol subhumans are more likely to give freely, not less. (Or rather they are more likely to want things given to them freely)

>>11465111

And who or what should be called in such a manner that reflects his own incapacity to refuse a fellow national in need if not a subhuman with severe mental issues?

>>11465140
Almost every modern human doesnt do this shit lmao. Do you give money to every homeless person you see? Do you think everyone you see that just passes him by a subhuman?

>>11465053
Capitalist apologists: The ultimate authority on human nature.
>>11465079
And the all-time classic: It's their own fucking fault for being poor!

>>11465140
>a fellow national
what a fucking meme

>>11465158
Ah the empathetic and enlightened commie that does nothing but strawman has showed up

>>11465158
are you denying that some people are poor because they make terrible decisions? assuming you arent are you implying that this percentage of the poor is negligible?

>>11465123
stop posting

>>11465152
>Almost every modern human doesnt do this shit lmao

That's because of the barbaric concept of western individualism

>Do you give money to every homeless person you see?

No because i know he's on the dole and wants to make an extra buck on the side. I also didn't say you're suppose to give money to people who operate an entire literal begging industry, but to give to a certain type of charity which administers money more efficiently if you were to participate in their spending, which is a church institution.

>>11465159
>Western "Nation" - "States"

What a fucking meme

>>11465175
subhuman who wants things given to him detected

>>11465168

Are you honestly implying society can't be made up out of a certain rule set that disadvantages people from the moment they are born in a particular type of social conditions?

>>11465179
i am not implying that at all, i just asked you two questions

>>11465163
Are you really gonna say I misrepresented those arguments?
next level tactics, my man
>>11465168
I'm sure you have a bunch of anecdotes about your drunk cousin who lost everything or whatever.
(let's not go down the tangent of how mental issues like alcoholism are largely caused by capitalism)
Poverty as a whole is a phenomenon that is intrinsic to how capitalism works.
If you had full employment salaries would start to rise and workers would have more leverage. When there's a line of people waiting outside, willing to work for less than you, you need to fall in line.

>>11465186
do you think the percentage of people who are poor because they make bad decisions is negligible?

>>11465195
look pal, if you have some statistics, go ahead and pull them out. I'm not gonna set it up for you.

>>11465195

Most often people are not born with severe mental handicap and their decisions for later in life mostly come out of the culture and society they are born from. There's no such thing as a "bad decision"m but a culture that influences bad decisions.

>>11465186
>When there's a line of people waiting outside, willing to work for less than you, you need to fall in line.

If your method of solving this is to whine, stomp your feet, and talk about dialectics (or even direct action) then you are a big fucking faggot.

There is tons of unused land. If you don't want to be in society (as it is) then you need to man up and drop out. Go build a cabin you chickenshit leftist.

>>11465204
>tfw when personal agency simply doesn't exist because muh culture

The actual synthesis of these two is present day Nick Land.

>>11465204
>WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY

>>11465204
you dont think people are differently capable, and that those who are less capable squander their opportunities or the wealth they already have?

>>11465208
>There is tons of unused land.
excellent practical ideology.
There's no free land I can just wander into and start building in. and even if by some fucking miracle I could buy land, did you watch wild wild country, for example?
also I'd fucking love to live off the grid. of course, I was raised in an urban setting so I don't have the correct skill set to homestead.
>>11465210
1. Personal agency explains the outcomes of everyone's lives
2. people born in destitution overwhelmingly remain destitute, people born affluent, overwhelmingly remain affluent.
how to reconcile?
1. big fucking coincidence
2. some people got them good genes (us), some got them bad ones (them)

>>11465233
>how to reconcile?
poor people have shit genetics, pass on their shit genetics to next generation, next generation fails like the previous one

what a mystery

>>11465210
>Muh free will
Fuck off

>>11465219
> those who are less capable squander their opportunities or the wealth they already have?
That's literally 0.00001% of the population and it's the fault of their actions for shitting away money they were already born within or made and ultimately completely lost.

>>11465238
agency=/=free will

>>11465236

>Muh genes

Christ, the germanic people were a mistake.

>>11465238
everybody has oppportunities actually

>>11465242
>genes dont exist, and if they do they have no impact on how the human animal behaves
at last i truly see

>>11465236
if you don't have evidence, you might as well replace genetics with 'aristocratic blood' or any other bit of medieval ideology.

>>11465233
You leftists are mentally ill. Fuck women and niggers, you will never destroy our white purity

>>11465249
>replace genetics with 'aristocratic blood'
well theyre the exact same concept, and yeah upper class people have higher iqs than lower class people

>>11465251

>>11465259
Bet you love seeing your girlfriend mounted by a big, muscular nigger, but it wont be the fate of the West as long as the redpill is being spread. Go back to plebbit with your cuck mentality

>>11465265
>>11465251
are you a shill pretending to be a white nationalist

>>11465204

>There's no such thing as a "bad decision"

You're a walking parody. How embarrassing.

>>11465267
This. He definitely is. This is just another Jewish shill, probably being paid by Israel to make right wing beliefs seem unpalatable on 4chan, where we are really gaining traction and redpilling normies on the Jewish problem, women inferiority, and the need for racial homogeneity.
Safest is to ignore them, white brother

>>11465248

>Genes determine success in life and it's not the social conditions that determine genes

iq89

>>11465277
>twins raised apart have more similar iqs than siblings raised in the same family
really makes you think

>>11465276
you are clearly one of them as well, do you guys organize on leftypol or something? i would advise reading pol more to get a better grasp on the way white nationalists actually talk, because youre very obvious

>>11464632
What a bad thread, holy shit.

>>11465284

>Everyone has a twin

>>11465265
Anon.. easy on the projection...

>>11465292
how could you possibly have thought this reply made any sense

>>11465253
>admits he holds medieval values
great thanks.
but seriously, there's no way I can explain to you how you're bigoted. You have to actually get to know the people we're discussing.
Here's a fun quest, you know social workers? the people who actually spend their lives getting to know disadvantaged, hard-luck people? Go and find one who shares your views on this subject.

>>11465301
this reply, while i can see you put a bit of effort into it, is unfortunately not an argument

>>11465288
Ignore those two leftypol feminist kike shills. Make sure to create right wing threads on here to keep triggering these SJW snowflakes, and they will get bored and leave us to redpilling. Threads related to how stupid women are, how niggers can't produce literature or art, etc.
You can tell that they're really exaggerating the rhetoric, clearly this is part of their plan, what Israel has taught them to do. We're supposed to think they're just people 'bantering' or making fun of /pol/, but it's easy to see that this is just another jewish-subversive tactic.

>>11465296

It's beyond me how some random retarded anglo on the internet could assume such an obtuse argument such as genetics can be supported by some thin studies made on twins.

>>11465301
Kek roastie tier argument.

>>11465044
This is "my own" conclusion. There have been 150 years of "muh rights", on both sides. I believe there ought to be a stronger sense of human duty---but not state enforced duty on gunpoint---perhaps, like another guy said, through cultural "shaming".
It's even the essence of all philosophy except >>11464748, the whole (erroneous) idea of the richer having to pay higher % in taxes, is in essence the idea that "With great power comes great responsibility." excluding those who believe any and all inequality is a result of inexcusable exploitation (also assuming all exploitation is evil).

>>11465308
yeah it is simply absurd to think that biological organisms, which are created by the process of the natural selection of genes, could be influenced by said genes
>>11465304
>hreads related to how stupid women are, how niggers can't produce literature or art, etc
this specifically is what gives you away, pol never says this in this way

>>11465302
it isn't. I basically said as much.
you think those people are inferior, stupid, less worthy. You weren't reasoned into this abhorrent belief, I can't reason you out of it.
>>11465314
'experiential' is the ultimate form of knowledge.
(that's the kind of you have to climb out of your basement to acquire)

yer chritcuck is showing

>>11465318
Not that guy, please ignore these white genocide advocates. It's easy to see that they are being instructed to do this, i.e. exaggerate, because it makes them seem more outrageous. This is Jewish tactic that has been used time and time again to subvert host nations.

>>11465158
You’ve completely missed my point. I’m saying there needs to be some sort of authority to distribute wealth because it clearly doesn’t happen naturally.

>>11465301
Explain something to me (not same guy). I went to public schools growing up. In my town the schools were probably 30-40% impoverished. In college I worked at factories owned by my dad's company during my winter breaks. I got to know a lot of people who were disadvantaged. And guess what? Most of them turned out to be empty, shitty people. Even when they are too young to be corrupted, they already enjoy wallowing in their own degradation. I think that you are pretty naive. You know how shitty rich people can be? Poor people can be the same. Environments be damned, it's 2018. There is no excuse to not be self-aware. There is no excuse to live in squalor, even if you're poor. I'm actually all for social safety nets and all that bullshit, but by God I only want to people who deserve to actually benefit from it.

>>11465320
well they demonstrably have lower Iqs and make worse decisions, on average. There is no 'essence of poor' and you have smart poor people and dumb rich people. It is just a trend, which is very obvious to anyone not marinated in the ideology of equality uber alles

I was in fact reasoned into this belief, you arent even suggesting i reason my way out, but that i go 'experience' the poor. For one thing i have already had plenty of experience with them, and for another i would never base a view like this on personal anecdotes.

>>11465329
Tell me, how can a human system be unnatural? Do we somehow participate in a world that isn't a component of nature itself?

>>11465333

Their lives are shallow because you can't use materialistic means to fill the gap of human higher meaning in life and a higher sense of spiritual belonging.

It's why everyone basically is contempt for being in the shitty position they're in, because they have nothing to which to aspire towards. So most resort to short term alternatives which guarantees a steady intake of dopamine, like drugs or whatnot.

>>11465348
Which *drum roll* means that it has nothing to do with being rich or poor in wealth but rich and poor in spirit. (and social policies are therefor not the solution)

>>11465356

Being richer does offer you the chance to create your own opportunities which you could deem as giving you personal satisfaction and higher meaning in life tho (not the same guy you originally replied to)

you cannot take from someone what is yours by natural right. putting up a fence cannot prevent a man from doing whatever it is he must to live. property is violence

>>11465375

>Natural rights

The 18th century called, they want their memes back

>>11465320
I actually know a few. You can tell me sob stories all day and anecdotes all day its not gonna make me think life will ever be fair.

>>11465329
>clearly
not clear at all to me.
I can't give because I barely have enough for myself. The rich often give a lot, but not so much to end wealth disparity, because that would spoil all their fun.
>>11465333
There is a subtle difference here. If we're talking about genetics, we're talking about latent behaviors, potentials. Not every gene is manifested. my claims is that these genetic differences are very minor, by far not sufficient to explain all social indifference.
What you're talking about is the outcome, the way people turn out, how they actually behave day-to-day.
If your life is shit and you have no prospects, behaving with kindness and dignity is kind of asking a lot, right? Personal develompent of that magnitude is a luxury when you feel like shit all the time.
>>11465335
>well they demonstrably have lower Iqs
well, please demonstrate, and then show the causal nature of the link (i.e. that low iq causes poverty, and not the other way around, over the course of several generations)
> There is no 'essence of poor'
yes, that's MY argument.

if you were reasoned into believing that poor people deserve their predicament, then what do you say to this argument >>11465186.
And if you've known destitute people, do you really claim that you've never seen the potential for greater things in any of them?
>>11465389
I don't really think life will be fair someday, I do think capitalism actively creates injustice.
also, I re-iterate, 'experiential' is the ultimate form of knowledge.

>>11465387
nature is all there is when, not if... when. society fails; then where will all your laws and customs leave you?

>>11465044
>>11465315
I think Leo Strauss peripherally touches on this point in Liberalism Ancient and Modern. It's basically an appeal of centering the individual around the goal of human excellence instead of personal freedom. Freedom is only a means to an end.

I guess some strands of fusionism appeal to the same idea.

>>11465404
>n show the causal nature of the link
you quite literally cant run an experiment on that, but what they have done is shown the link between low IQ and poor outcomes in a number of measures, which approximates it fairly well

I dont know why youre asking me if i think things could be better for the poor, i mean no shit they could be, and plenty of great people come from poverty. I am once again just reiterating a statistical measure, which is that they on average are less capable and this contributes to their outcomes in life.

>>11465375
The natural right is the right of the strong. Anything else is a made up meme.

>>11465158
>And the all-time classic: It's their own fucking fault for being poor!
Let's see you yearn and reach for equality with homeless hobos. Go kill them and take their place!

>>11465422
>you can't run the same kind of experiment, but evidently you couldn't do science if you weren't capable of establishing causal links.
> I am once again just reiterating a statistical measure
fine, if that's all you're saying, without quantifying it, I'll concede.
New point: since things could be better for the poor, we should structure society as to no one is poor. There's no good reason to neglect this whole portion of society while a tiny elite enjoy absurd luxuries.
>>11465437
is this supposed to be an argument?

>>11465044
>What other authors should i read to get the gist of what's basically in the OP?
Most of them? It isn't a new idea. It's in the Arthashastra, which basically advocates welfare capitalism, and it's from BCE. The RCC, Islam and other religions had mass appeal because they offered alms for the poor. The lolbertarians that call themselves "classical liberals" ignore that poverty relief was advocated by everyone from Adam Smith to Stuart Mill. Even the nazis had social security pay for "impoverished aryans".

>>11464632
>You shouldn't steal things from other people
>You have to give to others even if you don't want to
You really don't see how these statements conflict? The very act of giving involves taking, if you enforce this legally you're enforcing theft. The only difference here is one of whose perspective you're looking from.

What a cuck mentality. And it ignores the hard reason that when all the people who have give their shit away all the property winds up in the hands of those not willing to give it away anyway. How do communists even function?

>>11465448
>but evidently you couldn't do science if you weren't capable of establishing causal links
science in the strictest sense is restricted fields where you can repeatedly run experiments. This other stuff is somewhat speculative, and by this other stuff im including all sorts of respectable fields like geology and evolutionary theory.

as for what 'we' should do about the poor, i have no opinions, though id expect you to have some sort of example of success rather than a plan youve concocted by theorizing

Equality is impossible. Excluding a certain type of eugenics, like maybe giving people with IQ over 120 an extra vote if they have more than three kids and stay in partnership with the other parent (which would be for the "greater good of mankind" from a collective perspective, as IQ is undeniably inherited and it is causing more prolonged future human suffering by us not selecting for higher intelligence and health faster).

>>11465420
Guess I should put Strauss higher up in reading priority.

>>11465476
I always ponder what socialits and commies are going to do with the "Old dogs that cant learn new tricks" in their wonder society.

>>11465476
Acquiring all knowledge is almost certainly impossible but science just keeps on ticking. The goal of treating everyone equally has solid reasoning behind it, of course you can't do it perfectly, but what you're talking about probably isn't that kind of equality anyway.

>>11465485
murder them obviously

>>11465461
>You have to give to others even if you don't want to
That's what duty means, if you see a drowning man it's a criminal act to not help him (even if you don't want to).
>The very act of giving involves taking.
The act of giving involves accepting (even if you don't want what is given, it is rude to not accept it, you could even say it's your duty to accept.)

>>11465463
>i have no opinions
I can't respect that. We're all in the same boat.
> example of success
Spain is very interesting. A rich history of worker organization. It's finnicky to discuss, because, obviously, they're still operating within capitalism. but there you go. It's kinda hard to gather experiences with leftist modes of organization when so many promising would-be anarchist / socialist communities get squashed by the bourgeois establishment. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>11465511
>Stealing is bad, don't steal from people
>You have to give your stuff to other people even if you don't want to
But that IS stealing. You've just labeled this shit as "right" and "duty" to place your moral hierarchy onto it, the fact of the matter is if I don't want to give my stuff away and i'm compelled to then my shit is being stolen.

>It's a criminal act not to help a drowning man
What if you can't swim? Also not having everything is not the equivalent of fucking drowning and you know it.

>The act of giving involves accepting
If i'm forced to give my property away and it's illegal not to then i'm not "giving" i'm being "stolen from" your bullshit labels are how you refuse to equate these two.

Also what's your plan for when all your "good people" give all their shit away? Now all the people who are rich or have power are evil. Why aren't good people allowed to have things in the first place? You have to give to people who have less than you? Why? What if someone works their entire life to earn something of value that they care about, why do they have to give this to someone who has less than themselves? What makes this moral?

>>11465488
The primary source of inequality is from personality difference, IQ was just the first that came to mind. I would rather prefer giving more privileges to those who are more hard-working, or those that can "juggle a multitude of opposing ideas" better (not immediately resort to preconceived beliefs/emotions). This isn't what I personally believe currently, just the logical conclusion of the idea of "greater good" and equality, as the needs (and "right" to not suffer) of the trillions of future humans outweigh the needs of the present few.

>>11465511
Man this is what Machiavelli was trying to warn us about, when claim that the sacrifice of power to others is always moral you promote a society which is run entirely by sociopaths who don't care about the people beneath them. If you're rich and a good person don't give your fucking money away, you're a gem! Stay rich and spend your money on improving the world, don't give your money to the poor unless their survival depends on it, improve the world so that everyone has more.

>It is no ones right to take your wife from you
>If you have a beautiful wife you have a duty to give your wife to others
This is what you fucking sound like.

>>11465526
duty means "ought to", not "have to" in a legal sense: spiritual, moral, virtuous, cultural, stigma, self-contempt, your own happiness and prosperity.

The more virtuous a society is, the more prosperous it is (such as trust, and that which causes trust to occur) = the more virtuous you are, the more prosperous you are, the happier you are. By people's own definitions.

>>11465518
>when so many promising would-be anarchist / socialist communities get squashed by the bourgeois establishment
im aware this is a real thing, but you have to understand that coming from the opposite perspective it seems like a bit of a copout

>>11465555
What "virtue" means changes a hell of a lot depending on who you ask and if your "virtue" is to give away everything you attain you will certainly not be prosperous.

Also if duty means "ought to" in this context then
>If you see a drowning man it is a criminal act not to help him
sure is misleading isn't it? And communism does exactly that, it turns "ought to" into "have to" in a legal sense. You "have to" stop that man from drowning by forgoing your own right to property.

>>11464632
There is a lot that can be said about poverty.
As a Christian, I believe everyone is morally obliged to help these who lack. And at the same time I believe no one has the right to take anything from anyone else. If they refuse to give, let them be. At the same time, I don't take this to Rothbard levels, which would result in an anarcho-capitalist society, because Western culture is simply not compatible with such lifestyle. I believe in a conservative society with limited State with an institutionalized religion that promotes charity and voluntary help.
However, I just wanted to say that you are a faggot. Yes, people are to blame for their own poverty.
You know what is the difference between a poor man and a rich man? It's their brain, not their money. Rich people get broke all the time, and they always recover. Poor people, on the other hand, will always be poor no matter how much they are handed. It's not rare to see people earn millions at casinos and then go poor just a few years after that. It's also not rare to see people build millions from nothing -- or even worse, from debt.
Being rich is not easy. It requires a very specific mindset that only very few people have. It is also a mindset that is not taught in schools. You need financial education, and the ability to delay instant gratification for long term success, and these abilities have been increasingly less palatable for current society. The rich teach these skills to their children. That's why the rich will become richer, and why their social status usually passes on to the next generations, while the poor become poorer and so does their children.
What I'm saying from all this is that the world is not as simple as you think. Poverty is not entirely to blame on "social injustice". As a Christian, and a conservative, I believe poverty is just a fact of the human condition, much like hunger. We need to fight it daily. Employing ideological speeches to "erase" it will never be possible.

>>11465608
>Employing ideological speeches to erase it will never be possible
Based as fuck. Also solid explanation for why the jews keep winning.

>>11465288
Lmao it thinks white nationalist poltards are articulate.

>>11465526
>What if you can't swim?
Then you clearly weren't capable of truly helping him.
>Also not having everything is not the equivalent of fucking drowning and you know it.
I'm not arguing for state coercion. I'm arguing for the moral obligations trusted upon you by yourself and society. The only coercing you should suffer is the one of isolation and depression for being a philistine.
And you're leaping pretty far from "helping someone starving" to "subsidize X person's entire life cause they once almost died from starvation or sickness, and give everyone slightly poorer than you".
Maybe you think I'm someone else in the thread, I'm not >>11465158

>>11465580
That's why I added "by their own definitions".
The amount of trust within a society is intrinsically correlated with prosperity. Virtue is universal (when dealing with someone face to face, repeatedly); honesty, everyone admires honesty; industriousness, everyone admires that; not being rude to you, unanimous; attractiveness = pretty much universal; not getting angry at you all the time; creativity . . . What I'm trying to imply is that human nature is objective/universal/not relative or "subjective". What differs is tiny variations of the same themes.

Nobody admires and aspires to be like a heroin addict, we only admire those with universally liked personality traits (no matter how lacking they might be,).

>>11465658
>What i'm trying to imply is that human nature is objective/universal and not subjective
I know and I despise you for it. You say no one aspires to be like a heroine addict yet people build their entire lifestyles around pleasure and say the most important thing in their life is "being happy." Human nature and morality is not objective and measurable, what is right and what is wrong depends on what you think you know and what you're willing to guess at.

Everyone admires people who aren't rude, attractiveness, the vague definition of creativity but how much they value each of these things depends, and often society needs people who are rude to get a point across, or people who are lazy to find a simpler option, or people who are dishonest to improve life for everyone.

"Virtues" are not universal measurable things, you cannot measure how good one deed is compared to another. Even if we were measuring by the same metric values we would come to disagree over available options and over the fundamental goals. Your attempt to claim that human nature is universal is the creation of a system in which you are the moral one and people with different opinions (like "giving your power away to others is not inherently moral") are objectively immoral by the virtue of their opinions not being yours. Every liberal i've ever argued with at some point comes to this.

>The only coercing you should suffer is the one of isolation and depression for being a philistine.
This. This right here is your entire ideology in a nutshell, you literally cannot consider the idea that your morality is not objectively the correct one, that you could be morally wrong. Those who disagree with you are the nonvirtuous, they are the philistines. You literally refuse to acknowledge, - in any comment - the idea that if being a good person means giving power away in excess then the people with power will always be evil. It is an unsolvable problem in your "superior" understanding of human nature.

>We have universally liked personality traits
Clearly not as I despise your ideal model for a man.

>>11465658
One last thing, you will encounter people in life who you disagree with on a fundamental level. You will make excuses for why these people are "evil," and you will be making justifications for your condemnation of them and refusal to understand the way they behave just the way you are here. If you cannot consider the conflict between saying it is immoral to take from others but immoral for others not to give away then you are stuck inside your own world.

Feeding a starving person is an admirable goal in my book, but the morality of welfare changes with circumstance. If you live in a world where there is barely enough food to go around then a person who refuses to work for their share or who cannot contribute is a difficult burden even if you can provide for them. The only people in the modern world starving, are those that are incredibly hard to get food to. At what point "giving to those with less" is a moral obligation is not set in stone. If you believe human nature can be measured then you haven't met many people.

>>11465768
>>11465752
If men were angels.

>>11465752
>Human nature and morality is not objective and measurable
Except that's scientifically wrong.
But people aren't always (or most of the time) rational, they frequently do the opposite of what they claim to believe or regret: I would hypothesize that if X didn't know Y's beliefs, then X would try to treat Y virtuously. Some are assholes by nature, that's fucking why I advocate societal (democratic and violence free) discrimination towards undesirable traits, I won't (can't) choose these traits, you can only gradually nudge a society towards the ideal. What I hold to be virtues are based on which virtues correlate with trust and happiness: Ask all people how trustworthy their fellow citizens are, how happy they are, how little crime it, where people choose to live---there lies my virtue---descriptive causes of prosperity (by individuals own "subjective" view, which just happens to be the near identical to everyone else's).

If we put it likes this: What people dislike about what other people do to them are the exact same things. An act done to you is viewed by you the same way it is viewed by any random individual if it had been done to them; what differs is the level of each person's emotional response, but the essence/core reason for your reactions are shared.

>>11465404
>Personal develompent of that magnitude is a luxury when you feel like shit all the time.

And this is the defeatist attitude I'm talking about. I'm not asking poor people to smile and take it in the ask. I want them to be mad, but at themselves. I want them to hate their bosses; not because bosses are a bad concept but because they themselves believe they'd make better bosses than workers. Do you see what I'm getting at? If someone wants to give up dating we have all kinds of advice on how to change their situation. Yet, if someone wants to give up working hard etc we just say "you're right it's all fixed"? That doesn't help the poor.

>>11465896
this whole spiel reeks of capitalist realism.
the boss-employee dynamic is a bad concept and the economy is fixed.
helping the poor by alleviating the brunt of the consequences of capitalism is the real defeatism. It's accepting capitalism as inevitable, inescapable.

>>11465176
>"""barbaric""" concept of western individualism

wtf is your problem?

>>11465918
I hope you aren't shallow enough of a reader to assume that I'm a capitalist myself. I'm not and would prefer and integralist economic system. However, I also see this as a metatruth. This is quite literally the right way for anyone to handle any problem. My advice isn't for them to say "yeah boss okay" and then work harder. I encourage people to alleviate their economic ailments any way possible. Steal. Sell drugs. I don't care. The people that are rich now are the illegitimate rich (nobility of the past deserved what they had) of modern capitalism. Poor people are slaves to poor person ideology. Was this ideology the product of living within capitalist systems? Probably somewhat. Is capitalism going to vanish in any meaningful way soon? No. Therefor, it looks like commoners have to choose between at least trying to do better or revolt and look like fucking moron degenerates.

>>11465940
>>11465176

He's just a fag

>>11465961
>revolt and look like fucking moron degenerates.
Jesus. Are you gonna tell me this isn't laboratory-grade ideology?
> integralist
> nobility of the past deserved what they had
I haven't WTF'd this hard in a long time

>>11465994
I can't even: the post

Why even bother replying

>>11466003
I had the same thought reading your post, but I wanted to use the phrase "laboratory grade ideology"

>>11465918
New poster.
You keep making dismissive claims to avoid engaging like "Muh free will" or "this whole post reeks of [ideology]"

And you're arguing that "experiential is the highest form of knowledge" which is essentially invalidating the act of having the discussion. Since the only thing that will convince someone is having the proper experiences the degree of effort you put into articulating your arguments is irrelevant. So even if you lose a million arguments you won't have to reflect.

If it's really so pointless, why bother posting at all?

>>11466015
except the other guy actually made a post with ideas, you just said 'i cant believe you would say sucha thing'

>>11466015
Do you consider communism to be an ideology

>>11465994
1. You're obviously under the influence of some ideology yourself

2. Integralism as I see it combines the absolute best and most necessary concepts from different parts of the very broad political spectrum

3. Typically nobility got what they had by brute force or decree. That is categorically more worthy of wealth than someone manipulating markets through global trade or working a factory line like a worm (I use those as examples because they are two sides of the same tired old materialist coin).

>>11466083
communism is obviously a super sciency science free of any bias

>>11465186
I bet you'll also argue people commit crimes only because of their environment

>>11466029
for whatever it's worth, I didn't say "Muh free will". I dislike that attitude as well.
you replaced 'capitalist realism' with '[ideology]', but I'm referring to Mark Fisher's concept of capitalist realism, a well established term.

Regarding experiential knowledge.
Let's be real for a moment. Right and Left ideology aren't just a set of axioms and conclusions. They also carry associated narratives and aesthetics. They become part of our personalities. This personal attachment to ideas is always a bad thing, but fairly hard to combat in ourselves, and in other people it's basically impossible.
When I see posters trash-talking poor people, I know I'm not gonna get through their ego and actually touch them, elicit any real human emotion in them.
So the best I can do is to explain that they are lacking life experiences.
>essentially invalidating the act of having the discussion. why bother posting at all?
I do this for fun, and I presume you all do too. Is anyone getting payed to shitpost?

>>11466041
please elucidade the sophisticated ideas behind that gem,
>revolt and look like fucking moron degenerates.

>>11466083
Any given branch, like marxism, etc. is an ideology. "the left" or "communism" as a blanket term is just a set of principles and values.

>>11466091
I would actually love to discuss this integralism. make another thread for it with some actual links.
>That is categorically more worthy of wealth than someone manipulating markets through global trade or working a factory line like a worm
Both the worm and the wolf are categorically less worthy than the enlightened man who works together with his brothers and doen't rely on money games or authority to live harmoniously.

>>11466116
The word "only" is the problem here isn't it?
How many cases of drug-related stabbings or shooting in [rich people region]? what about in ghettos flooded with drugs or guns?
You guys want to atomize the individuals, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but on the large scale there are clear patterns which cannot be coincidences.

>>11465340
The issue comes when capitalism, a system that relies on exploitation and violence, presents itself as "natural" and that somehow justifies violence and exploitation.
>>11466091
The brainlet definition of ideology is useless, that is some sort of boogeyman that pops out of the woodwork from wrongthink.
Ideology is a process of filtering concepts and stimulae to form an opinion - it is far more rigorous to discuss why a certain argument or statement makes assumptions and how this thinking leads certain conclusions to be made over others. Dismissing stuff as "ideology" isn't rigorous at all - critique systems of thought, holistically instead of dismissing the end product.

>>11466196
My point about natural had to more to do with a philosophical concept of nature itself. Everything in the material universe is nature. We are nature. Cars are just an adaptation within nature. Calling capitalism unnatural is to suggest that it has moved us to a materially different reality that is not actually extant at all.

The reason I brought up ideology in the other post is because that is specifically what I was being accused of (being under the influence of misguided ideology, which I'm certainly not any more so than anyone else here.)

>poverty is suffering
>suffering is bad
Miss me with that shit

>>11466276
If I suffer on the gym to become healthier that's a good thing.
If I suffer doing overtime at my job so my boss can afford the new Lamborghini, it's a bad thing.

>>11465288
>stating the self-professed beliefs of white nationalists makes you a false flagger
If everything he says is correct, what could possibly lead you to the conclusion that he's the enemy?

>>11465541
>Stay rich and spend your money on improving the world
What planet are you posting from, because it's obviously not Earth.

>>11466310
>Hello comrades! It is time for us, the righteous and strong, yet unhappily oppressed workers, to rise against the cruel and stupid men who keep us down, leading to an eternal utopia where nobody will ever suffer!
do you get it

>>11464748
rights and duty are concepts which have their roots in basic human morality, which in turn has its roots in free will.
to deny any of these is to admit that you are indeed a slave. that is not to say that those like-minded individuals do not wish to enslave others with the very principles that they themselves renounce/lack.

>>11466321
>where nobody will ever suffer!
Well the difference here is that no commie has ever claimed that. Yet everything in this post >>11465276 is what white nationalists state plainly, especially the Jewish shill shit.

>>11466330
>free will.
just for once can we not do this

>>11466330
>magical free will or meat automaton
false dichotomy. Human agency is a complex phenomenon and we do not have a complete science on it, not by far.

>>11466334
i cant explain it to you except that nobody on pol talks like that. It's the 'women are inferior/belong in the kitchen' and 'we white men are superior to niggers' phrases that are most incongruous

>>11465044
The New Testament

>>11466330
Very spooky argument

bump

>>11464632
Why include Marx in that? Sounds like you just described Carnegie's philosophy or something. Also you're a fucking shit head if you think that, we should aspire to neck every rich person that won't hand over their money nicely with ropes knotted into the shape of a hammer and sickle. That is the only reasonable position to take lads, the only one. God save the queen.

>>11465086
Very spooky post