/lit/ - Literature

>uses St Paul as evidence for Maoism

This guy is clearly retarded

>>13190709
>inb4 that butthurt anti-Pauline theotrollogian start swhining about the inclusion of Paul's writings in the New Testament

He did it in the name of class struggle and against Deleuze fags, so...

>>13190667
>wealthy Parisian 'philosopher' complains that others are bourgeoise while being embedded in French wealth like a tick in a deer's ballsack
Why are all commie intellectuals like this?

>>13190667
I am reminded of how my view of academia changed throughout the years. At first of course my understanding was naive, I simply thought the most established academics were the best experts in their field. Then at some point I realized they probably were experts while being successful in networking. Then I realized networking/social positioning is more important than expertise. Then I realized the best positioned in the social hierarchy simply define what is expertise and extract value for their own name from the work of intelligent and hard working but poorly hierarchically positioned individuals who have no real voice or clout in the power game.

>>13190720
I mean, who the fuck was Paul, really?

>>13191308
Another “why don’t commies move to Somalia?” Post
Wow. I bet he owned a house too

>>13191323
>another horrible post by a horrible tripfag

>>13191308
Communism is a sadistic power game. Communists always get off on perversity. A capitalist will sadistically enjoy the destruction of his competition through what he considers superior business skill or something like that. Communists sadistically enjoy the destruction of another man's life for no reason at all other than not belonging to the "party" even and ESPECIALLY if they think he is more competent than them. Communists take special pleasure in this perversity because they always operate from resentiment, they KNOW it is not only morally wrong (like in the sadistic capitalist example) but even logically wrong (a common is complete idiots dictating scientific developments to actual credible intellectuals). This violation of logic is necessary for a communist who is almost always filled with resentiment to derive perverse happiness from.

>>13191329
When’s the actual critique coming?

>>13191323
>Wow. I bet he owned a house too
Is this where we name things you can't do under communism? Ok I'll try.
Live in your family's apartment without one family per bedroom.
Tell people you don't like kommunalka living.

>>13190709
he called St Paul one of the first examples of radical universalism, not Maoism.

>>13191363
>the Soviet union was communist
The ruling party was called the Communist Party
Maybe you should go post in a thread where you know something about the topic

>>13191379
>the USSR was not communist, but i'll still defend it to the death for some reason

>>13191323
Badiou is rich, well-connected, and part of the upper echelons of Parisian snobs. He's bourgeoise through and through, and there is nothing proletarian about him.
Communists generally tend to be bourgies far more often than they are proles, but the french take this one step further where they're all extremely wealth Parisians, far removed from the common working class.

>>13191308
>wealthy
{source: my anus}

>>13191341
Absolutely based

>>13191395
>Parisian academic
>not wealthy and bourgeoise
pick one

>>13191341
I like how the 'school of resentment' argument is used primary by absolutely seething id-pol rejects. Someone just mentioned communism and here he is furiously chomping at the bit and shouting into emptiness.

>>13191428
>implying he's wrong
>implying the idpol turn of communism didn't further cement the argument that it's nothing more than Nietzschean ressentiment

>>13191379
>The ruling party was called the Communist Party
Um, yes? Aren't we talking about communism?
Wait this is going to be the No True Scotsman isn't it? Where is communism then? Why do communist revolutionaries keep setting up state capitalism? Maybe true communism just a fantasy.

>>13191393
Good. Workers are vulgar scum

>>13191473
I agree, but i dont go around pretending like im on their side or anything

Who cares if he's rich? What matters is that his concept of Event is fucking retarded and there exist nor can exist no entities which match the definition he wants to enforce. Everyone who still talks about 1968 like it was yesterday needs to fuck off.

>>13191491
What is his definition of Event anyway?

>>13191386
It was a state run capitalist country. With certain aspects of socialism, just like the rest of Europe. Socialism Lite, if you will. I’ve never defended it, Stalin or Beria, but that doesn’t excuse Gulag Archipelagos lies. Get your head out of the Cold War propaganda, burger.

>>13191393
Good post. I mostly agree. Bourgeois attempts at being socialists are always corrupted. At best they like soc-dem reformism.

>>13191454
So do you need Tucker Carlson to come out with the words before you accept the truth of it?
Read this book please. It’s easy stuff.

>>13191502
According to Wikipedia:
>In Being and Event, Alain Badiou writes that the event (événement) is a multiple which basically does not make sense according to the rules of the "situation," in other words existence. Hence, the event "is not," and therefore, in order for there to be an event, there must be an "intervention" which changes the rules of the situation in order to allow that particular event to be ("to be" meaning to be a multiple which belongs to the multiple of the situation — these terms are drawn from or defined in reference to set theory).
The reason he got so angry at Deleuze and wrote The Fascism of the Potato was Deleuze's definition of the same term allowed what Badiou considered a 'situation' to be called an 'Event' because it didn't entail radical rule-violating change in all areas, whereas Badiou wants to call nothing an Event except for something which exits non-existence and obeys rules he derives from his (questionable) interpretation of set theory.

>>13191512
>i've never defended it, but the gulags were still a lie and you're a paranoid american if you think otherwise
Just like all commies, you just cant resist.

>>13191522
How stupid are you?

>>13190667
Imagine dedicating your life to a communist ideology that ultimately failed. Imagine utterly failing to defeat all of your philosophical rivals. Imagine living long enough to see yourself fade into irrelevancy. This is Alian Badiou's life. 50 years from now, he'll either be totally forgotten or be remembered as a buffoon who accomplished nothing.

>>13191448
any anti-communist argument you see here is from resentment. If you knew Badiou, you would see that his flirtation with Maoism was tied closely with his formulation of Truth-Event and a break with the situation. He immediately disavowed Maoism once it became a regime of terror. His short book outlining his ethics is a good introduction to Badiou, who is probably the finest philosopher since Heidegger.

>>13191544
t. Alain

>>13191512
What you need to understand about Marxist Communism is that it simply captures people under its sway due to being a very passionate system designed against the current ruling Aristocracy. I debunked a lot of the claims in previous threads, but the constant rate of profit is one thing that in conjunction with constant vs variable capital makes it so wages necessarily decrease. This would lead to revolution under Marxist communism which is one of the generators of new social paradigms from which to analyze economic relations, but hopefully I showed how people aren’t solely motivated by class or profit interests, that in a natural state of society people would be motivated by much more.

The truth is actually as Schumpeter puts it: that both Marx and the classical economists are all analyzing it from a quixotic lens: the actual stage for competition is more of an oligopolistic society. Game Theory shows us it matters little if the competition is between 4 or 2 sellers, but a lot of it is simply a monopolistic/monopsonistic situation. Hence why there simply necessitating an oligopoly actually invalidates a lot of classical economics and a lot of economics regarding monopolistic situations, like those espoused by institutional economists like the Austrian school. :3

>>13191549
Shut uuuuup nobody but Butterfly is stupid enough to read and respond d to you seriously

>>13191512
I don't know who is Carlson or Wolff, but can they actually defend their own beliefs rather than assign homework?

>>13191558
Go ahead and respond to my claims, after all that is how discussion is had.

If you can’t then realize that it’s because what I’m saying is simply true. You need to think very hard sometimes about things, and the Marxist economic system does not want you to think very hard at all. :3

>>13191558
I don’t read most his shit. He isn’t even serious about most of it.

>>13191570
Carlson is some guy on Fox News, never mind him. The book is by an economics professor. Very easy read, worth the effort. Please read and enjoy it sometime soon

>>13191583
No I am serious Butterfly. After all we have multiple instances of you essentially masturbating to me. If you continue to be negative towards me, then you actually do have a mental illness.

I think you know much more about the female/male relations then you let on, because you do a well enough job of being a woman.

And besides let’s face it: there is a reason you dropped your trip. So I would do what I did. It’s time to own up and defend what I’m saying. It’s time to be an actual individual.

>>13191592
>>13191583
Oh yeah, no conservative on /lit/ actually watches FOX news, that’s not what we’ve done with this community and you know it isn’t.

If you want to respond to my post, it’s actually based on terms used by Marx, but I don’t think you’ve read Marx so how could you respond (Please read Marx or Schumpeter).

>>13191579
>designed against the current ruling Aristocracy
From the very first sentence you demonstrate a lack of regard for the meaning of the terms you choose to use.

>>13191603
It’s a good thing I’m not just using Marxist terms. I’m using terms in general.

Now please respond to the post, because I don’t think Marx used the word ‘Aristocracy’ at all either and if he did it was to reference Feudalism.

So. I’m choosing to use Aristocracy to reference the current Capitalistic oligopolistic competitive tendencies in the markets. I think Pareto actually said that every government is really just an Aristocracy.

So now that I’ve cleared that up either respond to that or the post. Thanks. :3

>>13191609
>So. I’m choosing to use Aristocracy to reference the current Capitalistic oligopolistic competitive tendencies in the markets.
That's fucking stupid, an aristocracy is a social class, not a purchasing pattern defined purely by a relationship with markets.
Go gouge your own eyes out with a buttknife, faggot

>>13191620
>buttknife
butter-knife* I'm sorry

>>13191620
I mean technically speaking I mentioned governments in my post.

How about we clear this issue up then: is every government not essentially an Aristocracy?

The terms monopolistic and monopsonistic mean the same thing with regards to decision making so I take the former to be applicable to markets and the latter to be situational, or based on any sort of economic decision-making, like even a social exchange of utility.

I take Aristocracy to be essentially the governmental term and Oligopoly to be the market term. So we can call the current regime oligopolistic in its markets, or that it tends to oligopoly.

But while we’re on THIS particular hang up, the French Revolution: was it not simply a transition from one Aristocracy to another? Why and why not? Have not all ‘democratic’ revolutions simply been a transition of one Aristocracy to another? Again, why or why not? :3

>>13191647
This is embarrassing.

Bump, people need to hear about this

>>13191647
if this isn't b8 then the person who wrote this is literally the dumbest person on /lit/