/lit/ - Literature

>>13811434
>capitalism sucks
Wrong.

>i've already made up my mind what books do you recommend
wikihow suicide guide

>>13811461
If it doesn't suck why do you live in communist china?

>>13811461
>>13811464
Retards

>>13811461
>>13811464
Isn't 4chan agaisnt big corporations fucking us overand the jews who control those big corporations
Doesn't that make them capitalists?

Germinal
Au Bonheur des Dames
The USA Trilogy

>>13811465
china is capitalism in drag

>>13811494
Based

>>13811434
Idk Rich Dad poor Dad. What are you actually looking to gain?

You wanna learn about anarchist theory? This one’s good

Bakunin, Bookchin, Proudhon, Durruti, Robert Paul Wolff

>>13811434
Money itself isn’t the Devil, it tempts men to become devils.

>>13811474
No.
Congrats on realizing that your ideology is the same as nazism btw

>>13811434
What you seek it's not anarchism, but meaning, and you seek meaning to solve chaos. You would never find meaning in anarchism, because that would be like putting out a fire with gasoline.
Instead, i urge you to give a try to traditionalism. Read Nietzsche to understand the absolute state of the modern world and start from there; then read authors like Evola, Guenon and De Maistre. If you are a christian, then i would also recommend you "Orthodoxy" by G. K. Chesterton, "Christianity and Culture" by T. S. Eliot, and Von Balthasar's "The Christian state of Life". If you haven't yet, read Plato, especially the Republic.

You need to go far ahead from left, right, fascism or anarchism. Despise the tangible, embrace what it's transcendent. Then you will find true meaning.

>>13812358
What do you think of Von Balthasar?

>>13812370
Interesting fellow; it's really hard to read if you haven't read the Bible first though. Iv'e seen some orthodox iconography of him, and they take religion more seriously than any other christian group, so i personally take that as a sign to trust that he was on the right path at least.

>>13812358
Traditionalism is a part of the hyperreal, buddy. it is a floating simulation of traditional cultures that only refers to other signs in the postmodern marketplace.

>>13812228
So starve the devil of his devil chow, numb-nut

>>13812358
>anarchism is chaos lmao
You clearly don't know shit.
Anarchism is about abolishing unjust hierarchies (which is why "anarcho"-capitalism isn't anarchism at all). Most anarchists (except hardcore individualists) want there to be some form of government, usually through participatory democracy.
Traditionalism necessarily maintains hierarchies between people.

>>13812387
So what other signs does it refer to specifically?

>>13812698
Have you actually been involved in a highly democratic organization? Most people are self absorbed dummies and you have a certain percentage of psychopaths. But you same people are petrified of a little eugenics.

>>13812729
So you’d rather give money and power to the most sociopathic shit than allow for a self correcting and decentralized group of neighbors work things out.

Opinion discarded.

>>13812741
What are you on about, I'm saying eugenics is the one true path into anarchy. I can imagine why you personally would be so opposed to it though.

>>13812698
>Most anarchists (except hardcore individualists) want there to be some form of government

anarchism
/ˈanəkJz(ə)m/
Learn to pronounce
noun
belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

i don't get it, which one is it?

>>13812122
I will give it a read thanks

>>13812729
ahhh, so you're just a /pol/tard. Why didn't you say so?

>Most people are self absorbed dummies
nice projection

>>13812741
This anon gets it.

>>13812747
Missed that last quip.
I welcome self evolution. We will tinker with our genetics asap. No need to reemploy the cruelties of eugenics

>>13812753
>which one is it?
The anarchists >>13812122
Not the dictionary

>>13812766
so anarchists are just making shit up as they go along?
well why am i surprised

>>13812698
There is nothing unjust in the hierarchies supported by traditionalism

>>13812753
That's a terrible definition from a biased source, I would assume. Literally read the first two sentences of the Wikipedia article, maybe?

Anarchism is an anti-authoritarian political philosophy[1] that rejects hierarchies deemed unjust and advocates their replacement with self-managed, self-governed societies based on voluntary, cooperative institutions

Some form of government is inherent in almost all kinds of anarchism (except post-left anarchy) per definition.

>>13812777
oh ok i see now
not sure who decides which heirarchies are unjust though

>>13812772
>>13812766
>>13812122
Anarchism is a spectrum. It's the desire for decentralised government.
An anarchist wants a government to be smaller and closer to the source. Instead of USA, seperate states, or seperate cities/towns doing seperate things. There can still be a government within those individual communities.

An extreme anarchist would take this a step further and have no government, bringing the onus of responsibility on to the family or individual to choose their own laws.

>>13812772
So you don’t feel it’s necessary in the real world to flow like water.
I’m similarly not surprised at you ignorance.

>>13812758
I'm an altruist. I actually tried to help, which is likely more than I can say for you. I've noticed a lot of the left never lift a finger for other people, and just expect the state to do it even while posturing like they oppose the state.

>>13812788
The one where I'm on top is the just one

>>13812698
Give me an example of a just hierarchy

>>13811434
Everything is evil. The only mercy comes with death.

>>13812804
I’ve heard this talking point before. Stop speaking as if you’ve observed every single self described leftist

>>13812788
>who decides which heirarchies are unjust though
Depends what school of anarchy you adhere to. A post-left anarchist would say that all hierarchies are unjust, period. An anarcho-communist would say that those hierarchies that serve to exploit the worker in any way (be it by alienating him from the means of production, by turning his labor force into a means to generate capital, etc...) are unjust. There are *lots* of different schools in anarchism, some more realistic, some less.

Read up on the Black Army and the Free Territory in the Ukraine if you're interested and want to see how an anarchist society would function in practice.

>>13812824
I've met a representative enough sample. Try leaving your basement once in a while and interacting with your comrades.

>>13812804
>he thinks that altruistic action within an exploitative system does anything
lmao
also, ad hominem

>>13812838
Exactly the attitude I was talking about. Makes me sick. And left discourse is 90% ad hominem, calling everyone out for bourgeois internalized fragility and so on.

>>13812847
>talking about class struggle is as hominem
this is your brain on conservativism

giving money to an individual may benefit that individual in the short term but will do nothing to help the masses that suffer under the same system.
keep lickin' those boots, buddy

>>13812857
I'm far from a conservative. You're ignorant of the history of Marxism if you don't know what I mean by how they threw around "bourgeois". I've also read more left lit than 90%+ of leftists it seems. Why are they so lazy? Isn't it each according to their ability? Why should we trust these feckless slackers to build anything, let alone a just society?

>>13812881
>You're ignorant of the history of Marxism if you don't know what I mean by how they threw around "bourgeois"
Who is 'they'? The Bolsheviks? The Khmer Rouge? Maoist China? Marx and Engels themselves? All of these groups and people had radically different ideologies and can't just be lobbed together under the blanket term 'leftists'.
>I've also read more left lit than 90%+ of leftists it seems.
Maybe, maybe not. Again, 'leftists' come from extremely varied backgrounds. The average marxist uni prof would kick your metaphorical ass while you would probably dominate some antifa thug.
no matter how you spin it, the working class does not have the recources to educate themselves to the same degree as someone with capital.
>Why should we trust these feckless slackers to build anything, let alone a just society?
Because they are the masses. Because they build everything else. Because there have been many examples in the 20th century alone of left-anarchist societies functioning fine. Pick one.

Your post is one big strawman.

>I'm far from a conservative
doubt.png

>>13812949
>Who is 'they'
I thought you disowned the Khmer Rouge for obvious reasons. The Soviet Union labelled even some of their engineers bourgeois. Marx described bourgeois as a different consciousness with its own morality and used it as an epithet as in "bourgeois economists". Marxist intellectuals in the West and fellow travellers used the term for everything they didn't like. I won't go to the trouble of dredging up quotes because you should be familiar with all of this. My point is that leftists don't treat ad hominem as a fallacy unless it suits them, certainly not when they're slandering a particular angry, toxic, fragile, entitled, bigoted etc. demographic.
>but those are liberals
No, the woke are leftists. They're illiberal and usually anti-capitalists. They're just centring a different battle for now since organized labor is a shadow of its former self, and their current unholy marriage with corporations is a small price to pay for winning total cultural hegemony. Your autistic "not my comrade" charade convinces no one left or right. They just see you as shirking on your moral responsibility to account for your privilege. Just like how you don't do shit for charity because you have a warped conscience.
>you are too a conservative
No more than I am a Muslim for agreeing on some points. Conservatives are deadweight that don't conserve shit.

>>13812717
Traditionalism died and has been dead for some time. The “revolution” to Trad is nothing more than a following of age old adage “first as tragedy, then as farce”. In our modern age, Traditionalism can only point as a counter-signal to what have been adapted reinforcers of behavior. LGBG, decline of family values, materialism, etc., all have risen only some time after the initial death of Tradition. We didn’t just arrive here culturally in one fell swoop; it’s been a decline of some time of behavior that no longer needed to be reinforced. The rise of comfort and diminishing of sever poverty left people without a need for cultural contingencies which maintained a set of social cohesiveness and intelligence which enabled the rapid growth and industrialization that past humans desired. Now, we are left with what we hoped to achieve, although some have outdated neuro-systems which reflect on the severity of our cultural systems and contradict them as inherent “evils” and “bad”. Rather, Traditionalism is the final remnants of a past part of humanity which suffers its last gasp, hoping to resurrect itself in face of the penultimate evils it once held to be the destructor of what it hoped to create; although now created it only seems like a crude mode of vehicle which once served a purpose that is no longer necessary. Natural selection has never ceased in spite of mans attempts to separate himself from nature Now, man maketh man; he is what man makes of himself.

damn you guys need to get laid

>>13811474
>Doesn't that make them capitalists?
Yes.

>>13813213
all penis-in-vagina intercourse is rape

>>13812821
>there is only evil and those too weak to extol it

>>13812824
>Stop speaking as if you’ve observed every single self described leftist
Get past yourself; Anon never said anything even remotely implying this.

>>13813240
Take for example butterfly's only praxis which is attaching xer ideas to a universally despised persona online. I mean, some may call that counterproductive. She should do some volunteering instead of being a useless sack of crap.

>>13813274
She's not despised. She's one of us now.

>>13811434
>I've been convinced money is the devil.
I like free people.
>Also, the bipartisan meme was made to keep us away from discussing anarchism.
The republic and representative democracy is Capitalism favorite organizational system.
>What books would you guys recommend?
Das Kapital (Marx) Critique of the Gotha program (Marx). / Society of the spectacle (Debord).

>>13812387
Holy shit you are based. I'm not sure these cuckservatives even understand what you mean by this.

>>13812698
>unjust hierarchies
Define. I could use a laugh.

>>13812777
>your sources are biased gooooy! hehehe!
>here use wicked paedia instead! We moderate it thorooooughly hehehe!
Dont wait in line fuvking jump in the oven.

>>13813145
This isn't what traditionalism is though.
So not only are you wrong about tradition you are using this to strawman traditionalism.

>>13813695
>doesn’t even capitalize Tradition
You have no idea what you’re talking about, kys

>>13812358
this post is so cringe. traditionalists are embarrassing.

>>13811461

>>13813695
He literally starts quoting Marx's castrated version of the concept of the eternal return, what else did you expect of that post? Faced with a world "without God", most people make the same choice; nihilism over meaning.
They reject the meaning of the transcendent outside themselves, yet they argue of some sort of transcendence within the man himself to give meaning to their lives. It's a cult to the body, to lust, to sensation, to anything that is ephemeral.

>>13815200
>They reject the meaning of the transcendent outside themselves
What utter horseshit used only to satisfy your own lack of meaning in a world without meaning. Trad is part of the hyperreal in that it’s like a newly constructed building or item designed to look old, or to recreate or reproduce an older artifact, by simulating the feel of age or aging: it’s satanic resurrection and a false ideal that only retains its value by being strikingly opposed to current ideals at hand, otherwise it would be completely and utterly worthless, unable to stand upon its own legs. There is no “transcendence” or “spiritual ascension” you receive through rejection of bodily and material desires. It’s akin to anime fags attempting to escape through a fantastical reality, who can’t bear the harshness of the real. The only thing you achieve is a sense of self-masturbation which you get off to the belief that your “superior”, “highly evolved”, “spiritual”, and “an aristocrat of the soul”.

>>13812387
*skims baudrillard once*

>>13815432
>provides no counter argument as to why Trad isn’t a massive COPE

>>13814519
Yikes.

>>13815487
>no arguments for
>GIVE ME THE ARGUMENT AGAINST NOW OR ELSE!!!!

>>13815144
America is paradoxically the most socialist country in the West though.

>>13811434
The only discussion of Anarchism I need is how we torture you to death, thief.

>>13815200
Didn't really expect anything, just thought I'd point it out.
Agree for the most part, although don't really even think it is a choice between nihilism and meaning. Humans can't really create meaning for themselves.
>>13815396
Tradition has nothing to do with Hollywood building facades, anon.
But what are you so angry about? If Traditionalists are just larping, why are you tilting at hyperreal windmills?

>>13815587
>RACIAL SUPERIORITY!

>>13815200
I'm out of my league in this discussion, but i've heard that God is the everything. Nature, man, the elements.
Monotheism is to put god in the sky, something unreachable, when in fact it's supposed to be all around us and within us.
With an alienated life in Capitalism, glorifying the material and exchange value all day long, of course we are cut from the true divine. So we fantasize it in an unreachable place, the sky, and in a book, instead of nature.

>>13815620
>Humans can't really create meaning for themselves.
I agree with that, sorry if if explained myself wrongly. I meant that men can find meaning, that is, objective truth. If humans could create meaning that would mean that they can create truths, and that it's just absurd.

>>13815736
I believe that you can actually rationalize the existence of God. An "Unmoved mover", transcendent of both time and space, becomes a necessary conclusion to avoid an argument that concludes either in infinite regress or in a "creatio ex nihilo".