/lit/ - Literature

Imbecile.

>>14060497
>French president François Mitterrand of France who, coming in on a socialist platform, emulated the pomp of French monarchs.
Holy based

Still confusing left-liberals with socialists?

>>14060533
That's not the author who made the thread, silly.

As always, you are too cute for your own good :3

>>14060497
>Never listen to a leftist who does not give away his fortune or does not live the exact lifestyle he wants others to follow
"No one should be allowed to challenge a system ruled by money if they don't give away all their money, which would render them powerless under the same system that they're challenging."

Wow, much genius Black Swan Man, very epic! Make Phoenicia Great Again!

>>14060533
At least you admit liberals can be leftist.

>>14060547
A wild caviar leftist has appeared.

>>14060562
He has a point too. This advice is much too broad
People have tried to pick on me for being too rich to be leftist. What, just because I’m not living on the streets? Money does corrupt us though, not doubting it.

>>14060533
>liberal mutt larping as a socialist accuses euro succdems of being liberals
everyone who became """politically aware""" in 2016 deserves to be burned alive

>>14060497
Imagine thinking politics is lifestylism

>>14060497
Best book written by an Arab since the Koran

>>14060690
Taleb is Phoenician.

>>14060605
I became """politically aware""" in 2011. When will you?

>>14060497
>If you are rich, you can't be leftist because you are voting against your own interests for the plebs you despise
>If you are poor, you can't be leftist because you resent the rich and you need to get your shit together and advance in society instead

Based. Leftcucks get fucked no matter what.

>>14060712
good

>>14060712
Okay Russel Brand

>>14060791
Taleb refuted you, get over it.

>>14060702
Is Taleb a time traveler? Because they stopped existing almost 2000 years ago.

>>14060709
>bragging about 2011
holy shit lmao you're not even an OWS newfag

>>14060805
If Taleb was saying that these champagne socialist should not be the ones implementing socialism then he may have a point. Else it is a Tu quoque argument

>>14060834
Not bragging. I was a very dissatisfied progressive coming out of the Bush years and a dull witted conservative goth in the 90s. My development was hampered by having to consider theism and career-ism

>>14060791
pic has nothing to do with what taleb said

>>14060855
you really must be one of the dumbest posters on this board

>>14060863
Taleb literally said people with indulgent lifestyles can't advocate for socialism

>>14060855
But this time you've hit upon the right ideology and won't look back and cringe in 10 years.

>>14060896
Does that peasant look like a champagne socialist to you? It's pretty understandable that poor people want to mug the rich. It's incomprehensible that rich people want to mug other rich people for 'sins' they commit themselves.

>>14060851
Not and argument

>>14060896
He said never to listen to them. As for the pic, what does a peasant have to do with champagne socialists described?
Skin in the game is the only antidote to LARPing.

>>14060919
Previous panel of that comic shows wealthier people saying similar things. Nevertheless it is still a tu quoque argument no matter how rich or poor the proponent is.

>poor people want to mug the rich
If Taleb really thinks that is what socialism is about then he is a bigger pseud than I thought.

>>14060928
Refer to>>14060958

>Skin in the game is the only antidote to LARPing
Again if that means said champagne socialist shouldn't be the ones leading the socialist revolution/party then that might make some sense but dismissing their argument of advocacy is peak 'you critique in a society but live in it'

>>14060989
>argument of advocacy
argument or advocacy for it

>>14060958
It's what it boils down to and it's how it's implemented. Doesn't matter the system, pic related will always mean some will do better than others, and that will be seen as unfair.

>>14060851
LOL, based antisemite

>>14060999
>pic related will always mean some will do better than others, and that will be seen as unfair.
Marx literally explicitly wants that in Critique of Gotha Program

>But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity,otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

>>14060547

This is my problem with Taleb. Like him as a philosopher, but he keeps ruining his credibility by disparaging every intellectual on the planet with no basis and praising his Phoenician, Grecian, Lebanese and French blood, like he was grown in a lab run by inbred eugenecists. Genetically engineered to be the world's smartest idiot.

only enforcing equality of opportunity is fair, enforcing equality of outcome is not

>>14060547
The caviar leftist stereotype only speaks, they take no action and challenge nothing because they threaten nothing.

>>14061050
Literally even Taleb's example of Mitterrand did try to implement socialism though

>taleb thinks being a laborer doesn't involve having skin in the game
kek

>>14061033
>>14061018
>and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity,
otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement
Not all labor is equal, and the value of labor is impossible to measure except with market forces, as every socialist society has discovered.
>Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so
forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one
will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on.
Completely irrelevent.

We already have a great way of rewarding unequal talent - the market.
I'm unable to see any solution proposed in that paragraph, not even sure what he's critiquing apart from an acknowledgement that men are not equal.
I don't want to get into a dumb argument about Marx's autism.

>>14061077
It is revelant coz you assume that socialism/socialists doesn't take into account of disparity of talent in people.

>We already have a great way of rewarding unequal talent - the market.
Big if true

>>14060497
What is it with the sudden shilling of taleb on lit?

>>14060581
All rich Californians are leftists. Don't be stupid. Seriously :3

>>14060690
Mohammed was a red-headed Jew, his tribe descended directly from of the chief of the Cohen.

>>14061087
Maybe a giant government bureaucracy would be better after all.

>>14060702
*LARPing

>>14060605
succdems are literally liberals though

>>14060497
He's actually not wrong here, though for slightly different reasons - the current crop of urbanite "leftists" (think Jacobin, Chapo, Zero Book, and sho on...) would ultimately balk at true violent revolution, or would be comically ineffective at it. Critique and agitprop is all well and good, as far as it goes, but when it becomes an established "cottage industry" of SELLING critique on the capitalist market, any revolutionary tendency is just re-absorbed back into Capital, to the ultimate detriment of the average manual worker you supposedly aim to liberate. Not that critique is a bad thing of itself, but it can't be the ONLY thing a revolutionary movement has - you also need people who can grow food and build weapons, and a genuine intent to arm the working class as a force that can end the current system. Which is precisely what today's left lacks (at least, in the First World - South America is much more active, watch Chile!)

>>14061205
mutt

>Being a critique of capitalism if you're a proletarian
You're just jealous because you don't know how to play the game well, since you're a loser you want to break the system, just work harder and be rich
>Being a critique of capitalism if you're bourgeois
Capitalism is allowing you to have your good standard of living so why are you against it? How about you give all of your belongings up and live like the poor?
Regardless of where you stand, you're not allowed to be against the system, because you're either a hypocrite or just salty because you're not thriving in this system.

>>14061567
what if I'm a rich proletarian?

>>14060497
literally just rehashing kierkegaard, what a fucking hack

>>14060497
hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue

>Never listen to a leftist who does not give away his fortune
Midwit tier. Leftism is about freedom from being a wagie cagie and receiving your fair share. It comes from egoism, not gay little charity that does nothing to solve problems for good.

>>14061033
>To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
At that point isn't doing more than the bare minimum basically alttruism?

>>14060905
Nah. Freedom is pique maturity

>>14060896
They make poor advocates. Lenin for instance.

marxism doesn't exist among the proletariat