/lit/ - Literature

>Therefore, although the originators of these systems were, in many respects, revolutionary, their disciples have, in every case, formed mere reactionary sects. They hold fast by the original views of their masters, in opposition to the progressive historical development of the proletariat. They, therefore, endeavour, and that consistently, to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms. They still dream of experimental realisation of their social Utopias […] and to realise all these castles in the air, they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeois. By degrees, they sink into the category of the reactionary [or] conservative Socialists depicted above, differing from these only by more systematic pedantry, and by their fanatical and superstitious belief in the miraculous effects of their social science.

>>14411987
not that one

>>14412079
This one is just a letter.
>The same thing applies to the class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie. On paper it is recognised because there is no denying it any longer, but in practice it is glossed over, suppressed, emasculated. The Social-Democratic Party should not be a workers’ party, it should not bring upon itself the hatred of the bourgeoisie or, for that matter, of anyone else; above all, it should prosecute vigorous propaganda amongst the bourgeoisie; instead of laying stress on ambitious goals which are calculated to frighten off the, bourgeoisie, and unattainable anyway in our own generation, it should rather devote all its strength and energies to those petty-bourgeois stop-gap reforms which provide new props for the old social order and which might, perhaps, transform the ultimate catastrophe into a gradual, piecemeal and, as far as possible, peaceable process of dissolution. These are the same people who keep up an appearance of ceaseless activity, yet not only do nothing themselves but also try to ensure that nothing at all is done save — chin-wagging; the same people whose fear of any kind of action in 1848 and '49 held back the movement at every step and finally brought about its downfall; the same people who never see reaction and then are utterly dumbfounded to find themselves at last in a blind alley in which neither resistance nor flight is possible; the same people who want to confine history within their narrow philistine horizons, and over whose heads history invariably proceeds to the order of the day.

>>14412079
>They still dream of experimental realisation of their social Utopias
>By degrees, they sink into the category of the reactionary [or] conservative Socialists depicted above, differing from these only by more systematic pedantry, and by their fanatical and superstitious belief in the miraculous effects of their social science.
Which Marx himself never did, of course.

>>14412079
>>14412141
is it because this was in German or is Marx just a shitty writer, because holy fucking shit this is a chore to read.

>>14411987
>pic unrelated

>>14411987
Literal boomer glasses

>>14411987
The Camp of the Saints. Amazing book, too. Get your first edition before it's banned and worth 30k

critique of cynical reason

accurately predicted contemporary reactionaries as well

>>14411987
>We may also point out that the stimulantia and the narcotica are often used in combination with, or in opposition to each other. What goes up must come down. We may also think of weights on a balance: for each weight on one side of the scale, a counterweight is placed on the other side. In this way, one maintains an artificial equilibrium until, one day, the scale breaks.

The typical modern leftist appears quite often in Dostoevskys books

>>14412082
>>14412252
triggered lefties spotted

>>14412443
Ted is left wing

>>14412459
read the first page of Industrial Society and you'll see that you are wrong

>>14412465
ok MIGAtard, back to r/t_D

>>14412470
Chapofag spotted, his descriptions were completely accurate

>>14412319
>The Camp of the Saints
That's just a prophetic book

>>14412492
>his descriptions were completely accurate

>>14412079
Sauce of the quote?
Google throw me multiple books.

>>14412141
>devote all its strength and energies to those petty-bourgeois stop-gap reforms which provide new props for the old social order
I guess /pol/ doing the job for the lazy coward Marxists

>>14412141
Which book? This faggot post is going to be the reason I read kapital. Stupidpol has got me now

>>14412234
You need to level up. It's not super clear but try reading some Nick Land some time

>>14412504
dunno how anyone (other than leftists themselves since they must always be disadvantaged) can deny his criticism of modern leftism, all of his descriptions of them are absolutely spot on

>>14412459
Anarcho primitivists don't really fit well on a left/right scale since they want to completely eradicate all forms of modern politics altogether and should thus really be in a totally distinct category

>>14413566
for real his psychoanalysis of the leftist mindset is accurate and still relevant to this day

If you're an individualist, you're not an anarchist. If you're a nihilist or an anti-state anarcho-primitivist, you're not a free-market libertarian, you're not an anarcho-capitalist. You're an individualist, and that means you are a racist, a bigot, and probably a psychopath. There is no way to deal with racism, bigotry, and psychopaths with other individuals, this is one of the top anti-social traits. I only see one good way to deal with them, to treat the lowest forms of humans as non-human and kill them.

>>14413578
>psychoanalysis of the leftist mindset
Which book or essay does he do that in? I'm interested in his thoughts but dont want to get deep into uncle ted just yet

>>14413583
he does it at the start of his manifesto

>>14413579
Abhorrent post, you can have your own anarchist community among people the same ethnic background as you.

>>14413594
When dealing with a racist or bigot it is my social duty to kill them, they cannot be social beings and they cannot reproduce. This is extremely important as non-human animals are the most crucial part of our society. I will not tolerate discrimination or racism. I will support the rights of all. In this scenario in which it is not possible to get hold of an AI I am talking about just killing a racist with a gun. This is not euthanasia, but just plain murder.

>>14413616
You can want to kill racists all you want, I don't know what definition of "racist" you're going by, but preferring to live among your own people is not anti-social behavior and is arguably even more closer to how humans once lived.

There is no sort of tribe that consisted of people of different ethnic groups.

>>14413616
Bourgeoise sociopath on speed. You are a liberal, not an anarchist

>>14412319
>>14412500
>reactionaries calling a book with reductive cartoonish characters und no nuance toward the topic "prophetic"

No surprise there. Anything more complex would probably blow your brain.

>>14413640
I'm saying racists and bigots shouldn't be allowed to socialize. They need to be shot dead and preferably tortured beforehand. What if someone were a member of a hate group and had 20 kids, and no one was going to give a shit? Or if that person could buy a pizza, go out, and get a couple dozen pastries and a cheeseburger? A well-meaning white person should no longer be allowed to insert themselves into those conversations. Letting them get their advice in is only feeding the pile of shit they're trying to rise up against.
>>14413646
I'm a liberal capitalist who doesn't give a shit about the State's legitimacy and I'd rather not conform to the rules of a dictatorship that doesn't give a shit about me. I am, in fact, a fully fledged anarchist. I do that by not buying any fucking thing made by the State, by using the resources of the free market, by participating in self-managed affinity groups, and by refusing to obey the orders from ugly people.

>>14413668
Oh, you're an ancap. Carry on then

>>14413676
Hah, not in the slightest. I'm an chaotic liberal, after all. It's just been quite fun watching the usual suspects (whiny Guardianistas) try to blow this down.
One thing worth mentioning, however: I've never thought of myself as an SJW, and to think I am is an embarrassing fantasy of mine. On a random occasion I casually discovered that for a person to be a "real SJW" it's necessary to be a) right wing, and b) SJW, as defined by the SJW definition (as defined above, and in a little box to the right). People often accuse me of being "racially insensitive", as if race and prejudice didn't exist, which means they either don't know what SJW actually means, or they're being insensitive to me.

>>14413668
you should be nicer to racists and bigots, they're good people and their heart is in the right place

>>14413691
Nah fuck em

>>14413703
i mean that works too but you can't just fuck all your problems away

>>14413668
> look, a wild lolbertarian!
Kek. How are the tendies?

>>14413683
You lost me here... Anarchist, liberal, capitalist... But not AnCap. Egoist?

>>14413703
Kys

>>14413711
Are you liberal? capitalist? anarchist? If you answered yes to any of these questions, congratulations, you're a rational adult. If you answered no to any of these questions, congratulations, you're a robot.
Non-goy, non-homosexual, non-cisgendered, non-faux-identified: These are terms my employers choose to use to describe me and my coworkers because they hate us, and we're shit human beings, but they think it's kind of funny. This annoys me, especially since they're continually telling me, "We're not all right wing." Fuck off with that noise.

>>14413578
Can you post some of it here?

>>14413720
Quit working for people and start your own biz

>>14413723
>The feeling of inferiority of the leftist stems from the belief that he or she is not as smart, talented, or as worthwhile as other people. These feelings are just as common in white Americans as they are among blacks. And when leftism becomes strong enough to change people's brains, the feelings grow into an insatiable desire to place one's own stamp on the world, perhaps by joining a group whose goal is the same as one's own: domination.
>The leftist's vivid, unvarnished memories are plentiful, and they often flood one with a paralyzing anxiety. After decades of being a victim of the right, the leftist is now a visible, viable part of the dominant culture. Despite never having experienced the guillotine, coincuffs, knife tombs, death of a thousand cuts, defenestration, famine, infertility, racism, sexism, bigotry in business, in buses, streetcars, sex cliques, or schoolhouses, &c. &c. &c.

>>14413723
>9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization”. Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of
modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism;
but this segment is highly influential.
>11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom
he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings
or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among
minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the
minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities
and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The
terms “negro”, “oriental”, “handicapped” or “chick” for an
African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick”
were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy”, “dude” or
“fellow”. The negative connotations have been attached
to these terms by the activists themselves.
>13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the
problems of groups that have an image of being weak
(women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel
that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to
themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they
identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest
that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)
14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are
nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and
as capable as men.
15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image
of being strong, good and successful. They hate America,
they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they
hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating
the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real
motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but
where these same faults appear in socialist countries or
in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them,
or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly
exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western
civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the
leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He
hates America and the West because they are strong and
successful.

>>14413720
Adding anti-semitic to the list. Very confusing...

>>14413736
Let's just say I don't give a fuck about your labels.

>>14413735
Not highly original, but I would say it’s pretty accurate.

>>14411987
Yes. The Gospels, in the story of the herd of pigs.

I think I'd read a quote by him saying that Academics start their careers by thinking they would get inside the system and change it from the inside but the system tricks them so they can't. Does anyone have this quote?

>>14413750
kek that is what im trying to do right now
but what if i already like and appreciate ted's worldview.

how can you go back from that level?

>>14413750
No

>>14413750

>>14413659
Not an argument

>>14412443
>Heh triggered lefty?

>>14413984
That Peterson makes a lot of sense. American universities are basically communist Russia. Bill Maher Lib professors have the exact same Ideology as Stalin. Remember to clean your smegma buckos.

>>14411987
Romans chapter 1

>>14414036
Awful satire

>>14412167
Yep, he never did that.
>>14412234
It's you. I'm ESL and English translations of Marx are generally pleasant to read.
>>14413500
Manifesto of the Communist Party
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
>>14413543
Circular Letter to August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, Wilhelm Bracke and Others
https://marxists.catbull.com/archive/marx/works/1879/09/18.htm
>>14413579
>If you're an individualist, you're not an anarchist.
Anarchism is the ultimate form of individualism. It's all about the sanctity of the abstract individual, everything ever done requiring his consent.

>>14411987
Not a whole book, just a brief pamphlet, but "Combat Liberalism" by Mao Zedong.

>>14414254
>It's you. I'm ESL and English translations of Marx are generally pleasant to read.
Theyre really not. Even by German standards, Marx is insanely dry, which doesnt help when he has the tendency to string along very long sentences. Almost all German philosophers suffer from this (except Nietzsche).
Also Marx, whenever he made an effort to predict what communism would be like, did in fact produce the most insane utopianism. From the German ideology:
>" He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."

It doesnt take a genius to see that this is completely impossible with the modern diversification of labour. Hell, it was barely possible back in Marx time already.

>>14412319
>thinking Camp of the Saints isn't unreadable shit
Next you're gonna say The Turner Diaries belong in the western canon

>>14414329
>It doesnt take a genius to see that this is completely impossible with the modern diversification of labour.
That's his entire point, genius; that communism entails transcending the division of labour. In that fragment he doesn't present a utopian scheme for that, but simply explains what that means using an example that a child would understand.
I agree that if you define the word "utopian" to denote everything impossible within the current mode of production then you can triumphantly proclaim him a utopian, but that's clearly not the way a critical communist uses the word. Therefore, when one responds to his criticisms of utopian socialists with "but he was utopian himself", one is equivocating on the meaning of that word.
And I've read a fair amount of Kant and Hegel -- Marx is much clearer than them. Of course he won't be immediately accessible to a dopamine deficient youtube kid, but he definitely won't be a chore to read for anyone who's genuinely interested in communism and has put effort into unfucking their brain.

>>14414365
>he definitely won't be a chore to read for anyone who's genuinely interested in communism and has put effort into unfucking their brain.
This, Marx & Engels are a thousand times easier to understand than any idealist philosophy.

>>14414365
>That's his entire point, genius; that communism entails transcending the division of labour.
Yes, and my point is that this isnt possible unless you revert back to feudal or caveman era jobs. You cant say "alright, you're gonna be a janitor today and a doctor tomorrow", nor can you say "You'll be a factory worker today and a nuclear physicist tomorrow". It's completely infeasible once it requires jobs of a certain intellectual level and years and years of study and training. Which means that people will have to specialize for such jobs, which in turn means that a division of labour will persist, because such specialized people cannot just switch from one job to another. No really, you'd trust your life to someone who hasnt had years of experience and training as a doctor?
>And I've read a fair amount of Kant and Hegel
Agree to disagree then. I didnt find Hegel to be nearly as bad as i expected it to be. Hegel might be obscurantist and highly abstract, but he's not really dry and boring, like Marx. And both suffer from the typical German way of structuring sentences.

this book describes all post-soviet leftists that aren't radlib larpers.
a lot of cynicism, pessimism, defeatism, nihilism, lack of hope, etc. even the most orthodox-marxist marxists ignore most of marx ideas about change.
"it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism"

>>14414437
I have that same carpet

>>14414393
>You cant say "alright, you're gonna be a janitor today and a doctor tomorrow", nor can you say "You'll be a factory worker today and a nuclear physicist tomorrow".
Sure I can. As far as I know doctors are capable of cleaning a toilet and nuclear physicists should be smart enough to learn how to operate a machine. For a start, you shouldn't see this as a part of the immediate program, but as something that society will slowly transition towards and which will only be fully realized in a higher stage of communism.
>Which means that people will have to specialize for such jobs, which in turn means that a division of labour will persist
That some people will choose to dedicate most of their time to a certain kind of activity doesn't mean that the general division of labour will persist. Lack of division of labour doesn't mean that everyone will be doing everything at the same time (which is what your interpretation of the concept results in if we push it to the end), but that as time goes on people will be less and less socially compelled to dedicate their lives to a single career.
>Hegel might be obscurantist and highly abstract, but he's not really dry and boring, like Marx.
Sounds like you simply lack interest in communism, which is fine. You just shouldn't automatically assume that the dryness is for the most part in the object.

>>14414364
OK kike

>>14414437
So hopeless the author killed himself

>>14414630
Good.

>>14414437
>a lot of cynicism, pessimism, defeatism, nihilism, lack of hope
so - exactly the traits Uncle Ted pinpointed, he was right again
>even the most orthodox-marxist marxists ignore most of marx ideas about change
that's because these ideas are not worth a fucking penny, the whole point of contemporary Marxism and leftism is to give the people an illusion of autonomous movement through which the people could excercise their power process thus harming the actual revolutionary movements, had Marx been alive these days he would have been a Kaczynskian
>it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism
the end of capitalism will be the end of the world as we know it, social life - like natural life - abhors a vacuum, it doesn't matter whether the technoindustrial system presents itself under the guise of capitalism or socialism. if the west is to become socialist then so be it but know that with your petty reformist movement you are merely postponing the inevitable collapse of the technoindustrial system

>>14411987
>>14412079
>>14412141
This one is just an address.
>The democratic petty bourgeois, far from wanting to transform the whole society in the interests of the revolutionary proletarians, only aspire to a change in social conditions which will make the existing society as tolerable and comfortable for themselves as possible. They therefore demand above all else a reduction in government spending through a restriction of the bureaucracy and the transference of the major tax burden into the large landowners and the bourgeoisie. They further demand the removal of the pressure exerted by big capital on small capital through the establishment of public credit institutions and the passing of laws against usury, whereby it would be possible for themselves and the peasants to receive advances on favourable terms from the state instead of from capitalists; also, the introduction of bourgeois property relationships on land through the complete abolition of feudalism. In order to achieve all this they require a democratic form of government, either constitutional or republican, which would give them and their peasant allies the majority; they also require a democratic system of local government to give them direct control over municipal property and over a series of political offices at present in the hands of the bureaucrats.
>The rule of capital and its rapid accumulation is to be further counteracted, partly by a curtailment of the right of inheritance, and partly by the transference of as much employment as possible to the state. As far as the workers are concerned one thing, above all, is definite: they are to remain wage labourers as before. However, the democratic petty bourgeois want better wages and security for the workers, and hope to achieve this by an extension of state employment and by welfare measures; in short, they hope to bribe the workers with a more or less disguised form of alms and to break their revolutionary strength by temporarily rendering their situation tolerable.

>>14413616
>When dealing with a racist or bigot it is my social duty to kill them, they cannot be social beings and they cannot reproduc
>>14413668
>I'm saying racists and bigots shouldn't be allowed to socialize. They need to be shot dead and preferably tortured beforehand
>>14413683
>Hah, not in the slightes
>>14413720
>Are you liberal? capitalist? anarchist? If you answered yes to any of these questions, congratulations, you're a rational adult
>>14413738
>Let's just say I don't give a fuck about your labels

>>14413573
Ted is a neo-luddite, not anprim

>>14412319
great premise but thoroughly disappointing novel