/lit/ - Literature

Everything seeming one way or the other is dependent upon the seeing of the thing.

>>15122002
Dilate.

>>15122002
Why, were you dropped on your head?

>>15122065
Criticizing liberal economics can be right wing.

>>15122139
No, not really.

>>15122065
today's leftists are for consoomerism though

>>15122139
Liberal economics is right wing. It literally upholds hierarchy.

>>15122065
Baudrillard even criticized Marxism you clown.
>>15122225
retard

>>15122225
Everything that involves more than one person upholds hierarchies

>>15122253
He is known to have an awful reading of Marx

sometimes this board promises to be everything I'm looking for, sometimes it's just fucking idiots of the highest order

>>15122225
Well shit. Someone better tell the french revolution they got their definitions of left-wing and right-wing mixed up

>>15122002
he was an apolitical nihilist.
labelling him with a political movement is pseud shit.

>>15122225
so? literally almost every economic system before capitalism upholded hierarchy and some of them were much closer to the political ideals of fascism (like feudalism)
unrestrained, liberal, free market capitalism can't be fascist . it's obvious that it destroys borders, puts profits first instead of culture, and basically rejects every tenet of fascism

How is complaining about capitalism right wing

>>15122268
what are you looking for prick? circlejerking about Cortazar books or some pop philosopher like Zizek? why don't you go back to r/literature of whatever they call it if you want to fully enjoy being among pretentious midwits faggot?

Left or right liberal is still capitalist. Capitalism is rightwing

>>15122293
(apparently telling someone to go back to R...dit automically makes your post labeled as spam, thanks jannies)

>>15122301
Right wing has nothing to do with capitalism. Its about upholding traditional values

>>15122290
>>15122301
Capitalism is not right wing you stupid idiots. Feudalism and monarchy is right wing.

>>15122301
i'm surprised you still post here
>capitalism is right wing
that can only happen in the mind of deluded marxists for whom literally *ANYTHING* other than their utopian classless future is right wing and reactionary. It's not even a joke. If it's not full communism in a stateless clasless society is "reactionary". Doesn't that tell you something about your ideology and its categories?

>>15122268
>fucking idiots of the highest order
Yeah like these people who think that capitalism and liberalism are right wing.

>>15122225
Wrong, economic liberalism relentlessly subverts traditional hierarchies and culture in the pursuit of profit

>>15122366
based and correct. Marxist simpletons BTFO

>>15122366
It literally upholds hierarchy. You are just seetheing because you are a peasant at the bottom.

>>15122002
It is today. It wasn't when he wrote it.

>>15122301
Capitalism is extreme liberalism. It just so happens that giving everyone equal freedom in the market eventually kicks a lot of people to the curb, because resources aren't infinite.

>>15122375
>It wasn't when he wrote it.
How so?

>>15122366
>subverts traditional hierarchies
where?

>>15122374
>implying all hierarchies are the same
I know you anarchists hate all forms of hierarchies, but the exact form it takes does matter and make a difference

>>15122374
It upholds economic hierarchy. The capitalists who sit at the top of that hierarchy were in large part the ones who supplanted the old political hierarchy, the monarchies. It's not so cut and dry.

>>15122420
The hierarchies are the same as they have always been. Working people getting fucked over and people at the top jacking themselves off. All that is different is that there is no "traditional" religion i.e. people larping while everyone gets fucked over. The new "religion" is rugged liberal rugged individualism. Everything is the same just a but of a different flavor. You are just living in fantasy land.

>>15122441
Wow so instead of a few hundred years ago where your birth placed you at the top to jack off or at the bottom to get fucked over, today...your birth places you at the top to jack off or at the bottom to get fucked over.

>>15122384
The so-called left and right wing parties have changed.

>>15122374
it upholds *a hierarchy* of the ones who are smarter making money. How could this be fascist? A chore tenet of fascism is its rejection of devoid soulless materialism and some vague ideas about trascendence and such. These are all opposite to fascism lol.

>>15122487
>A chore tenet of fascism is its rejection of devoid soulless materialism and some vague ideas about trascendence and such
So basically just putting some spices on top of the same thing to make it look nicer. Gotcha.

>>15122498
yes I know that to you people everything resembling authority is fascism and it's sick. I'd argue that the only sick thing is believing in a magical utopia were hierarchies don't exist and societies are classless etc
for some reason your communist experiments never got to achieve that, but whatever, keep deluding yourself
you should read Hobbes

>>15122498
materialist faggot cunt

>>15122474
The two have very different effects, one obvious effect is how much easier it is for Capitalists to go international compared to Monarchs/Nobles/Lords who are tied to land.

If your point is that there is always a small elite who are in power then yes I agree, but the forms of power are different.

>>15122517
>>15122518
Not a utopianist. Sorry I am tearing apart your flimsy ideology/fantasy.

>>15122002
that looks like the costco on 3 ave

>>15122524
That one is chocolate flavored and the other is chocolate flavored with sprinkles. Sure.

>>15122530
lmao you can't even defend your stupid utopia of equality without hierarchies. You know it's childish and utopian, you know it literally never happened so you can't defend it. I didn't expect more from you people

>>15122540
They are significantly different structures of political and social organization. Identifying a commonality between them is no reason to pretend they are the same thing.

I'm mostly receptive to this sort of continental social critique but Baudrillard to me just seems like a grade-A bullshitter

>>15122555
I never said anything about my politics or anything about equality. Keep seething.

>>15122225
This is your brain on leftypol

What is a "non-consumer" society?

>>15122566
then what are those?

>>15122215
>>15122225
>>15122290
>>15122374
>>15122449
Capitalism is inherently opposed to the right. The term "left wing" was originally coined to refer to liberals. Conservatives were originally called conservatives because they wanted to conserve pre-liberal traditions and power structures and correctly recognized that capitalism would annihilate all of those things in the name of profit. Modern-day conservatives are not actually conservatives because they don't seek to conserve anything at all, they're merely liberals who want the endless march of capitalism to move at a slightly slower pace.

Capitalism is not defined by hierarchy in a right wing sense, as the system is both porous and egalitarian. Any retard, regardless or race, culture, religion, intelligence, skill, or otherwise can become an elite within the liberal system so long as he stumbles into enough capital. Thus the concept of an "elite" becomes meaningless as who comprises the elite becomes functionally no different than who comprises the proles. Within right wing systems, the elite is neither porous nor egalitarian. A free burgher in a feudal system is not a noble regardless of how much profit he creates. The only way for a burgher to be elevated into the elite is for the elite to collectively accept him as such by raising him up. The elite is restrictive and closed off from the masses on their own terms. The same could be said of any right wing system, such as fascism or national socialism.

people like >>15122309 is why we should never ever use terms like rightwing and left wing. literally noone is talking about the same thing

>>15122602
B-but there are people with more money than me! That means there's a hierarchy oppressing me! Capitalism is LITERALLY crypto-fascism!

>>15122613
It reminds me of Christian sects arguing over who is really Christian. The terms 'left' and 'right' appear to have become nothing but empty markers of positive emotional/negative valence that people want to claim for their position.

You can make a theory of what unites various left or right positions, hierarchy is the obvious one and was touched on itt already, but the words are used practically like magic totems or something at this point.

>>15122649
>positive emotional/negative
positive/negative emotional*

>>15122309
If Capitalism is left wing and monarchy is right wing then what does that make Marx

>>15122602
So right wing is basically the way things are now except everyone is larping.

>>15122649
The problem is that nobody defines their terms so you have idiots arguing over semantics rather than actual ideas.

>>15122677
Marx is materialist, therefore left wing. Just a different flavor of left wing from capitalism.

>>15122679
Can you explain how you got that from my post?

>>15122301
>Capitalism is rightwing
brainlet take

>>15122649
This seems to be the natural fate of any political term. I hate it. It makes conversation borderline impossible with anyone not in your own ecochamber

>>15122374
Wrong

example A) economic liberalism causing the media and educational system to push the idea of women working until middle age instead of their traditional role of rearing the children and maintaining the home (this nearly doubling the workforce and massively driving down wages)

example B) Big business lobbies spending millions to push for increases in immigrants and foreign workers who are willing to work for less, thereby pushing down wages and turning the traditional culture of the communities the move into copy and paste globohomo atomized communities where nobody feels any connection to their neighbors because of cultural disconnect

example C) Traditional artisans and farmers seeing their traditional way lf living and their artisanal goods coming under assault by big corporations who flood communities with cheap mass-produced products and who use all sorts of tricks to purchase and consolidate farmlands away from independent farmers

All these are examples of economic liberalism subverting the traditional culture and ways of life of communities in the pursuit of profit, undermining the heirachy of the family by promoting women in the workforce, undermining local community and religious leaders by broadcasting into everyone's homes the message that people should ignore religious authorities, that they should leave their communities and go be debt-ridden bugmen in the big city to find happiness. Also, see the countless examples of how neoliberal IMF and WTO structural adjustment packages attached to loans to third world countries made the acceptence of those loans conditional on the country lowering all tarifs and allowing cheap American grain and orher goods onto their markets, thereby wiping out entire communities of traditional farmers and herdsmen as well as the larger communities build up around and sustained by them who had lived that way for countless generations

>>15122309
>Ignoring any political and social changes since the year 1800

>>15122696
Again, just cope that you are a peasant at the bottom. The traditional hierarchies are the same, just all the sprinkles were taken out so that you see the grimness that was always there.

>>15122714
>being this retarded

i guess economic history is an area in which horseshoe theory rings true yet again.

>>15122002
How is this book in support of Feudalism/Monarchism in any way?

>>15122682
Lets just use Urban Dictionary's top definition

Right wing:
Conservative or republican.

ei; George Bush

>>15122751
But George Bush is a Trotskyite

>In the United States, the pursuit of wealth, stripped of its religious and ethical meaning, tends to become associated with purely mundane passions, which often actually give it the character of sport!

>>15122727
not an argument

What did Baudrillard support? I know that he did not like Marxism or capitalism, but what was his solution?

>>15122225
Your daily routine upholds hierarchy.

>>15122002
that's because the CIA has brainwashed you into thinking in terms of political dichotomy

>>15123005
They never have a program, only criticism, which is why there's been no end to liberalism despite it entering senility

>>15123023
But my favorite team of liars has only betrayed me every time they win the elections! You must be crazy.

>>15123026
>liberalism it entering senility
How so? Seems to be going fairly strong sans corona-chan

>>15123058
>Seems to be going fairly strong sans corona-chan
Look at national debts and personal, too. It's not going strong, it's coughing its last.

>>15122856
correct. it's just an insult made for my entertainment.

>>15123070
>It's not going strong, it's coughing its last.
Nah, but you will be soon.

>>15123070
Isn't most national debt fake? As in the government owes it to itself. As for personal debt, it just means people are more enslaved than ever to liberalism. Surely that is a sign of it going strong? As for possible worries that people will choose to default on their debts instead, its not like debt renegotiates don't already happen for people too deep in debt to have any hope of paying it off. Debt is "fake". I don't see a system collapsing due to something it can dissolve whenever the need arises.

>>15123114
>can't refute anything

>>15123120
>Isn't most national debt fake? As in the government owes it to itself.
Central banks are not owned by governments. They are independent, privately owned companies. They are owned by the tribe of baby mutilating psychopaths, and they control the governments and own the media companies.

>>15123123
I just did. The goal of liberalism is to make everyone an individual, not keep everyone afloat and safe. That some people are in debt means that it's working and not the other way around.

>>15122726
>The traditional hierarchies are the same
not really, traditional hierarchies were way harder on the capitalist classes, taxes were pretty brutal. under liberalism (leftism) the capitalist classes were set free from the reigns of church and state

>>15123120
>Isn't most national debt fake? As in the government owes it to itself.
kek, the brainwashing is working *rubs hands*

>>15122677
A dead hippie

>>15123179
>Central bank owned by jews
>Government controlled (therefore owned) by jews
But the government doesn't own the debt to itself

>>15123190
The goal of every system is to keep its citizenry afloat in order to self-preserve. A system that fails to do this withers and dies.

As Someone read ''le système des objets'' ? I'm thinking about strating Baudrillard with it as ''simulacre et simulation'' is too expensive for me (i want to read it in french)

>>15123243
>But the government doesn't own the debt to itself
because even though both are run by Jews the public taxpayers are on the hook for debt run up by the government, it's a system of extracting wealth from the masses and concentrating it in the hands of a few who are mostly outside government, but who occasionally step into government to work as insiders for the cartel

>>15123424
Okay, but in that case the debt by no means is a sign that liberalism will die soon right? Which was my original point. If debts gets to the point where squeezing people results in them defaulting or rioting id assume they could lower the debts to avoid that.

>>15123356
>The goal of every system is to keep its citizenry afloat in order to self-preserve.
Correct, and with liberalism, a citizen is an individual. Individuals stay afloat, while the rest (i.e. the poor), the no-longer-citizens, fade out.

>>15122002
What does this book say besides
>watching tv bad
>buying things bad
>pop culture bad
>capitalism bad
?

>>15123479
The poor literally are citizens, what the fuck are you even talking about? They're not fading out, if anything they're the only ones who aren't fading out as the middle class thins economically and demographically. When things no longer work for people who have a say in the way things work, they throw their hat in with the guys who're willing to change the way things work, ie radicals and demagogues. You're speaking as vague as you are because you're wrong and if you were specific it would be too obvious. Citizens are people who are allowed input on the system, whether liberalism treats them as individuals says nothing about whether they meet their life needs.

>>15123606
The middle class has always been a loosely defined concept because it's virtually non-existent. It's completely natural for it to be "thinning out" economically and demographically over time. In fact, that's the goal. You're overlooking the real purpose of liberalism, which is what I said before, albeit in a rushed manner: it's radical individualism, making everyone their own individual, which is NOT the same as preserving everyone's livelihood, and in a world where there are finite resources, only the strongest individuals are going to survive in such a state.

So more and more of the middle class will "thin out" over time, which really means that more and more people will become part of the lower class, or the people who DON'T have a say in the way things work, or at any rate shouldn't (although the socialists want to change that, being the radicals among the poor), and that is precisely the goal, so it's not at all an indication that the liberal system is failing.

Of course, as you say, the problem eventually arises that there won't be enough people in a healthy enough state to do work for the nation. Well, that's why liberals invest so much in technology. To circumvent that issue, robotics and automation and advancements in medicine (more specifically, in narcotics) will keep the necessities running, despite the loss in labor force numbers. Now, no one knows what will happen first — the arrival of a perfect automation system or the end of an adequate labor force — but it's not anyone's real concern. Those at the bottom crying out because they are being swept away in the waves of progress are not really concerned about the future, they only want to stay alive, and those at the top seeking ways to circumvent this issue are not really either, they just want to stay at the top. So they remain focused on their goals, and the outcome is up to whichever side wins.

However, the reality is that there was never really any classes like lower, middle, or upper class. These are all spooks in a liberal society. Each and every single person is on their own under pure liberalism. Things like welfare aren't part of liberalism, which is thoroughly anti-collectivist, they are part of socialism, which is collectivist.

Baudrillard is french gobbledygook nonsense. The writing is filled with inappropriate technical terms he lifted from respected fields to puff up his drivel. I don't know how people fellate obvious hacks like him.

>>15123767
Can you post some examples of what you are talking about?

>>15122306
>Its about upholding traditional values
That's conservatism, dumbass. Right vs Left is about property ownership.

>>15123461
>Okay, but in that case the debt by no means is a sign that liberalism will die soon right?
Well, it's a pyramid scheme and it's become unsustainable. Civil wars soon.

>>15123835
Is life a pyramid scheme too, given that none of us are born equal?

>>15122002
A lot of post-modernist frameworks can very easily be used to warrant reactionary ideas, it's just that majority of philosophers that were spreading them were leftists so they were giving them their own bend. It's kind of where the French and Italian New Right came from.

>>15123876
physical matter is a pyramid scheme and entropy will collect its debts

>>15123801
No it's not you dope. It's the degree that you think some people are better than others.

>>15123876
No, because it's not normally a scheme. It's not unfair or away from you to have better leaders.
Right now our system is about cheaters winning. They've hacked the economy and run the globe because people don't understand money.

>>15123908
There's too much debt. Banks siphon assets to a small minority. It can't go on forever. One of the reasons for mass migration is that when things destabilize, people will be fighting each other for scraps instead of going for the bankers.

>>15123928
How did they "cheat" when it was natural cause that led to some people being smart and others being stupid?

>>15123786
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXUXdTb5Bxw

>>15123975
The monetary system itself is cheat. Like any other pyramid/ponzi scheme. It will be seen for what it is, once again.
Usury was banned in all ancient civilizations, except during the democratic eras. They all end the same way.

>>15124060
But you didn't explain what about it is a cheat, you just repeated your assertion to me. How is it a cheat when what dictates accumulation of wealth is your own volition, intelligence, and charisma?

>>15124087
>But you didn't explain what about it is a cheat
If I had the legal authority to issue all the money there is, and I would demand interest, this would mean that I become a black hole of property, taking from everybody and everything else.
Naturally, it wouldn't fly much if I don't have allies who gain with me. School and media don't talk about this.

Usury, the lending of any money at any interest, is evil. Read Aristotle on this.

>>15123735
>the lower class, or the people who DON'T have a say in the way things work
These people do have a say in the way things work, they're citizens with political rights (unless you're talking about illegal immigrants in which case I'm not sure what you mean when you say more people are becoming lower class). You're getting things like Trumpism and Bernie sanders/AOC "socialism" precisely because these people are treading water. They're only going to vote more and more radically as they get more and more desperate. The problem with your reasoning is thinking that the masses have no recourse, when in reality they almost always have recourse. In authoritarian regimes they'll protest until the regime either gives them reforms or collapses. In democracy you don't really need any of that, people will just keep voting for outsiders until they get their demagogue. you recognize that class distinction is pure ideology so I'm not sure why you're saying that citizens who can't meet their life needs have no recourse.

>>15122274
then why was he part of the franckurt school?

>>15122002
>this seems xxPROBLEMATICxx
yeah but is it wrong? It's so tiring watching people on all sides of the political spectrum do this

>>15124226
I never said it's bad. I said it's right wing. And it is correct.

>>15123801
Lol, look up the history of the term left and right wing. Has nothing to do with property you atheist swine.

>>15124249
Yes it does, fuckstain.

>>15124143
Why do people borrow money? Because they are in a bind and need funds quick. No one in society has put anyone in a bind — people get themselves in binds, or their forefathers put them in a bind. The family unit is not quite dismantled yet, but society has been working towards it because it is a remnant of our collectivist past.

>>15124197
>These people do have a say in the way things work, they're citizens with political rights (unless you're talking about illegal immigrants in which case I'm not sure what you mean when you say more people are becoming lower class).
They have a say in how things work because of socialists. I acknowledged that before. Socialism is collectivist, however — it's not liberal. It emerges as the reaction to liberalism from the weakest members in society. In a true liberal society, the only people who have a say in how things work are the ones who have money, because they are the only ones still part of the circulation of society.

I say that more people are becoming "lower class" because that is the goal of liberalism, that is its function. It is to have wealth accumulate towards the greatest individuals. Wealth is meaningless if it's infinite, so it must be finite, which implies that all of the not-so-great individuals will eventually lose all their wealth. As more time passes, the number of people in a true liberal society with wealth narrows. More people will become what is understood as poor.

>The problem with your reasoning is thinking that the masses have no recourse, when in reality they almost always have recourse.
They almost always have recourse because collectivist socialists routinely infiltrate the system and undermine it, and because technological advancements only happen so quickly. We already saw millions die in the 20th century as a result of technological advancements since the 19th century. That's nothing compared to what will happen in the 21st or 22nd century. As soon as robotics automation becomes more viable, recourse will no longer be needed and the socialists will no longer have any legs to stand on.

>>15122225
Liberal economics has been the most powerful mechanism at leveling hierarchy and razing traditional institutions in all of history.

>>15124430
I don't see how what you're saying actually contradicts the overall thesis here, that liberalism is slowly dying. You're arguing over the semantics of the logic but not the logic itself; ie arguing that citizens turning to illiberal elements is socialism, but not actually arguing against the proposition that they will.

>>15122030
Indubitably

>>15124551
Both liberalism and socialism are always in a state of "dying" according to their detractors. It's a trite point. Eventually, the struggle may come to an end, and there will only be one survivor.

>>15124694
I never said that either of them are always dying, so again I don't see how anything I've said is wrong. I don't know who you're talking about but don't argue against them in replies to me.

>>15124840
You missed my point completely. Everyone who ever says that either of them are dying is just ignorant. They're constantly growing, receding, and then growing again.

>>15122271
Someone did

>>15122306
So Reagan was left wing, hmm interesting.

>>15124853
Obviously people are talking within the spans of their lifetimes and not on a historical scale with no horizon you autistic nigger. When people say liberalism is dying or that socialism died in 1989 or fascism died in1945 they don't mean that never ever in an infinite timeline will these things ever be around again.

>>15122602
thank you for actually getting this right.

everyone else please shut the fuck up about this retarded debate