/lit/ - Literature

>where can I get literature that comforts my uneducated opinion
>>>/pol/

Go read Hayek, tip your fedora and worship your employer in the hopes of becoming him one day, because being rich will surely be worth it all.

500k STEM god tier alpha male 10 inch dick analytic genius

>>5936257
>he's redirecting someone to a dead board
>he thinks everyone who takes issue with his teenage angst is a nazi

Nice autism.

>>5936249
Did I hear anti marxism? There's a few routes you can go with this.
Appeal to Economics, read actual economics Hayek, Mises, Krugman, Keynes, Austrian, Chicago and Keynesian schools.
Appeal to Tradition, read books in pic related. Talk about how marxism, equality, and other marxist/liberal principles go against human nature.
Here are some quotes

Any proletarian movement will be violent because the masses are basically cognitive children. There is no limit to their cruelty, and their inability to recognize others as having different underlying motives & preferences leads to insane attempts to deny human nature[s] and impose uniformity at any cost.

(young) people (in academia) are communists because it's easy
you take the moral high ground, you don't have to explain, whenever something bad happens you can simply say "wouldn't happen under communism", when confronted you can say "communism has never been tried" and it doesn't require a thorough understanding of economics
essentially you can feel good about yourself and your beliefs while doing the bare minimum and remaining unaccountable (at least in your mind) for the state of the world
they also don't realize how culturally different we would be, e.g. I have a friend that calls themselves a marxist but they enjoy anime and k-pop, when these wouldn't exist or be produced in a marxist system.

Also not only do they take the moral high ground, but they're largely morally and intellectually unaccountable, they rarely have to justify themselves on either level as most people on a university campus are either sympathetic to their viewpoint or too stupid/ don't care enough to question it
if you say you're a capitalist, you will be asked to justify every single wrongdoing of the last 200 years, and when you explain the economic theory to them they don't understand it and continue to hate you.

Do you get how umb to read something just because it's anti something you don't like? If you waqnt read Gadafi's Green Book, it's not communist and full of stupid shit, that should teach you how pointless is to imagine dichotomies where the only thing you have is endless posibilities.

>>5936309
>Talk about how marxism, equality, and other marxist/liberal principles go against human nature.
Anthropologists would like to have a word with you.

>>5936309
>human nature
tip
top
lelus
optimus
maximus

>>5936309
Aren't you the "traditionalist" who said engineers would get inclusion in the aristocracy? lel

>>5936249
Why would any lit take anti-marxist position? Ignore or embrace, now thats the best way.

>>5936322
>Anthropologists would like to have a word with you.

destruction of the family, state, and religion are not human nature.
Being a transgender is not natural and people are inclined to respond violently towards them

>>5936324
>Aren't you the "traditionalist" who said engineers would get inclusion in the aristocracy? lel

Yes

>>5936249
'What is noble in the West, in 2015?'

>>5936332
>Why would any lit take anti-marxist position? Ignore or embrace, now thats the best way.

Because marxism is anti intellectual
The Gulag Archipelago, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a pretty good book on marxism in action

>>5936337
> destruction of the family, state, and religion are not human nature.
Can you provide peer reviewed papers of sociology that establish the following two arguments
- Marxism seeks to destroy family, state and/or religion
- Destruction of family, state and/or religion is not in human nature.

no one takes marxism seriously, why bother, it's dead

>>5936343
Nigga you retarded.

>>5936343
> Because marxism is anti intellectual
What do you base this proposition on?

> The Gulag Archipelago, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a pretty good book on marxism in action
Where on Karl Marx's sociological theory does he consider the use of forced labour a pragmatic solution?

>>5936356
>pretending marxism isn't anti-intellectual
oh my god there are actual dumbshit marxists in /lit/

>>5936337

>swagfag whoops tumblr ass

I love this.

GUISE JUST BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE REAL WORLD APPLICATION OF MARX'S SYSTEM FAILED AND HE WAS INDIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STARVATION OF TENS OF MILLIONS VIA AN ECONOMICALLY FAULTY SYSTEM DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T WORK IN MUH MIND

>>5936345
>- Marxism seeks to destroy family, state and/or religion

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
>Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

>On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

>The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

>Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

>But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

Oh look, Marx actually thinks the family is such an evil capitalist institution intent on destroying the masses!

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
>The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to.

Oh look, the foundations of feminism! MUH WOMYN ARE SO EXPLOITED!

>Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

DOWN WIT TEH PATRIARCHY! I AM STRONK INDEPENDT WOMYN WHO NEED NO MEN!

>The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

Remember kiddies, it's evil if you are proud of your heritage. Anything short than that is racist and ethnocentric!

>The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

If you're not with me, you are against me! Off with your heads! How dare you examine my teachings!

>>5936337
>Yes
In which case you're a liberal, not a traditionalist. They didn't make da Vinci a fucking duke because he was an engineer.

>>5936365
"PEER REVIEWED PAPERS OF SOCIOLOGY"
FUCKING RETARD.

>>5936309
Fuck off, you pathetic twat

>>5936365
Nigga you have yet to provide a justification for anything that goes beyond "muh dad and his dad's dad".

>>5936337
>destruction of the family, state, and religion are not human nature.
Contain your delusions.
>Being a transgender is not natural and people are inclined to respond violently towards them
The thing about anthropologists.
Or perhaps many hunter-gatherer societies aren't natural. You never know these days.

>Evolafags going on about Marxism

At best you should be worried about capitalism and bourgeois society being without any opponents, not about those handful of dudes still reading books on Pure Ideology but who can't even fill a library if they wanted to.

>tfw all Marxists are sociology or philosophy majors
>none of them are in economics or even understand basic economics
thats how the Holodomor happens kids!

>>5936369
>Marx literally wrote it
>THAT ISNT MARXISM
You people are the reason your ideology is associated with doublethink

>>5936365
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_the_Family,_Private_Property_and_the_State#Family_and_property

Retard lol

>>5936309
>I have a friend that calls themselves a marxist but they enjoy anime and k-pop, when these wouldn't exist or be produced in a marxist system.
Where did Marx say that animation and pop music should be prohibited?

>>5936383

My Marxist friend studied economics.
It's basically a Yeshiva of classical/neoliberalism.
Truly, all you study there is how to marketeer shit and how the free market works.

>>5936348
>being this entrenched in capitalist ideology

my god

>>5936364
>>5936365
>muh
>muh
>TEH PATRIARCHY! I AM STRONK INDEPENDT WOMYN WHO NEED NO MEN!

Back to /pol/

>>5936376
Evola thinks that being bourgeois should make you an automatic aristocrat (no, really). He just thinks it should be harder to get to be bourgeois, and to this end he wants to take away public education. His "traditionalism" rests entirely upon three legs: take away public education and democracy, give every bourgeois an cool sounding title.

>>5936360
you haven't answered him

>>5936384
> Marx literally wrote it
No he didn't. You quoted some paragraphs by him which you interpret in your paranoid-delusional manner to mean something.

Provide some actual academic research. Peer reviewed sociology papers. This isn't a high school English essay - you need a certain level of dedication to succeed.

>>5936421

What...?
Evola hates the bourgeois more than he does workers.. What have you been reading?

>>5936399
He once said he disliked catchy music that sticks in your head, a friend of a friend heard him.

>>5936350
quality post.

>>5936356
>What do you base this proposition on?
Any conversation with a leftist. Such as the one I had with /leftypol/ on IRC. Tried to discuss politics but all I got was: insults about NRX, insults for opposing Social Justice Warriors, insults for saying North Korea is socialist.

The amount of anti intellectualism amazes me.

http://pastebin.com/62GYdjD4

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
>“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths,

Oh look guys, the birth of subjectivism!

>>5936367
>In which case you're a liberal, not a traditionalist. They didn't make da Vinci a fucking duke because he was an engineer.
Da Vinci didn't get rich by being an engineer

>>5936370
quality post

>>5936374
>Contain your delusions.
actually thats straight from the manifesto

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
>Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
>On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
>The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
>Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
>But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

Oh look, Marx actually thinks the family is such an evil capitalist institution intent on destroying the masses!

>Or perhaps many hunter-gatherer societies aren't natural. You never know these days.

Noble Savage myth
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap/10?215940604708361::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:58097

>>5936392
>retard lol
quality post

>>5936399
>Where did Marx say that animation and pop music should be prohibited?

The irony is a Marxist enjoying bourgeois society

>>5936417
quality post

>>5936309
>mises
>actual economics

>>5936399
Pop music and animation is not a possibility in marxism.

>>5936440
>The irony is a Marxist enjoying bourgeois society
So what you are trying to say is that since we live in a burgeois society enjoyment is prohibited?

>>5936451
that is some real sophistic shit you've got going on there son

>>5936440
> Any conversation with a leftist.
Not a valid source.
> insults for saying North Korea is socialist
Not according to DPRK's constitution, official ideology or its publications.
> Oh look guys, the birth of subjectivism!
Can you provide academic research that traces the birth of subjectivism to the Communist manifesto? Especially since your quote is very, very Hegelian in its nature.
> actually thats straight from the manifesto
No, thats your interpretation of the text. As long as the quote isn't there straight, and its not coming from a peer reviewed paper, its not worth a damn in adult discussion.
> The irony is a Marxist enjoying bourgeois society
Where is the irony?

>>5936455
No, that's exactly what he meant.
You don't live in a communistic society -> you can't enjoy things.

>>5936440
>Da Vinci didn't get rich by being an engineer
He did easily as well as engineers do today.

>>5936451
>So what you are trying to say is that since we live in a burgeois society enjoyment is prohibited?
The irony is a Marxist enjoying bourgeois society

>>5936457
>Not a valid source.
actually it is.

>Not according to DPRK's constitution, official ideology or its publications.
Incorrect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche#.22Socialism_of_Our_Style.22

>Can you provide academic research that traces the birth of subjectivism to the Communist manifesto? Especially since your quote is very, very Hegelian in its nature.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
>“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths,

>No, thats your interpretation of the text. As long as the quote isn't there straight, and its not coming from a peer reviewed paper, its not worth a damn in adult discussion.

No thats from the manifesto

>>5936337
>muh natural state

lel

>>5936440
... No comments on the work of Mr. Engels and the conclusions that he drew? They seem to be in contradiction with what you claim that their goals are. Reading the summary isn't that much work, you should give it a try.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_the_Family,_Private_Property_and_the_State#Family_and_property

Try reading it and then say which part is about the destruction of family. You could've at least left a comment. Odd that you did not.

>Noble Savage myth
... I was referring to "primitive communism", which is actually pretty well researched. Of course many of the tribes of, say, Papua New-Guinea are rather warlike, patriarchal, stratified (and any combination of the aforementioned) etc, but the fact is that even within PNG many of the tribes are total opposites of that as well. I wonder what this tells us of human nature?

... Also, a hint and advice for the future: Aufhebung is Hegelian terminology and it doesn't mean what you'd like it to mean.

>>5936465
>He did easily as well as engineers do today.
[citation needed]

>>5936470
>The irony is a Marxist enjoying bourgeois society
The first four or so pages of Das Kapital, anyone?

>>5936470
>The irony is a Marxist enjoying bourgeois society
But you're a traditionalist and you're enjoying bourgeois society too, that is equally ironic.

>>5936476
Marx talked about destroying the family in the manifesto

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
>Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

>On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

>The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

>Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

>But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

Oh look, Marx actually thinks the family is such an evil capitalist institution intent on destroying the masses!

>>5936482
>But you're a traditionalist and you're enjoying bourgeois society too, that is equally ironic.

no im not

>>5936309
>if you say you're a capitalist, you will be asked to justify every single wrongdoing of the last 200 years

Top kek.

I used to hate you, but now I finally realized you're writing satire.

>>5936478
Uh, his fucking house.

>>5936470
> actually it is.
When I specifically asked for peer reviewed sociology papers, and you give IRC discussion pastebin, it really is not. No cutting corners.
> Juche stuff
In matters like this, the recent changes to constitution that remove all allusions to Socialism and Marxism override 24 year old quotes by people who aren't even in charge any more.

Why did you re-quote the Manifesto? You said that the quote is the birth of subjectivism, but I requested a more proper source to confirm your claim. Can you provide a statement by intellectual historian who claims that Marx invented subjectivism?
> No thats from the manifesto
In manifesto, the quote "Marxism abolishes family, state and religion" (or its implicit alternative) is not said. You derive that interpretation from it based on your textual analysis. But evolakid, you aren't a professional sociologist with peer-reviewed paperes, and I could care less for High School English type of literary analysis where cherrypicked quotes are brought up out of sudden to "proove" points. Just give the sociology papers that proove your claims (including the one you have been ignoring for a while - Destruction of family, state and/or religion is not in human nature.)

>>5936483
Do you know what adjectives are?

And if you're a traditionalist, why the hell do you like capitalism? Modern capitalism has done a fuck-ton more to erode "muh family values" than any Marxist ever did.

>>5936337
>destruction of the family, state, and religion are not human nature.
how can you be this untermensch

>>5936483
> [Aufhebung] of the family
> the term Aufhebung has the apparently contradictory implications of both preserving and changing, and eventually advancement (the German verb aufheben means "to cancel", "to keep" and "to pick up")
well done research, well done research indeed

>>5936249
>anti-marxism
Lol, seriously? I don't know anyone who believes that the revolution is coming anytime soon, but your identification with the current social order is both so adamant and futile that any criticism there of causes you to rush to its defense?
The only interesting question I can think of asking is: how is your relationship with your mother?

Do communists/socialists have to be Marxists? Can't we just move the fuck on?

I'm all for political theorizing past capitalist social-organization, but I don't see why we still have to adhere to one German philosopher. Every socialist/communist gets asked "What about these Marx quotes, huh?" It's tiring: I don't like Marx.

>>5936483
You still did neither comment nor respond on the explanation to what a "bourgeois family" is, nor about their theorisation of the institution of family in general. Did you read the part about aufhebung?

Boy, you're a broken record.
>On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
See what Engels wrote. Is it that hard? It's all there in his theory.

>The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
... Bourgeois family as in "family decided by capital" as theoretised by the power duo in what I linked to you god knows how many times.
>Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
Child labour? Kind of interlinked with Marx's and Engels' investigations on the situation of the English working class.
I really can't say that I'm too fond of child labour myself. Is it a part of human nature? If traditional families demand child labour for them to work, they really don't sound worth the while at all.

>But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
Oh? Schooling? I take it that "traditionalists" and other LARPers are against education in general, so I'll concede you that.

>>5936507
That's American education for you. Trained to toady for rich people.

>>5936511
What have you read by Marx, actually? Do you have any substantial objections, or are you just wary of the complexity of the whole theory?

>>5936505
It's straight from Hegel anyways.

>>5936511
> Do communists/socialists have to be Marxists?
Essentially. Communism/Socialism falls flat without the theory.
> Can't we just move the fuck on?
To what?
> I'm all for political theorizing past capitalist social-organization, but I don't see why we still have to adhere to one German philosopher.
Whats the issue in his method? Why should it be replaced?
> It's tiring: I don't like Marx.
In France, between '45 and '68 Communism was mainline, but Marxism was very revolutionary. What happened was that the French intellectuals resurrected the spirit of Hegel and young Marx, the more humanistic type, and tried to replace rigid and violent late Marx with humanistic and romantic young Marx, the pupil of Hegel. Did it work? It can be argued to have pionereed Eurocommunism. But in '68, a revolution failed.

>>5936519
>"traditionalists" and other LARPers

>>5936511
Being pro communism and not having read the father of the current is like wanting to be a writer without knowing how to analyze a sentence. It's the very least you should have on you to even start with the topic.

>>5936511
Deleuze made all other philosophers obsolete.

>>5936530
Did late Marx succeed?

If 20th century communism was a success, than I'm not interested in it.

I'm not delusional. Inherent in capitalism is great suffering as well, but the paranoia (and subsequent repression) which infected 20th century communist states was simply terrifying.

I think modern Marxists are so interested in negating the cold-war narrative, that they over-correct.

>>5936536
But what if I hate Hegel?

Serious question.

>>5936530
>In France, between '45 and '68
You mean 1900's or that commune that got shot the fuck out by the army?

>>5936557
No one hates Hegel. Then they're über plebs.

>>5936566
I'm an uber pleb, then.

What is so fantastic about Hegel?

>>5936432
Marx didn't write the Manifesto? News to me.
I'm not the guy that posted it btw

>>5936546
> Did late Marx succeed?
His thought established proper states.

> If 20th century communism was a success, than I'm not interested in it.
20th century communism was a success in that it increase the living quality of hundreds of millions of people across the globe.

>>5936572
His hair mostly.

>>5936562
1900s. Between World War 2 and May 68.

Capitalism: Justin Bieber, John Green, Christopher Nolan

Soviet Union: Prokofiev, Ostrovsky, Tarkovsky

>>5936578
>20th century communism was a success in that it increase the living quality of hundreds of millions of people across the globe.

Proof? Just curious what you mean by this. And if countries with similar situations before WWII or the cold war experienced similar rises in standards of living without communism.

>>5936587

>tarkovsky anti-Marxist

Because he was Christian?

>>5936530
>Essentially. Communism/Socialism falls flat without the theory.
Conflating communism and socialism is a sure sign of a reactionary.
Socialism is absolutely possible without marxism and without critical theory, as it was developed before Marx, and, broadly conceived, socialism and the socialist movement had little influence on Marx himself.

>>5936545
No he didn't, if anything he gave you reassons to read and compare to decide if you're on his boat, unlike other philosophers that are discussed against texts that came after their dead.
ESL and the post sounded sort of weird in my head, hope you can understand it

>>5936557
Then you need to understand how the evolution of ideas work. You're not supposed to like anyone, but to see how they changed the game and how others changed the game from them. That's why Hegel is so important, he summarized all the stupid enlightenmnet half thoughts and made them actually work. That and starting the idealist/materialist distinction is so huge in modern philosophy that he can't be scaped.

>>5936590
> Proof? Just curious what you mean by this.
Standaards of living, nutrition, average income and so on and so on. I could provide a lot of econometrics but I am getting tired and honestly am not bothered to find my graphs of Maoist China population developement or somesuch. If you are interested, you can find the info.

> And if countries with similar situations before WWII or the cold war experienced similar rises in standards of living without communism.
Some countries do show that, some show that capitalism increases standard of living further, some countries show that communism increases it further.

To Hegel, a true conflict was between good and better. Perhaps this is the case.

>>5936590
Compare the development of any pre-industrial nation in the 1920s, say, Mexico, with any state in the USSR.