/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12494071]

Where do u go from the left right wing dychotomy?

Like, you realize that both sides have good and bad points.
Like, you realize that capitalism is not a perfect utopia and is filled with catastrophic social and enviromental and moral issues, but you don't agree that marxism is even a correct critique off it.

Like, where do u go from here?

[Anonymous No.12494079]

>>12494071
the historical determinist perspective

'the Left' is just the process by which civilizations collapse, and there is nothing that can be done about it

[Anonymous No.12494082]

>>12494071
To Europe

[Anonymous No.12494089]

You don't "need" to go anywhere. In fact it's best to retain this approach tatihroughout life; to look at the positives and negatives of a position and to draw your own conclusions, no matter what it is.

[Anonymous No.12494238]

>>12494071
Don't make the mistake of becoming a centrist either. Centrism is just one big middle ground fallacy. All three are invalid concepts.
LfCap's critique of Mixed Economy Capitalism is another option. Try comparing Laissez Faire Capitalism with Anarcho Capitalism.
t. Randfag

[Anonymous No.12494245]

>>12494082

/thread

[Anonymous No.12494252]

>>12494238
What I mean is that I don't think that explotation can be avoided.

All economic systems can work if there's an exploited underclass.

It seems machines will fill this exploited underclass in the future, but then humans will be left without a purpose.

[Anonymous No.12494257]

>>12494071
Catholicism.
>shits on usury to keep the capitalists in check
>supports decent wages as above
>for private property - against commie encroach
>for laws and justice - for civilization.
(at least that's the idea)

[Anonymous No.12494261]

>>12494071
You focus on what is, rather than what should be.

[Anonymous No.12494269]

>>12494252
>Societies can't function without an exploited underclass
>Unless machines replace them which they are going to
Some form of Marxism or Socialism is possible under this frame work. Also check out more on Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, just don't become an edgy race theorist.

[Anonymous No.12494275]

Neither left or right are coherent ideologies. I'm not sure how useful the labels actually are outside of mainstream politics.
You should join the dissident right™

[Anonymous No.12494279]

>>12494269
yeah, but replacing humans with machines will just leave a lot of them into just an empty life with no purpose and only empty hedonism.

Not all humans can do high IQ jobs or creative ones, because of genetics.

[Anonymous No.12494294]

>>12494071
You just keep going and realise that it is healthy to be sceptical of all beleifs as it allows you to better refine your own.
Just don't go around shouting the government is putting mind controlling drugs in the water and you'll be fine.

[Anonymous No.12494328]

This is the part where you start to identify how all of these issues have their root in you, yourself. It's the part where Marcus Aurelius' writings take on a new meaning. It's the part where you start to get upset with people for thinking Plato's Republic is a political work. It's the part where you start to look on the messages of the bible fondly, without feeling any desire to defend its flaws. It's the nonduality pill, and it's time for you to read some Julius Evola bb.

[Anonymous No.12494347]

You embark on a quest for knowledge

[Anonymous No.12494348]

>>12494328
The battleground is the human spirit.

[Anonymous No.12494349]

>>12494252
>without purpose
is freedom. Delany does this pretty good

[Anonymous No.12494355]

>>12494340
That is the most kike statement I've ever read.

[Anonymous No.12494356]

>>12494252
The great historical fallacy is that this phenomenon of "exploitation" was and is being assessed incorrectly. There is actually nothing at all wrong with "exploitation" assessed in the proper context. Marxfags recoil.
>"In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the “competition” between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of “exploitation” for which you have damned the strong."

[Anonymous No.12494379]

>>12494355
Let me encapsulate it better for you, echoesposting dipshit.
"The essence of the glorious potential that is the human being is found in the power and potent morality of the traded coin. Stamped in gold, this concept grants no room to the irrational and is tied 1:1 to reality and life."
- Anonymous

[Anonymous No.12494380]

>>12494356
Can relate.
Used to be a lowly bicycle mechanic in a shitty shop serving NORF FC cunts every day. Now I memed myself into a placement for a good company.
Guess which job felt more fulfilling.

[Anonymous No.12494394]

>>12494379
No.
It's in the labour the man produces.
This is the most disgusting statement I have ever read on this website.

[Anonymous No.12494404]

>>12494379
Nah let me spell it out better for you, rabbi Goldstein.

You can only sell so many apples by yourself, the second you branch out and try to grow your company, you need other people to help sell more apples. If you wanna treat them like garbage and act like you're doing them some kind of service, then you've clearly got your self righteous head up your ass. Your company wouldn't exist without those people, and you can only afford to treat them like shit because you know there are other desperate drones who will fill their space.

[Anonymous No.12494433]

>>12494404
Treating people as agents of your self interest=/=treating them like garbage. Numbnuts.

[Anonymous No.12494446]

>>12494394
>>12494404
It's hilarious that on the topic of Jews alone; I lose the ability to tell whether a given fag is left or right.

[Anonymous No.12494449]

>>12494433
It's actually worse.
The usurers and the homosexuals share the same place in hell for a reason.
The former makes what's non-fecund fertile while the later does the opposite.
Think about the consequences of that. No, wait, you don't have to - just look outside your window.

[Anonymous No.12494451]

>>12494433
Oy vey, shut it down haim

[Anonymous No.12494458]

>>12494446
While at the same time everyone knows that you are Rabbi Shekelberg.

[Anonymous No.12494464]

>>12494446
That's because if you see the world as "left" or "right" you are mentally a teenager.

[Anonymous No.12494471]

You go beyond politics.
>>12494261
Also this

[Anonymous No.12494508]

>>12494464
*I* don't see it that way. But you can tell when someone self indentifies with the useless concepts.

[Anonymous No.12494519]

>>12494449
>hell
You go ahead and keep concerning yourself with that place that doesn't exist. Proper banking is the exemplar of morality. Jesus was evil when he flipped the money lending tables.

[Anonymous No.12494524]

>>12494071
The best argument against Capitalism, is that it enables the globohomo agenda, and a tool of the kikes.

[Anonymous No.12494533]

>>12494519
Just shows how much of a /lit/fag you are, it really does.
>Proper banking is the exemplar of morality
Hence why - no usury.
>Jesus was evil when he flipped the money lending tables.
your juden shows, rabbi.

[Anonymous No.12494549]

>>12494524
>when one anon says merchant is a pretty cool dude and every /pol/fag on /lit/ throws a conniption fit
Lovin every laff

[Anonymous No.12494555]

>>12494549
samefagging this hard.

[Anonymous No.12494564]

>>12494238
There's nothing wrong with being relatively centrist. I'm center-left, by which I mean that I'm decidedly left-leaning on most issues but I don't feel radical or extreme and acknowledge that a healthy political society needs progressive and conservative forces in roughly equal measures.

>>12494356
Rand fucking knew that exploitation wasn't as simple as "rich man invents and creates wealth, poor man is dumb and content."

[Anonymous No.12494566]

>>12494533
>Usury (/ˈjuːʒəri/) is the practice of making unethical or immoral monetary loans that unfairly enrich the lender
Guessing the author of this doesn't consider rational self interest to be moral.
If this is taken to mean rates of interest that the market doesn't warrant; yes usury is wrong. Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with interest.

[Anonymous No.12494567]

>>12494071
YouTube, I Guess.
[Dr Peterson]

[Anonymous No.12494577]

>>12494564
>progressive and conservative forces in roughly equal measures
That's the fallacy. This is to take a democratic approach to morality, which is evil. You do not take a general inventory of the world and assume the totality more or less approaches the truth. It is entirely possible for 50 million frenchmen to be wrong.

[Anonymous No.12494582]

>>12494555
Uh, yeah... that's me.

[Anonymous No.12494594]

>>12494577
The only fallacy here is assuming morality has objective bases.

Regardless, I was defining the constraints of a healthy society, not a moral one—whatever that is.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oEULhtSEDhe No.12494598]

>>12494071
You discover you’re wrong about Marx’s critique and proceed to the socialism.
Libertarian socialism I would hope

[Anonymous No.12494600]

>>12494071
If only there was a Third Way!

[Anonymous No.12494608]

>>12494564
>There's nothing wrong with being relatively centrist.
>I'm center-left
well obviously you don't think there's anything wrong with it

[Anonymous No.12494611]

>>12494594
>morality has objective basis
it does
>healthy society, not a moral one
Can you seriously say to yourself that one can be one without the other?

[Anonymous No.12494620]

>>12494549
That is a ridiculously chiseled chin.

[Anonymous No.12494631]

>>12494611
> Can you seriously say to yourself that one can be one without the other?
Only on the basis that morality is a social construct.

Look, we're never gonna fully engage with each other so long as we disagree on the issue of moral relativism. You have, I presume, ascribed some existential value to a godhead or similarly "divine" utilitarian construct. That's fine. Hardliner ideology is healthy and encouraged. I don't conform that belief system.

Tell me if I've missed the mark and I'll be happy to hash this out.

[Anonymous No.12494698]

Left and Right are just incredibly broad terms to describe 'people I get along with.' Party politics basically boils down to people rooting for their team, and people playing a game, but nobody said you couldn't leave the arena. If you leave an arena where two teams are playing, and begin thinking about other things, when you come back to the arena to talk to your old friends about what you thought about, their first thoughts will be 'Wait, he has all these thoughts, but are they going to make my team win?' That's why philosophers always have such a hard time politicising their philosophy; they come back to the arena, and all anybody wants to hear is whether or not their ideas will help the party's interest, when ideas in themselves don't follow any creed or ingroup.

[Anonymous No.12494727]

>>12494071
The political spectrum is the biggest scam ever. Its easy to control a country's politics when its just a pissing match between two sides with attendant hard-line issues. Also could we stop tangentially relating threads to Christianity so not every thread devolves into theological discussion of some sort?

[Anonymous No.12494736]

>>12494631
>>12494631
And what is supposed to be wrong with a thing being a "social construct" bucko? There is and objective warrant to erect this social construct. The warrant is a metaphysical given that gives rise to social systems being constructed.
The assumption that "social constructs" are these floating castles in the sky with no philosophic root and cause is wrong.
Quote:
A “right” is a principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. Rights are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.
There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.
The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

[Anonymous No.12494764]

>>12494698
A certain philosopher coined a new logical fallacy to capture this and named it the "Package-deal Fallacy."

[Anonymous No.12494765]

>>12494631
Morals are only a "social construct" insofar that they arise from societies -- small and large.

We can observe systems of basic moralities in animals and insects -- there's a famous book by a guy who studied ants/insects and their systems and other insects, Superorganism, exploring those socities.

Whether it's good or bad morality, however, is likely what you're referring to in your blanket "social construct" remark, and that's another matter entirely; and calling things social constructs is as shallow of a critique [if I can call it that] as saying a movie is boring.

[Anonymous No.12494817]

>>12494736
>>12494765
I think we're addressing this from the wrong angle. I'm not using "social construct" pejoratively. I'm suggesting that as societies grow and morph, through generation and movement, so too do our constructs of morality. That's not a bad thing.

We're disagreeing that there is a salient objective basis from which all morality stems. "Right to life" is as much derived as any other—to establish it at the root of moral philosophy is to take for granted life as being sacrosanct (as opposed to, say, an accident of evolution), the connection of individual to their surroundings (in the broad scope of things, in the way that it concerns much Eastern philosophy), and understandings of inherent free will (because being conscious of the strings does not imply we are pulling the strings).

I don't believe there is an objective basis to our constructs of morality, but it's important that those constructs are held with some measure of conviction. Fortunately "right to life" is not something on which most people tend to disagree, so I'd say we're overall on an okay track.

[Anonymous No.12495063]

>>12494817
>so too do our constructs of morality
Which then reached a hard cap upon the advent of the founding fathers still unrefuted formulations.
Valid criticisms of the founders have and only can consist of indentifications of flaws present in their method, philosphical foundations, and auxillary matters cocerning the meta treatment of objective rights.

The right to life is an axiomatic starting point in ethics. It is however an axiom with demonstratably more potency and validity than any other ever proposed in the history of philosophy. Which pretty much are: religionist mysticism, secular mysticism, and social primacy.
>an accident of evolution
And why exactly does it being an accident of evolution preclude it's treatment a a fundamental concept? Life existing is the metaphysically given. You just take it as is. No explanation or justification is possible nor necessary.
>I don't believe there is an objective basis to our constructs of morality
You may find this interesting: one of Rand's central achievements is the Intrinsic/Subjective/Objective Trichotomy. This theory posits that the subjective/objective dichtomy philosophers used
Was a false one and the concept of "objective" had not even been properly defined before Rand.
http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/BissellRE/The_Evolution_of_the_Objective.shtml

[Anonymous No.12495133]

>>12494356
When did reddit win the war?

[Anonymous No.12495153]

>>12494071
>dichotomy
Nigga, Adam and Eve's whole deal was that they fell for dichotomies in the first place. (The knowledge of good and evil?) Stop with that dualist bullshit. Aristotle debunked it, Krsna debunked it, Laotse debunked it. The first fucking story in the bible shows what happens when you fall for dualist bullshit

[Anonymous No.12495159]

>>12494356
That excerpt is exceptional bait

[Anonymous No.12495230]

Duality is just the nature of existence. It is also the nature of the human being to divide himself as an ironic coping mechanism for his inability to understand that everything is nothing and nothing is everything.

fucking retards in this country can't even understand that their dollar = their vote. this is the inevitable course of humanity, and we just gotta hope that we don't fuck it all up irreparably this time.

don't think i can add anything else that this thread hasn't already said. just focus on reality, because as harsh as it is, it is also true to itself and its roots. also im a bit drunk so who knows how much of this makes sense.

but i love what you're saying OP. I believe it too.

[Anonymous No.12495245]

>>12495153

dichotomy is the literal state of the universe. you cannot have good without bad. there are two sides to everything because neither could exist without the other.

also stop trying to make everything about the bible

[Anonymous No.12495255]

>>12494356
>the janitor decides we should live in a shithole

[Anonymous No.12495269]

if you aren't asking for book recs political discussion goes on pol

[Anonymous No.12495344]

>>12495255
>>12495159
>>12495133
Less butthurt, more arguments.

[Anonymous No.12495389]

>>12495344

[Anonymous No.12495390]

>>12494379
>m-muh shekels

[Anonymous No.12495394]

>>12494071
"Stop being a waffly ass south park centrist and actually believe in something" would probably be a good place to start. What the fuck are you people fucking 14. Nobody with a functional brain thinks that politics is this completely manichean thing where both sides don't have strengths or weaknesses. And you are just totally dumbstruck by this and can't figure out where to go from there? Get a fucking grip you faggots.

[Anonymous No.12495404]

>>12494252
>It seems machines will fill this exploited underclass in the future, but then humans will be left without a purpose
But automation doesn't get rid of jobs. once we reach singularity though who fucking cares what happenes

[Anonymous No.12495427]

>>12495344
>reading Rand in 2019

[Anonymous No.12495436]

>>12495394
this was painful to read, if anyone's 14 here, it's you

[Anonymous No.12495452]

>>12494356
I unironically see nothing wrong with this excerpt.
>>12495344
Absolutely based

[Anonymous No.12495458]

>>12495344
im not even butthurt or necessarily in disagreement. It's just very good bait

[Anonymous No.12495463]

>>12495245
I was just appealling to the christcucks, see if they read their own book. You're not schooling me on shit. Aristotle already said dualities are codependant. Krsna said this world is made of the illusion of duality, and that dualistic thinking gets you here. And the bible the same thing. I never said duality doesn't exist. Even your fucking useless post is riddled with dualistic thinking: because you wanted to be right, and everyone else wrong, on an anonymus chinese cartoon imageboard

[Anonymous No.12495510]

>>12495458
Fair enough.

[Anonymous No.12495517]

>>12495436
not an argument

no need to get defensive just because you're underage anon

[Anonymous No.12495544]

>>12494079

[Anonymous No.12495559]

>>12494356
My Diary Desu, available at major booksellers everywhere

[Anonymous No.12495596]

>>12495394
I'm 28 and centrist m8; not as a default position, but relative to today's political climate. It's a descriptive term, not a prescriptive one. Also, OP literally said that he finds good takeaways on both sides of the political spectrum. Why are you fighting strawmen of your own imagination? Who hurt you? Now's not the time to fight back. You're safe, they're not here.

[Anonymous No.12495602]

>>12495596
Are you a radical centrist or what?

[Anonymous No.12495606]

>>12495596
>Who hurt you
your post was ok but due to the inclusion of this phrase Im going to have to ask you to step out of the vehicle, walk in a straight line, continue walking and never return

[Anonymous No.12495620]

>>12495606
Now we know who hurt you

[Anonymous No.12495638]

Start here:
https://youtu.be/1Eqb97eOEjc
Then drop the individualism.

[Anonymous No.12495671]

>>12495596
>finds good takeaways on both sides of the political spectrum
That's a necessarily corrupt approach. I reassert >>12494577 and stress that anything you believe has to have it's own understood foundation and framing.
Right and left are invalid concepts and you do not magically create a valid one by assessing things from the lens of midway point between two anticoncepts. This is the skepticist approach and it's shit.

[Anonymous No.12495675]

>>12495620
Not him and it's passive aggressive faggot Reddit shit.

[Anonymous No.12495707]

>>12495671
>Anticoncepts
Wew. I'll grant you that left and right haven't been holding much water since the french revolution, but to say that economic and social policy can't be conceptualised linearly, on a spectrum and that one would use centrist as a rough descriptive estimation of his position, is contrived pretentious faggotry.

[Anonymous No.12495715]

>>12495596
>>12495620
lurk first to avoid this

[Anonymous No.12495839]

>>12495707
>conceptualised linearly, on a spectrum
Well actually you can and said line can rudimentarily grasp certain similarities but it drops an immense swath of philosophic context in the process. And for too quickly rendered obsolete ""gain"" at that.
A fucking geometric line is retarded. Some kind of chart with subclauses, technically elaborations, branch-offs, and auxillary cases better encapsulates the structure of historical and modern philosophic deliberations.
The line approach is for brainlets and it's easy to see WHY it's for brainlets precisely because it is so chosen for ease and simplicity. In this case the fallacy* (I forget the right word) of undue narrowing.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/package-dealing,_fallacy_of.html

[Anonymous No.12495866]

>>12495707
even in economics there are nuances that can't be reduced to a single spectrum.
postmodern spectrum essentialism is pure garbage.

[Anonymous No.12496135]

>>12494071
Centre left, the intellectual position

[Anonymous No.12496557]

>>12494238
>Centrism is just one big middle ground fallacy.
You're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.12496644]

>>12496557
I'm right tho

[Anonymous No.12497233]

Note that the only ones arguing against being level-headed and open-minded are the ones who believe that the path to spiritual salvation is sucking Ayn Rand's massive utilitarian cock until her sweet mommy cummies explode onto the Pearly Gates and lube open its rusted hinges wider than their assholes during the Republican National Convention.

[Anonymous No.12497290]

>>12494257
The Catholic Church is toothless against usury. Don't even pretend for one second that they have any balls, if they did they would not tolerate it and would use their power and influence to eliminate it. Muslims do a much better job on that front.

[Anonymous No.12497524]

>>12496644
>anon has left

[Anonymous No.12497579]

>>12494071
>and is filled with catastrophic social and enviromental and moral issues
I don't think people truly appreciate how much private property incentivizes people to actually take care of their land so they can pass it on to future generations. It's only in these socialized countries where we see the absolute rape of public land with dumping or the clearcutting of forests. Nobody in those countries has a good reason to take it upon themselves to clear up waste or replant trees. The Russian environmental abuse during the height of communism was incredibly insane and nobody living in those devastated areas could get any sort of justice. They couldn't sue anybody.

[Anonymous No.12497639]

Why is there no /phil/?

[Anonymous No.12497686]

The dichotomy was never real in the first place. It's just a generalization

[Anonymous No.12498204]

>>12497686
I think there are fundamental assumptions people make that are binary and do genuinely separate the right and left. One example is how they view human nature. The right assumes that humans are 'fallen' or naturally inclined towards evil, and as a consequence they approach issues in terms of how they can cause bad people to do good things. They want to incentivize good behavior because without them humans will act badly.

In contrast, the left views human nature as inherently good. To them the ills of society are a product of society corrupting them. Because humans a naturally good, utopias are theoretically possible and we just need the right policies. They approach issues in terms of problems and solutions rather than tradeoffs and incentives and this is how the left and right can come to radically different conclusions on the same issue.

[Anonymous No.12498206]

>>12497639
how is that person an anarchist and a Hillary voter. have you met an actual anarchist b4?

[Anonymous No.12498228]

>>12494238
i've never heard of centrism outside of extremists complaining someone is one picohitler to the left/right of them

[Anonymous No.12498273]

>>12495596
>m8
>who hurt you?
go back to r*ddit and never return

[Anonymous No.12498319]

You guys all realize that capitalism and socialism are completely in compatible, yeah? You can't "have takes from both sides", because then you're just a confused capitalist. And no, the Nordic model is not socialism