[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 61 KB, 677x775, 1572366024884.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14099779 No.14099779 [Reply] [Original]

Why is democracy—the concept of reducing social inequality—liked by everyone, but socialism—the concept of reducing wealth inequality—is disliked by everyone?

>> No.14099784

Only in America.

>> No.14099790

Use an em dash one more time and I'll rape your mother.

>> No.14099799
File: 89 KB, 474x711, 1572463287497.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14099799

>>14099790
>Use an em dash one more time and I'll rape your mother.

>> No.14099801

Ideology

>> No.14099806
File: 3.27 MB, 320x240, 1568570712667.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14099806

>>14099779
more socialisme = less personal freedoms, including how one would allocate now mandatory tax contributions

>> No.14099809
File: 315 KB, 1942x1222, 1567933442626.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14099809

>>14099779
because they are both products of the bourgeois who invented enlightenment

>> No.14099823

>>14099806
No taxes, no landlords, no wage theft, no profit, no greed, no subversive capitalist culture, no debt, etc...
Socialism is freedom

>> No.14099842

>>14099823
maybe I wasn't clear, more socialisme = more taxes as the non-liable government has no incentive in spending the treasury efficiently

>> No.14099965

>>14099779
because marx mogged on really existing socialism and now everyone thinks of socialism as a cringe cult of technology that tells its followers they havent yet lived through enough capitalism

tl;dr marx ruined socialism

>> No.14099982
File: 156 KB, 591x1024, 34BB6592-104F-43A0-8A8C-041A276A7B96.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14099982

>>14099779

>> No.14099990

>>14099779
>Why is democracy—the concept of reducing social inequality—liked by everyone
I don't share this sentiment.

>> No.14099995
File: 461 KB, 1147x645, BAEFF6A1-7240-4EBB-9BEB-8A9FFA706FB3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14099995

>>14099842
Maybe we’re not being clear, or you’re not being honest.
Socialism, not the failed state socialisms of past and present, libertarian-socialism = no taxes, no debts, no state govt but the people of your immediate community deciding democratically. Maximum freedom

>> No.14100003

>>14099995
> cockshott solved everything...t-technology will save us!

lol

>> No.14100008

>>14099779
>democracy
>liked by everyone
ehhh

>> No.14100111

>>14099779
both because (sane) people don't want their shit taken away from them by others

>> No.14100122

>>14100003
A non accumulative currency will lead us out of traditional capitalism and maybe even my preferred shared economy, no currency at all.
Read the book and see

>> No.14100129

>>14099779
Because people don’t want to live with a bunch of dumb niggers

>> No.14100137

>>14099779
Living in ex-USSR, I do have some bias towards socialists. I wouldn't want to live in a socialist country, but those willing to must have a right to live under any regime they fancy. If it's voluntary and free to exit, why not.

Too bad my libertarian principles are literal unreachable utopia

>> No.14100151

>>14100129
Economic disasters that cause much of the immigration of the modern world would have been avoided had we all gone socialist

>> No.14100170

>>14099784
Then why does no one outside of America not do anything about it?

>> No.14100188

>>14099779
As a child of a family that has been with the NPA in the Philippines since it's founding. Fuck Socialism.

>> No.14100197

>>14099779
only untermensch like democracy

truly one of the greatest mistakes of all time

>> No.14100208

>>14100170
France has been protesting every Saturday for months now. There are socialistic and general unionist protests all around the world. India, but all America is allowed to hear about are the far right mini protests and the CIA funded ones in Hong Kong and Venezuela

>> No.14100221

>>14100151
what's wrong with immigration, bigot?

fuck off

>> No.14100231

>>14100208
>France has been protesting every Saturday for months now.

it's an anti-semitic movement pushed by reactionaries...the yellow vests literally believe in anti-semitic rothschild conspiracy theories and blame guys like jacques attali and alain finkielkraut for all their problems...very disgusting

don't look to france for models of leftist emancipation, their leftists deny the holocaust

>> No.14100232

>>14100208
And what has that actually accomplished for socialism?

>> No.14100240

>>14100231
>it's an anti-semitic movement pushed by reactionaries...the yellow vests literally believe in anti-semitic rothschild conspiracy theories and blame guys like jacques attali and alain finkielkraut for all their problems.

BASED as fuck

>> No.14100244

>>14100221
People move because of the ecomony not because they exactly want to

>> No.14100265
File: 126 KB, 429x600, 0C4B9A93-0FE4-4F9E-8742-CC8D9CB13E2B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14100265

>>14100231
Go away NSA

>>14100232
You want to discuss winning strategies now?
This needs it’s own thread

>> No.14100270

>>14100265
>winning strategies for socialism

the problem is this is an oxymoron. the only thing you win is mass starvation

>> No.14100271

>>14099779
Good thing I'm ideologically consistent and don't like either.

>> No.14100295
File: 6 KB, 225x225, shiggity-diggity.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14100295

>>14099995
>libertarian-socialism
In a post industrial society.. come on now butterfly

>> No.14100298
File: 89 KB, 759x430, gilets-jaunes-rothschild.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14100298

>>14100265
fascist apologist

what's next? joseph stalin wasn't an anti-semite and didn't get assassinated by beria?

>> No.14100308

>>14100270
Non-reading degenerate

>>14100295
The only way to survive

>> No.14100314

>>14100298
NSA, please go.

>> No.14100326

>>14099779
Democracy is a system of rights without responsibilities. Socialism is a system of responsibilities without rights.

>> No.14100333

>>14100231
The yellow vest is a tactic, not a defined ideology. There are left and right wing movements which have arisen within the broader uprising. This is going to happen within any major rupture of the status quo that isn't explicitly guided by an ideological vanguard, and while it's certainly not a good thing that anti-semites are taking advantage of this historical moment, they definitely don't lead or define the movement and to invalidate an immense working-class (and immigrant, see the Gillet-noirs) insurrection because of a few racists is just lazy.

Here's an excellent essay by some American anarchists who participated in the movement, I saw them present it at NAASN and it really convinced me of the worth of the yellow vest tactics.
https://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/memes-force-%E2%80%93-lessons-yellow-vests

>> No.14100373
File: 1.40 MB, 960x1256, 1178089-une-paris-match.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14100373

>>14100333
> some foreign americans have a better idea of what the movement is about then the actual natives do

yikes

everyone, especially jews, know what the yellow vests want...the man pictured on the cover is an infamous white nationalist obsessed with jews and has been taken to court for inciting racial hatred and will probably face jail time

>> No.14100407

>>14100308
we read all about ussr, china, etc. the problem is you didn't

>> No.14100540
File: 401 KB, 1920x987, 1920px-European_Parliament_2019.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14100540

>>14100170
most of europe has far better welfare/social services because of the socialists and even eastern europe after being raped by the tankies still has a huge support for socialists

>> No.14100541

>>14100373
You're such a bootlicking faggot lol

>> No.14100630

>>14100265
Is this book gonna tell me why I should kick over trash cans?

>> No.14101724
File: 80 KB, 352x360, Devilman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14101724

>>14099779
Why are either of them liked? Inequality is the spice of life. Equality is boredom.

>> No.14101799

>>14099990
This.

Most political ideas at least work "on paper." Democracy doesn't even do that.

>> No.14101865

>>14100270
Babbie's first debate

>> No.14101892

>>14099779
>democracy—the concept of reducing social inequality
Yet it's the opposite. I don't own a media platform to push a narrative. I can either join a literal group of apes or be a niche irrelevancy. I suppose it makes everybody equal - but that makes everybody the lowest common denominator. Anybody seen for being better will be penalized, and the only accepted rulers are those who are seen as worse than the rest of humanity. Aka. liars, cheaters, politicians... But a king? Nay, a king would be better than others - and that won't do! They must be killed for the class they were born in!
We must all instead play the 'choose your favorite liar' game all the fucking time. How many times am I supposed to lose in a row? Changing sides or teams doesn't work. They all lie.
>socialism—the concept of reducing wealth inequality
Equality is bad everywhere. The problem is the rich thinking in zero-sum, not them having more.

>> No.14101905

>>14099779
I don't like either.

>> No.14101915

>>14099779
>socialism—the concept of reducing wealth inequality
epic⸺bait

>> No.14101930
File: 73 KB, 650x650, 4F168518-CFF6-4411-99DC-C380D23198D4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14101930

>>14100373
>some foreign americans have a better idea of what the movement is about then the actual natives do
What we’re saying of you, fraudster.
>everyone, especially jews, know what the yellow vests want.
Especially the ones in high finance. Bootlicking scumfucker

>>14100407
There’s your problem of course. You don’t read about socialism and I do.

>>14101892
>Yet it's the opposite.
We have no actual democracy under capitalism, bub

>> No.14101971

>>14099995
>>14100122
>>14100151
>>14100208
>>14100265
>>14100308
>>14100314
>>14101930
kys asap

>> No.14101982
File: 2.02 MB, 450x337, EA014A27-406E-4957-9262-E06067DFA364.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14101982

>>14101971

>> No.14102008

>>14101930
>We have no actual democracy under capitalism
Democracy is always oligarchy.

>> No.14102152

>>14101724
This. Marxist's claim religion is the opiate of the masses but then if there's nothing when I die it literally doesn't matter if I live as a poor man or a rich man. Literally could not care less if when I die there is nothing. The ONLY reason to want to change anything is if you either make:
>an irrational value judgement, a la 'my legacy will live on! the human race matters!'
>you believe in some form of very basic karma which incentivises you to apply effort to improve things

>> No.14102215

>>14099779
socialism distributes wealth like a butcher distributes a cow
it kills what it divides
destroying the idea of wealth will not somehow magically make everyone wealthy

>> No.14102286

>>14099779

This is easy to answer: you beggar the question.

Democracy's goal is certainly not equality; Democracy simply manages Authority by using equal votes and Majoritarianism as a way to choose what the society wants, and to handle conflicts in what individuals want.

Socialism's goal is certainly not reducing wealth inequality. Socialism merely manages the Economics of production and consumption by using metrics not contained in a Market of Choice.

But of course you further beggar the question in assuming either of these is a management system that functions for what it proposes to do, and even further beggar the question by the suggestion of your tone and your picture that because the goal is not reached by these methods, that the goal itself of an equitable fair society is unreachable and we should just accept the exploitation without further question.
To which I answer, "no."

>> No.14102295

>>14099779
Read Igor Shafarevich - The Socialist Phenomenon

>> No.14102328

>>14099779
>democracy—the concept of reducing social inequality
It is not power to the people, nigger. It means power over the people. Likewise, freedom from slavery does not mean freedom to the slaves, it means freedom from the slaves. In a slave system, the worker has to be taken care by the master. And kikes don't want to take care of the goyim, so we created the fantasy that slavery is not a terrible system for the master.

>> No.14102365

>>14099779
out of empathy we don't want the poor and downtrodden to suffer, but nor do we want to live among them or be included in their number.

>> No.14102371

>>14102328
holy shit you're literally retarded.

>> No.14102395

People already abuse the welfare state in burgerland and dont give a shit about their neighbor or their work.

>> No.14102473

>>14099779
fear of commies without actually knowing what commies are

>> No.14102645

>>14099779
here's the actual answer, op:

There's already been a wide range of very different ways of life on this world. For a normie in Qin Dynasty China, their way of life is normal, anything thing else is insane, unimaginable. And so it is for us today and for every human who ever lived.
So we must assume there is actually a much greater number of possible ways of life than any of us can imagine in the present.
More imaginative people tend to be comfortable conceiving new and better ways of life, unimaginative people just see things as they are, and think themselves wise in pointing out that if others ways were possible they would already exist, or some such circular argument.

Fear and aversion to libertarian socialism is nothing but a failure of imagination.

Here's a fun exercise, let's imagine the roles were reversed: someone espousing capitalism in a socialist world:
- So people just earn money by working and then spend it on the things they want!
- And if they fail to earn enough for the things they want?
- Well.. then they don't get to have those things.
- Ha! But what keeps the person from sneaking in and taking the object without effecting payment?
- Well, sure, that's called theft...
- Yes! You even admit it! this ridiculous system would never work, there would be "thefts" and the whole system would crumble!
- But we could just institute a policing force which would...
- Ah, yes, some big governmental authority to watch over us! What a lovely world to live in! And who watches over the watchers, huh, genius?? Please shut up with your silly edgelord politics.

>> No.14102685

>>14099779
>hear about lit
>Want some intelligent discussion
>This is the first thread I see.

This board has failed me.

>> No.14102688

>>14099779
>socialism—the concept of reducing wealth inequality
it's disingenuous to suggest that "reducing wealth inequality" is the entirety of socialism or to suggest that socialism is the only means of reducing wealth inequality

>> No.14102697

>>14102685
oh no guys, we lost another super-genius by being lame and stupid again :(

>> No.14102777

>>14099779
democracy is whatever you want. specifically what the voters want. you can make a perfect inequal society with democracy, if the majority approve.
democracy is entirely depend on "opinions". and the opinions are volatile. people idealize democracy, is just a system. nothing less, nothing more. dont have any value in itself.

>> No.14102912

>>14099995
Based

>> No.14102939

>>14099779
Democracy is a useful tool for preservation of the interests of the bourgeois ruling class, but Communism is not. Truthfully, it’s not disliked by everyone. A pretty significant portion of the left is openly communist these days.

>> No.14102955

Democracy isn't about reducing social inequality, at least, not in America. Here, democracy is about maximizing personal freedom. Now, you could also say, "Why aren't those in society concerned with maximizing freedom not considering the roll of economic inequality in undermining personal freedom?" and for that I have no answer.

>> No.14102962

>>14099790
You're being silly, but why did the OP want to emphasize the definitions? It seems like an odd choice.

>> No.14102970 [DELETED] 

>>14099995
Isn't that just anarchy? A socialist system wou

>> No.14102983

>>14099995
Isn't that just anarchy? A socialist system would need a government of some kind to prevent bad actors from messing with the system.

>> No.14102987

>>14102152
Really, if there's nothing awaiting your piety, living a good life is all there is, and living as a rich man is better than as a poor man.

>> No.14102998

>>14102645
>people lack imagination if they want a system that exists for apurpose other than lavishing pleasures on bodies.

You have no imagination. Your entire consciousness is just the human rights lifecult kool aid slushing around.

>> No.14103008

>>14102983
How are you going to be a 'bad actor' in the scope of your community, your actual neighbors? If you screw them over you're going to be a social pariah, you're going to be ostracized, naturally. Anti-social behavior is repudiated and expelled from the system, like a virus.

>>14102998
>a system that exists for a purpose other than lavishing pleasures on bodies.
Capitalism is the system that thrives on vulgar indulgence. In socialism, without the spook of GDP growth breathing down our necks, we are finally free to live frugal, more meaningful lives.

>> No.14103012

>>14102395
Real abuses are minor, capitalism alienates men from their neighbors without some social lubrication (community groups, religion, etc.), and no one cares about their work because most work in America is moving papers from column a to column b.

>> No.14103030

>>14103008
>How are you going to be a 'bad actor' in the scope of your community, your actual neighbors? If you screw them over you're going to be a social pariah, you're going to be ostracized, naturally. Anti-social behavior is repudiated and expelled from the system, like a virus.
How are you going to be a 'bad actor' in the scope of your community, your actual neighbors? If you screw them over you're going to be a social pariah, you're going to be ostracized, naturally. Anti-social behavior is repudiated and expelled from the system, like a virus.
that is what happen in every society. included this.
if you think your "sense" of community is what prevent the bad behaviour you gonna have a really large of pariahs around. like in every society.

>> No.14103039

>>14099823

It's bullshit, though. How would you have freedom if the apparatuses to maintain said freedom would be completely and utterly stifling? You'd be 'liberated' into a convoluted system of bureaucratic domination or economic mob rule.

>>14099995

How will you make the community abide by your particular brand of libertarian socialism? What is the likelihood of hundreds of millions of people just up and forming autonomous communes and abiding by the rules set by 'imagine'?

>>14100151

And yet, at the end of communism's run, East Germans, for example, were importing Vietnamese and Cubans to do grudge work. Because, surprise surprise, Communism couldn't fill all the quotas...

>>14101930

Democracy is flimsy anywhere you look. Ironically, adding more into a society tends to do a society more harm than good, in the political sense, at least.

Add it to economics? God no. Do you really think your average McDonalds would do best with the workers voting for everything? Will Democratic McManager be necessarily better than the other McManager?

>>14102645

Imagination breeds many things. A better world? No. I may imagine a variety of worlds, a variety of betterments, a variety of possibilities.

But only a few of those stand in harmony with nature, which wrought my imagination and me myself.

>Muh Naturalistic fallacy!!!!

Says the people who shout about 'primitive communism' all day.

>> No.14103069

>>14103008
>Capitalism is the system that thrives on vulgar indulgence. In socialism, without the spook of GDP growth breathing down our necks, we are finally free to live frugal, more meaningful lives.
I agree, but the goal of socialism is ultimately to universalize it. It's the ultimate goal of the system. The the emphasis as human-ness as the basis for such a system that makes it so disgusting. Real meaning enters liofe when our more abstract (Ethnicity, nationality, etc.) identities are able to overcome the our material ones (our species, the nature of our labor, etc.) in as brutal a fashion as is obtainable. Those administering the Bataan Death March had more meaning in their lives than some barber capturing the entirety of the value he creates would ever be able to accrue.

>> No.14103104

>>14103030
if you think you need you need the strong hand of authority to solve the human condition for you you're gonna live under a bootheel, and you'll deserve it.

>Imagination breeds many things. But only a few of those stand in harmony with nature
you gotta be fucking kidding me. Have you looked outside your window recently, my dude?
Or maybe you're talking about "human nature". I don't know which argument is more tiresome to deal with

>>14103069
And those who died in the march had no meaning in their lives at all ever again.
Adversity and struggle are wonderful teachers. But they are not the only ones. And most importantly, if they are artificially imposed, their meaning becomes a perverted. People know on a deep level that they are being conned, that there is no glory in surviving or even making it big in this ludicrous rigged system.
Not to mention the process of transcending capitalism is going to be a wonderful, continuous learning experience for the species.

>> No.14103331

>>14102008
Read the nice quote from Aristotle, pls.

>>14102983
Libertarian-Socialism is anarchism. Anarchism is a challenging of all unjustifiable hierarchies. Direct democracies within a community is all we need to run things smoothly. Your bad actors comment has already been answered. The community deals with its bad actors how it feels like. They may take responsibility for producing such person or they may blame that person squarely. No need for prisons. Only mental wards. True correctional facilities

>>14103039
>How will you make the community abide
Offering a duel income (at first) to offset the coming depression? I want to offer an all around better deal than the bad joke society collapsing around them. It *sells* itself for being the better path.
>East Germany
Wasn't communist. That was "state-socialism" practicing a centralized capitalist economy. Like China now, their ruling party was called socialist
>Democracy is flimsy anywhere you look
The sham you see is corrupted, like everything else, by capitalism. Capitalism makes it "flimsy"
And YES. Making workers their own bosses not only works, it works better. Why do you prefer the feudalism of the corporate world? (Holy shit I hate my job. They traded out management recently and the new ones suck! And I can do nothing about it. Don't tell me that's for the best)

>> No.14103460

>>14103331

>Offer a better alternative

You idiots have been offering 'better alternatives' for nearly two centuries now. And societies have either refused the bait or seen it fail them. In forms moderate and extreme.

>Hurr Durr East Germany not real commies

It was socialist, trying its damnedest to be communist. And it ultimately did fail. It was not, by any means, 'capitalist'.

>Muh Socialism will make Democracy Pure

No. It won't. Democracy is compromised by the fact that the majority is simply too ignorant, indifferent, or incapable to see any kind of 'purer' democracy function. It's something you can't educate away.

Eventually it will fail to some kind of oligarchy or ruling clique. Of those in power, or else those who merely give a greater shit than 99% of their comrades and take power unto themselves.

There's also the fact that most people would gladly defer some manner of power and agency off to people better capable of using it, so they do not have the burden of handling it themselves.

>Hey, we need to vote on how many nuggets we need for the month. Come on, let's gather!
>Nah. Let Bob handle it. He's been in that slot long enough, seems to like it. Let him decide
>Hey, wanna go see CommieJoker II, comrade?

Making workers their own boss doesn't really work as well as you think. Can it straggle along to a degree? Yes. In any ways close to the socialist ideal? No. Cooperatives are not a dominant economic model for a reason.

In the private model, responsibility and dividends are split between those who do, and do not give much of a shit. Joe Bob Investor/Owner puts up more money, more risk, and comes out with more money at the end of it. Joe Bob Employee clocks in, flips burgers, and comes out of it without really having to think or deal with all the minutia of running an economic enterprise or the risk involved in it.

What would you rather have? An Oneida Community that would pettily rip itself apart in a few years? Or a Yugoslavia kind of model? That, despite being more decentralized, still failed. It does not work, and should not be pursued as such.

At the very most, I'd concede, a scheme of employee ownership could work to a degree. But then again, does your bagger at Publix necessarily control Publix democratically in a way that would satisfy you? Even though he may own it via stock?

>> No.14103494

>>14103104
>if you think you need you need the strong hand of authority to solve the human condition for you you're gonna live under a bootheel, and you'll deserve it.
no. i say making pariah and ostracize people is a hand of authority too. you cant escape. your notion of "you dont molest your neighbourhood if you really feel it like your neghberhood" is naive bullshit. conflict is everywhere.
also, i dont want to solve anything. just saying. every community have detractors and "bad people" and good people who want to save the community of bad people and people who is ok with good people treating like shit to bad people, thats all.

>> No.14103667

>>14103582
You may have missed the fact that I'm a bit of a butch lesbian.

>>14103601
>Oh yes, because humanity sets in.
Capitalists sink their teeth in. Statists betray us. Yea, we've run into loads of opposition and division. What? you want us to roll over and die? Now? On the brink of our species extinction?
HA. Not I

>>14103654
That's only because I'm talking in simple clear terms to a room full elementary school children. You people still think in Cold War terms. You don't read anything on this topic. Corporate state propaganda doesn't count

>> No.14103672

>>14103576

>fallen to the mighty propaganda machine of the capitalists, yes

By way of failing to compete with them? Only giving their citizens a half-assed mockery of what they saw on the other side? Say it's not so, comrade!

>Muh Western Aggression

The Communist bloc was not some poor, innocent victim being kicked by ebil cappies. They were an aggressive power-bloc in direct competition militarily and economically with the West. Who were kept back and ultimately defeated by the weight of their hubris.

They were experiments drawing on lines of economic thought that co-existed with lines of economic thought that would come to guide capitalism. And they failed because they based their economic principles on a Hegalian fantasy rather than coherent economic principles.

>citation really badly needed

The main delusion shared by liberals and leftists alike is that man is a putty-like blank slate that can be educated to a point of progress and advancement.

Education can only go so far. You can't educate most people be something that they aren't, or can't be.

>Hurr durr Iron Law of Oligarchy NO REAL

Really, now? You can see it everywhere from Communist states to the fucking CIO you dipshit.

>Hurr Durr my distribution of democracy will totally work, and NOT become a technocracy!

Really, now. Aside from the high probability that such a abstention will lead to laziness, and gradually, oligarchy, you overestimate the maturity of most people to vote.

Add into that factionalism, indifference, nepotism, etc...

You've surely heard of Kibbutz right? Don't see too many of them functioning, do you...

>Hurr Durr Electronic voting

Oh, so you can have one faction accuse another of hacking the nugget production quotas, cool.

>Muh Suppression of Co-Ops

They had a decent run in Britain. And failed. They were promoted by everyone from Catholics to progressives in the early 20th Century. And failed. The current 'successes' of the model are either insignificant or devolved heavily from the ideal.

>Hurr Durr muh randomness! Muh Arbitrariness! Muh inequality!

Irregardless of choice or a lack thereof (would subjecting everyone, everywhere to universal socialism/mob rule be much different, in that respect?), the real or supposed arbitrariness of it does not matter.

Inequality is a fundamental fact in nature, and, as such, is imperfectly reflected in the society man builds from nature. Bob A cannot choose that he has a room temperature IQ. Bob B cannot choose that he has flat feet. Bob C cannot choose that he's smarter at math than either.

Differences as such are present, and cannot be stamped away. They have reflected and shaped mankind on a macro and micro level since we've been here. They are, whether you or I like it or not, reflective in capitalism.

Only a minority in society can effectively lead and coordinate things. Be it by nature or nurture. Most others will be either content to be led, or find themselves a place in society in between.

>> No.14103504

>>14103460
>You idiots have been offering
You don't seem to know dick about socialist history
>muh pure
Do you know what corruption is? Money is why you don't get politicians to do what you want them to. They do what their real bosses tell them to do.
>Too ignorant
Which I suppose you believe is genetic and race based. Just stop.
>Making workers their own boss doesn't really work as well as you think
Again, you come up short in knowing what the hell you're talking about. Fucking monarchism in the workplace? srsly? Idiot.

>> No.14103677

>>14100231
This has to be bait. I refuse to believe there are people this bought into the mythology of the status quo that they think the concept of a leadership class which doesn't have the best interests of the average worker in society is somehow now controversial/immoral. Have you at all even looked into the history surrounding the Rothschild family (among many others)? It's not accidental that they have maintained themselves as one of the wealthiest international banking families since the Holy Roman Empire. What are meetings like the Bilderberg group except meetings of international capitalists and bankers looking to leverage their resources/power to shape the future in their favor?

>> No.14103681
File: 36 KB, 400x567, immanuel-kant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14103681

>>14099779
Because wealth inequality is a result of social equality.

/thread

>> No.14103683

>>14103615

You mean the bulwark of the Israel economy until they got outmoded by the '80s? An economy that, might I add, was only really sustained by diaspora gibs and German guilt money?

>> No.14103688

>>14103667
>butch
So you play the man in your lesbian hook ups?

>> No.14103701

>>14103688
Switch, but what business is it of yours?

>> No.14103702

>>14103667
My problem with modern socialism is not that I've read "corporate state propaganda" in any meaningful way but rather that I've read a decent amount of historical works and understand that anyone selling you an escape from hierarchy is either a fraud or a moron. There is no escape from humans organizing themselves into hierarchies. There has literally never been an instance of a robust social organization without hierarchy/power dynamics, even in hunter gatherer communities where material possessions are essentially non-existent there are hierarchies of who gets access to mating and prioritized consumption of food.
You, especially as a woman, have no fucking place to speak about a society devoid of hierarchy because it is explicitly the female instinct towards mate selection that causes the drive towards power in men in the first place. You can't fix a central limitation of biological reality by thumbing through a yarn sold to you by an elderly Ashkenazi Jew.

>> No.14103712

>>14103672

Jeff Bezos is Jeff Bezos in part because he was born in the right place at the right time, yes.

But he's also Jeff Bezos because he, in and among others, had the canny, intelligence, and shrewdness to outclass other bastards competing against him in the same environment.

Did every other Joe Blow White kid flipping burgers at McDonalds really have the same chance? Or was there differences in between them that came to manifest themselves, socially, mentally, and economically, to different outcomes?

If it could not be helped that he was a bump above the others, is it necessarily unjust that he wound up above the others?

It is wrong for Kant to be Kant, and be recognized for his achievements, because he was in the right time and place to be Kant?

Is it wrong for Marilyn Monroe to be seen as beautiful, and valued for her beauty, when she had no choice in being put in a society that saw her as such, and rewarded her, as such?

>> No.14103723

>>14103701
Gross. I pray for your soul.

>> No.14103576

>>14103460
> And societies have either refused the bait
fallen to the mighty propaganda machine of the capitalists, yes
> or seen it fail them.
the failure of 20th century socialist states has a historical context (western aggression for one thing), they're not scientifically pure experiments that "prove" anything.
Is this really so difficult for you guys to comprehend? This line of argumentation is nothing more than might makes right.

> It's something you can't educate away.
citation really badly needed

>Eventually it will fail to some kind of oligarchy or ruling clique.
I often wonder why apologists of capitalism don't use their crystal balls to win the lottery instead of annoying me online

>There's also the fact that most people would gladly defer some manner of power and agency off to people better capable of using it, so they do not have the burden of handling it themselves.
>Hey, we need to vote on how many nuggets we need for the month. Come on, let's gather!
Now here you are getting into some interesting stuff. You're beginning to imagine! It's a good sign.
So firstly, yes, not everybody needs to participate in every decision! The maturity to vote responsibly is also the maturity to know when to abstain from a vote. We can and should defer to experts on technical matters!
So you're confusing "everyone has the RIGHT to participate in the decision making" with "everyone has the OBLIGATION to".
And another important point:
> Hey, we need to vote on how many nuggets we need for the month. Come on, let's gather!
it's the 21st fucking century, surely we could use electronic telecommunications to make this kind of thing a bit more convenient, no?

>Cooperatives are not a dominant economic model for a reason.
history. Where they've taken root, they've flourished. Everywhere else their formation has been suppressed.

>Joe Bob Employee clocks in, flips burgers, and comes out of it without really having to think or deal with all the minutia of running an economic enterprise or the risk involved in it.
Ah yes!! We are so fucking fortunate our overlords take all this cognitive burden from us! I want really badly to respect you, but this is fucking vile.
Here's why this isn't even an argument: Neither Joe Bob was ever given a real choice. Simple. Capitalism isn't conforming to any natural blabla anything, because there are no real choices. Proles can't choose the """"hard""" life of the billionaire, nor can he, realistically, choose the proletarian life, for that would mean distancing himself from his entire social circle.
Nor is there a fucking test to determine whether one is suited for billionaire duties and privileges. It's totally random. If you were in the right place (an english speaking country) at the right time (the rise of the internet) you're now the richest man in the world.
So no, any amount of "natural" difference of intelligence or "willpower" is insufficient to justify the system such as it is.

>> No.14103582

>>14103504
Why do you pretend to be a woman? no woman talks like that - you're clearly a man.

>> No.14103596

>>14103494
bullshit, my friend, is this "wise" talk of "there's ALWAYS bad people", "it NEVER gets better", "there's no solution", "It's silly to even try".
It's very easy to seem wise being a pessimist.

Antisocial behavior has causes. Causes rooted in the material circumstances of the society.
Once more, for the people in the back:
ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR HAS IDENTIFIABLE, TREATABLE CAUSES.
We've done boat loads of science on this topic. You guys are still in the 18th century with your fucking """human nature"""

>> No.14103601

>>14103504

Your ideology as been around, at from Fourier onward, for 200 years, no? And yet, every time they've tried to form their little perfect communities, based on their little perfect ideology, does it not fall flat?

Oh yes, because humanity sets in. Oh, pesky human nature, why won't you let democracy uplift thee?

Oh yes, replacing the people owning the money will magically make the herd capable of self-governance! Surely, the organizations, those 'just' hierarchies will be better. The organizations needed to make everyone be a nice little anarcho-socialist, able to democratically usher in that anarcho-socialist utopia that is surely in the 51%'s best interest!

Surely customs will change, attitudes will change, and people will uniformly educate themselves to properly enact the needed consensus. For they can be molded uniformly into free, autonomous little socialists.

What do you have to show? The ruins of the Eastern Bloc? The mutilated corpse of Yugoslavia? Co-ops that devolve into exclusivity, or up and fail against the superior corporate model?

Will man be 'liberated' while he is subject to what would be an all-encompassing web of custom and institutions designed to liberate him?

>> No.14103609

>>14103601
hah, you even talk like you're from the 18th century

>> No.14103612

>>14099779
Because socialism isn't simply "reducing wealth inequality" like you are so disingenuously suggesting. "Socialism" in a realistically possible form is just a mechanism to shuffle the levers of power from the wealthy capitalists to their spoiled children. There is no "communal ownership of production" in any meaningful way in the modern world, there never has been this fever dream of hierarchy free society/culture and there never will be.

Basically, it's an instinctive revulsion by masses of correct but ignorant people towards the very obvious dishonesty of "socialists" who have no business wielding power and explicitly speak against their interests.

>> No.14103615

>>14103601
> What do you have to show?
Mondragon, the kibbutzim

>> No.14103616

>>14100151
>Bad things wont happen if we are socialist!
kys

>> No.14103619

>>14103596
What science can you point to which meaningfully demonstrates that a large proportion of the variance in violent/criminal behaviors are economic. It's fairly easy to find ones that demonstrate a majority of the variance in these behaviors to be primarily genetic. Can you point to some indicating the contrary or are you just speaking out your ass like most "socialists"?

>> No.14103627

>14099995
> And let's forget the hard evidence from the last one hundred years, because this time, it will work.
Believe me, Because I am mentally handicapped.

>> No.14103793

>>14103672
>failing to compete
might really does make right, huh?

>The Communist bloc was not some poor, innocent victim being kicked by ebil cappies. They were an aggressive power-bloc in direct competition militarily and economically with the West.
so you really unironically believe that the only variable worth considering for all socialist experiments in the 20th century is the ideology. There are no material circumstances that we might take into consideration.

So communism is a hegelian fantasy, but the literal 20th century is a pure unadulterated dialectical narrative. Beautiful.

>You can't educate most people be something that they aren't, or can't be.
You don't know what people can be! How could you know? Your sample consists entirely of depressed Americans from the age of the iphone. Maybe don't make authoritative statements like that when you don't know what you're talking about!

> Law of Oligarchy NO REAL
The law of oligarchy is real within the domain that it refers to. A world where you might have something to gain at someone else's loss. In a society where any loss of gain is shared by all, the skills of reconciliation and of finding novel ways for cooperation flourish, and the skills of scheming and deceiving wither.

>the high probability that such a abstention will lead to...
here's what I mean with my focus on imagination. How did you calculate these probabilities? You didn't, of course. What you're saying is that it is much easier for you to imagine socialism as a dreary, decaying, moribund society than anything else.

I agree with you, that a technocracy might slowly form within socialism, but this danger is not unique to my ideology. I believe any society, socialist and capitalist alike, need to make a ritual of re-affirming its principles every now and again, to avoid, as you describe, slipping into bad habits. In capitalism, it's important to break up monopolies every so often, for the same reason, the captains of industry become an oligarchy.

>Oh, so you can have one faction accuse another of hacking the nugget production quotas, cool.
this is funny, it seems you accidentally maintained your previous joke about nuggets, but for this statement it totally undercuts your argument! To state the obvious: who would go to the trouble of hacking a vote about nuggets?
The nuggets joke was meant to show that under socialism we would have to go and vote about boring trivial things, but then you claim some one might hack the boring and trivial vote, so actually it is important to physically attend the boring assemblies...
I don't think you can have it both ways here.

>Co-Ops
you heard of mondragon? It's been mentioned already.

>Irregardless
lel

>> No.14103643

>>14103615
The kibbutzim? The ones which are constantly relying on donations from capitalistic diaspora Jews to maintain their societies and have massive rates of defection despite the fact that you are basically guaranteeing yourself to be homeless and without support if you try and leave? Are you talking about the same kibbutzim which rely on the explicitly ethno-nationalist and capitalist government of Israel to provide water and resources for them? Those kibbutzim?

>> No.14103645

>>14103596
bad people is a moral assumption not a material circunstance shit. like all moral assumptions are from a point of view of what people should be. from the beginning its a control of the mind. you cant have all the people controlled. you think you can?. ok. you never gonna put all reality in your mould, your mould will always have leaks. the problem is people like you naively think "we make a community and the people who cant be happy in this community have to get out". and at the same time you think a community like that is perfect.
just start a community and learn all the hypocrisy, sophistry and resentment you have when "bad people" start to make his thing.
the problem is from the people who want the community like a perfect shiny thing, not of "bad people".

>ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR HAS IDENTIFIABLE, TREATABLE CAUSES.
We've done boat loads of science on this topic.
please tell me you dont refer to psichology.

>> No.14103654

>>14099995
>And we'll all get free candy forever and never need to go to school again!
You sound like an elementary schooler talking about what they would do if they were the president. This just isn't how human organization works. There will always be humans who seek to aggregate and use power whether it be through having more access to mates as was the case pre-agriculture or access to mechanisms for digital communication as is the case today. You're fighting an uphill battle against what it is to be an organism existing in a limited material reality.

>> No.14103660

>>14100333
It explains why the Soviets execute anarchists in the first place.

>> No.14103815

>>14103672
(2/2)

>would subjecting everyone, everywhere to universal socialism/mob rule be much different, in that respect?
false equivalence here. We are all subjected to our societies way of life when we are born. I'm saying in capitalism 99% of people are not part of the economic decision making, in particular regarding how their own labor will be used, and in socialism they would be, by definition.

>Inequality is a fundamental fact in nature, and, as such, is imperfectly reflected in the society man builds from nature.
disease is a fundamental fact in nature, and, as such, medicine is an affront to GOD
pain is a fundamental fact in nature, and, as such, all manufacture of bike helmets and other protective gear is hereby PROHIBITED
death is a fundamental fact in nature, and, as such, *shoots you in the face*

>Bob C cannot choose that he's smarter at math than either.
it's funny that you used math as an example! I do work with math education. I've shown, pretty conclusively I'd say, that by simply stripping away traditional formalisms and letting kids conceptualize math operations however they want, I can get "bad kids" to think mathematically beyond anything traditional math education would predict to be possible.

This is a neat little microcosm of our debate: you guys insisting that you know things are the way they are because they've always been and always will be, forever and ever amen, and then someone creative tries a simple intervention and makes things better and then you guys do the angry crab pose meme

>Only a minority in society can effectively lead and coordinate things. Be it by nature or nurture.
even if that were the case, the people who are not leaders or coordinators surely have something else of value to offer. They don't deserve to be treated like garbage because they didn't win some dumb coin grabbing competition. No one does. You can argue all you want, you can't disprove what we all experience everyday, that your ideology reduces human beings to trash, it's dehumanizing. It's cruel and it's wasteful.

>> No.14103818

>>14103701
I simply find you fascinating

>> No.14103832

>>14103702
Anarchism is not chaos.
Anarchism is a challenging of all UNJUSTIFIABLE hierarchies
You cannot have a world with no hierarchies. Honest anarchists know this. Proudhon knew this. Any serious anarchist KNOWS THIS ALREADY.
Study it before you dismiss it.

>> No.14103839

>>14103832
All hierarchies are self justifying.

>> No.14103844

>>14103839
No.

>> No.14103858

>>14103712
I think you were aiming at me there.

so is it not just that jeff bezos got to where he is, seeing as he did what he did. let's think:

$8.00 / hour * 40 hours/week * 52 weeks = $16,640
Bezobub is worth $111.6 billion.

but we're kinda dissensitized to these numbers, aren't we? Let's put it another way:
16,640 seconds is four hours.
111,600,000,000 is 3,536 years.

So I put it to you. One man can be smarter than another, yes. perhaps twice as smart. knows twice as much, thinks twice as fast. perhaps three times. Perhaps ten times. Can he be a billions times smarter than another man? a hundred billion? Or could a simpler explanation be that we exist in an absolutely unconscionable system, where "fairness" plays no role at all, and rewards are dealt are proportional to no reasonable metric, except perhaps greed?

>> No.14103872

>>14103815
>disease is a fundamental fact in nature, and, as such, medicine is an affront to GOD
>pain is a fundamental fact in nature, and, as such, all manufacture of bike helmets and other protective gear is hereby PROHIBITED
>death is a fundamental fact in nature, and, as such, *shoots you in the face*
you dont solve death, pain or disease with any of that.
you talk like a politician.

>> No.14103873

>>14099779
I don’t like democracy.

>> No.14103878

>>14100271
Based.

>> No.14103881

>>14103872
you don't solve problems with palliative measures, you merely ameliorate the situation, therefore all palliative measures are hereby PROHIBITED

>> No.14103913

>>14103881
why prohibited?.
you are the one who insinuate that palliative measures some day will change the big strong base of inequality of life.

your faith in the future and in techno-solutions is sad in some way. like a child who believe in the second coming and want to believe with all his heart because he wants to see jesus coming again and you think is ok he think like that because, anyway, hey, maybe jesus come again...

>im not the guy you respond

>> No.14103935

>>14103844
Stunning critique whore

>> No.14104024

>>14099779
>socialism—the concept of reducing wealth inequality
socialism is not about this at all, it's about people deciding democratically how to run their workplace and them keeping the fruits of their labor

>> No.14104103

>>14099779
democracy can get fucked tbqh

>> No.14104106

>>14103681
/Jacobi

>> No.14104725

>>14102955
"maximizing personal freedom" in the democratic sense means eliminating privileges in favor of smaller freedoms that are less intrusive on others. It isn't a process of maximizing personal freedom at all, but the opposite. Hierarchies maximize personal freedom by increasing the number of privileges the higher ranks have. A man who has a thousand slaves to do his bidding unconditionally is freer than a thousand men with no slaves and so on.

>> No.14104846
File: 41 KB, 640x640, 1568327997623.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14104846

how is this /lit/?

>> No.14104892

>>14099779
Democracy is not reducing inequality, it is etymologically: "Demos" "Kratos" power of the people, aka majority rule.
A Democracy can perfectly be unfair and stay perfectly democratic if that's what people wish. Athens had slaves and no women rights.

But for the left or liberals realising this would take a whole reset of their worldview because they pretend to speak on behalf of the people while refusing to consider the people might disagree with them.

which is why they all secretly wish for englightened despotism.

>> No.14105050

>>14103935
Justify the Queen of England being your superior

>> No.14105735

>>14099779
Because people are retarded and think that any kind of inequality ia bad, while it's not only natural but also inevitable...

>> No.14105804

>>14099779
I like socialism and dislike democracy, what now?

>> No.14105810

>>14103793

>Material Circumstances

You mean, again, the half assed mockery of capitalism socialism and socialist states ineffectively pumped out to compete and overcome their rivals? The Commie Block, the Yugo, the breadlines? How was it materially better?

Dialectics is an idiotic way to view history and man. The 20th century does not abide by it.

>Hurr Durr we can educate people this time!

We live in perhaps the most educated time ever. And yet, are the masses liberated? No. They remain herd-like, abiding largely by the opinions and tastes of their fellows and their own limitations.

You can push them into a certain direction, but can’t make them into a kind of ‘new socialist man’ by throwing Marxist dogmatics at them.

>Muh environment will magically solve human pettiness

No. This is bullshit. Your magical community scheme will not make people into little angels because losses and risks are more evenly distributed.

You can’t just force people into Barney-like peaceful cooperation. If man has a talent for anything, it is finding and making conflict...

>Muh Imagination

I believe the products of my imagination are grounded in reality. You idiots have ‘imagined’ much the same thing for over 200 Years, with echoes of it going back to More and Plato.

It’s nothing more than the same false idea of liberation from any and all things you think inconvenient or oppressive to man, with the view that all such things are evil, unnatural, or replaceable by your alternative. You see a perfect, happy little socialist man trapped by capitalism, and want to free him.

But he’s not there.

>Nuggets

I meant in a general sense that such a system would be vulnerable to either dulling of the process through too constant direct democracy, as well as the gaming of direct democracy for personal ends and power. People would be unable to form a clear consensus by democracy as to whether or not there was enough democracy. Leading this to discontent and backbiting.

>>>14103815

>Muh decision making

Yet, is everyone, everywhere a socialist? Would the generations coming eventually to live in this system have a choice in being socialists? Would 51% come to impose their view of socialism upon others, with the other 49% having to take it because a fluke of public opinion?

Carry this onto the inevitable oligarchy that will form. Will the average worker necessarily have much democratic say over what the clique of planners above his head say, even if he voted against them? Will that Democratic say even satisfy him more than clocking in under a manager?

Socialism is a freedom people wouldn’t have much choice in choosing. Or else, would be able to democratically deny for themselves.

>Hurr Durr human nature not real

Really, now? And yet, as you mock me in my appeal to nature, you’ll point to happy little hunter gatherers ostensibly living ‘primitive communism’ as proof that your own ideology is natural.

>> No.14105827

>>14105050
I am her loyal subject

>> No.14105829

>>14105735
People are indeed ignorant. Your love of inequality as an example proves this. But you also seem to believe its inherent. That we are unable to learn. You go against everything /lit/erate people stand for. You don’t belong here.
Not till you learn the error of your ways

>>14105804
You must be thinking of the sham in current use. Either this or you don’t really understand socialism

>> No.14105931

>>14103815

>Hurr Durr you uncreative heathens

Yet, regardless of what little tricks you apply, what wiggle room can be exploited, there still is natural inequality there, no? You’re not going to teach a retard to comprehend the intimacies of Shakespeare, will you?

Not everyone will be able to learn such things. Many will be predisposed to indifference regarding it, and maintain themselves at a point of mediocrity.

The key is not to vainly try and level things. It is to comprehend inequality and best accommodate it.

>You ebil because you don’t by my fantasy! Cruel, foul conservative!

Yes, I will admit frankly that my views are harsh. But nonetheless, they are true in spite of their harshness.

Some will win, some will lose, some will find themselves in the middle. Their lives won’t be magically improved by tossing in democracy left and democracy right as their vain political and economic salvation.

Humanity as whole is as it is. In its glories and potentialities, foibles and limitations. It’s not some sort of sad putty that needs to be molded to save it.

>>14103832

What is, and what is not a justifiable hierarchy? And how would millions of people be able to democratically form or choose ‘just’ hierarchies without either being made to know what it is by some higher dictate, or by reading the RIGHT view of anarchism that they may not even agree with?

>>14103858

Yes yes, crunch the numbers, and reduce the exceptional into that. It does not, for good or I’ll, deny exceptionality.

Of all the basketball players in the world, Michael Jordan was of a bleedingly small percentage to make it big. And of that small percentage to make it big, he was of an even smaller group to become famous, and an even smaller group to become icons of the sport.

All because he happened to be of the right build and set to play basketball, had the right inclination and charisma to guide himself to fame, and the right marketing to sustain that fame. All because he was in a society at the right time that valued the skills of basketball players to the point of making him a multi millionaire doing it.

Is it arbitrary and evil? Or just a reflection, for good or ill, of the exception gathering it’s fruits, for good or ill? And whereas in Michae Jordan’s field it was basketball, in Jeff Bezos’ case, it was business.

>>14105050

Justify Bob the democratic manager being your leader. He just happened to be voted in by 51% of people, in a system you didn’t choose whether or not to participate in, by the votes of others you are forced by law or custom to accept as a perfectly valid way to govern your life.

You are, by the will of the mob you are born or forced it, to accept the decisions of Bob whether you like it or not. For Bob has legitimacy over all because you happen to be a socialist system that makes it so.

The Queen is established by over a thousand years of successful precedent and human organization. Bob is established by lot.

>> No.14105945
File: 310 KB, 333x236, 1571999577361.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14105945

>>14105829
You are even more retarded than people who think inequalities BAD, tripfag. You ruin this place, browsing /lit/ without having (((you))) filtered out is one of most painful experiences - your posts contribute absolutely nothing, you have nothing to say, you are almost stereotypical retarded plebbit socialist queer and everyone here hates you and nobody even wants to read this smug piles of crap coming out of your arse.
I hate edginess, but only one thing comes to my mind when I see a fucking tripfag like you - go fucking kill yourself and stop shitting my Mongol knitting forum.

>> No.14105946

>>14105829

Inequality allowed for society to differentiate itself and its talents to allow literature in the first place. It is to inequality that the organization of society in accordance to its differences is possible.

Go fuck off back to a commune, dear.

>> No.14105969

>>14105931
>Representative """"democracy""""
-Isonomia
-Sortition
-Referendum
You're welcome

>inb4 "le stupid plebs"
A valid decision hasn't more legitimacy than a stupid one when it comes to power.

>> No.14105985

>>14105829
>People are indeed ignorant. Your love of inequality as an example proves this. But you also seem to believe its inherent. That we are unable to learn.
I can't believe that you recommend Nietzsche to people in various threads yet write crap like this. You're pretty much the spitting image of Zarathustra's tarantula.

>> No.14105987

>>14105946
Pol Pot was right, intellectuals deserve slavery in fields and factories to get a taste of their own medecine.

>> No.14105988

>>14105969

Which will make things better, how?

>> No.14106000

>>14099779
Because every fucking time someone debates a Socialist, the Socialist/Communist changes the definition of it and it's super annoying.

>> No.14106006

>>14105988
Not necessarily.
It's more sincere and that's the only thing I care about.

>> No.14106012

>>14105987
You'd kill yourself if you tried to shoulder the responsibilities of intellectuals.

>> No.14106042

>>14106012
The World was made by sword. Scrawny bookworms are not worth better than any other man.
You think the opposite because this is a litterature board that only those who can afford to read and use internet can access.

>> No.14106056

>>14099779
The only thing resembling Socialism that I could see working would be a Post-Scarcity Economy. Basically, it's an economy resulting from advances in technology allowing goods and services to be obtained for little-to-no cost, such as replacing all workers and laborers with fully-autonomous robots and nanotechnology allowing all waste-products to be converted back into useful things, basically working like the Replicator devices in Star Trek so you can literally make anything into anything, even turn your shit back into food or turn the dirt you walk on into a game console or computer.

However, even in such an economy there will be two things that will still be worth money: land and things of personal value (i.e. the teddy bear you dead mother gave to you when you were a child) or historic value (i.e. the dress Monica Lewinsky wore when she sucked off Bill Clinton). Because of that, there will still be homeless people, but they will be well-dressed and well-fed homeless people.

Heck, they probably won't even truly be homeless as they can simply fabricate self-driving RVs to live in that roam from one end of the country to the other in large caravans. Alternatively, they could fabricate ships to go into space and live there without having to pay the real estate companies a single dime.

>> No.14106064

>>14103039
Nature is not harmonious, it just appears to be so with a very small scope. KYS luddite.

>> No.14106078

>>14106042
My idea of an intellectual isn't a scrawny bookworm. Professors and scholars are eggheads that lack your sense of the sword. An intellectual unites both the practical and the theoretical and takes action. Think a man like Caesar. Such men are feared and hated, and that's why the responsibilities they have are greater than that of some dipshit slave in a field.

>> No.14106103

>>14099779
Daily reminder that American and European socialists are pseudo-intellectual beta males that know nothing about politics, philosophy and wouldn’t even die for the pathetic ideas they believe in (somebody else’s ideas). Highly agreeable cucks.

>> No.14106124

>>14106056
Probably less homeless than, and more like there will still be a degree of inequality, but it will only matter to you if you let it. I for instance, wouldn't give a shit if someone had all of the historical artifacts like that. Ergo making the inequality meaningless, but to someone who really does, that's the only source of it.

There would also be a another thing in that economy, prestige factor. I could probably still make a profit or whatever you would want to call it selling wine I hand grow and make in the old way, because someone will trade me something I want (Or an increasingly long series of barter transactions done by computers) for said bottle of snob-wine. The real equalizing factor of this is both of us are doing this action voluntarily. I won't starve if I never do this, neither will he if he doesn't sell his artifact, it's mostly just a hobby.

>> No.14106224

>>14105810
Do you see that there is not a single argument in both of your char-capped posts? Is that intentional? You simply state things. This is how it is. You don't even bother going one more step into it.

>but can’t make them into a kind of ‘new socialist man’
>This is bullshit. Your magical community scheme will not make people into little angels
why not? how do you know?
>it’s nothing more than the same false idea of liberation (...) or replaceable by your alternative.
why is it false? Why shouldn't it be replaceable?
>But he’s not there.
how do you know?
>People would be unable to form a clear consensus by democracy (...) Leading this to discontent and backbiting.
how can you say this with such definite certainty? Why do you insist that you know not only the future, which is ridiculous enough, but all possible futures?

But that's not even the worst part,
>Dialectics is an idiotic way to view history and man. The 20th century does not abide by it.
I was criticizing you for viewing the history of the 20th C. as a cut-and-dry dialectic, which "proves" capitalism is superior, entirely dismissing the material reality of the conflict.
oh, well, but you don't even know what I mean by material circumstances:
>You mean, again, the half assed mockery of capitalism socialism and socialist states ineffectively pumped out to compete and overcome their rivals?
No, I don't mean that. I mean that geography, resources, people, weather, and every other aspect of the material world is unequally distributed over the surface of the earth. This affects the performance of a country at every level of consideration. You wanna build a factory? You need bricks, do you have clay? is it nearby? Oh no, there are people living on it and they don't wanna move. Another factor is time: The big capitalist powers had a pretty big head start on the eastern bloc, did you ever think about it that way? They were trying to build a new nation, with a new way of life, while their opponents were sitting on centuries of established systems and infrastructure.
This are what I keep referring to as "material circumstances". Maybe this time I was clear.

Another thing you totally failed to understand is this:
false equivalence here. We are all subjected to our societies way of life when we are born. I'm saying in capitalism 99% of people are not part of the economic decision making, in particular regarding how their own labor will be used, and in socialism they would be, by definition.
because you just repeated that it would be cruel to "force" people to live democratically after the revolution, which frankly, kek, so... I really don't know how you can make such a lame argument... I'm being forced to live under capitalism right now, do you weep for me?

>> No.14106280

>>14099779
Because that message is packaged with transsexual children and open borders which viscerally repels most normal people. But then you find out about national socialism and you start to realize that socialism truly only work in tandem with nationalism and vice versa.

>> No.14106527

>>14106224

>How do you know?

Most of the major revolutions tried to do this. The French sought to induce liberty to breed a new Enlightenment Man, sweeping away the old and in with the new. They failed.

The Soviets wiped out or exiled their upper classes, and attempted to plan and socialize a new breed of men liberated by socialism. They failed.

The Oneida commune before them tried to bring forth a heavenly, socialistic society on earth. Common property, common decision making, common sexuality. They failed.

So on, so forth.

>Why do you insist you know the future?

I do not. I just think, when looking back to history, one may adequately gauge the probable results of the policies and ideas you idiots seek to impose. From a reflection on democracy itself, and on socialism as enacted or theorized.

>Muh Dialectics

I reject dialectical materialism as a concept. That is what I meant.

>Muh Geography

Really, now? You're really going to go 'muh underdevelopment' on me? Russia and its empire was a well-established, steadily modernizing great power. While comparatively backwards compared to the West, it was not as behind as many claim it to be. And the Soviets through a wrench into what would have been a rather fruitful organic expansion and industrialization.

The Eastern Bloc contained the heartland of Austro-Hungarian industry. Which was, one might add, nothing to scoff at. Yet, socialism left it in mismanagement and stagnation.

China, while backwards and chaotic, showed some signs of modernization and progress, and rested on thousands of years of development.

Cuba was prosperous and developed when compared to much of Latin America.

There was not so crippling a lack of infrastructure and development to build off of. Not a lack of resources, or a lack of population, necessarily. It's just that socialist economics could not be made to take them to the level they could have reached.

See the late USSR, how its industries stagnated while it was at the same time making fortunes off oil exports...

>Such a lame argument

Really, now? I'm simply saying that you impose a denial of choice to ostensibly liberate choices and people, for a system you claim will be more democratic afterwards with little to no evidence.

One's labor would, even under your ideal circumstances, be not controlled by the individual himself, but the choices and dictates of the mob. And one would be as forced to be under that as one is as ostensibly forced to be under capitalism as presently you claim them to be.

Old boss, same as the new boss, in a way.

>>14106056

Socialists never really give too much credence to the the immaterial. They always reduce it into the material.

Post-Scarcity being a meme, though, I don't think we'll ever come to this.

>> No.14106562

Is there any doubt left that butterfly’s lesbianism and garbage politics are her pretensions to singularity in whatever conservative small town she’s from?

>> No.14106603

>>14106527
>Post-Scarcity being a meme, though, I don't think we'll ever come to this.
But something like the nanotech needed to convert matter already exists in nature in the form of the Ribosome, which exists within our cells and basically converts things like pizza, hamburgers and ice cream into new cells for the people who ingest it or to build a baby over the course of 9 months in the case of pregnant women.

Nanomachines are capable of doing the same thing, only more efficiently and with a wider variety of materials. AI are also becoming more and more sophisticated to the point where it's been estimated that by the 2060s it will be possible to build an AI with an intelligence greater than the combined intelligence of every human being on the planet.

It's only a matter of time before both technologies needed to create a post-scarcity economy become reality.

>> No.14106808

>>14106603

I don't trust the idea. Technology will advance, industries will change, and automation will certainly affect things, yes. But will it magically deny scarcity in a world that faces a wide variety of potential shortages and challenges to the implementation of technologies that may relieve its woes?

Look at the problems around the depletion of rare earth minerals, the costs that are entailed for energy production (especially 'green' energy), the rapid expansion of populations who will invariably seek more in the way of material goods to keep up with the Joneses, so to speak...

How long will the problems mount before the solutions become viable? For mass usage, or to be usable at all? Will nanomachine factories be useful if there aren't enough solar panels able to power it, for example?

>> No.14106992

>>14103832
How does one delineate between a hierarchy that is justifiable vs unjustifiable? Does the whole human race need to come to some sort of agreement as to what constitutes a justifiable hierarchy in your bourgeois fantasyland? I can't help but think this whole act you do is completely fake and that you actually don't believe a word you're saying because only a literal child could be so obstinate in their refusal to engage in reality.

>> No.14107000

>>14099779
Socialism makes sense of a tribal scale of fewer than 150 individuals where community action culls the low effort. People hate socialism because of leeches not putting in as much effort and then taking from those who do. The problem with legal socialism is that it lacks the social community regulation that makes actual tribal communism actually work. If it is delegated to the state it just feels like theft not tribal sharing.

That said, if you do have social programs you'd be a fool not to take as much as you can from them. I will never wed legally and have my wife file for welfare as a single mother because if the system exists and shouldn't it deserves to be bled out from the inside and fail.

>> No.14107630

>>14106527
Amish and Mennonites succeed since centuries. Guess why.

>> No.14107704

>>14106808
Only if so-called "green" energy solutions leave out nuclear energy, particularly Thoiuum reactors and nuclear fusion, or even more exotic energy sources like matter-antimatter reactors.

Also, the nanotech I'm talking about will be able to turn waste products back into something useful, allowing everything to be recycled just like how the plants and algae on Earth constantly recycle the air we breath by turning the carbon dioxide we exhale back into oxygen and last time I checked you don't pay a monthly bill just for breathing.

>> No.14108690
File: 80 KB, 1242x1073, 1572560535374.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14108690

>>14099806
Personal freedom is fucking gay

>> No.14108819

>>14106992
>in your bourgeois fantasyland?
Without accumulative currency and medieval style workplaces, the bougie middle class lifestyle would indeed reach everyone willing, but the style wouldn’t be quite the same. The community wouldn’t have a sociopathic elite pushing people around for one thing.
Reality is quite horrible right now. Thinking of ways to send it in a better direction isn’t something “obstinate” children do. Funnily, you’re the one that’s being obstinate
>How does one delineate
By standing up for themselves. By taking their places of work and running it themselves. By taking responsibility for their lives. Big stuff, I know.

>>14105985
Nietzsche couldn’t imagine the lowly worms of the world rising up. He died before he saw the Barcelona commune. You think if the world became just like that and no more Francos of the world were left, you think we’d leave the lowly in the gutters?
I know the story of the whipped horse is just a fabrication, but it’s a good one.

>>14105946
>We wouldn’t have this mad sick world without all that lovely social evil.
Yeah yeah yeah. What’s come has now gone and good riddance to to the worst of it. Goodbye. We must move on. We must do better. Fuck the traditional thinking that leads us to our doom and delusions. Fuck you.

>le angry frog poster 14105945

>>14105931
You cannot justify the queen.
Read Thomas Paine

>> No.14108948

>>14107630
Strong homogeneous racial and religious community?

>> No.14109194

>>14108948
>community
This.
You racist trad point is moot, but it wont matter if we’re able to get a working communist movement going. Why won’t you jump at this chance? Still too liberal? Still think shits like Jeff Bazos are working for their money?

>> No.14110283

>>14099779
>Democracy
>the concept of reducing social inequality
and here lies the strawman

>> No.14111151

>>14108690
speaking like a true commie

>> No.14111347

> try thing
> it fails on its own merits
> try it again in another country
> same result
> try it again
> same result
> try it again
> same result
> rinse and repeat rinse and repeat
> same result every time
> What do you mean trying again is retarded you're all irrational if you don't want to try again.
It's time to start looking for an alternative solution, anon.

>> No.14111562

>>14109194
>Jeff Bezos creates a revolutionary online bookstore with a collection 1000x bigger than any physical bookstore could manage so that people have greater access to information outside the normie propaganda found in chain stores.
>people on /lit/ criticise him

Pre-amazon most of the commie books you've had the pleasure of reading would have even been accessible.

>> No.14111652

>>14111151
No, commies are gay too

>> No.14111814

>>14099779
Not /lit/

>> No.14112732

>>14099779
Because the implementation of socialism is seen by many as a correction to capitalism, when it's often not. Instead of fixing anything, it just brings in an entirely new set of problems inherent within a completely different State system. Augmenting capitalism with certain and specialized socialist policies is more beneficial, much like how democracy is augmented with republican policies.

People seem to think that socialism represents a kind of freedom from the State, when instead it's really just a transferal of power to another KIND of State. Maybe the new State isn't what we recognize as a full State, but it's still a form of State control, because much like direct democracy is unfeasible, so is full-blown socialism. There will always have to be a mid-level class of people responsible for mediating the will of the people and filtering it through State channels to better focus it. If we all lived in tribal groups of fifty or so people, that wouldn't be an issue, and direct democracy and pure socialism could possibly work. But that's not the case.

>> No.14112894

>>14108690
Do you know what, at least you admit it. Freedom vs security, or a obsure mix of the two. or security know to ensure freedom in the future or visa versa.

>> No.14112929

>>14108819
Do you know what? I disagree with you immensely, but I do respect your tenacity at least butterfly.

Also, desu, the world is decent, its all up to perception.