[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 43 KB, 750x1000, orange reddish sunset.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15489273 No.15489273 [Reply] [Original]

Liberalism, Socialism, and Fascism are the dominant modes of government in the world right now. Liberalism seems to be dying now. So, what is Socialism? Anyone want to explain? It clearly isn't Communism, Communism just becomes Fascism whenever people try to be Communists.

>> No.15489288
File: 89 KB, 664x1000, BF8B6C25-7F0F-497E-94EC-20DF7210D77D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

There’s a long story to this.

>> No.15489294

>Communism just becomes Fascism
lol. let me guess, you also think nazis were socialists

>> No.15489323

Uh nah, those are Fascists.

>> No.15489330

these are the smoothest brain takes I've seen in about 10 minutes

are you a boomer, or American, or both, or some alt lite libertarian/republican cuckboi

>> No.15489355
File: 2.58 MB, 2000x4045, A5DB9D97-8D22-4A8F-B150-163F3538DB63.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The industrial revolution brought an urge for a lot of changes. Some people wanted free from the constraints of the crown and they thought liberalism and free markets would be a good things for all. This proved a bad turn from almost the very start. Socialism was proposed as an alternative but the “bourgeoisie” had already taken root and the socialists never gathered enough steam or united in their theory on how to achieve their goals in time. By the time the twentieth century came around socialism had it’s chance to succeed but the authoritarians squashed it.
Fascism is simply state over capitalists. More reminiscent of the monarchs but still very much a sort of liberalism. They like to say it isn’t because the markets aren’t free, (markets require state protection and regulation so there is no such thing, never will be) or that it’s nationalist (though usually just as imperialist) but it’s just the flipside of oligarchy; the private over the state. Also called “corporatism” or late stage capitalism

>> No.15489368



>> No.15489378

Socialism is any system in which capital (the means of production) are controlled by the working people who create, maintain, and operate it to generate income.

Under capitalism, in contrast, the society's means of production are owned and controlled and used for private benefit by a handful of powerful individuals.

>> No.15489419

Explain to me why free markets are bad.
>it wasn’t real socialism

>> No.15489452

So-called "free markets" require state imposition of 'property rights'.

>> No.15489463


Like Europe or Canada? Maybe political theory in general is just really underdeveloped, idk how tf any of it works. Like where do you even start? Infrastructure? Politicians? Economics? Technology?

>> No.15489468
File: 1.45 MB, 2374x1440, AF521DFB-0B13-4028-9BF9-0F4AE1AAAF60.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It actually frees people to enslave the masses. It’s not about freeing people.
Capitalism shackles us with debt. We are the most unfree world at this point.

>> No.15489474

Canada and every country in Europe has capitalism, it's just regulated. Social Democracies.

>> No.15489527

>socialists never gathered enough steam
Hayek seemed to argue that social planners all wanted different things post WWII since the US was effectively Socialist during the war to prove that free markets were more efficient.
How does this differ from the US more specifically?

>> No.15489611

I was referring to the Firsts International Workers split between authoritarian and libertarian socialists, there.
Yeah, the US was going to split apart till socialist reforms were made to fix what free wheeling market fundies did. It’s been a long hard march since then as they whittled what little reforms we got.

Europe has more reforms, social safety nets, but are also finding out the limits of it. Capitalism is just not stable, not efficient, not worth keeping. Major societal reforms need to happen.

>> No.15489616

What fundamental principles of capitalism do you disagree with?
Because you are talking, but not really saying anything.

>> No.15489624

Communism is an historical inevitability, so that.

>> No.15489635

Read these four articles:

This is fascism, the assertion of national and ethnic traditions, mostly along traditional lines already in place so no major disruption is necessary, against international financial powers and their allies.

>> No.15489669

There is not a single fascist, socialist government as far as I'm aware right now. There's capitalism and "capitalism but with a smiley face"

>> No.15489701

Capitalism isn't what buys out politicians and dumbs down markets for totalitarian control over them.

>> No.15489712

Yes it is.

>> No.15489735

No, and the sooner you learn this, the sooner you'll learn what the real problem is.

>> No.15489772

Explain how the concentrated economic power created by capitalism does not result in concentrated political power.

>> No.15489792
File: 400 KB, 1302x2083, 41735CBE-E1EF-4E6B-B130-1BC2C0FF0E4F.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The accumulative properties of cash, inherited from the age of gold currency, enforce classist society, also an inheritance of classical society (book related) bullies forged weapons and took land and slaves and status. They wrote their stories and proclaimed all they did good. I love Thomas Paine’s takedown of these sorts.
I also appreciate Proudhon’s analysis. Anarchist thought is at its heart “primitivist” but some just take it farther.
The fundamental principles of unjustifiable hierarchies and value imbued in debt tokens are abominable to me. Wipe them away and we can have a society far more dear and sensible.

>> No.15489965

based stealth lepidopteran

>> No.15490010

>Liberalism, Socialism, and Fascism
The former fell in 1991 and the latter fell in 1945. If you think differently, you have boomer brain rot and don't understand political theory. Right now Liberal Capitalism is hegemonic, total, and largely unchallenged, especially in the West. Everything you see now is a product of it.

>> No.15490015

Come on guys. If you're not going to make an effort, how about you lurk until you're older.
Also, your "anarchy" leads to the purest most pervasive capitalist tyranny where you're not even allowed to imagine you're not free (*sniff*)
Also you can't spell NatSoc without Soc, even if your 1960-reformed curriculum says Hitler man bad and bad can't socialism good.

>> No.15490019
File: 35 KB, 559x556, haha fag.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Liberalism, Socialism, and Fascism are the dominant modes of government in the world right now.
You wish, faggot...

>> No.15490037
File: 68 KB, 634x845, 47FE2A93000005787201.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>We're all mofuckin capitalists in the current state
Wanna explain a little more buddy? Cause I don't think America and China have similar governments

>> No.15490077

he's a braindead leftist
to communists everything that isn't socialist is capitalism
since every place that claims to be socialism isn't a good place to live they're written off as capitalist as well.

>> No.15490086

Not him, but I would say the world is united in global capitalism. The West is governed by liberal capitalism, and China/Islam is governed by authoritarian capitalism.

>> No.15490089

China has illiberal capitalism white America has liberal capitalism. China's model can also be found in places like Singapore, authoritarianism with free markets. The only really non-capitalist state in the world is North Korea.

>> No.15490099

>everything that isn't socialist is capitalism
That's true by definition. If ownership/control of the means of production is concentrated in a few elite hands, that's capitalism.

>> No.15490102
File: 289 KB, 1000x1255, Dugin painting.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>he's a braindead leftist
>still believing in the categories of left and right meaning anything outside a specific ideology
Lmao, you're a retard

>> No.15490129

only communists think this. this is why they get laughed out of the room in regards to modern political science

>> No.15490137

>barely even relevant in russia
lmao you're a retard

>> No.15490164

>barely even relevant in russia
Love how people claim this even though his academic influence is significant and he's a Kremlin advisor. If he was irrelevant, why was he specifically sanctioned as an individual by the US state department?

>> No.15490173

It's not up for debate, mongoloid. The word "capitalism" was invented by socialists in the 19th century. The definition is unambiguous.

>> No.15490183

Yes everyone who uses the term 'capitalism' brings with them the full socialist history of the term


>> No.15490184
File: 260 KB, 694x369, teddy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Hey, babe...

>> No.15490185
File: 2.25 MB, 3764x2236, Bannonist.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Yeah man like how wide spread Steven Bannon's influence is

>> No.15490200

It's not up for debate in the sense that communists aren't invited to modern political discourse. Sorry but they way you're using that terminology stopped quite some time ago and is no longer relevant to the real world

>> No.15490220

Bannon has a lot of influence as well, even if he's no longer in the White House. The comparison is somewhat fair, but add in his academic influence both in the military and out, and it's no contest. He's not the puppet master but he's hardly a nobody either.

>> No.15490225

Name one currently existing fascist government

>> No.15490227

>Sorry but they way you're using that terminology stopped quite some time ago and is no longer relevant to the real world
According to which relevant political theorists?

>> No.15490252

The opposite. The word has always had a crystal clear definition.

>> No.15490263

No need to "invite" any particular group. Just need to ask someone familiar with what the term means. It's not rocket science.

>> No.15490268

Check out Dugin. "The Fourth Political Theory" makes some compelling arguments about Liberalism, Marxism, and Fascism. Even if you don't agree with his conclusion, his analysis of the current world order is dead accurate.

>> No.15490270

...which doesn't reflect how it is used today.

>> No.15490275

Yes, it does. Educate yourself.

>> No.15490281

Also Deneen's Why Liberalism Failed does the same thing for something a bit more relevant in the US.

>> No.15490297

Not everyone is educated in the history of the term (as you yourself indicate) so no, it doesn't. People use words how they have learned to use them, often not by consulting a dictionary. It is used as a metonymy.

>> No.15490298


>Words mean words but words don't mean words even though words are used to mean words in general

Just fuck off would you. Remove yourself, if not from the gene pool at least from the board

>> No.15490309

Answer the question retard >>15490227

>> No.15490329

>means of production owned by a few elite hands
Sounds more like Fascism.
Can you define capitalism for everyone?

>> No.15490333

The average dumbfuck on the street thinks 4chan was a person arrested 10 years ago for molesting children. Doesn't make them right. Ask them what the judiciary branch is and they'll talk about pruning foliage.

>> No.15490336

Thank you for proving my point anon, I relate to your political struggles

>> No.15490354

It doesn't make you 'right' to use a term as originally intended you small bundle of sticks.

>> No.15490365

>Sounds more like Fascism.
Fascist regimes can be capitalistic, as can self-described 'communist' regimes (state capitalism). But the West today is largely an interconnected liberal capitalist mega-regime in which a few private oligarchs own the means of production and effectively dictate government policy.

>Can you define capitalism for everyone?
See >>15489378
Socialism is any system in which capital (the means of production) are controlled by the working people who create, maintain, and operate it to generate income.

Under capitalism, in contrast, the society's means of production are owned and controlled and used for private benefit by a handful of powerful individuals.

>> No.15490375

This fucking dumbass thinks a medieval cottage industry is "by definition" socialist

>> No.15490436
File: 132 KB, 2560x1600, wp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The thread so far shows that /lit/ doesn't know shit about political theory, they take their points from sound bite media and their own subjective value judgments. Maybe that one guy read half a book on Dugin and doesn't care to elaborate about it. The charts were pretty cute though.

>> No.15490461

In your dreams, loser.

>> No.15490465


>the hacker known as 4chan

Those were the days

>> No.15490476

>on Dugin
By Dugin.

>> No.15490491

Medieval cottage industries purchased raw materials from feudal lords, you drooling dumbfuck.

>> No.15490710

There's two Dugin posters in here retard, anyone who read even five pages of 4PT is 100000 times less retarded than OP

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.