/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19033955]

One of the most common objections to any utopian proposal, say, socialism, is that "it won't work." But in this objection there's also the concession, explicit or not, that it would be favourable. Should not a proposal like this be evaluated on it's desirability or under the assumption that people are moral beings, that is regardless of practicality?

Are there any books that explore this idea?

[Anonymous No.19033988]

Ernst bloch talks about the role and significance of that utopianism itself, though probably not exactly what you want

[Anonymous No.19034322]

People attack it from the perspective of viability because whether or not It would be good is more arbitrary. Socialism sounds like crap even on its fully idealized version, and I could make a case for that, but at this point it becomes a more subjective debate.

[Anonymous No.19034349]

>>19033955
Honestly, we need another revolution just for the government to kill the tranny butters through a MQ-1 Reaper strike

[Anonymous No.19036106]

BUMP

[Anonymous No.19036170]

>>19033955
It doesn't work because it is immoral. Empires and "civilizations" (or cannibal societies) fall for the same reason.

[Anonymous No.19036218]

I agree, OP. Reorganizing production and distribution on the basis of social need, drastically reducing working hours/days, providing basic services like housing and education, and even supporting small-scale entrepreneurial activity for special consumer goods or “wants” seems so basic to me yet it’s impressive how much the ruling minority has succeeded in psy-opping people into never even considering getting them off their backs.

[Anonymous No.19036236]

>>19033955
If people accept thar it would be favourable, there will be people attempting to get as close as possible to that state of utopia. However the chance is that this attempt will end in a state worse than what was started from, therefore it can be argued that it's not worth the risk to consider it desirable at all.

[Anonymous No.19036269]

>>19036218
>reorganizing production and distribution based on need
>reducing work hours

[Anonymous No.19036287]

>>19036218
This is the issue. Regrdless if what you say about it being a psy-op is correct, or if it's a psy-op to convince people like you that this state would even be attainable, why do you assume the things you mention would even be possible? You seem to not take into account the practical constraints, or the human factor.
>Reorganizing production and distribution on the basis of social need
Who decides the hierarchy of social need? What is people have massive disagreements on this? How will you organize this reorganization?
>drastically reducing working hours/days
Sounds great, with the idea that a quarter of all jobs need not exist, but it would mean that more people (like you) would have to do menial work. Who decides who gets to do what kind of work?
>providing basic services like housing and education
How ill you deal with this regarding the issue of ever-increasing births, especially in Africa and Asia? How will you provide for them?
>supporting small-scale entrepreneurial activity for special consumer goods or “wants”
RIght now, entepreneurship is sink or swim. If you give support out freely, you will have a lot of failed projects with high costs leading to nothing. Again, who decides the hierarchy of which wants are more important than others? What if the masses disagree with these decisions?
It's so easy arguing from behind your desk.

[Anonymous No.19036295]

the type of retarded shit you come up with in imaginary shower arguments

[Anonymous No.19036299]

>>19033955
"It won't work" isn't an argument, so why are you treating it like it is? It's a preface to an argument. Even if it does "work" that's not a concession that it's preferable, just as admitting that slavery can work is not an admission that it would be preferable. The reason socialism doesn't work is because there's no single person, institution, or computer that can know what needs to go where in any comparable degree to the price coordinated system of resource distribution that we're currently under. When things don't get to where they need to go, people starve, the cost of things go up. Note the distinction between cost and price in that statement. This is why socialism has historically failed when tried by people that are way more intelligent and motivated than you.

[Anonymous No.19036311]

>>19033955
>One of the most common objections to any utopian proposal, say, socialism, is that "it won't work."
>in this objection there's also the concession that it would be favourable.
How do you even reach that conclussion? Would you please explain to me OP? Im really don't understand how saying "socialism won't work" is even remotely similar to saying "socialism would be favorable"

[Anonymous No.19036329]

>>19033955
Any proposal worth evaluating must be practically conceived. The practical considerations are what gives the proposal substance. "Everyone will be free and able to do whatever they want" sounds desirable if you disregard practicality but is completely meaningless for the same reason.

[Anonymous No.19036365]

>>19033955
Depends. There are some partial denialists like Carlyle(he is concerned about well being of the working class and thinks they're treated badly, but given his opposition to democracy in politics, support for a certain form of slavery and serfdom etc. he definitely denies the moral foundation of communists) as well as a lot of libertarians(they argue that equality doesn't matter, and that free market is going to outperform socialism by a margin where even the poor will be better off).

Ultimately this is a moral values thing, broadly understood right wing is morally balanced, while broadly understood left is focused on one or two particular moral standards (see Heidt's The Righteous Mind), so leftist appeals to fairness will work on the right and they'll acknowledge it, while rightist appeals to purity or duty won't make a dent on the leftist.

[Anonymous No.19036537]

>>19036287
Suppose I’d given plenty of thought to these questions, that I’d studied the calculation problem in and out, and that I had a lengthy utopian programme I could lay out for you right now that could deal with every contingency and possible issue that may arise. What would be the point of that? Is that how social transformation occurs? It would be as pointless as ontological proofs of God; reassuring for the believer, but pointless for one who doesn’t share their perspective on an object that doesn’t visibly exist. My point was that people don’t even allow themselves to approach the achievement of these basic social goods as technical questions that could be resolved, or even as ends that we should be oriented towards. And if I was unclear, I was using “psy-op” figuratively, in a tongue and cheek way: I think people are perfectly capable of spontaneously preventing themselves from thinking in their own interest without the involvement of the state or elites in general.

[Anonymous No.19036553]

>>19036365
Oh no are you that one anarcho capitalist Twitch streamer?

[Anonymous No.19037383]

>>19033955
Jason Brennan makes this point in "Why Not Capitalism?", although presumably in the opposite direction of what you're looking for. He argues that socialists commit a fallacy by assuming socialism is better than capitalism "in theory"/ideally.

[Anonymous No.19037399]

>>19036537
Yes, you lay out the plan and convince politicians to implements steps of it, have it as their end goal.

[Anonymous No.19037448]

>>19036287
Man, id assume the ideal leftist society would need an insane amount Bureaucracy. Kind of ironic

[Anonymous No.19037473]

>>19037448
Assumptions make an arse out of you mate.

[Anonymous No.19037483]

>>19033955
>Should not a proposal like this be evaluated on it's desirability or under the assumption that people are moral beings, that is regardless of practicality?
How is this even a discussion? No it shouldn’t. How fucking dumb you are? Are you a genuine imbecile?

[Anonymous No.19037492]

>>19034322
>but at this point it becomes a more subjective debate.

At this point it becomes a more INTERESTING debate.
Think about it, isn't that an implicit recognition of how awful our system is?

So much that its only viable defence is claiming that ain't no other way.

[Anonymous No.19037515]

>>19036287
>How ill you deal with this regarding the issue of ever-increasing births, especially in Africa and Asia?
Let me breed every cute women in Europe/Japan. I will raise their birthrate in a second.

[Anonymous No.19037595]

>>19037492
>Think about it, isn't that an implicit recognition of how awful our system is?
No, the fact that idealized fantasy is better than reality is only an implicit recognition that reality is awful. There not being, as yet, better and actual practical counter-proposals is pretty damning evidence for how 'good' our system currently is.

[Anonymous No.19037616]

Wow. I guess people are too young or too sheltered to have any idea what socialism is actually like? Under leftism society would be in a dark age. Even with the current problems of capitalism it is far from clear if a socialist alternative would be any better. It's not like we're suffering under a repressive monarchy or dictatorship after all, so why should radical revolution appeal to us? Our freedoms are far too strong for us to give them up in favor of socialist ideals. Sure, there are people fighting against capitalism, but they will always be in the minority. If the far left gains control of anything substantial, there will be chaos in pursuit of their ideals. It's never as good as it is in theory and there will inevitably be corruption.
Long live the forces of capitalism, human progress and classical liberal democracies. It remains the best system humanity has created and has achieved the most wealth, peace, stability, and progress of any system.

[Anonymous No.19037619]

>>19033955
>But in this objection there's also the concession, explicit or not, that it would be favourable.
No there isn't, you're projecting.

[Anonymous No.19037634]

>>19037616
Who is to say that the USSR or other socialist societies were any worse than modern day capitalist societies? That is a subjective opinion, and many may feel the socialist society would be preferable.

[Anonymous No.19037651]

>>19033955
>>19037492
Going by that logic you should at the minimum become a devout Christian. Eternal life in Heaven is definitely preferable over your puny earthly utopia. Obviously, you could take it to a logical extreme and propose a system where a benevolent God comes down to Earth tomorrow and everyone immediately goes Heaven forever regardless of their life choices and they don’t even have to die. That would be a good system… not a very practical one, but that’s not a concern to you, is it?

[Anonymous No.19037654]

>>19037634
I think the USSR seems so bad because it was in Russia, and every picture of Russia looks like a frozen wasteland. Cuba and Venezuela are supposedly horrible, but the pictures look sunny and nice.

[Anonymous No.19037671]

>>19033955
>should we just ignore whether or not it's actually workable and treat political questions as a matter of constructing sterile utopias (and then blowing up our societies in impossible pursuit of them)?
OP, you don't want politics or political philosophy, you want a fucking playset. Put down the books and pick up some toys, you are a mental child.

[Anonymous No.19037695]

>>19033955
If you care more about the desirability than the pragmatic reality, that is selfish and stupid. Your desires are endless and whimsical. The consequences that everyone must live with are far, far more important than what you want. If you care more about a utopian project than the harmony and peace of the real, lived society, then how is that not selfish? Why should men, women, and children have to die for some utopian revolution, especially in which the revolutionaries themselves don't believe it will work? If even the revolutionaries prioritize what they want over what they could feasibly achieve, then everyone should be afraid. That is a band of hell-bent thugs, not people who are going to make the world a better place. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" so you should be skeptical regardless of how lofty your goals are.

[Anonymous No.19037708]

We should strive for what is the most noble and moral goal. If we are able to achieve something better and ideal we should do the best we can to accomplish this. Socialism is the most just hypothetical system as it ensures fairness and equality for all human beings, so we should work to make this a feasible reality.

[Anonymous No.19037714]

>>19037654
>I think the USSR seems so bad because it was in Russia, and every picture of Russia looks like a frozen wasteland
Astounding command of basic geography

[Anonymous No.19037729]

>>19037708
That's not noble. That's resentment and envy.

[Anonymous No.19037735]

Leftism doesn't work. What is so incredibly hard to understand about this simple fact?

[Anonymous No.19037737]

>>19033955
im getting persona 5 vibes from that art

[Anonymous No.19037767]

>>19037708
The rhetoric of revolutionary leaders almost always turns out to be more a political power play by megalomaniacs seeking to rule over the masses and manipulate people into following them.

No matter how you feel about the current government, those that would overthrow it in the name of an ideology can be the kind of men that must never be trusted, as they value their own rights and ideas more than the whole. They seek to impose their whims onto everyone else regardless of the consequences. They don't care about resisting tyranny, they care about the utopian dream and are not above resorting to using the same authoritarian tactics of the previous regime that they once decried as unjust in order to implement it . People need to be very careful about whom they let tell them that the whole world should be revolutionized. For those that claim a universal truth or make lofty promises to fix problems, they must always be questioned, even if you want what they say to be true.

[Anonymous No.19037773]

>>19037737
Shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.19037788]

>>19037708
>Socialism is the most just hypothetical system as it ensures fairness and equality for all human beings, so we should work to make this a feasible reality.
Tried over and over again. Resulted in failure every single time.

[Anonymous No.19037794]

>>19033955
Not literature and that half hatred request at the end doesnt make it on topic.
Piss off back to /his/

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19037812]

>>19037735
Just because you don’t understand what the word means doesn’t mean it “doesn’t work”
Okay?

>>19037788
Just because the one attempts that make it in the history books are met with assassinations and coups, doesn’t mean history doesn’t have the proof of it working.
You blind little goblin. You’re lost in these threads

[Anonymous No.19037817]

>>19037695
Based

[Anonymous No.19037821]

>>19037788
Some of these attempts have a negative effect in the short-term, but in the long-run we see that it created some positive improvements. USSR went from peasants to space faring superpower.

[Anonymous No.19037838]

>>19033955
>One of the most common objections to any utopian proposal, say, me waking up tomorrow with a million dollars in cash under my pillow, is that "it won't work." But in this objection there's also the concession, explicit or not, that it would be favourable. Should not a proposal like this be evaluated on it's desirability or under the assumption that people are moral beings, that is regardless of practicality?
>Are there any books that explore this idea?
"Die for my utopian fantasy project, goy!"

[Anonymous No.19037846]

>>19033955
Even the most utopic socialist society would be shit, and that commie kitsch illustration you use is one of the reasons why.

[Anonymous No.19037856]

>>19037846
It would be preferable to the capitalist hellhole of today where the rich get richer and we get robbed to pay for it

[Anonymous No.19037866]

>>19033955
>any utopian proposal, say, socialism,
Try Scientific Socialism, sweaty.

[Anonymous No.19037870]

>>19037654
>Cuba and Venezuela are supposedly horrible, but the pictures look sunny and nice.
I really don't get why they say Cuba is that bad. Wouldn't you like driving stylish Cadillacs by the seaside sipping drinks and cocktails in a sunny day?

[Anonymous No.19037882]

Everyone is always on about utopia, but what about mytopia

[Anonymous No.19037883]

>>19037767
>The rhetoric of revolutionary leaders almost always turns out to be more a political power play by megalomaniacs seeking to rule over the masses and manipulate people into following them.
Stop talking about the fouding fathers.

[Anonymous No.19037886]

>>19037708
>We should strive for what is the most noble and moral goal.
says who

[Anonymous No.19037889]

>>19037838
I hope the international Finanz-Judentum see this, bro.

[Anonymous No.19037918]

>>19037767
>No matter how you feel about the current government, those that would overthrow it in the name of an ideology can be the kind of men that must never be trusted, as they value their own rights and ideas more than the whole. They seek to impose their whims onto everyone else regardless of the consequences. They don't care about resisting tyranny, they care about the utopian dream and are not above resorting to using the same authoritarian tactics of the previous regime that they once decried as unjust in order to implement it . People need to be very careful about whom they let tell them that the whole world should be revolutionized. For those that claim a universal truth or make lofty promises to fix problems, they must always be questioned, even if you want what they say to be true.
And that's why I believe in Realpolitik and that's why every third-worlder should support the Taliban right now.
They don't have any loft promises, you know?
They just fuck the anglo all the way down.

[Anonymous No.19038062]

how does that possibly make any sense? the idea is fucking useless if it has no real world application. its a dead end, and circle jerking about theory is worse than doing nothing because it created intellectual dead weight that hampers our ability to collectively move on to greener pastures

[Anonymous No.19038074]

>>19037729
stop watching contrapoints

[Anonymous No.19038084]

>>19037812
you still cant explain how it could viably be implemented in real life though, so why even open your mouth and make a snarky comment at anon like that? literally the only answer you can produce is "well one day literally everyone will just up and all do the exactly right things voluntarily by their own agency all at exactly the right time and society will just autonomously work perfectly like a well oiled machine with no authority wielding administrative structure...because i said so!

you are seriously not in any position to critisize anyone kiddo

[Anonymous No.19038090]

>>19037708
call me when we can all agree on what is noble and moral, then maybe we can have this discussion lmao

[Anonymous No.19038092]

>>19038084
>kiddo
holy epic...

[Anonymous No.19038112]

>>19037767
kek you sound like an idiot

[Anonymous No.19038130]

>>19037767
>muh great man theory

[Anonymous No.19038246]

>>19037812
Hegel was an alchemist. The root of this world system stems from a man who thought lead could be transmuted to gold, that the imperfect contained seeds of the perfect, and this flawed assumption is applied by all Marxists, especially post-Marcuse, to sociopolitics. You can't create a perfect eternal collective from imperfect transient consituents.

>>19038084
Right on.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19038402]

>>19038084
>explain how it could viably be implemented in real life
I do, but you dismiss it and claim it’s a just-so story. This IS what is asked, you see? “How can it happen?” Answer: xyz. “Ah, but xyz hasn’t happened. It can’t happen. I am smart”
You are disingenuous to the core.

>>19038246
I am not a Marxist. The closest I get to Hegel is the Young Hegelian Stirner.

[Anonymous No.19038428]

>>19037882
Socialism this, capitalism that! I want what this guy is having.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19038512]

>>19038428
Myopia

[Anonymous No.19038752]

>>19037399
Is this how you think the world changes?

[Anonymous No.19038862]

>>19037616
boomer, get off 4chin