/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6608099]

Hey lit, I've been reading some commie/leftist shit recently and the sad thing is I'm agreeing with a lot of it.

I really don't want to end up as one of those fags, so what are some good books that detail why socialism will never work, why its bad, how much damage its done to the world historically, etc?

[Anonymous No.6608104]

>I really don't want to end up as one of those fags

>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.6608120]

>>6608099
The book by that guy: Basic Economics

[Anonymous No.6608128]

>>6608099
>commie/leftist
>socialism

No. Either go full commie mode -- labor theory of value, factory occupation, abolition of money... or go full anarchist/libertarian/egoist - each person is capable of 'playing and winning' the capitalism game through self-education, learning to manage financial statements, and how positive debt works in relation to your asset and investment portfolio.

Socialism is bullshit fence-sitting; the worst of both worlds.

[Anonymous No.6608140]

>>6608128
>labor theory of value
Nobody could be that stupid.

[Anonymous No.6608150]

>>6608099
>I really don't want to end up as one of those fags, so what are some good books that detail why socialism will never work, why its bad, how much damage its done to the world historically, etc?

You are literally retarded, OP.

[Anonymous No.6608168]

>>6608128

What if you're kind of a libertarian with a socialist bent, where the govt only really has obligations to provide health care, education, and some regulations to keep the market playing field level, and everyone's on their own after that?
Full on communism or anarchism is silly

[Anonymous No.6608187]

>>6608168
That's known as a form of mental retardation.

[Anonymous No.6608192]

>>6608128
>Socialism is bullshit fence-sitting; the worst of both worlds.

Socialism is the prelude for communism.

[Anonymous No.6608196]

>>6608187
This

[Anonymous No.6608215]

>>6608099
I think agreement with some of it is perfectly fine (and for my part, I'm right there with you, in having leftist sympathies but feeling wary of the movement's obnoxious public face); the two best philosophical critiques of the theoretical stance of most leftism are De Tocqueville's Democracy in America, and Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. They both broadly agree on what's troubling about the theoretical ground that liberalism founds itself upon, albeit they both have very different approaches to how to deal with it (De Tocqueville thinks it's too late to change the matter, so one is left trying to moderate the passions and stances of such a position in order to prevent it from becoming a tyranny of "the people" on the one hand, and preventing the people from becoming merely complacent actors who isolate themselves from the broader community on the other; Nietzsche on the other hand seems to think that it's worthwhile to provoke it).

Another good philosophical approach that addresses the subject by means of a reading of another work of philosophy is Joshua Mitchell's "Plato's Fable: On the Mortal Condition in Shadowy Times", which opens with a very careful theoretical analysis of the two primary forms of leftism (the difference seems to amount to whether it's liberty or equality that get emphasized; there's nothing that necessarily yokes them together as concepts, and a society can embrace one without the other).

[Anonymous No.6608224]

>>6608099
>I really don't want to end up as one of those fags,
I'm fairly certain politics isn't contracted in the same way as the flu.

[Anonymous No.6608250]

>>6608099
these ideas are awesome as you read it, in paper, communism and socialism basically tries to make brainless zombies without free will nor abilities, go to the street and ask people which is their special ability and if they feel special, 90% of them will tell you they are like a snowflake.
>taking manigestos and essays too literaly
see cuba and best korea

[Anonymous No.6608262]

>>6608250
>manigestos
lol
manifestos

[Anonymous No.6608268]

>>6608224
I read Marx one time and now I'm addicted to cuck porn for life. Be careful with this leftist shit.

[Anonymous No.6608272]

>>6608099
can't take you seriously if you start with a quote so stupid

we collectively can afford it, even with increased costs of government bureaucracy, if rich people pay more into the system via higher paid taxes

i'm not even a fucking liberal, i want expropriations and land redistrubtion

but like come on

[Anonymous No.6608283]

>>6608250
do you actually think lenin and stalin understood all the nuances of marx and engels? if marx supported vanguardism, he would have wrote about it.

>go to the street and ask people which is their special ability and if they feel special, 90% of them will tell you they are like a snowflake.

who gives a shit? why is this even relevant?

>communism and socialism basically tries to make brainless zombies without free will nor abilities

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP4pcDLI57c

[Anonymous No.6608300]

>>6608272
plz no politics

is books here

books

[Anonymous No.6608315]

>>6608168

To me, liberalism is here to stay, because it is very adaptable in a country. Once you go humanist, you do not go back. Sure, from time to time, some population of some country will be less socially liberal, but the dominant party will remain between liberalism and the bastard form that is libertarianism-conservatism (whose compositon depends on the country)

This humanist doctrine being the least explicitly authoritative, it provides the greatest joys for the massive voters who are the middle class.
you must know understand that the dichotomy liberalism/libertarianism is just a degree of freedom for the humanist democracy to be adopted by many countries, each population, through time, choosing to put the cursor on what pleases them each time they vote.
There is no point in fighting this in my opinion.

It is the same ideology behind the two stances. The ideology is the same, that one of a universal egoism.

the humanism opposes the systems which are more explicitly authoritarian, nothing else. Fascism once coupled with the humanism gives the liberalism (in the american sense) and you see that everything is fine for most people under such a state of affair. I said fascism, but ofc most leftist do not admit that their system is incredibly authoritarian.


the real questions is : can you find a social system that is not humanism, and input it in something that is not democracy. If not, then the dichotomy liberalism/libertarianism is a terminal point, a system that will osciallate between the two flavours of the humanism.

[Anonymous No.6608324]

>>6608315


Also, most liberals in the classical sense believe that a company and an individual are somehow equal. But, for being in an argument right with a major one, over an invoice of five figures, I can tell that I do not have the same power to make my case heard as the big company. They have lawyers working for them daily while somehow, I must be knowledgeable on law and or have the financial and time resources to hire a lawyer.

The state did not train me to understand the law, nor to make us aware of our duties and liberties (beyond paying taxes or you go to prison, that the state is good at).
This is in a socialist state.

Imagine how it would be in a classical liberal world, where I would be all alone to deal with a stupid litigation.

[Anonymous No.6608330]

>>6608099
But capitalism is not feasible in the future unless we completely change our financial system.
Automation will eventually vastly surpass human in terms of effectiveness of working. And that's also the trend of human civilization: to work less. Most people will lose their need of working and thus the current financial system wil be no longer suitable.
In the future, people will not need to work for essential living resources. It becomes a basic human right when they are born. People work for entertainment/mental value/civilization progression and something like that.

[Anonymous No.6608346]

>>6608300
you are an anti-intellectual prick. books are inherently political, only read by certain classes of people. on the mechanical side, the advent of the gutenberg press and its infliction of the temporal resonance pattern of mass production lead to the culture industry and globalization, the way it developed mental phase spaces lead to advertisements and electronic screens that propagate capitalist ideology. the way texts have been used, filtered and circulated to reinforce regimes of truth, and so on and so on.

[Anonymous No.6608347]

>>6608168

If you have an economic structure that allows for classes in a Marxian sense you'll have one upper class growing stronger out of the back of the other, and when the balance of power betweem them is gone (as it already is in the west) the only thing keeping them from overturning your thousands of petty regulations and tax code is their altruism.

[Anonymous No.6608348]

>>6608168
>What if you're kind of a libertarian with a socialist bent, where the govt only really has obligations to provide health care, education, and some regulations to keep the market playing field level

>Government "ought" to meddle in health care, education, and regulate the entire free market (presumably through artificial inflation, quantitative easing, social security pyramid schemes, various other 'public benefits' that use taxation so don't require a coherent or stable cash flow statement)?
That just means you're a socialist.

[Anonymous No.6608356]

>>6608348
*social democrat

[Anonymous No.6608383]

>>6608346
The post I quoted made no mentioned of any "politbooks" as they call them in your respublik svobodnyh, tovarishch. It was a left deviation of the OP and had nothing to do with literature. Are you defending bourgeois freedom of the press or something?

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6608423]

>>6608140
Trust me, no one would bother working, let alone paying other people to work, if working didn't make anything more valuable.

[Anonymous No.6608460]

>>6608423
Well that's what the Chinese calls Communism.
"It's an idealogy that produces lazy people." And Mao thought people will be satisfied simply by having some stewed beef and potatoes everyday.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6608471]

>>6608460
Happens in capitalism as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management#Soldiering

[Anonymous No.6608509]

>>6608471
But doesn't that method goes against the idea of capitalism by diminishing the difference in individual values?

[Anonymous No.6608510]

Why are some many people incapable of having a mature discussion on ideas that are contrary to their own?

>sad thing is I'm agreeing with a lot of it
>I really don't want to end up as one of those fags
Your bias and gross ignorance is incredibly evident. You're being pathetic and intellectually dishonest, show yourself a little more respect and take both your own and opposing views seriously. You're creating a false stereotype.

>how much damage its done to the world historically
Ideas can't damage the world, it's assholes who use the ideas to justify their damage. You can't attribute this to Communism or Socialism because they're ideas but look for Mao's famine, the kulaks, Kronstadt, Gulag etc.

>>6608128
>Socialism is bullshit fence-sitting
Socialism is either the workers owning the means of production or the intermediary stage between capitalism and socialism. Are you sure you're not talking about Social Democrats?

>>6608168
>>6608250
You're silly.

>>6608315
>can you find a social system that is not humanism, and input it in something that is not democracy
Some form of egoist anarchism mixed in with communism. (google the right to be greedy)

>>6608330
That's assuming that climate change doesn't fuck us over first. Otherwise I agree... eventually.

[Anonymous No.6608519]

>I'm agreeing with a lot of it

Nothing wrong with that.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6608520]

>>6608509
I'm not talking about the method, I'm talking about that particular phenomenon.

Capitalism isn't a designed system, it is an evolving system that started roughly with the expansion of the credit system and the shift from guild and serf labor to wage labor.

[Anonymous No.6608527]

>>6608519

[Anonymous No.6608551]

>>6608520

>capitalism isn't a designed system

>what is the cultural industry

[Anonymous No.6608570]

>>6608168

You should read Keynes theory of economics, it's not full libertarian as you know, there are grades of it

[Anonymous No.6608630]

>>6608099
The Road to Serfdom.

[Anonymous No.6608661]

>tfw being an historian of capitalism who encountered leftist works second and encountering leftists who encountered historical works second

[Anonymous No.6608698]

>>6608283
>posting based zizek

thanks anon

[Anonymous No.6608718]

Everyone "agrees" with the message, it's just incompatable with reality.
You think I WANT to hate poor people and niggers? I'd love for everyone to be happy. and

[Anonymous No.6608734]

>>6608272
>I'm not a liberal, I just want to take peoples money off them and give it to other people

:^)

[Anonymous No.6608750]

"The twentieth century is over. I want the third pill"

Communism has to be reinvented m8s

[Anonymous No.6608798]

>>6608750
Not to get all "muh heritage", but i get this feeling i might be dismantly related to this guy.

[Anonymous No.6608805]

>>6608798
Distantly, fuck this iPad.

[Anonymous No.6608807]

>>6608099
>I've been reading some commie/leftist

[Anonymous No.6608813]

>>6608718
you just don't have any original thoughts of your own

[Anonymous No.6608819]

>>6608798
shoot him an e-mail and see, maybe you could meet and show him 4can

[Anonymous No.6608822]

>>6608813
irony

[Anonymous No.6608836]

>>6608168
That's what now is

[Anonymous No.6608874]

Like most people, the only reason you disagree with "commie/leftist fag shit" is because it has historically been mostly associated with societal liberalism (except under fascist regimes) up to modern SJWs.

[Anonymous No.6608897]

>>6608128
>or go full anarchist/libertarian/egoist - each person is capable of 'playing and winning' the capitalism game through self-education, learning to manage financial statements, and how positive debt works in relation to your asset and investment portfolio.

Anarchists are anti-capitalist, fucktard. All Anarchists are Socialists. Anarcho-Capitalism is not a branch of Anarchism. Rothbard himself said it.

[Anonymous No.6608903]

>>6608897

>What is anarcho-capitalism

[Anonymous No.6608907]

>>6608903

Didn't see the "not a branch of anarchism" part. Who gives a shit if he said it isn't, I'd say it qualifies pretty well

[Anonymous No.6608929]

>>6608897
Plain anarchists, or anarcho-individualists certainly aren't socialists.

[Anonymous No.6608942]

>>6608734
communists are different from liberals you worthless troglodyte

[Anonymous No.6608957]

>>6608907
capital depends on property rights which are excluded from traditional formulations of anarchism

anarchism was formulated at a time when the state served primarily to protect property rights, and anti-state sentiment was nearly exclusive to anti-capitalists

you don't even have to read a book, i'm sure the wikipedia articles cover this

[Anonymous No.6608959]

>>6608897

Egoism strongly complements capitalism, it just doesn't advocate being ruled by it.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6608975]

>>6608959
>Egoism strongly complements capitalism
Not unless you're part of the capitalist class.

[Anonymous No.6608998]

watch this series to understand how humans are wired. it doesn't comment on politics, but you can extrapolate from the lectures that communism is unlikely to work, ever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

>but ... evo psych a shit
yes, usually, but this guy knows his shit.

[Anonymous No.6609010]

>>6608975
And capitalism evolves around capitslist class.

[Anonymous No.6609060]

>>6608975

Capitalism revolves around self-interest, as does egosim. I don't know why you act as if there is a capitalist class, *everyone*, no-matter rich or poor, wishes to "enforce" their will upon the world. As if poor people would stay poor if given the option to become rich.

[Anonymous No.6609129]

>>6609060
>Capitalism revolves around self-interest
>implying being a slave to the market is in a Capitalist's self interest.

[Anonymous No.6609140]

>>6609060
>*everyone*, no-matter rich or poor, wishes to "enforce" their will upon the world.
that's some rad assumption you're making there. people also have a basic need to live a healthy social life, which is getting somewhat more unlikely the further up the moneyladder you climb. power isolates.

furthermore enforcing your will on the world doesn't directly translate to wanting to be rich.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6609154]

>>6609060
Capitalism revolves around self-interest of the capitalist class, just like feudalism revolves around the self-interest of the aristocracy, and communism revolves around the self-interest of the working class.

[Anonymous No.6609156]

>>6608998
You are watching it through your political bias.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4UMyTnlaMY

[Anonymous No.6609163]

>>6609060
>*everyone*, no-matter rich or poor, wishes to "enforce" their will upon the world.

"Whoever is a complete person does not need to be an authority."
-Max Stirner

[Anonymous No.6609170]

>>6608998
But wait! If human's are a certain way because they evolved that way, couldn't they evolve into new ways in the future?

[Anonymous No.6609173]

>>6609154
>communism revolves around the self-interest of the working class
>Communism, a stateless CLASSLESS society which is organized by the principle from each according to their ability to each according to their need

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6609198]

>>6609173
Right, so in the self-interest of the working class, because a classless society is in their self-interest. Or the self-interest of the party, if we're talking about Bolshevism and other Vanguardist variants.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6609207]

>>6609198
I'll also add that Marx never says communism is stateless. He claims the state with "wither away", but he never says it isn't communism until it does.

[Anonymous No.6609210]

>>6609129

No, but options are. Capitalism doesn't *enforce* a market, it provides the option of participating in it. Capitalism is the only impartial spook.

>>6609140

>that's some rad assumption you're making there

Yeah its a correct one. I've lived amopng poor people, they're the most stupid, greedy and self serving faggots on the planet. Dragging 8 children into the world with no permenant Fathers or stability to get dem benefits. I myself only earn £12,300 per year but I'm not poor because I didn't drag children into the world kicking and screaming with no way to look after them.

>people also have a basic need to live a healthy social life

No they don't, that's fucking bullshit. I rarely speak to any human outside of work and nothing has ever happened to me. You have it backwards; the more people have, the more they are admired. Which is all people in this whore soceity really want.

>furthermore enforcing your will on the world doesn't directly translate to wanting to be rich.

No it doesn't. Enforcing you will on the world leads to money, and money leads to enforcing will becuase you can bribe other people to cooperate.

>>6609154

Thanks for repeating what I responded to. Everyone is part of the capitalist class.

> feudalism revolves around the self-interest of the aristocracy

Wrong, it revolves around the compromise of aristocracy and peasent.

>and communism revolves around the self-interest of the working class.

Wrong. Communism revolves around the self-interest of the capitalist class, without money.

[Anonymous No.6609216]

>>6609156
no, i think it's you. i'll comment, but please give me something concrete. i can't be sure what exactly you intend to say with that link. i suppose it's basically, like in the title, that "hierarchy is bad because it creates a destructive force"?

[Anonymous No.6609225]

>>6609163

>"Whoever is a complete person does not need to be an authority."

How does enforcing will prelude enforcing authority? I neversiad enforcing your will means pursuing authority.

[Anonymous No.6609244]

>>6609210
>Yeah its a correct one. I've lived amopng poor people, they're the most stupid, greedy and self serving faggots on the planet.
i've worked in supermarkets stacking shelves and done internships in marketing companies. the marketing companies always sucked. social cohesion amongst simple folk is simply a necessity, and it's much more pleasant to be around them. similar experience when i (from europe, social welfare state) visited the US (much bigger gaps in income) - everyone was really hospitable and friendly, and i do think it's got something to do with the necessity for it being there. where i live everyone's just constantly slightly pissed off and cynical.

>No they don't, that's fucking bullshit. I rarely speak to any human outside of work and nothing has ever happened to me
lol okay friendo i should have read the full post before i started replying. just have a nice day and don't be so grumpy all the time. you, too, can have a social life.

[Anonymous No.6609245]

>>6609225
Stirner said that about employing one's authority

[Anonymous No.6609267]

>>6609198
>>6609207
I'm talking about a communist society, not the dictatorship of the proletariat.

>>6609210
>Capitalism doesn't *enforce* a market, it provides the option of participating in it
Capitalism requires private property; private property requires a state. State is enforced. Wage labour is forced. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_RcE2o08gA

>Yeah its a correct one...
Meaningless anecdote.

>Everyone is part of the capitalist class.
Wow, pretty much pointless talking to you if you're this stupid.

>>6609216
Ignore the hippy trash. The point is the change. http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020106

[Anonymous No.6609274]

>>6609267
I forgot to say that you're not paying attention to the social factor, he said it in the video you posted around 3 minutes in.

[Anonymous No.6609294]

>>6609267
>>6609274
sorry, change? what exactly is your point, that change is possible?

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6609298]

>>6609267
>I'm talking about a communist society, not the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The distinction is purely Leninist

[Anonymous No.6609349]

>>6608099
This thread is being raided by /leftypol/, an SJW/communist board on (11-3)chan.

[Anonymous No.6609353]

>>6609244


I work in a admin company claiming back mis-sold PPI. I've also worked in Morrisons Gadbrook, I've been a garderner and I've worked at Intelling, an outsourcing company. I can state that the sales and office companies I've worked for had a more laid back atmosphere with banter, and that at the factories no-one really spoke and at the gardening company I got bullied. And I don't anymore at the office I work in now than I did in the factory: almost minimum wage. See, social cohesion among "the simple folk" doesn't exist. They're violent and braindead, which is why they are "simple folk". And I do live in Europe. I have lived around people who claim welfare. They're fucking idiots. They swear, they treat their kids like shit and they generally act like the world owes them something. Pic related is the fucking shithole I grew up in.

>>6609267

>Capitalism requires private property

No, it relies upon terms to define property and the means to defend it. This doesn't require a state. Wage labor *is* volentary. Unless of course, *the state* de facto claims all the land in a given area to be its property, elimating the possibility of homesteading.

>Meaningless anecdote.

Your above statements are therefore meaningless since they provide no empiracle evidence.

>Wow, pretty much pointless talking to you if you're this stupid.

The same can be said for you my friend. After all, it was *you* who chose to speak to *me*. Or were you *forced* to do that too?

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6609366]

>>6609349
You mean you're posting then and copying taking pictures of it and posting them here.

I'm sure that board is slow as fuck, far too slow to raid anyone.

[Anonymous No.6609375]

>>6609366
They have a fixation on /lit/ and /pol/ and this is standard routine over there. I'm just giving you the heads up.

[Anonymous No.6609383]

>>6609353
>bullied by gardeners
kek

[Anonymous No.6609392]

>>6609349
how many months have they been raiding us?

[Anonymous No.6609395]

>>6609383

They're generally fat, strong men with overgrown pituatary glands. Office workers are usually just yuppies who are strong musculary but weak in edurance. Most office banter revolves around insults you cna retaliate against and laugh at, most gardening banter revolves around violence.

[Anonymous No.6609401]

>>6608283
zizek is crazy. and just wrong. only like one of the avengers is an outcast, the rest are leaders of their own culture or a master of industry. socialism makes you stupid.

[Anonymous No.6609425]

>>6609395
>Most office banter revolves around insults you cna retaliate against and laugh at
it's just more autist compatible. you put a gardener in an office and he'll be just as lost. you're heavily basing everything you say on your own miserable experience. you claim to have some sort of irrefutable knowledge that it's in human nature to seek power, but refuse to accept that there's any need for (human) interaction and socialisation when it's just plain obvious that any beast that tends to live in groups and seeks to reproduce will tend to have that need. i'm not saying it's impossible to live a different lifestyle but by and large, people crave contact.

[Anonymous No.6609443]

>>6608128
>Socialism is bullshit fence-sitting; the worst of both worlds.
Really? Guild socialism or other kinds of small-scale socialism is perfectly compatible with a capitalist society. Trade unions and stuff.

[Anonymous No.6609447]

>>6609294
>what exactly is your point, that change is possible?
Close enough, if you want a society where there is little "crime" then structure it in a way that makes it disadvantageous and eliminate the conditions that lead to it. While I don't believe that people always act rationally they usually act in their own interest. The baboon troop made it so that it was in the best interest of the new baboons to act in a certain manner and that carried on. Communism doesn't rely on people being angels.

>>6609349
I'm not raiding on behalf of /leftypol/.

>>6609353
>define property
And what if I don't agree with your definition. You're forcing it on everybody that doesn't agree. The state is a group of people who claim the only legitimate use of force over a given territory. Figure it out.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6609448]

>>6609443
Guilds preclude wage labor, so no.

[Anonymous No.6609469]

>>6609425

>You put a garderner in an office and he'll be lost

Why? What's so fundamentally different about gardeners and office workers?

> you claim to have some sort of irrefutable knowledge that it's in human nature to seek power

No I don't. I'm reacting to a counter experience someone else posted.

>but refuse to accept that there's any need for (human) interaction and socialisation

Yes, among humans. Not specifically gardeners or office workers.

>>6609447

>And what if I don't agree with your definition

Then I'll defend my property.

>The state is a group of people who claim the only legitimate use of force over a given territory.

Ohhhh, one word off. No, the state is a group of people who *possess* the only legitimate use of force over a given territory. "Claims" mean nothing. I am a pure British person, my ancestry can be traced back to King Ethelred, doesn't mean I hjave any legitimate claim to property in England (howver evil that is).

[Anonymous No.6609487]

>>6609469
>Ohhhh, one word off.
Hey, you're right. Lemme fix that.
>The state is a group of people who successfully claim the only legitimate use of force over a given territory.

>Then I'll defend my property
>my property
>my
It's only "yours" if you successfully use force against anybody who disagrees. Private property is a spook.

[Anonymous No.6609489]

>>6609448
Potato-potatoe. Thing is that you can be a socialist without resorting to a big government, etc.

As a matter of fact, the statare system in Sweden was abolished in 1944 after long trade union negotiations.

[Anonymous No.6609503]

>>6609447
but the baboons merely happened to get into that situation because of outside factors. there was no intent there. my point is that there is a certain frame within any species can operate and build social structures, and so far, everything speaks against humans being able to live in anything resembling an actual communist system. all prior applications were unpleasant authoritarian dictatorships. i'm not saying communism is a unpleasant idea per se or that some form of mild socialism is impossible, but real socialism / communism seems a utopia considering (some) men have always strived to gain power, to exploit, or more innocently simply to build hierarchical social structures because that's simply the simplest and most natural form for large groups of people to organise. mind you baboons live in groups that are still on a "human scale". it's not possible for 8 billion people to live like that, in sort of disorganised, peaceful small groups, and still keep up all the technologies, transport, medicine, entertainment etc that we have. i understand that my view is somewhat based on extrapolation and guessing but intuitively i just believe that i'm right there. idk

>>6609469
>What's so fundamentally different about gardeners and office workers?
the crucial part in this context would probably be communication, the types of metaphors you use, what's allowed (eg, its appropriate to call a friend an asshole in banter, but you couldn't call your boss an asshole, it's simply not context appropriate).

>No I don't.
you wrote
>*everyone*, (...) wishes to "enforce" their will upon the world.

>Yes, among humans. Not specifically gardeners or office workers.
didn't you insinuate at some point that people can be perfectly happy living in isolation and that they desire power instead?

[Anonymous No.6609537]

>>6609487

No, its not "successfully claim", its *possess*. The differnece being that the state never claims anyhting, it owns through might.

>It's only "yours" if you successfully use force against anybody who disagrees. Private property is a spook.

Yup. And I'll defend whatever I consider to be mine. If I should be a coward, which I am adverse too because I don't give a fuck about what people think, then its no longer mine.

>>6609503

I call my boss an asshole. I call him a Paki and all sorts. There's a long running joke on our team that "The Boss" as we call him is part of ISIS. I love how you're going into fundementals, like banter cannot *possibly* exist in an office, despite the fact people who work in sales are a lot more thick skins dued to the nature of their work. No, because garderners are poor (which is not true btw), they must be easygoing, lovely people. Yeah, try telling that to someone who has to put up with assholes never being satisfied with the work you do or people who have to deal with constant machine breakdowns, rendering them incapable of doing their job.

>you wrote

I claimed generality, not absolute knowledge. And yes, all people wish to enforce their will upon the world, the will being variable and the enforcement being fixed.

Yep. "Power" is variable. One person might be hollow and seek power over others, one might be seek nothing more than power over himself.

[Anonymous No.6609565]

FUCKING /POL/TARDS! GET THE FUCK OFF MY /LIT/ BOARD!!!
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.6609569]

>>6609537
>I call my boss an asshole. I call him a Paki and all sorts.
that's not what i was trying to say and besides the point (kek, that rant) - what i was trying to explain is that the way you banter with different people, in different groups is different and has to be context appropriate. a dockworker's banter will be out of place in an office and vice versa. do you not get what i mean?

>And yes, all people wish to enforce their will upon the world, the will being variable and the enforcement being fixed.
that's a pretty vague definition. power over oneself is pretty much a blanket term for anything you want to do, isn't it? i don't disagree with that generally, it just seemed to be you were placing a whole lot of emphasis on monetary power and power over others. maybe i misread.

[Anonymous No.6609574]

>>6609503
>outside factors
I don't see any reason why we can't create the factors that change things.

>all prior applications were unpleasant authoritarian dictatorships
They weren't communism. There was communism in a few places in the Spanish revolution.

>(some) men have always strived to gain power, to exploit, or more innocently simply to build hierarchical social structures
This is why I'm an Anarchist. Nobody did that before the neolithic period though.

>simply the simplest and most natural form for large groups of people to organise
Then organize differently (federally) and create militas to prevent power hungry people from getting what they want.

>disorganised, peaceful small groups
Create small groups that organize federally whenever they need to accomplish something. You don't need to be peaceful, I think you should defend yourself. I don't think that pacifism is realistic.

>the state never claims anyhting, it owns through might.
It successfully claims the only legitimate force in a given territory. How do you expect to have absentee rights without a group of people using violence against anybody who disagrees with you, how is it any different?

>its not "successfully claim", its *possess*
What makes anything yours without people either agreeing or you using violence? How is "it's mine" a legitimate defence for using violence against people?

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6609577]

>>6609489
Big government doesn't preclude capitalism, neither does small government indicate capitalism. You're coming from a market-government dichotomy, which a relatively new and liberal way of thnking

[Anonymous No.6609587]

>>6609574
>>6609537

[Anonymous No.6609602]

>>6609503
>>6609574
For the communism in the Spanish revolution one of my sources is the book Anarchist Communes: Workers Self Management in The Spanish Revolution

[Anonymous No.6609635]

>>6608099
I like communism tbh.

[Anonymous No.6609671]

>>6609574
>They weren't communism. There was communism in a few places in the Spanish revolution.
catalunia? wasn't that anarchism, rather? and it worked exactly because it was temporary, small scale and there was strong social cohesion before (catalunia was always a region with strong seperatist claim). those were very unlikely conditions, and who knows how long it would have lasted even if franco hadn't stomped it in. also it's the one example ppl always bring up ... there's 8 billion people in the world, thousands years of history. meager.

>Then organize differently (federally) and create militas to prevent power hungry people from getting what they want.
the paradox is that you need some sort of state or the whole thing will collapse, internally as soon as someone acts out, and large scale as soon as one region acts out.

>> peaceful, small groups (of baboons)
>Create small groups that organize federally whenever they need to accomplish something.
i was talking about 10-20 individuals living very simple lives. to keep up medical and transport infrastructure, energy and education, and housing alone you'd need a LOT of organisation.
you realise that to keep up this infrastructure, you would need some sort of overseeing committee that allocates manpower and resources, and that committee would without question have more power than most others - it's inevitable

>>(some) men have always strived to gain power, to exploit, or more innocently simply to build hierarchical social structures
>This is why I'm an Anarchist. Nobody did that before the neolithic period though.
that's hard to prove. i study biology, we have some anthropology. most likely there were different tribes with different cultures. some were likely exploitative. anyways, not really relevant b/c small groups.

again, my key point is that all this is insanely unlikely. like baboons organising in a flat hierarchy, it usually doesn't happen.

>>6609602
george orwells reports on his travels in catalunia are also nice.

[Anonymous No.6609675]

>>6608897
> completely missing Rothbard's joke

[Anonymous No.6609690]

>>6609569

Erm... no. I feel this is more down to culture. I mean, where I come from, an office worker is more likely to take the banter and laugh at it, a dock worker would knock you the fuck out if you offend them. Maybe it isn't the same where you are.

>that's a pretty vague definition. power over oneself is pretty much a blanket term for anything you want to do, isn't it? i don't disagree with that generally, it just seemed to be you were placing a whole lot of emphasis on monetary power and power over others. maybe i misread.

It is pretty vauge, but then people's "will" is pretty vauge. I recoil t the harsh treatment of others, another person might not neccessarily do so. "Will" here is defined as "what a person intrisnically wants", altruistic or none altruistic and enforcement means their acts to secure their will within the world.

[Anonymous No.6609728]

>>6609690
>a dock worker would knock you the fuck out if you offend them. Maybe it isn't the same where you are.
maybe. i imagine dock workers do have some sort of banter with each other, nay? british humor and whatnot

btw just as an anecdote, i was working with skinheads at the supermarket and the guys were grim as fuck but when i had them figured out it was all good. they started to make jokes in my presence and it was funny as fuck. we were in a somewhat affluent area and the customers would always ask for produce that's regionally grown and they complained about spanish tomatoes and one of my coworkers said some day he's gonna build a hitler portrait out of our pure austrian bred tomatoes so they'll shut up

>"Will" here is defined as "what a person intrisnically wants", altruistic or none altruistic and enforcement means their acts to secure their will within the world.
ya that's actually pretty close to what i believe, in a way. i think we're done here, anon. it's been a pleasure

[Anonymous No.6609730]

>>6609267
Damn anarchopac is stupid. Like, must have problems eating stupid.

[Anonymous No.6609741]

>>6609730
What makes you say that?

[Anonymous No.6609764]

>>6609728

They do. But whats defined as "banter" depends really on individual aggressiveness. If you insult someone who is stronger than you, or more dominant, you're fucked because they'll take it to a personal level. At which point it becomes a game of chicken over who will back down first at the risk of the other person punching them.

It is all about "working people out", but if they don't have it figured out that its only a half-truthful joke then they'll take it the wrong way and it'll turn physical, something offices in particular have no time for. They'll just fire both people.

>i think we're done here, anon. it's been a pleasure

Fair enough.

[Anonymous No.6609783]

>>6608099
hahaha is funny how many people are so brainwashed tha communism/socialism are forbiden/evil words, and dont even know what is all about.

[Anonymous No.6609800]

>>6609671
>wasn't that anarchism, rather?
Yes, Anarchist communism, collectivism, syndicalism etc.

>and it worked exactly because it was temporary
I disagree, it failed because it was attacked by the non-anarchist communists, the republic and because they were focusing their attention on fighting the fascists, among other things.

>strong social cohesion before
Yes, this is important but not in the way I think you mean. They had a long history of this kind of organizing and an active
anarchist movement before the revolution.

>you need some sort of state or the whole thing will collapse, internally as soon as someone acts out, and large scale as soon as one region acts out
That can't happen because it's organized from the bottom up. The organization is completely different from what you're imagining.

>you would need some sort of overseeing committee that allocates manpower and resources
Yes.

>that committee would without question have more power than most others
Temporary positions (Delegates everywhere) and they don't have absolute power. They can't just do whatever they want, the decisions are made by the people at the bottom and delegates can only do what they say. They don't "represent" the people, they "echo" their decisions.

I'm going to bed anon, goodnight.

[Anonymous No.6609828]

>>6609800
gnight

[Anonymous No.6609841]

The Road to Serfdom is a very strong anti-socialist book written in the 1940's when communism and socialism were gaining strength throughout the world.

Naked Economics is also a good book detailing why capitalism works.