/lit/ - Literature

Conservatism is finished. Now it's monetarism

No one cares about coherence anymore, only power, money and prestige.

incoherence is the point
it's like the trinity
it makes no sense on purpose

alright cunts, derrida scholar here. let's go.

>is too hard’a read guise
>stahp

Can you gimme some examples from this OP?

Is this just some peterson level nonsense with fancier language and more obscure namedropping or does he actually know what he's talking about and make some interesting points?

anything goes in this system. behaviors are not reinforced or punished in any meaningfully consistent way. any input gets basically the same output, because safety nets are too safe because we produce suicidal amounts of surplus to subsidize bad behavior which would get anyone killed in a state of nature. anyone who sees this fact, and believes in blank-slatism and denies natural order, has nowhere to go but la-la land.

>>13111239
this.

My man Sartre out here looking goofy as fuck

>>13111344
peterson tier, replace selling rugs with shilling for big tobacco and roger scrotum is literally just a proto-peterson

>>13111344

roger scruton is yet another crank who has risen to prominence in the last several years for stupid shit like this. he's a crank. thinks he's hot shit because he gets interviewed by the guardian once in a while for proposing that the universe is a video game simulation. this book is yet another winded diatribe of those anos desperately hoping to blame post-structuralists for trump, which has become a fucking cottage industry now. roger scruton does not understand derrida or foucault.

why do teenage contrarians fall for this stupid shit so often?

Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Edward Said were objectively conservative philosophers. Unlike Scruton, who is a liberal.

>"but they adhered to emancipatory politics"

They did it the same way a 17th century natural philosopher who wrote a materialist account of reality always credited "divine providence" for creation. They didn't want trouble.

Paul Johnson beat him to it.

>>13111271
Except the Trinity makes perfect sense

>>13111195
Their dumb

>>13112389
ah yes, the guy who extolled disney over picasso because the former snitched out his workers to the HUAC
stellar mind at work

>>13112391

>>13111195
They don't need to justify it. They work in an echo chamber and preach their gospel to gullible teenagers

>>13111195
How do rightists say 'leftist' with a straight face?

The left isn’t a monolith, neither is the right. Coherence isn’t something you should expect from political coalitions

>>13112550
It is

They say "God is Man." It's a form of Pantheism.

>>13111195
What incoherence?

>>13111428
He wrote this book in the 80's, it has nothing to do with Trump. You haven't read it, otherwise you'd know he actually says some quite nice things about Derrida and Foucault and has clearly read them

>>13112552
>Different things are the same.

>>13111195
They don't feel the need to. Modern liberalism is taken a priori as wholly correct by the majority of it's followers. Mainstream leftism wasn't always so self-contradictory it has become so after it started compromising with (i.e. being consumed by) Capitalism.

>>13111195
They're bourgeois liberals. Libcoms, autos, operaismists, leftcoms, tankies and trots occupy the actual debate.

>>13111428
>calls him a crank twice
Say it again and I’ll believe you

>>13111195
how do you justify your low iq?

>>13112770
Social liberalism has always been about making the world safe for homo economicus. It’s bourgeois-led class warfare to its core.

>>13111195
yeah yeah, like those evangelical leftists who are fine with a shameless corrupt sinner because, they say, he was sent on a mission by god himself and he's carrying it out in spite of his worst instincts lmao

>>13112550
>The left isn’t a monolith
Could have fooled me.

>>13111195
Here's the thing, conservatives:
Yeah, statist communism is self-contradictory. The communist state represents a sharper concentration of power than the capitalist oligarchy + phony government apparatus ever could achieve. Even in a very democratic situation this is not ideal.
BUT
authoritarian communism is only one side of the spectrum. Something like a libertarian socialism or anarcho-communism is also possible. The highest seat of power is with the individual, everything above that are federations. And I'm using 'federation' here to mean the opposite of hierarchy: They higher levels cannot overrule the lower ones, rather, they only act when there is a consensus among the members.
We then use our freedom and autonomy to build systems of production and distribution which de-emphasize work as the glorious centerpiece of adult life. The myth of the hard-working man who earns his living through the sweat of his brow, and so on. Work is important, mature people know it needs to be done, and do not resent it. But it should be done as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
All the bullshit, meaningless jobs from capitalism will disappear. No one needs to work just to prove anything, performing the symbolic sacrifice which entitles them to food and shelter. If we have enough, then we can share! And if we can automate more work, we can lower the daily journey for everyone, and free people to pursue higher purposes than pointless wealth, climbing corporate ladders, etc.

>>13115565
>Something like a libertarian socialism or anarcho-communism is also possible
How about we try something without socialism or communism?

>>13116396
fine by me, so long as it is also without capitalism. We all know that's a dead end.

Intellectualism is a way to justify the hierarchy within egalitarian movements. The dominance of cultural institutions allows for uncontested cultural and financial domination within a technological society. The left has the power to justify anything; they've achieved what can only be considered a social omnipotence.

>>13115565
Anarchists and the like only hope to be captain of whatever mob inevitably forms in their decentralized spaces. Behind every red mask is the face of a tyrant.

>>13116569
behind the face of every capital-apologist who "knows" the "real" intentions of revolutionaries is nothing. an empty fucking skull.

>>13116583
Once can see the behaviors of both past revolutionaries and those sympathetic with revolutionary politics at the present to determine their motives. One could even look at their language: "reactionary" is just code for "person I am allowed to kill in a revolutionary setting" and "fascist" is code for "person I'm allowed to kill in a non-revolutionary setting."

One can even see it in the language of your post. You go so far as to declare that those you oppose lack the fundamental element of human existence: the mind. Look in the mirror if you want to see the face of a tyrant.

>>13116648
>Once can see the behaviors of (revolutionaries) to determine their motives.
kind of a hard sentence to parse there. But I guess you're saying you deduced the motives from the behaviors. There are several problems with that. Separate motivations can lead people to take the same action. At the same time, a single motivation can be acted upon in many different ways. Are you claiming to have the psychological training required to make these kinds of decisions? Do you claim to have analised the biographies of these figures thoroughly and built a comprehensive psychological model on them?
My guess is the extent of your deductions was "They did bad stuff to achieve their goals, so they're bad people".
I bet also that you would never use this kind of reasoning with the police or the armed forces of your country. When the right people use force, the use of force is right, amiright?

>You go so far as to declare that those you oppose lack the fundamental element of human existence: the mind.
I was calling you stupid, bud. The fact that you take this out of proportion to this extent, kind of proves my point.

>>13116678
Not the anon you're replying to but I want you to know your response was shit-tier and you should leave /lit/ until you graduate from high school
Don't bother replying to me

>>13116720
there is nothing more high-school than succumbing to the urge to post empty criticism like that. This pathetic need to project your ego without contributing anything.

Please do respond to me, I wanna keep bumping this thread so more of your pol friends come read my post about anarcho-communism.

>>13111403
>>13111428
No arguments... Why is that?

>>13116678
>My guess is the extent of your deductions was "They did bad stuff to achieve their goals, so they're bad people".
The elements of their discourse and behavior which have remained constant since from Bakunin and Kropotkin to today's advocates of stateless societies ultimately show their goals to be bad in themselves. The kind of decentralized control needed for the maintenance of those societies is more horrific than anything Stalin or Hitler dreamed up. Advocates of state violence are honest enough top be preferable the tyrants in disguise, so there's no reason to worry ab out them when the red death lurks in the shadows.
>I was calling you stupid, bud. The fact that you take this out of proportion to this extent, kind of proves my point.
Sorry you got called out for your deliberately dehumanizing language, but ignoring it would be less pathetic than this kind of backtracking. Even if your are being honest, it only goes to prove the massive gap between your rhetoric and your beliefs. But the left only "believes in language" when its convenient to them.

>>13115565
>all the bullshit, meaningless jobs from capitalism will disappear. No one needs to work just to prove anything, performing the symbolic sacrifice which entitles them to food and shelter. If we have enough, then we can share!

As EO Wilson once said:

>nice system; wrong species.

That books is a pretty good general analysis.

Of course he won't go into depth, since that would be impossible given scope and space, but he does touch on many true failings of the left-wing thinkers he analyzes.

Another book I recommend is Western Marxism, by J.G. Merquior. This one is pretty dense and slightly difficult, but also short and accessible enough. He wrecks Althusser and Habermas pretty well, in my view.

>>13116792
Look pal, you're all about analyzing language to understand your opponents, right? Let me do you. You speak in aphorisms, you don't articulate any arguments. And sure, this is a casual discussion, I'm not posting any over-long dissertations either. But they shit you're putting down just has no substance.
I've actually read Kropotkin. I cannot imagine what your little imperialist brain seized upon in his writings to ever conclude that he had bad intentions.
The goals of this advocate of stateless societies are to undo all the pointless hierarchy and authority which creates so much inefficiency and suffering. Humans are not cattle. (that goes for >>13116813 too) We can solve all our problems with honest dialog. You keep invoking tyranny in your discourse, yet you seem mighty content to live perpetually under the tyranny of money and of our phony televised "representative" governments. You tell me if these are bad goals.
>The kind of decentralized control needed for the maintenance of those societies is more horrific than anything Stalin or Hitler dreamed up.
this is fucking rich. When I'm not being described as a hippie who wants to go live in a commune in the woods where we hold hands and sing koombaya, I'm getting compared to authoritarians.
> the red death lurks in the shadows.
This is an interesting little sentence with which to analyze your psyche. This isn't even a political discussion for you. It is a glorious battle in the eternal war between good and evil, or some other fantasy. You're a fucking child.
>Sorry you got called out for your deliberately dehumanizing language. the left only "believes in language" when its convenient to them.
If I wanted to have a nice discussion where nobody gets to say their political opponents don't have a brain, I'd go to reddit, so please, kindly, shut the fuck up.

>>13116889
>The goals of this advocate of stateless societies are to undo all the pointless hierarchy and authority which creates so much inefficiency and suffering. Humans are not cattle. (that goes for >>13116813 (You) # too) We can solve all our problems with honest dialog

That is pure illusion. Stop writing assertive prose and substantiate your claims.

Show me one historical example of a society which solved everything through dialogue.

As soon as you get into my private property, I'll shoot you. Will there be any dialogue then? Can the dead talk?

>>13116909
Complementing: one example of a society which solved everything through dialogue and WAS NOT destroyed by another, more belligerent society.

Show me ONE historical example of that.

Otherwise, you're just making wild, unproved suppositions about human nature which can only be answered through social experimentation.

>>13115565
>No one needs to work just to prove anything, performing the symbolic sacrifice which entitles them to food and shelter. If we have enough, then we can share! And if we can automate more work, we can lower the daily journey for everyone, and free people to pursue higher purposes than pointless wealth, climbing corporate ladders, etc.

This is possible.

>Something like a libertarian socialism or anarcho-communism is also possible. The highest seat of power is with the individual, everything above that are federations. And I'm using 'federation' here to mean the opposite of hierarchy: They higher levels cannot overrule the lower ones, rather, they only act when there is a consensus among the members.

This isn't.

It's sad that the Italian school of elite theory is so unknown. If people had just read an introduction to Robert Michels, Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca they wouldn't believe such bullshit. There is simply no possibility of abolishing hierarchy, it's embedded in the technical necessities of organization and production. Even if you built a society around nominally democratic worker's councils controlling the means of production, which I don't think unfeasible, it would still be ruled by some sort of technical or charismatic authority. The "consensus" you would have would be a bunch of lethargic workers nodding along with the leadership proposals at the mass assembly, which is how every single "horizontal" group has ever operated.

>>13115565
>Something like a libertarian socialism or anarcho-communism is also possible.
haha cya

>>13111332
Marcuse
> being tolerant is bad. Your society should tolerate me trying to undermine it, though
Lacan
> equation for an erect penis
> failed to help a single patient
Marx
> labor has innate value just cause.
Need any more, you thirsty twat?

>>13115565
Define “higher.” What makes it “higher?”

>>13116889
What seething projection. As was explained to you patiently by the other anon, hierarchy is inherent in nature. What you describe is abstraction. You will never find nor be able to create a scenario in phenomenal space where a non hierarchal society that solves all problems through dialogue and all parties leave satisfied will exist. Ever.

>>13116909
How can I substantiate the idea that humans are a higher form of life than farm animals. That we are gifted with reason and compassion and deeply rooted in all of us is the desire to understand and to get along with those around us. I don't really know. I know this a priori. I can cite personal experiences and other anecdotes which confirm this, but ultimately it is a principle, a belief. Just as your belief that we need money and authority isn't based on anything, certainly not any actual psychology, seeing as nothing exists in that field to substantiate those claims. No, you believe what you believe because it reinforces and justifies the world you want to continue to live in.
As for historical examples, all the big ones ended the same way: massacred by people who share your ideological persuasion.
>Otherwise, you're just making wild, unproved suppositions about human nature which can only be answered through social experimentation.
Oh no, my ideas testable, like a scientific hypothesis, how embarrassing!

>>13116929
You know when the USA installs "democracy" somewhere, and the experts talk about how people need to acclimate to the new system, they need to learn to govern themselves, etc? Why should this be true, if human nature is as static as folks usually propose?
A big idea in anarchist thought is that revolution isn't only a means to come into the political autonomy which is already latent in us, but that it is necessary to encourage and nurture this autonomy. Ordinary people under capitalism have almost no experience making making large-scale economic decisions, they are utterly excluded from these decisions, and thus never develop the kind of thinking require for making them.
It is the same with regards to representative democracies or other more overt forms of authoritarianism: The decision-making skills which curiously and conveniently only occur in our elites, our overlords, will only blossom in the common people when they actually have a hand in making decisions for themselves.

>>13116979
well, you're being cheeky, because you know very well what I'm referring to. You've probably used this expression yourself at some point.
If I indulge my senses with food, sex, drugs, I feel like a beast, I feel I've debased myself.
If I work, If I am helpful to those around me, if I am disciplined, I feel good about myself, but still not fully realized.
In the creative pursuits, in the arts, when I apply myself to healing other creatures, to teaching them, to learning or to building new knowledge, in spiritual pursuits, only then do I feel like I am fulfilling my real purpose and approaching my real potential. I feel that I am honoring whatever force or circumstance put me in this position.

>>13117000
I kind of explained my position on this >>13117001 here already. But in general, this is pretty empty criticism. "you will never see..." "this would never work..." bla bla bla. You don't know that. How could you possibly? What arrogance is this, that you suppose you know not only what was and what is, but what could ever be??
When have people ever accurately predicted the future?
What's that one citation? When an expert predicts something is possible he is usually right, when he predicts it is impossible he is usually wrong.

>>13116889
>The goals of this advocate of stateless societies are to undo all the pointless hierarchy and authority which creates so much inefficiency and suffering.
The problem is that it is only the breakdown of formal hierarchies. Subtle hierarchies far more invasive than that formed and enforced by the state will be necessary to maintain such a society. Kropotkin and his ilk just want to be at the head of this as do the anarchists leaders of today. One doesn't need a crown to rule the mob.
>this is fucking rich. When I'm not being described as a hippie who wants to go live in a commune in the woods where we hold hands and sing koombaya, I'm getting compared to authoritarians
The understanding of the left held by most of its critics is inadequate. The left is also great at reminding others that it generally avoids lethal violence at the current moment, and since that is true. I just understand why they do that. You should be happy that I take you (and the hippies for that matter)seriously.
>This is an interesting little sentence with which to analyze your psyche. This isn't even a political discussion for you. It is a glorious battle in the eternal war between good and evil, or some other fantasy. You're a fucking child.
I can't say you're wrong. I do see advocates of stateless society of being an evil more sinister than anything else ever conceived. The creation of states allows man to join with something far greater than himself. You only want to reduce life to the limits of his body and the pleasure it receives. As far as I can see this is a battle between a human life that can justify its existence and one that cannot, and I'd honestly prefer the destruction of life itself to whatever solution it is you propose.
>If I wanted to have a nice discussion where nobody gets to say their political opponents don't have a brain, I'd go to reddit, so please, kindly, shut the fuck up.
Reddit legitimizes anarchists and allows them to organize. You should go there and criclejerk over your ever so natural and not at all politically motivated capacity for empathy. I know your type is always careful with your language. Every word a leftist uses is there for a specific reason, so don't try to hide your intentions.

>>13117001
>As for historical examples, all the big ones ended the same way: massacred by people who share your ideological persuasion.

In other words: it is a failed system that cannot SUPPORT ITSELF, so that it does not make sense to try it, for you are ignoring the potential threats of external enemies.

It's a system that might work for hippies living in a capitalist country that gives then the freedom to start a comune, but it cannot work in the real world at nation-level.

Another social experimenter EXPOSED.

>>13117044
“I feel.”
Opinion immediately invalidated.
And, again, show the scenario when anything even close to what you have proposed existed in reality. You can’t.
You have invalidated the other anon by saying past examples of his supposed reality have “ended in destruction”
So has every altruistic society. Notice a trend?

>>13117044
And people have accurately predicted “the future” constantly. One phrase predicts it rather nicely: and this too shall pass.

>>13117001
What the elite theorists argue is not that it is human nature that precludes egalitarian, non-hierarchical organizations, but the very technical needs of an organization which demands specialist work and coordination that inevitably gives way to hierarchy, formal or informal.

This is not relevant only to units of economic production either, families, tribes, churches, clubs, parties, cliques, any group or sub-group that regulates human life and social behavior ends up with some formal or informal leadership simply by the mechanical and technical needs of organization. Even your anarchist collective probably has some charismatic guy whose opinions always count more than the opinions of the shy guy who stands at the corner during parties. Leadership is an inescapable fact of social life and the more complex the organization (say, a state or corporation) the more sharp the hierarchy.

>>13117061
Alright, I think we're done. We're just repeating ourselves now.
>Every word a leftist uses is there for a specific reason, so don't try to hide your intentions.
you're hilarious. "you evil commies have GOALS and you use WORDS to advance yous campaigns!!!!!!1111one"
As opposed to what, dumbass?

>>13117069
>MIGHT MAKES RIGHT OOGA BOOGA OOGA BOOGA

>>13117084
What the hell are you asking me? Show me a place and time where people have been more concerned about higher pursuits than materialistic ones?? I don't like to be dismissive but please go read a fucking book.
>Notice a trend?
I like the use of the word "trend" here. You are suggesting a statistical approach to knowledge. On that basis, attempts to organize society in non-capitalist and non-authoritarian ways have not been tried nearly enough to confirm or to deny the plausibility of any alternative model.
And as I've pointed out, external (imperialistic) interference renders any data useless. As if you were testing your experimental shampoo on some mice and then I dropped 46 firebombs on your lab.
>>13117093
> this too shall pass.
Yes it will. Capitalism will one day be a curious historical footnote like human sacrifice and bloodletting.

>>13111195
imagine calling other people frauds when you're taking money to shill for tobacco companies

>>13117127
>Alright, I think we're done. We're just repeating ourselves now.
I've elaborated plenty, you've said nothing in response. It's amazing how fast anarchists turn into stuttering morons when their mask is pulled from their face.
>you're hilarious. "you evil commies have GOALS and you use WORDS to advance yous campaigns!!!!!!1111one"
As a consequence of the intellectual nature of leftist politics, the left has developed a very deep understanding of language and its political implications, and from this comes the extreme care in their use of language. A leftist doesn't use dehumanizing language unless they mean it. It's not just an utterance made from the subconscious of a bigot, but a conscious attempt to label the body of another as the appropriate target for violence. So much of leftist discourse amounts to this coded labeling.

>>13117127
“I feel”
Again, you try and use empirical science (and fail to even spell the word) mixed in with your subjective opinions and “feelings.” Basically you have a bias and want to confirm it and use cognitive dissonance to shut out reality.
Yes, capitalism will pass as will ANY system. The one you want was tried ad nauseam. From Walden and Ruskinites to modern day cults. They fail. Period.
Sorry you haven’t read enough and project this flaw onto others. Them’s the breaks kid.

>>13117127
Also “ real communism has never been tried!”

Hahahahhahaha. Utterly owned.

The difference between Scruton and Jordan Peterson is at least Scruton tried to read the original material. He didn't understand any of it though so leftwing intellectuals must be frauds or mendacious. Think about how vainglorious that is.

this whole kerfuffle is fucking retarded and i can't wait until the overwhelming majority of these people revert to apolticism once he's out of office

only leftists can effectively criticize leftists
t. bordigang

>>13117177
>only leftists can effectively criticize leftists
Internal leftist criticism tends to be meandering nonsense. the left in the broadest possible sense will always unite against the right, so the particulars of its many ideologies are meaningless to those on the outside.

>>13117127
>MIGHT MAKES RIGHT OOGA BOOGA OOGA BOOGA


No, no, no! That's a strawman.

Read Adam Smith, Pareto and Hayek!

Goodbye.

>>13117198
fair enough

>>13117156
>I've elaborated plenty
my guy.
my good, good friend.
point to one (1) thing you've posted on this thread that is not an aphorism.

And you keep on talking to yourself about this nonsense of leftists and dehumanizing language. Are you not ashamed of reaching this hard in public? I'm not a purple haired American college liberal. I called you stupid among other things on this thread because you've demonstrated ample stupidity. I did not at any point suggest violence would be appropriate at any step of the revolution.
Lets do this, go to your bathroom, draw me on your mirror, really faggy and gay-looking, and then you can continue this "discussion" by yourself!

>>13117163
yea, like I said, you don't read, so you wouldn't know that the phrase "I feel" doesn't show up in the post you're replying to at all. Oops!
And also, to be thorough, When I was using "I feel" statements previously, I was put in a position to describe something very subjective and vague, the higher human pursuits. I was explicitly not putting forth facts or empirical science. But again, I expect too much from your reading comprehension skills.
>The one you want was tried ad nauseam.
How about I put you on the spot this time?
Since you anti-communists seem to have a complete science of how many times some social project has to be tried before it can be dismissed, that what is that magical number, if you please? Or maybe it's more complex, how many people were under the system over how many years, etc.
Please, go on.

(At which point you activate my trap card: I post a list of a hundred spontaneous economic crises documented throughout history, showing that capitalism doesn't even need external interference to shit its own pants and proving that the system's BEEN TRIED AND FAILED, sorry kid! )

>>13117254
Do you have any examples of communism ever working though, maybe if there was a small scale example its success people would be more open to it.

>>13117254
Hahaha how triggered you are. From having to retreat from the literal word “feeling” with sophistry to referencing “hundreds of examples” without giving an ACTUAL example once. You can’t spell, let alone read. Use the “no true scotsman” fallacy that all communists do and are easily reduced to “muh feels”
Now you’ll frantically try for a last word to prove me right. Watch. Watch how easily I can predict the future of what you will do.

>>13117254
>point to one (1) thing you've posted on this thread that is not an aphorism.
The manner in which your system does nothing to deal with the creation of informal hierarchies and how an highly invasive one is necessary for the maintenance of a stateless society.
>And you keep on talking to yourself about this nonsense of leftists and dehumanizing language.
I merely pointed out the how dehumanizing terminology is coded into leftist discourse. Again, the left is never sloppy with their terminology. The left is has a highly developed understanding of language. When they use terminology that is dehumanizing, it is intentional.
> I'm not a purple haired American college liberal.
I never said you were. Most leftists I know could blend in on Wall St. The political left is diverse in nearly aspect. I try to avoid stereotyping them.
>I did not at any point suggest violence would be appropriate at any step of the revolution.
It's a coded part of your discourses. Please stop with the lying. I'm not saying you're inherently or exceptionally violent. Adherents of any ideology will use violence when they feel it is necessary to advance their goals. Judging position based on its propensity for violence at the present moment is dumb. At the moment the left emphasizes its peaceful tendencies, who knows what will happen in the future especially when so many are advocates of revolutionary action.

>>13117254
>capitalism doesn't even need external interference to shit its own pants and proving that the system's BEEN TRIED AND FAILED, sorry kid!

And yet we are much richer than we were before 1929. You know it well, don't you? You are posting from 4chan.

Capitalism can reinvent itself, it's too good a system - when it stops working, people see what's wrong and find new ways to make money.

You say capitalism has failed, and yet here you are complaining against capitalism. You say capitalism has failed, and yet there's a thread right now on this very board asking 'How do we stop capitalism?'. I remember Zizek saying, during the Occupy WS protests, how capitalism was destroying itself, and yet, almost a decade later, here we are with Donald Trump in the US, Bolsonaro in South America, Salvini and possibly Farage in Europe - more anti-communist than ever. Where was the failure of capitalism that Zizek diagnosed? Where are the failures of capitalism that left-wingers (a group whose members like to pretend doesn't exist, curiously enough) have been predicting since the 19th century? Where is it? Show it to me. Because, as far as I know, people in capitalist countries live at a fairly decent standard and would rather not move to Venezuela and Cuba. Meanwhile, as a Brazilian, I saw today a blonde, white Venezuelan in the street, asking me for money so that he could eat some food today (not a fictional example, by the way, he actually lives around my street and I see him often - most of them are neither blonde nor white, though, this one is an exception, but I find it sort of emblematic).

Capitalism has not failed. It's working pretty well, and capitalist countries like Japan, South Korean and Chile are going very well, thank you very much. There are some occasional crises and definitely many problems, but they are nothing like the crisis that destroyed the Soviet Union - oh, and the answer to them is not communism/anarchism/socialism either, for capitalism has shown itself to be able to invent its own solutions.

>>13117276
Mondragon is one of the largest corporations in Spain, it is fully worker-owned and democratically run.

There's a very interesting book called The rise of the Chinese People's Communes by Anna Louise Strong, where she tells a very different picture of china then what most people think they know.

Anabaptists and the kibbutzim in Israel are oft-cited examples of smaller communities where political and economic life aren't framed around hard authoritarian systems, but rather around personal relations and dialog, and these are by far not the only examples in the world of small religious quasi-anarchist communities.

>>13117357
>your system does nothing to deal with the creation of informal hierarchies
systems don't DO anything. That authoritarian thinking. Anarchist societies stay anarchist and don't relapse into authoritarianism because they see that, no matter their troubles, at least they are in control and they can do something about it. Once you have a taste of real autonomy you never go back.
> Please stop with the lying.
please stop pretending you can read my mind. I don't wish harm to anyone. I want you to enjoy freedom in anarchy with me. (oh shit, I just did a "virtue signaling")

>>13117368
Yeah, you make a great points. I don't believe in the Marxist idea that capitalism will end itself. Clearly it is much more resilient than we'd like to believe. We got royally and explicitly raped by the elites in '08 and the working class had a nice little cry and then showed up for work again the following week, their tender buttholes ready for another ~opportunity~

So yeah, the cyclical crises of capitalism don't prove that the system "doesn't work period", they prove it doesn't work for the working class, who inevitably foot the bill for all the fun and games in the financial sector.
As for the continued rise in standard of living, that is due to technological advancement, not to any economic system. The USSR was the fastest country to industrialize in history, bar none.

>>13117451
>Mondragon is one of the largest corporations in Spain, it is fully worker-owned and democratically run.
This seems like an important thing to focus on, are people trying to make more companies like this?

>>13117468
Richard Wolff seems to do a lot of work in that direction.

>>13117451
>Mondragon is one of the largest corporations in Spain, it is fully worker-owned and democratically run.

That is the magic of capitalism! Due to free market rules, you can make a socialist corporation in a capitalist country and, as long as it can make money, no one will forbid it from existing. Meanwhile, in Cuba, you can't make a capitalist corporation...

>Anabaptists and the kibbutzim in Israel are oft-cited examples of smaller communities

That is the problem. They're small. How will your small communist utopia deal with a big capitalist country that generates more money than yours and has more resources? It won't. It will fail. Humans are selfish. The good thing about capitalism is that it enables selfishness to transform itself into altruism, because the consumerist relationship is an altruistic one - I want food, you give me food; you want money, I give you money, and we are both satisfied in the end. Of course this is a very simplistic picture and I myself am not fully a libertarian, but even in capitalism you have alternatives to deal with the problems that arise from the free market - alternatives which, as I have said, are very different from full socialism/communism/anarchism, and have been shown to work better.

>they prove it doesn't work for the working class, who inevitably foot the bill for all the fun and games in the financial sector.

The US worker would be rich if he went to Cuba. Cuban *physicians* here in Brazil - working for the Cuban government under Cuban rules - were poorer than bus drivers.

>The USSR was the fastest country to industrialize in history, bar none.

Then it collapsed.

Also, I confess I have not read much on the matter, but isn't this assertion a little bit of a half truth? While they might have industrialized fast, you need to take into account that industrialization had pretty much occurred in capitalist countries already, only it occurred a lot slower for the simple reason that they were the pioneers and industrialization itself was a slow process, taking some two hundred years or so (depending on where you choose to begin) to 'complete' itself. Thus, all the Soviet Union had to do was to import already existing technology - same thing we did here in Brazil - instead of actually inventing it, like they did in England/America. Obviously, importing is faster than inventing.

>>13117513
you exemplify multiple of the reasons why I don't focus on historical examples of anarchist principles in practice:

>That is the magic of capitalism!
you take clearly socialist accomplishments and appropriate them.
Everything bad that happened in communist countries was Karl Marx's fault, everything good that happens in capitalist countries (including workers' movements, apparently) are the merits of capitalism.

>The US worker would be rich if he went to Cuba.
or just ignore my example and supply some random-ass thing about Cuba or Venezuela.
But, of course, I brought up 2008. My mistake. You folks can't look 2008 in the eyes. If you did that you'd have to accept that you live in a system that considers you to be less than garbage. Demonstrably. Get's hard to cheer about a system when you think about that stuff.

>Then it collapsed.
or the classic: MIGHT MAKES RIGHT OOGA BOOGA OOGA BOOGA

In general, no example is the perfect example, and that's the point. I'm talking about ideas. I'm talking about the future. This incessant "when is history has this ever..." moaning implies that the only possibilities for our future are re-hashes of ways of life that have already existed in the past.
Which is really fucking stupid.

>>13116974
>labor has innate value just cause.
“Just cause”? That’s literally where you get the stuff you’re selling.
You’re pro Scruton?

>>13117513
That’s not a capitalist corporation, that a workers company. It’s not forbidden there, in Europe, but it’s not allowed to replace the feudal model and no one talks about. Especially in the US

>>13117513
I forgot to address:
>That is the problem. They're small. How will your small communist utopia deal with a big capitalist country
that's what the book cover on>>13117577 is in reference to.
Small communities aren't the problem, they are the solution. As you yourself explained, the problem are big capitalist empires doing a big Freedom© all over the anarchists.

>>13116788
You can't argue against a fallacy

>>13117513
Guy is a brainlet. I shut him down easily. He then moves to you and continues fallacies hoping he will be allowed easier arguments. Don’t engage. He is being disingenuous from the start. Citing Stalin as an example of an expanding technological marvel is laughable by anyone with any education. What is Lysenkoism? Even Zizek and Mark Fisher use examples of the folly of Stalin and his “advancement.” Like digging a shipping channel that only ended up deep enough for state reporters to be given tours on, but not deep enough to be of any utility for shipping.
Idiotic, as all commies are.

>>13117577
>you take clearly socialist accomplishments and appropriate them.

What? I believe you are confusing things. I didn't say the magic of capitalism is socialist corporations, I said the magic of capitalism (rather, of free market) is that you have the freedom to make your corporation the way you want, even it this means obeying principles which are not just the hunger for money.

>Everything bad that happened in communist countries was Karl Marx's fault, everything good that happens in capitalist countries (including workers' movements, apparently) are the merits of capitalism.

Why put things in my mouth when I didn't say them?

>or just ignore my example and supply some random-ass thing about Cuba or Venezuela.

Not random. Please focus on the discussion a little bit better. The ''system'' doesn't care about anyone, it doesn't have feelings. The people who are in power do, and, just like most people, they only care about their own well-being. The good thing about capitalism is that it can adjust itself, creating an order where people will have to help each other if they want to survive in the market. As a consequence, capitalism thrives, while communism fails. This is why, even though, say, Warren Buffet or whomever doesn't care about the poor worker in the US, the poor worker in the US is still a lot richer than the ''rich'' physician from Cuba - because one system works better at making money than the other, even though its rhetoric does not have the same pro-worker babble which communist rhetoric has.

>MIGHT MAKES RIGHT OOGA BOOGA OOGA BOOGA

No, no, no! Strawman yet again. That is not at all what I believe in! What I believe, however, is that your system needs to be able to sustain itself. Otherwise, what good is it? You are confusing - perhaps deliberately - the sensible view that societies should be able to stand on their own feet with the 'might makes right' idea that is usually employed to justify atrocities which I am not in favor of.
Nuance seems to be lacking in your argumentation.

>possibilities for our future are re-hashes of ways of life that have already existed in the past.

And here the problem is utopianism: the belief that you have a perfect solution and the whole of society must be subjected to your own personal views of how things should be.

The reason why historical examples matter is that they provide one with the chance of accessing how these idealistic utopias work in the real world, and left-wing utopias have shown themselves to work terribly. All systems are inherently beautiful, and perfect on paper, but practice shows them to be flawed. The merits of capitalism, conservatism, social-democracy etc. is that these have been tested already.

>>13117666
You can. Go read any introduction to informal logic if you doubt me.

And the guy wasn't making any sense. Scruton's book has nothing to do with Trump.

>>13117736
Yeah, these discussions get very annoying...

>>13117757
Marx himself said that capitalism presupposes socialism and communism. They can’t exist without that system to juxtapose itself with and, as we have seen, cannot outlast it. Capitalism has been attacked and always reforms as it is a natural organizing structure. To have things ready to hand you must have excess and excess always manifests itself as capital. “Anarchy” is for 20 year old college freshman. The kind with zero life experience, no trade or military training and no discernible skills. They think people just “cooperate” and yet have never existed that way themselves nor will they ever. Any anarchist would sign off their computer or phone, smash it. Reject all their capitalist provided possessions and education. Will they? Nope.

>>13117513
listen buddy thats nice and all but the united states deserves to be destroyed, period

>>13117783
>The kind with zero life experience, no trade or military training and no discernible skills. They think people just “cooperate” and yet have never existed that way themselves nor will they ever

Pretty much. Then they point out to some random society in Israel or Colombia or wherever as an example, forgetting that in practice it's not as efficient as capitalism, which means a capitalist society will always triumph over those - and even the very people who live in those small societies will usually wish to migrate to the richer, capitalist ones.

>>13117813
Says the guy posting on a U.S.-founded, Japanese-owned image board...

>>13117826
>oho but you breathe the same oxygen that americans do, how ironic

god shut the fuck up you retard

>>13117833
Troll.

>>13117736
>state-capitalism
>commies

I (one of the pro-capitalist guys) will leave the thread now, but not before recommending Scruton's book The Meaning of Conservatism, which is a very good description of what conservatives believe in. It's not a philosophy book, but rather a sort of treatise where he states his beliefs without arguing for them.

There's another book where he argues for them, called How To Be a Conservative.

I am not a social conservative myself, but I agree with the politics of skepticism which is so fundamental for the conservative frame of mind. Therefore, one can gain from reading Scruton even if one is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and pro-animal rights like me.

He bashes contemporary architecture too, which is a major point in his favor. I haven't yet read his book The Aesthetics of Architecture, but it's on my wish list. His works cover a very large array of subjects - Mr. Scruton also writes about music (he's an opera composer), sexual desire, the history of philosophy (specializing in Kant and Spinoza) and many other themes. I am not completely familiar with his works, but highly recommend those which I've read.

Anyone who dismisses Scruton as an idiot has either not read his works - at least not in a slightly comprehensive manner (such as a whole book, cover to cover) - or else is talking out of ideological obligation. As I said, even when you disagree with him he still makes you think and gives you tools which can help you with your own thinking.

>>13117876
Not an argument. Notice you didn’t touch the Marcuse and Lacan incoherency you dizzy cunt.

>>13117958
I’m not familiar with their works, the OP book, and I could barely make out what your post even meant. But it’s been censored by some mad wizard, so who cares.

State capitalism (example USSR) sucks
“Free market” private capitalism sucks
And as comfy as some mixed economies can be for a time, they eventually suck too.
That’s my argument

>>13117998
State capitalism sucks for everyone who's not a fried of the great leader.

Free market sucks for everyone who doesn't have a job.

Mixed economies suck for those who have a job and need to sustain those who don't have a job.

But you, Butterfly, you will suck in any of them.

>>13118033
>Free market sucks for everyone who doesn't have a job.
No no no. It sucks for everyone who has to have a job, and sucks worse for those who can’t be a job

>Mixed economies suck
Because the rich pull it all back to private ownership. The wealthy and their government can’t be trusted to do what right by people

Bootlickers like you do more harm than you know

>>13118064
>can’t be a job
I wrote can’t gat a job

>>13112391
dumb christlarper

>>13112391

>>13118064
That was a joke post.

You suck in any of them regardless, and your arguments throughout this thread have been extremely uninformed, despite your pretentious style. You have a lot of reading to do, sweetie.

Bye.

>>13117998
It means you have no argument. You admit you don’t even read leftists thinkers for the most part, so are in no real position to even address anything. You have no stated position other than perhaps a cringing nihilism. Capitalism does indeed “suck” because it enables parasites who haunt image boards to try and forge cult of personalities around themselves for social capital and to eventually try and commodify. Instead of starving to death or dying of dysentery in a ditch somewhere as nature would decree.
You dizzy cunt.

>>13118064
>>13118087
>>13118087
Butterfly, you have a job, you know the rigor it is required to be a good worker, or at least I would assume you do if you work hard. :3

Why not agree that what it takes is hard work, and good social skills to succeed? Clearly something is going on with spirits and souls, but it has nothing to do with a materialistic analysis of governmental systems.

In actuality, the more materialistic you analyze things, the more horrible things get. Which is inherently why so many communist/fascist regimes are inherently militaristic. Because they believe that all there is, is the atoms and molecules that hold us together.

I am a fan of science, but I believe it describes a system of movements ordained by a higher power in the end :3

>>13118099
That “bootlicker” bullshit they come up with. As if this cowardly bitch has stood up for herself at ANY point in her life. If I stomped my foot at her in person she’d shit herself and run crying for her cats. I cannot stand that parasitic and gutless creeps like her can only thrive in systems they decry. THEY themselves are usually the best argument against the system.

>>13116974
>Marx
> labor has innate value just cause

Oh, c’mon. What is this? You can’t be serious?!! He wrote three fucking volumes, give the man some fucking credit. At least try.

What do you mean 'justify'? Before whom? You do know we live in a world full of hypocrites? You, me and Scruton are no different in this regard.

>>13111195
>how do leftists justify their incoherency?
Idk, by writing books maybe. You should try reading some time.

>Derrida
Of Grammatology (or for something easier read his essay on structure)
>Foucault
Power/Knowledge is a good intro
>Sartre
Search for a Method is actually a really useful overview of the state of intellectual critic in the 20th century.

>>13118132
No the fuck he didn’t you brainlet. He could NEVER answer even what he meant by it and avoided properly defining his “theory.” Others tried for him, but he himself gave it up for the bullshit it was. Sadly, Keynes didn’t.

>>13118101
>You admit you don’t even read leftists thinkers
I can’t just snap my fingers and have read all that you may have.
You’re way off on all he rest of your histrionics.

>>13118102
>Why not agree that what it takes is hard work, and good social skills to succeed?
Because that’s a rosey little lie under capitalism. I’d like a world were that is rewarded. I’d do well in that. As it is under capitalism, my future is uncertain.

>>13118132
Srsly.
>>13118109
That’s why I called him a bootlicker. Temporarily embarrassed millionaire, house negro.

>>13118158
Grammatology is laughable. Shit on by even other leftists. Hauntology has proven the only concept he came up with that had any merit and it was used better by Fisher.
Foucault and Sartre don’t even rate that.

>>13118162
No you idiot, he literally does it in the first three pages of Capital

>>13118162
The owner has nothing without he labor.
He cannot afford the materials for the labor without the money generated from previous labor.
Labor is everything to the owner.
Tell us you don’t understand this

>>13118169
>I’d like a world were that is rewarded.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. A little thing called 'companies' exist in this world, Butterfly. You either like the one you work in, or you move to a different one.

Trust me, no one /loves/ where they work, but they do find the right job eventually. You just have to search around a little bit. I'm working two jobs right now. At one of them, and thinking about being a manager. You just have to work hard, and work at it and you will succeed. :3

>>13118180
>>13118162

>>13118169
Again, you can’t actually address anything. You spend every waking moment in a purposeless quest to post up and down lit. “Brand”’yourself. How fucking pathetic is that?
Using outmoded terms and ideas from early 20th century marxists. Don’t project your failure and ineptitude on others. You have zero utility and need others to provide for your existence. You’re a “temporarily embarrassed” anarchist. Save for any life skills that might enable you to achieve any type of autonomy.
Embleer frith what a waste of life.

>>13118182
“Tell us”
Who is us? You can’t even spell. Retype this into a coherent thought.

>>13118187
Just shut up.
I don’t even care if you’re serious or not with this simpleton act.
Capitalism is an awful ravenous beast that has seduced great boards of people to tear the earth apart for valueless tokens that afford them a Pharos lifestyle. And fools like you defend this bullshit even as it comes crashing down, as it repeatedly does. Wake up or keep it to yourself

>>13118190
And was laughingly discredited. He then called it “value theory” and even Engels laughed about him and the blind alley.
Fail

>>13118199
Your post is just as airy
>>13118201
The question you think Marx never answered, has been answered twice ITT coherently enough.

>>13118205
“Just shut up!”
Hahahaha you fucking retard.
“Uh if it takes five hours of labor then it has more value than 2 hours!”
“Okay it took me twenty hours to fold this box. It now has value”
Utter retard.
And the word is “pharaoh” shitbag.

>>13118199
>implying autonomy is possible in the modern CIA nigger panopticon state

>>13118221
Um, nooo. Hahahaha. Christ I easily showed how sad that was. Zero predictions from his initial definition came to light. Time to move forward honey. The reason you’re a loser posting online day and night isn’t capitalism. It’s because you have zero worth.

>>13118231
Implying it is possible in any scenario, brainlet.

>>13118187
cope harder wagie, you'll be slaving away till you're 80

>>13118235
heteronomous bugbrain cope

Do these people not like /pol/ anymore?

Why not try to restart stormfront or something. Maggot headeds

>>13118248
>add an ‘s’ to ‘head’ get ‘headeds’
Wtf

>>13118220
>Marx never explained it
>is shown Marx explaining
>I meant he was discredited

Nice goalpost move

>>13118248
/pol/ realized capitalism is jewish mercantilism entirely responsible for the erasure of modern values and kicked all the classcucks out

>>13118244
Nonsense meme words in lieu of thought.
You lose. Trying to get a last word will confirm it.

>>13118253
No, he never explained it. Period. He changed what it was even called.
Sorry. You lose. As marxist always do.

>>13118239
>manager
>slaving away

Oh the tears of infantile rage magnify my pleasure

>>13118205
I think the key that underlies all of this might actually help discover what is really going on here, Butterfly. Why are you so upset? :3

What is it about this whole situation that makes you think you can upend the system and order by materialistically defining everything? Clearly nothing is going to happen, especially from your end, but you must see the main cause of concern

A) you are obviously tied, like a rope to a swimmer in the ocean, downward to this hopelessly materialistic ideology

B) you are creating a negative environment and culture.

Mark my words, Che Guevara is a teenager's hero, Butterfly. There is nothing great about this: what you wish is what every other communist on this planet currently wishes for: to tame and control the economic order and implement their own designs. You have even mentioned your 'solutions' in various parts of your posts. Absolutely terrifying. You can see what happens when people who actually have power act with that kind of mentality. I certainly hope politics never degrades to such a low point that it happens.

There is a revolution occurring, but it is an entirely social, spiritual phenomenon. Because of that very fact, it is causing much confusion on here and very many different social circles. How could one thing so great center around someone like me, for instance :3 That is the question I suppose.

Regardless, you made the right move today. Your soul can feel mine, I suppose. Have a good night, I am using Al-Khwarizmi's method on various word problems presented by Fibonacci.

>>13118266
>i-i'm g-g-gonna b-be a m-manager... any day now... j-just gotta work hard.... just a few more years... muh bootstraps...

>>13118264
Have I been honest to God baited? Im at a lost. What’s the point of this kind of bad faith “arguing”? It’s like Ben Shapiro but even more pointless cause it’s anonymous and there’s no one to impress with this shit. I refuse people genuinely think like irl. Just mindless non sequitur regurgitation of talking points.

>>13118280
“ I’m at a lost.”
A “lost” of basic English skills apparently.
You have just regressed to ad hominem attacks and bad grammar. Then wonder why you are on the fringe of society and whining like a child with jelly smeared on their mouth why others have more? You labor for hours! Marx told me that has worth!
Hahaha. Poor fool. Your fault lies not in your labor but in yourself.

>>13118276
It's not a matter of years, my choice of one position for the next month is the following

1) a merchandise manager for a small retail outlet
2) a inventory auditor for a chain of retail outlets
3) a B2B sales rep for said chain

:3 I'm just a hard worker buddy

>>13118298
Maybe you can find the growth and personal freedom they have in Venezuela or North Korea. Oh wait, there is this obscure commune someone once told me about where everyone works in harmony and there are no problems.

>>13118306
>>13118306
>le norf korea xddd le vuvuzela xddddd

two based countries that reject CIA nigger meddling. what's not to like?

>>13118317
“Uhhh dur CIA”
You ever even been to Chantilly, son? I have. The CIA is full of old GS 13’s who go to the chik fil a across from DDC 1 everyday and do more damage to their lipid count than the average americans freedom.

>>13118306
So you're agreeing with my position correct?

This doesn't happen very often on 4chan, everyone is so prideful and arrogant :3 thanks man.

>>13111195
The same way generally all people do in the post-modern advanced liberal West, by 'whatever I think at the time is the pure expression of the autonomous agent and since all my experiences to me are valid so are my conclusions'

>>13111428
>I don't know anything about a subject but I must express myself on it
Why there is many post like that on /lit/?

>>13116678
You could apply that argument to fascism.

>>13117451
>Mondragon is one of the largest corporations in Spain, it is fully worker-owned and democratically run.

Mondragon is run on Catholic and Distributist principles. A workers cooperative in a wider capitalist market has nothing to do with socialism.

>>13111195
His books on Philosophy are far superior to Bertrand Russell's.

>Scruton
literally the archetypal cuckservative

>>13117757
> I said the magic of capitalism (rather, of free market) is that you have the freedom
This wonderful freedom of workers to do what they want if, by some miracle they manage to pool sufficient resources, is also (and usually) the freedom of the elites to maintain the status quo: They're on top, salaries stay where they are forever (they stagnated in the 70's and haven't seen consistent growth ever since) and a portion of society gets to be unemployed and destitute to light a fire under the ass of workers.
That's your "magic" in practice.

>Why put things in my mouth when I didn't say them?
you didn't say that, no, but that is clearly your attitude. You don't hold your system up to the same standards as mine. For one, capitalism has done brutal, horrific things to open up markets around the world. Somehow this isn't proof that the system is inherently morally bankrupt.

>Not random.
Sorry, yes random. The financial sector deregulated itself. They gambled the entire economy away. They then bailed themselves out and left the working class to rot. These aren't ~neutral~ ~fair~ rules at play. This is very simply class warfare. Like I said, you very clearly cannot come to terms with this.
>The ''system'' doesn't care about anyone, it doesn't have feelings.
And is this supposed to be a good thing? We, humans, created this system right? What good is it if it doesn't serve our interests? If it doesn't care about us, why should we care about it?

>The good thing about capitalism is that it can adjust itself, creating an order where people will have to help each other if they want to survive in the market.
HAHAHAH!
As opposed to before capitalism, when people didn't know they could help each other to survive, huh??
Jesus Christ, my lord and savior, help me. They have drank so deeply of the kool-aid that they ascribe the basic social and survival instincts of Man to capitalism.
And lets zoom in here:
> The good thing about capitalism is that it can (create an order where people can survive ) IN THE MARKET.
> because (capitalism) works better AT MAKING MONEY.
Seems like capitalism is awfully good at solving the problems it sets up for itself, right? What if, instead of trying to survive ~in the market~, or trying to make money, we just grow up, and, like adults, use dialog to resolve any disagreements, and then we work together to survive and to build a nice standard of living for all?

>>13111285
Hahahahahahaha

>>13111428
he's a knight

what's his writing of beauty and aesthetics like?

>>13117757
>(might makes right) is not at all what I believe in! What I believe, however, is that your system needs to be (mighty). Otherwise, (how can it be right)?
Ok. Here's "why might does not make right for dummies"
Firstly, because the ability to make war has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to make a happy prosperous society.
Secondly, clearly you are not able to see imperialism for what it is, because in our age there is this veneer of civility which masks the actual character of these actions. Imagine Genghis Khan. Him and his thousands of mounted brutes galloping down the hill to murder you and all your people for absolutely no reason other than that they can. This is what the United States of America behaves like. Unilateral, unsolicited, undesirable "intervention" in so-called third world countries can have no justification. It's violence. No more, no less.
To suggest that we all must contend with these barbarians forever is complete insanity. Yes we must be able to face the imperialists! But only one time: To wipe that plague off the face of the earth once and for all time.

>And here the problem is utopianism: the belief that you have a perfect solution and the whole of society must be subjected to your own personal views of how things should be.
no no no! (haha, get it? you're annoying as dick.)
1. You never read Sir Thomas Moore's Utopia. You never read any of the Utopian Socialists. Kindly refrain from using words you don't understand.
2. I don't believe that! Haven't you been reading the thread? I'm a filthy social experimenter EXPOSED! I think we need to try different ways of living until we find some better ones!
3. How many times to I have to explain that I'm an anarchist? I don't want to subject anyone to anything. It is you capital-apologists who believe everyone must be subjected to your system. You believe it so hard you go and bomb them until they agree with you.

>The reason why historical examples matter is that they provide one with the chance of accessing how these idealistic utopias work in the real world, (...) practice shows them to be flawed.
I'm gonna copy-paste myself from this same thread, because I'm just getting tired at this point:

You are suggesting a statistical, empirical approach to knowledge. On that basis, attempts to organize society in non-capitalist and non-authoritarian ways have not been tried nearly enough to confirm or to deny the plausibility of any alternative model.
And as I've pointed out, external (imperialistic) interference renders any data useless. As if you were testing your experimental shampoo on some mice and then I dropped 46 firebombs on your lab
Since you anti-communists seem to have a complete science of how many times some social project has to be tried before it can be dismissed, that what is that magical number, if you please? Or maybe it's more complex, how many people were under the system over how many years, etc. Please, do share.

>>13112550
>left isn't a monolith
Even though all democratic presidential candidates openly support post birth abortions and the green new deal (democratic socialism) now, and those ideas were not a part of the party platform 4 years ago? They all change their beliefs at the same time. It's incredibly monolithic.